pan6467

I am so sick and tired of the Right claiming judges legislate from the bench, when in actuality the GOP want judges that do truly legislate from the bench.


Ok, case in point medicinal marijuana...... it was your GOP president that pushed it into the SC. It was your GOP attorney General that refused to listen to the will of the people in the states that voted to make it legal. Your GOP president and AG fought to legislate to make what a majority in some states said was ok, illegal. Approved legislation by the GOP president and AG (while publicly they cry how the bench has no right to.)

Another case, overturning Roe Vs. Wade...... the GOP want judges to overturn this, but it interferes with a freedom, and the state and localities' rights to choose if they want it. That is legislating from the bench..... making illegal an act of freedom on "moral" principles.

You can spin it all you want, but you are still making laws on a moral judgement to make something you find morally wrong illegal. Even though there will still be abortions, just illegal, back alley hackjobs now.


The eminent domain case, which was ruled to favor local laws and instead of the GOP saying thank you, and working to change the laws, they cry about how the bench legislated giving more power to government. You don't see any GOP congressmen or Governors saying they will work on a law that protects the citizens of their constuency from this....... do we?

So stop crying false tears about the SC. to me you just want the power and nothing more. You're ok with them legislating so long as it is what you agree with or are told by GOP talking heads to agree with.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

stevo

I think you might be a bit confused. It is only legislating from the bench if its done by judges. What bench is bush and gonzales sitting on?

To quote you, pan, "stop crying false tears about the SC, to me you just want the power and nothing more. You're ok with them legislating so long as it is what you agree with or are told by dem talking heads to agree with."

__________________
"If I am such a genius why am I drunk, lost in the desert, with a bullet in my ass?" -Otto Mannkusser

pan6467

Freudian slip? lol.

But no, Bush and Gonzales (Ashbrook actually) had they respected the rights of the people that voted to legalize medicinal marijuana would never have pressed the issue. They were ok with the legislating.

It is all about power and it truly doesn't matter the GOP or Dems. both sides do the same. Just depends on your philosophy. But to sit and cry how the SC doesn't rule in your favor and thus "they are legislating" when at the same time you want them to do the same thing on the issues you support is hypocrasy.

Eminent Domain get out get petitions signed get it on the ballot of your locality and protect yourself. But that is far far harder than just sitting there crying about it while it happens and you did nothing.

But on the other hand, medicinal marijuana (an issue your GOP asministration pushed) becomes illegal and there is no true recourse, even tho the SC told us how to make it ok, again, the Right cries but takes no steps to correct the measure.

Abortion, regardless how you feel it is going to happen. You are wanting judges to make it illegal thus taking away states rights to decide.

It's hypocrasy, just tell the people you want judges that make illegal the things you want illegal. Just admit you don't mind legislating from the bench so long as it is what your party wants.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

host

Reading this thread and recent Repub criticism of the court, for me, brings this post from last fall to my mind, every time........

Read the entire October, 2004 Vanity Fair Article concerning the details of
the unprecedented disclosure of former supreme court law clerks who witnessed
the deliberations that resulted in the 5 to 4 December, 2000 Gore v. Bush
ruling: <a href="http://www.makethemaccountable.com/articles/The_Path_To_Florida.htm">The Path to Florida</a>

j8ear

Pan, I really believe you have no understanding of federalism, are not particularly upto to speed on the constitution, the bill of rights and other ammendments, and lack clarity on enumerated federal powers.

I'd like to start by aquainting you with the Fifth and ninth ammendments:

5th:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

9th:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Let them sink in for a while. I'm not trying to pick on or flame you in any way.

The ninth is particularly interesting in my opinion.

The left has to 'legislate from the bench' because everything they do is unconstitutional. And the bar is way to high to have it changed.

I agree that the "right" is not much better then the "left..." but instead argue that what currently exposes itself as either left or right differs only in who the donors are. Nothing really more then that.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

pan6467

Perhaps I am as dim as you seem to believe I am but wtf do those amendments have to do with what I am talking about?

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

j8ear

I don't think your dim.

