CastlevaniaNut18 Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 6 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: Isn't Philip Rivers a Quiverfull guy? It sounds like he’s just more of a devout catholic who eschews family planning. Not sure there’s a huge difference, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Roe v Wade was a bad decision anyways. You really have to jump some huge logical hurdles to equate privacy to abortion rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CastlevaniaNut18 Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Roe v Wade was a bad decision anyways. You really have to jump some huge logical hurdles to equate privacy to abortion rights. What would you base it on? Are medical decisions not part of privacy rights? And what does it matter now anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 1 minute ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said: What would you base it on? Are medical decisions not part of privacy rights? And what does it matter now anyway? I would base it on the common good. Women will get abortions regardless if it is legal or not. If it is illegal, we will just create more criminals, and likely cause a lot more botched abortions in which the mother dies in addition to the child. Basing abortion rights on privacy is dumb, because the government could (theoretically) create a law that says "as long as you keep your abortion private, you are fine, but if you disclose the fact that you had an abortion, you may be charged with a crime." It doesn't matter now, I agree. Overturning Roe v Wade doesn't alter abortion rights in any meaningful way. the Casey case, as far as I understand it, is the law of the land. And even if you overturned the Casey case, it wouldn't make abortion illegal, it just wouldn't be protected at that point - and Congress would be free to create legislation that does protect abortion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyser_Soze Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 22 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said: Isn't Philip Rivers a Quiverfull guy? If he isn't his quiver sure is full. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 8 hours ago, cusideabelincoln said: All of those Senators who wanted to postpone a nomination in 2016 are white men! In general our representatives do not actually represent the diversity of our population. Even more staggering is the fact that 6 of our Supreme Court Justices are (were) Catholic. 28% of our population should not be represented by 66% of the Supreme Court. Nearly everyone in a decision making role is wealthy, this clouds their judgement more than anything else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 7 hours ago, mclumber1 said: Basing abortion rights on privacy is dumb, because the government could (theoretically) create a law that says "as long as you keep your abortion private, you are fine, but if you disclose the fact that you had an abortion, you may be charged with a crime." This is dumb and your theoretical is on its face a violation of the first amendment. So you disclose you have an abortion you got from planned parenthood to your obgyn is that a violation of your law? Telling your married spouse a violation as well? What’s to keep the law for expanding to other medical procedures? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 It's definitely a widely held belief that Roe v Wade is an absolutely garbage decision, argument-wise. Not that I care, of course, and also it now has Casey backing it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 What if I told you the court doesn’t really care about stare decisis and will just make up whatever they want and justify it however they want to reach the outcomes they want. There’s enough case law to pretty much do what you want! Just wrap it up nicely in a bow with “we believe the court wrongly decided this case” (if the case law is even mentioned) or something similar and congrats you have a new ruling the court is an ideological project not some academic exercise in the just application of the law! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 8 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: What if I told you the court doesn’t really care about stare decisis and will just make up whatever they want and justify it however they want to reach the outcomes they want. There’s enough case law to pretty much do what you want! Just wrap it up nicely in a bow with “we believe the court wrongly decided this case” (if the case law is even mentioned) or something similar and congrats you have a new ruling the court is an ideological project not some academic exercise in the just application of the law! Oh, I'm in total agreement! I was merely stating that Roe is in fact seen as a shitty decision, but I have no qualms defending that shitty decision to the very end. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 The Roe issue will always be that is creates a right (privacy) not found in the constitution. But you can reasonably hold that that it can be wrongly decided on the technical basis and rightly decided in the spirit of the constitution. I don’t tend to fall in that camp, but I understand those who do. I think the amendment process is the way to change a technical issue like the issue of privacy, not the courts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just because the old paper doesn’t explicitly say the magic word “privacy” doesn’t mean it isn’t a right, in fact the 9th amendment makes this quite clear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 11 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The Roe issue will always be that is creates a right (privacy) not found in the constitution. But you can reasonably hold that that it can be wrongly decided on the technical basis and rightly decided in the spirit of the constitution. I don’t tend to fall in that camp, but I understand those who do. I think the amendment process is the way to change a technical issue like the issue of privacy, not the courts. I agree, but the US is past the point of being able to modify its constitution without some sort of dissolution/breakup. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 12 minutes ago, sblfilms said: The Roe issue will always be that is creates a right (privacy) not found in the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 5 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: I agree, but the US is past the point of being able to modify its constitution without some sort of dissolution/breakup. Roe was decided in the 70s, we had amendments after that. 4 minutes ago, Jason said: Are you unfamiliar with the legal community view of the Roe opinion? This is explicitly the issue legal scholars have with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, sblfilms said: Roe was decided in the 70s, we had amendments after that. Are you unfamiliar with the legal community view of the Roe opinion? This is explicitly the issue legal scholars have with it. Jason knows more than constitutional scholars. You didn't know? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 You can pick and choose any legal scholars you want that’s an absolute shit argument. Guess who should be considered some of the utmost authorities on constitutional law? The justices themselves! interpretation of the constitution is a political act, there is no “consensus” that exists whatsoever, and shit there’s even disagreement over how to interpret the constitution! Should we read the text as is, or the original intent? No one does this consistently so there’s no right or wrong answer! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 This is why "common law" based legal systems are absolute nonsense. "Civil law" based legal systems are the only legitimate ones! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: You can pick and choose any legal scholars you want that’s an absolute shit argument. Guess who should be considered some of the utmost authorities on constitutional law? The justices themselves! interpretation of the constitution is a political act, there is no “consensus” that exists whatsoever, and shit there’s even disagreement over how to interpret the constitution! Should we read the text as is, or the original intent? No one does this consistently so there’s no right or wrong answer! The point is that if you're pro-choice, you know that Roe should be very easy to overturn. If it weren't for Casey, it would have been overturned long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 19 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Are you unfamiliar with the legal community view of the Roe opinion? This is explicitly the issue legal scholars have with it. 26 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Just because the old paper doesn’t explicitly say the magic word “privacy” doesn’t mean it isn’t a right, in fact the 9th amendment makes this quite clear If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck unless you explicitly use the word "duck". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Joe said: The point is that if you're pro-choice, you know that Roe should be very easy to overturn. If it weren't for Casey, it would have been overturned long ago. My point is every case is very easy to overturn if the ideological balance of the court tips one way or another! the only reason Casey didn’t overturn roe is because judges appointed by arch conservative presidents didn’t fully fit their ideological mold. The right has learned from this and this mistake won’t be made again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 20 minutes ago, sblfilms said: Roe was decided in the 70s, we had amendments after that. I still don't believe any amendments are possible at this point. The idea of the US as a perfect system (rooted in the perfect 1950s) has been fetishized, and any attempts to change it (to increase progressive rights) will be thwarted. 9 minutes ago, Emperor Diocletian II said: This is why "common law" based legal systems are absolute nonsense. "Civil law" based legal systems are the only legitimate ones! You should consider moving to Quebec! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, Jason said: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck unless you explicitly use the word "duck". You must say “quid pro quo” for it to be a quid pro quo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Something that boggles my mind: In the last 50 years, 14 SCOTUS seats have been filled by Republican Presidents, while only 4 have been filled by Democrats. In that same time, Republicans have had 8 Presidential terms, while Democrats have had 5. The ratio is way off. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: My point is every case is very easy to overturn if the ideological balance of the court tips one way or another! the only reason Casey didn’t overturn roe is because judges appointed by arch conservative presidents didn’t fully fit their ideological mold. The right has learned from this and this mistake won’t be made again You can guarantee Kavanuagh overturns Roe? I'm not so sure. Roe itself as you mentioned was a total shock in the legal community. A 7-2 decision made by a conservative court. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, CitizenVectron said: Something that boggles my mind: In the last 50 years, 14 SCOTUS seats have been filled by Republican Presidents, while only 4 have been filled by Democrats. In that same time, Republicans have had 8 Presidential terms, while Democrats have had 5. The ratio is way off. If they weren't so hilariously terrible at appointing justices, the situation in this country would be far more dire. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 2 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said: I still don't believe any amendments are possible at this point. The idea of the US as a perfect system (rooted in the perfect 1950s) has been fetishized, and any attempts to change it (to increase progressive rights) will be thwarted. The point is that if there was supposed to be a right to privacy, we had a long period with which to fix that as we’ve had amendments all way up to the 90s. It’s irrelevant that we now likely can’t get one done. 7 minutes ago, Jason said: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck unless you explicitly use the word "duck". So do you disagree that the legal community believes Roe to be a poorly written opinion on the technical merits? I don’t understand why you won’t make your point clear here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, Joe said: You can guarantee Kavanuagh overturns Roe? I'm not so sure. Roe itself as you mentioned was a total shock in the legal community. A 7-2 decision made by a conservative court. Kav? No idea, but more than likely yes. the court? Absolutely Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 15 minutes ago, Jason said: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's still not a duck unless you explicitly use the word "duck". Where is the “right to privacy” duck in the constitution found? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 lol not getting dragged into going around in endless stupid circles with you homeslice you know exactly where it is 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 http://www.nytimes.com//vi-assets/static-assets/apple-touch-icon-28865b72953380a40aa43318108876cb.png Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade - The New York Times WWW.NYTIMES.COM The late Supreme Court justice believed the landmark ruling was too sweeping and vulnerable to attacks, explains Professor Mary Hartnett, co-author of Justice Ginsburg’s authorized biography Even RBG agrees with me! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 4 minutes ago, Jason said: lol not getting dragged into going around in endless stupid circles with you homeslice you know exactly where it is I don’t. And neither does the legal community, hence why it is regarded as a poorly argued opinion even by those who favor the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 “The legal community “ is a nebulous, loaded, and ultimately meaningless phrase that allows you to be a contrarian without actually spelling out why it’s a bad opinion. and just because the phrase isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a right! There’s no right to travel in the bloody doc, and scotus had to infer the right from the articles of confederation! Sounds like that would be a poorly decided decision there! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: “The legal community “ is a nebulous, loaded, and ultimately meaningless phrase that allows you to be a contrarian without actually spelling out why it’s a bad opinion. and just because the phrase isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a right! There’s no right to travel in the bloody doc, and scotus had to infer the right from the articles of confederation! Sounds like that would be a poorly decided decision there! Quote The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg. Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said. She and her co-author on the biography, Professor Wendy Williams, spent the last 17 years interviewing Justice Ginsburg for the book and, though it initially didn’t have a release date, they are hoping to publish it some time next year, Professor Hartnett said in an interview. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 23, 2020 Share Posted September 23, 2020 Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said: “The legal community “ is a nebulous, loaded, and ultimately meaningless phrase that allows you to be a contrarian without actually spelling out why it’s a bad opinion. and just because the phrase isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a right! There’s no right to travel in the bloody doc, and scotus had to infer the right from the articles of confederation! Sounds like that would be a poorly decided decision there! Read the article @Joe just linked to which explains Ginsburg’s position which is incredibly widely held by con law academics. Find the con law professor at your nearest college and ask them about how the Roe opinion is viewed on a technical basis and I would wager they would echo that same position. What I find peculiar about your response here is that you have shown yourself to understand that the holding isn’t the only thing that matters, the legal basis is also important. See your own posts about Roberts writing opinions on cases that despite a holding you agree with could curtail progressive policy moving forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.