Your talking about legislating from the bench. The ninth in particular dictates that what is not clearly spelled out as a federal area of jurisdiction, is left to the states or the people. Therefore anything the federal government does, which is not authorized by the constitution, or even further is prohibitted by the constitution, is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. We have exceptions for interstate commerce, but the Supreme Court, legislated from the bench, that this includes non-commercial activity conducted exclusively within a single states borders.

That's it. Reaching for federal jusrisdiction is 'legislating from the bench.'

I can see how this might be the preferred method of getting around the constitution, especially from the left, since changing it so difficult, and the super majority required would never approve of the lefts pet projects, but it doesn't make it any less unconstitutional.

And I'm not favoring republicans over democrats, since the republicans have now seen how effective the democrats tactics have been...they are adopting them.

The republicans are not conservative or even on the right, political spectrum wise.

That said...the difference between the left and right is clear, and both the democrats and the republicans fall on the left, just that the democrats are more so.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

kutulu

Sorry about the threadjack but I find that line interesting. I see it the other way. Both parties are on the right, just that the reps are more so.
/threadjack off

I agree with Pan that the reps need to be honest and tell everyone that it isn't about stopping legislation from the bench, it's about getting the legislation from teh bench that they want. Oh well, their strategy has worked well on the unkept masses.

alansmithee

This is also done for murder, rape, assault, drunk driving, battery, fraud, forgery, etc. etc. etc. These are all illegal for "moral principles".

As for abortion being a "freedom", nowhere in the constitiution does it say a woman has the right to kill her unborn child.

Judicial activism is when a judge goes outide of the law to rule in a way that they feel is best, despite there being no sound legal basis. Roe v. Wade is a textbook case of this. As I said before in another thread, there's nothing wrong with a judge writing in their opinion that they feel a law should be changed, but it should be left to the legislature, and not the judge making some specious legal argument for rewriting a law or the constitution.

pan6467

Knew someone would use the first paragraph as an argument. Murder, rape, theft etc. affect other people and those laws are not. Nor do we have judges determinig if they are legal or illegal, nor are they federal crimes (under normal circumstances, they are state.

Abortion, agree or disagree philosophically, pretty much affects only her and she will have one if she wants one, (falling downstairs, pill overdose, hack doctors etc.). I do not agree with abortion but it is up to local governments and communities to decide. An overturning would just make it a federal crime and then what? We put women in prison who "accidently" fall downstairs or pill od?

No matter how you slice it, it is still legislating and disallowing the people in communities to run their own localities.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alansmithee

Abortion doesn't affect anyone else? It affects both the killed child and the father who had his child killed.

No, just like accidental deaths, there would be trials to determine if the child's life was deliberately ended. If it wasn't, the woman would go free.

So you would be fine if a community voted that sodomy was illegal? Or what if they outlawed red cars? Or what if a community were to ban abortion, would you condemn those who brought that case before the SC?

There's a difference between legislating and ruling that I think you aren't seeing. A judge's job should be to judge the constitutionality of certain laws. If a community makes a law that is not constitutional, then it should be eliminated. However, activists go beyond this-they take outside concerns into their decisions in determining if a law is legal.

arch13

And as a result of Roe V Wade, many states now do have laws legalizing abortion in place and assuring it's accessability as the public health issue that it is.
So even if Roe V Wade where eliminated, there is no legal basis for those laws that occured as a result of the social shift the case caused to change. They are not dependent on that case for their legality, but rather where passed to affirm Roe V Wade.

There is nothing unconstitutional about laws that the case caused as a result that affirmed it by legalizing it's availibility in states, and if those that dislike Roe v Wade could have it overturned, that would not make any abortion law in any state in violation of the federal or state constitutions. They would still stand and abortions would still be available for women who want a choice.
Also, as long as any state has an abortion availibility law, consenting adults may cross state lines to get them. Why? Because you cannot interfer with interstate commerce. Also, we the people have adopted laws to protect us from being prevented from having medical care. Those laws do not allow any public or private entity to limit our movement to seek valid medical care.

Quite interesting that the judicial activism came before the laws, but the laws have grown to support it and affirm it's legality.

__________________
Seen on an employer evaluation:

"The wheel is turning but the hamsters dead"
____________________________
Is arch13 really a porn diety ? find out after the film at 11.
-Nanofever

j8ear

I'm not following you...Roe v Wade made it impossible for local communities to decide anything with regards to abortion. IT is NOT upto local communities to decide at all, as a result of Roe v Wade.

An overturning would return the right to allow local communities to decide. It wouldn't make anything a crime.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

j8ear

This astounds me.

We have an out of control federal government unconstitutionally and occassionally with court approval usurping their mandates and granting entitlements, hand outs, favors, and single handly being the largest consumer of goods and services on the entire planet and you deem them "right."

I don't think you have a firm grasp of the political spectrum.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

martinguerre

I think there is an old tale about three blind men describing an elephant. Perspective matters in how we experience things.

Jbear...in every time that you disagree with someone in this thread, you insult their knowledge or experience. I think you can make your argument without such unpleasantness.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

roachboy

bear:
on what possible basis could you claim that any of the features you characterize as unconstitutional are in fact unconstitutional? your private readings of the constitution?
do you really think that anything not explicitly accounted for in a late 18th century document is necessarily unconstitutional? on what basis?
why should i or anyone else take seriously the implict claim that your reading of the constitution is more compelling, more functional, or even more logical than that elaborated across the past 200 odd years through the mechanism of precedent?

i am familiar with strict construction type arguments, and find them to be a joke even when they are spelled out--but maybe you are working from a different place, so would you mind explaining the basis for your positions above?

as for the abortion argument above: the availability of safe and highly maintained clinics for the performance of abortions does not in any way simplify the questions that individuals face when they decide whether or not to have one. i think it almost unbelievably offensive that the right assumes the contrary.

the matter is quite simple:

dont approve of abortion?
dont have one.


yours is not the only position on earth----you do not get to stipulate why anyone else might or might not choose to have an abortion.
it is simply not up to the zanies on the right to decide for the rest of us on this question. period.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

j8ear

I suspect those who might feel this way can comment for themselves, and if this is in fact how they feel, I apologize. I meant no insult of any one's knowledge or experience.

I wanted to moderate my rhetoric as I realized that I should probably have just ignored MGs comments.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

j8ear

Your gratuitous attempt at dimishing this document as redundant due to its age not withstanding

Absolutely, I base this on the mechanism provided for in this constitution to acocunt for the changes if its subjects, circumstances, and needs.

A mechanism which lately has been ignored, since a fiat around it has been secured.

That fiat involves judges legislating from the bench such novelties as interstate commerce which can include non commercial activity conducted within a single states borders and public use to include transfer of property to a private developer who paid more to your campaign.

Do people really think this is the right way to do it?

I don't, but that's just on JAFO's perspective.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

j8ear

I have a real problem with this sort of argument, because the constitution does three things. List things you can do which cannot be infringed upon, lists things you can not do, and what it is silent on is left to the states or the people.

What it is silent on is left to the states or to the people.

What it is silent on is left to the states or to the people.

This is what the ninth ammendment does, it restricts the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT (or is supposed to restrict it) to only those jurisdiction enumerated.

TO THE PEOPLE...TO THE PEOPLE.

Federalism is dead and I beat a dead horse, I think.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

roachboy

bear....

so you are in fact working from a strict construction viewpoint, more or less?
you reproduce the terminology of that school in your response, so i assume this is accurate.

two questions:

from the gist of your reponses, it seems to me that you can't have it both ways--you cant at once be complaining about the effects of precedent (which i assume you object to because you don't like them individually, and that on political grounds) and then say something vague about the importance of precedent in enabling the constitutional system in its present for to adapt to changing circumstances.
because it seems to me that the central question strict construction needs to address is the status of precedent--sometimes (here i woudl include your posts) it seems like the desired result of strict construction would be to turn the unitesd states into a civil-law based tradition--one in which precedent had no official status relative to the constitutional framework itself

but that would be an extremely radical shift--for starters, it would require a fundamentally different type of legislative process at the level of bill writing--and it would also entail a total revolution in the status of judges, who would be reduced to functionary status.

and i think it safe to say that no-one would want such a system--including yourself i would wager.

so you get these vague references in the direction of common-law tradition and its basic feature, which is precedent as an extension/adaptation of the general principles outline in the constitution, with various checks in place to keep things from running too far into contradiction with those principles. but everything about your position as i understand it (and i am pushing you back into strict construction because i dont see anything that seperates you from it) would seem to be opposed to precedent and its current relation to the constitution.

the second question is easier to formulate. you, bear, have no idea whatsoever of the intent behind this post. how the hell does it get easier to figure out intent when you are trying read the constitution through the intent of the framers? how could you possibly do that? do you assume that an elect gets messages at seances from madison et al? or do you really think that intent is easy to determine? if the former, at least your position would make sense. if the latter, the most basic aspects of the method behind original intent/strict construction is a total joke, unworkable at the level of theory, arbitrary at the level of practice.
what i think is central to original intent is that the objects of speculation about intent have been dead for a couple hundred years and so arent around to tell you or anyone else that they are wrong.
so what it comes to is arbitrary interpretations the weight of which would rely on the personal authority of the person making the interpretation.
and that, bear, would be about the most authoritarian style of legal "analysis" i could imagine.

but do you see this otherwise?
how?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

guy44

I think this debate is a bit oversimplified - there are a lot of viewpoints that don't easily fit the definition of "right" or "left." Cass Sunstein wrote a really good editorial in today's Chicago Tribune laying out the facts:

Link.

__________________
"You have reached Ritual Sacrifice. For goats press one, or say 'goats.'"

pan6467

Yes it does. It allows communities to vote as to whether they will allow abortion in their communities/states. A SC that rules against Roe vs. Wade will in effect make it illegal, period.

You argue federalism, and what you argue is respectable, however, to allow the SC to overturn Roe vs Wade you disallow the states and communities to decide. Thus you are legislating from the bench.

As for Martinguerre's comments, I do agree you do tend to dismiss others and talk down to them in this thread at times. Look at your post (#5) reply to me, to some degree I did feel you were dismissing the argument because I didn't agree or wasn't as "up" on things as you.

But I also realize that you are passionate and that was just your way. You meant no offense.... at least I tend to believe based on other debates and threads where we have met, you have more respect than that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

pan6467

That's opinion. I do believe that the father should have the right to be involved in the decision, however, women can and will forever be able to determine whether they want to carry the baby to term or not. No law will ever change that. It's a law that will just be too expensive and expansive to truly enforce.



They don't usually have trials for accidental deaths, but in this case you are suggesting that we try every woman that falls down stairs, od's or whatever to lose her baby goes on trial and prison? Who would determine? It would be a witch hunt, and be her word against whomever's. And how would you enforce and pay for these trials and prison stays?

Sounds like more government to me than less.




Now you're just being ridiculous and off topic making up scenarios that would never happen.

Sodomy, what exactly do you consider sodomy? Many states already have those laws (the military does also....in fact by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and some states in the South anything but the missionary position is illegal) on the books and again, it is impossible to enforce. Or are you suggesting we'd be putting cameras in everyone's bedroom.

But, yes if a community VOTES to make something legal or illegal and the state constitution and laws allow for such a law.... then the people have spoken.

There are communities that have made abortion illegal and that's fine.... it is a STATE and LOCALITY issue not a federal issue.

And I agree, but what is unconstitutional about abortion? I don't see anything that makes it so or even implies it. It is not interstate commerce, it is not in anyway a federal issue so why is the Right so damend hot to have a Justice that will overturn it? That is legislating.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

j8ear

First of all pan, the post immediately following that should have cleared it up for you. That it didn't is my fault. Again, I don't think you are dim, and I very much enjoy debating, educating and LEARNING from, you.

Second of all, you are one hundred percent catagorically wrong on your understanding of what Roe V Wade did, or what undoing it would mean.

I'm going to try to exlpain it again. Roe V Wade struck down an existing Law (texas I believe) in which a legislature democratically made illegal abortions. The Supreme Court cited a womens rights over her body and to choose. Both noble and worthy, yet similarly outside the bounds of the federal governments jurisdiction. But they used this as a reason to strike this law AND ALL OTHERS like it.

Currently IT IS NOT for local communities to decide, abortion CAN NOT be restricted, at any level, by any legislature, or by any referendum, and this because of the legislating from the bench of the Supreme Court.

Over turning Roe V Wade would RETURN this possiblity to local legislatures, and prevaling thought indicates that possibly and likely ONLY Utah and Guam might do this.

Again, apologies for dissing you...but geez...you really do have this backwards.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

j8ear

I think that is a fair assessment.

OK, with regards to your part one, as I understand what you pose. I am torn on the principle of STARE DECISIS. I am for reproducable results, and things being decide as they have in the past. However, after reading a recent essay equating the Heap connundrum with this principle I am confused.

Here is the article from Julian Sanchez at reasononline here

Precedent has allowed us to reach a point where (do I repeat this often enough?) where interstate commerce now includes non-commercial activity, conducted exclusively within a single states borders.

Is this reasonable? Is this valid? Precedent seems to have become a dangerous thing, especially in light of these "precedents."

I've got a lot to learn that's for sure.

On to part two.

Essentially I disagree wholeheartedly about the framers intent. We have volumes of documentation, penned and debated by the framers, we have the circumstances surrounding what inspired and drove them to create that which we credit them with framing, and we have the text of the documentation itself. Their intent, imho is unambiguous, and abundant. I just have trouble grasping this as a joke.

However, even more importantly, we know they gave us a mechanism to change their intent, as our circumstances warranted and evolved, and the needs became different.

This is where I am the most strict constructionist.

This is what I find concerning. We have rules and methodology in place to effect the changes we need, BADLY need I could argue, but instead we piss around with supreme court justices, and corrupt politicians.

MY goodness this is OUR COUNTRY...not the supreme courts, not the politicians.

I have repeated it before, and I'll be damned if that I can't remember who penned it , but it was on this very board:

Since when did the constitution become a tool to protect the government from the people?

We need to change the second ammendment, I fully believe that...but we should do it properly....not with unconstitutional nonsense like DC, which has enacted an out right BAN on firearms, failed at the stated goals, and corrupted an entire generation with it's failed and unconstitutional power grab.

If we want the government to take land and give it to the highest campaign contributors...lets allow them to do so.

If we want women to handle their poor choices with the ability to abort babies, let's give it to them.

If we want politicians to be run unencumbered by spoken political opposition 30 days before an election...lets give it to them.

I don't know what is up and what is down anymore.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

roachboy

bear: thanks much for the response......it is serious and i appreciate that.
i am reading through and thinking it over.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Elphaba

I am, as well. Thanks, Bear.

roachboy

ok on your first example and the julian sanchez piece.
sanchez does not seem a very bright guy to me. but no matter.
the reason that marijuana grown for private use within a given state can be argued to fall under interstate commercial law woudl seem to me to have more to do with the tactics decided upon by the lawyers involved with that particular case than anything like the basis for an argument about the preconditions that might have shaped those tactical choices.
curiously, i would bet that the argument mirrored the heap question (which is an elementary semantic matter and not at all interesting beyond that--there is a parallel version to do with the question of infinity--can you get to it additively--is it a question of an extremely long finite series plus a certain number, or is it of a different order...yes yes, whatever. the number of angels dancing on the head of a pin.)
i would bet that the argument ran in two directions:
1. interstate commerce laws provide a precedent for federal law overriding state law and maybe
2. that there is nothing to guarantee that any particular crop of weed would not find itself dissolved into the larger presumably interstate market for such and that therefore invoking those laws that regulate its production would make sense because there is no distinction that you could make between any given marajuana crop and the stuff that circulates across states--the sticky thing would be the growers saying no no--but i coudl imagine ways a slick attorney could get around that.


you would get the same kind of thing in a civil law tradition--one that bypassed the notion of precedent and understood that legislation could be written in such a way as to make simple application possible--even there, you could often find cases moving through the system based on strange hodge-podges of legal references etc. because it would be tactically advantageous to do that.

so i dont know what the problem really is here.

clearly, for sanchez and maybe for you, there are particular outcomes of this process that you do not like and so you have figured out a way to oppose the process AND those particular results. but you do not have any coherent way to link the two.


on the matter of intent:

what sources are you talking about, these clear and unambiguous statements of intent on the part of the framers?
i know that you cannot really be talking about the process of framing the constitution itself.
i assume that you might be talking about the federalist papers and such, but they are ex post facto political arguments that involve conflicting REPRESENTATIONS of intent, which are of a piece with the larger arguments being made in those texts--and the federalist papers too have no legal status.
they are sometimes a fun read.
they can help you figure out stuff about early american political culture. they can be informative.
but they are not law, and statements about intent in them are polemical.

maybe some conservative historian has found a trove of documents from many of the framers entitled WHAT I REALLY MEANT or something--but if so, it's pretty strange no=one has heard of it.

i'd say you'd be better off arguing that you had a seance. you'd know more about intent through it than you are going to establish any other way.

and i was not joking that even as you read this you cannot know anything really about my intent in writing. i meeant it as a serious critique of the idea of original intent. if you cant manage it in real time, what on earth makes you think you can do it in relation to the past?

and besides, even if you could know about intent what possible difference does the framer's intent make?
their motives were not ratified--the document they produced was.

if the constitution said something like "in a matter of conflict check with madison or jefferson" or "what this document is really about is the psychological understandings that shaped it, so dont worry about the actual text just think about our states of mind" then maybe you'd have a leg to stand on.
but it doesnt.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

j8ear

I think we both understand the "reasoning" but that's the dilema...the reasoning exists and we both disagree with the outcome.

How do we get here? What can be done to prevent it? Does it need to be prevented?

Either way...what you convey is interesting.

As for intent, of course I refer to the federalist papers, among others, and your absolutely correct, they hold no legal standing...but by the same token niether does intent itself. Where does that leave us? With a text outlining some guidelines, with what in my opinion are quite clear and unambiguous...and even more importantly with a clearly defined change mechanism. Why do we need interpretation? Which is essentially nuances or changes to the meaning, scope of reach of the text.

Anyway, it is all but certain that federalism is dead. I think we can also agree on that. Enumerated federal powers are moot, the reach and scope of the federal government has no limits, and this, is contrary to the intent of the framers, in so far as we can understand their intent.

I suspect you're for it (its death)...and I, well, I am not.

It's been fun tonight, and has been on several occassions lately on this board...but this night comes to and for me shortly.

-bear

__________________
It's alot easier to ask for forgiveness then it is to ask for permission.

pan6467

I owe you an appology, it appears we are both partially correct. I thought communities had the right from day one to legalize or illegalize abortion, BUt that is not the case. It is at the beginning of the second trimester that the laws are given to the communities to decide.

However, nowhere does it say it HAS to be legal in the locality (which I was meaning) just that you cannot criminalize and prosecute it. Kind of like "dry counties". They can't charge you for having it, but they can prevent people from selling it by not giving licenses. Perhaps, the city doesn't have to license the clinics.

I don't know but I do thank you for making me research it more, and to read up on the whole ruling.

I am just confused because growing up in Mansfield, they wanted to have an abortion clinic but the city refused to allow there to be one. Hence, Mansfield Ohio does not have an abortion clinic.

LINK:http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/

I do believe we have the same ideas that localities should have more say over their affairs. We just have differing views of which side achieves that the best. I believe, the next ruling should be more clear and simply state that abortion is left to local and state governments.

In all honesty I did not want to make this an abortion thread but show how the GOP, who cries about legislating from the bench wants to have judges that do it also.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

RusCrimson

This analysis is fundamentally correct, except that there are 7 states (Arkansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wisconsi) with laws on the books that would "kick-in" if Roe is overturned. I would imagine that some of those states would invalidate the law in the State Supreme, and that some states not on the list would outlaw it.

However, the tendency of contemporary state legislatures is to not outlaw abortion outright, but to put in place restrictions on it. This is, in my opinion, consistent with consitutional ideals. If the people want to put a 24 hour waiting period so people have time to think about it, then they should be able to do so. If they want parental notification, partial birth abortion ban, etc., then I see no reason why the states should not be able to do that.

martinguerre

More than that, there are several states that simply due to a lack of qualified doctors, it is quite difficult to obtain an abortion. These de-facto bans (produced by protesting activity and social pressure) would probably gain momentum in the event that Roe was overturned. I'm thinking No Dak in particular...where the MN planned parenthood flies in a doctor once a week.

__________________
For God so loved creation, that God sent God's only Son that whosoever believed should not perish, but have everlasting life.

-John 3:16

alansmithee

Yes, but Roe v Wade makes it so that the choice isn't up to the people or local gov't, it's not federally mandated.

alansmithee

How is it opinion? It does affect the father and the unborn child, these are facts.

Did I say that we try every woman? Do we try someone for every accidental death?




How am I making up scenarios that wouldn't exist. There were until recently many anti-sodomy laws. And you don't think that there would be anti-abortion laws in the absence of Roe v. Wade? I think you are having trouble dealing with the inherent hypocricy of your argument.

Roe v. Wade made it a national issue. Any law banning abortion would be challenged and overturned in less time than it takes me to type this sentence.



It's not about the legality of abortion, it's about taking the choice out of the hands of people in communities to make that choice. Many things are forbidden by local law that aren't necessarily unconstitutional. But because of judicial activism, abortion is not something that can be treated in this way.

pan6467

While yes, in my opinion it does affect the father.... it is opinion. Does it have any affect on the physicality of the father? No, but if the father is that much involved there probably won't be an abortion.

Is the father going to be able to make sure 24/7 for 9 months that the mother decides not to fall downstairs, abort whatever? No, impossible.

You twisted what I said into what you wanted to hear.



You're original statement was very leading to that.

This is your original quote:Ok, so what exactly would be the circumstances you propose to have a trial to "determine if the child's life was deliberately ended"?



Making red cars illegal?????

And the sodomy and RvW I covered you chose to keep that out of your response.



Wrong...... I did the research you must have missed the post where I appologized to Bear but pointed out that the SC does state the state can regulate it.


Up until the second trimester you are right, after that the state can regulate.

The original message was "you cannot criminalize abortion" I.E. you can't throw the patient or doctor in jail for performing one..... however, it says nothing about having to have a clinic available in your community. You can simply legislate locally what you consider a clinic. I.E. "A clinic must serve the community in emergency situations only."

There was some activism, but instead of looking for the loopholes and trying to change local laws so that you don't have an abortion clinic in your town, you would rather blame the courts.

Like I said this thread is not about abortion (although I am learning far more about this issue than I ever cared to.) this thread is about legislating from the bench and how BOTH sides do it, just the Right chooses to blame the Left and ignore the fact they want the same thing (Legislation) only different outcomes from the judges.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

alansmithee

By your definition, fraud, theft, and many other property crimes shouldn't be illegal as well because they dont affect the physicality of anyone.

Seems an exact description of what you're doing.

The same way any other questionable death is investigated.



How did I keep them out of my response? The main of my argument revolves around Roe v Wade.


You are wrong here. I said a local community cannot BAN abortion, which is correct.


What about a state? Is it somehow feasible to eliminate all clinics from a state? Not having an abortion facility on every block does not equal banning abortion.

Because ITS THE COURTS FAULT. The ruling in Roe v Wade put this phantom amendment into the constitiution:

No State or Local Government can make a law banning abortion.

No amount of looking for loopholes will get around that. And local laws cannot be changed to ban abortion, because they would be challenged and deemed unconstitutional (unless there was an overturn of Roe v Wade).

But you haven't shown where the Right does this. In your marijuana example, the court decided on an issue of federalism. There was no extra law added. There was no activism whatsoever.

I'm not saying that they don't, but you haven't shown an example where the Right has used this tactic. And there are many examples of the Left circumventing the constitution to add laws from the bench.

pan6467

This is going nowhere with you. You refuse to quote ALL statements and respond, instead you quote what you want and go off on tangents. It's pointless. We will not agree on this so that's that.

__________________
I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"