The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

From time to time, I really wish the Supreme Court would say "the Constitution does not provide adequate guidance one way or the other for us to rule. This matter needs to be decided by the political process."

I thought they really blew it with Roe vs Wade. It seems to me that the writers of the Constitution could not have anticipated some of the technological advances that have occurred in the past 220 years.

I'd have very much preferred that they ruled very narrowly: "if an unborn child would be viable on its own outside the womb, then in that narrowly-construed instance you are not committing abortion you are committing murder. at the other end, if a woman causes a fertilized egg to be expelled from her body before it implants in the uterine wall, then that is perfectly okay. fertilization may be a necessary antecedent for human life yet fertilization alone is not sufficient. For anything in between, there is no clear guidance one way or the other. The states and legislatures have to figure this one out."

You know why you can't rule that way? It's a big fat gray line. What is viable? Who decides what is viable? Does that apply in all cases? Why can't an abortion doctor claim an otherwise viable fetus is not viable upon request of the mother?

You know why the ruling works? Because there is a beautifully defined, bright red, infinitesimally thin line when you say it's a human as soon as they are born.

I don't like abortions, I think they're sickening unless the mother is in danger etc. etc. But you know what? Who am I to decide that my personal beliefs are more important than another person's?

 

[Slap Shot]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

From time to time, I really wish the Supreme Court would say "the Constitution does not provide adequate guidance one way or the other for us to rule. This matter needs to be decided by the political process."

I thought they really blew it with Roe vs Wade. It seems to me that the writers of the Constitution could not have anticipated some of the technological advances that have occurred in the past 220 years.

I'd have very much preferred that they ruled very narrowly: "if an unborn child would be viable on its own outside the womb, then in that narrowly-construed instance you are not committing abortion you are committing murder. at the other end, if a woman causes a fertilized egg to be expelled from her body before it implants in the uterine wall, then that is perfectly okay. fertilization may be a necessary antecedent for human life yet fertilization alone is not sufficient. For anything in between, there is no clear guidance one way or the other. The states and legislatures have to figure this one out."

You almost had me believing in the beginning of your post that you thought they over-stepped their bounds with their decision, but by the end it was clear it comes down to ideology for you.

 

[unofan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Seeing it is the 9th Circuit and the SC seems to look at the 9th very closely, I say they will, but what they decide is a different matter.

IMO, it depends what California's Constitution says on marriage (if it does) and the right for the people to address their grievances via the proposition route. This one's going to be looked at very closely.

SCOTUS can't say jack shiat about California's Constitution (and anything it does say on that level can be expressly overruled by California). SCOTUS can only rule on Federal issues. The reason this is in Federal court is because the challenge is being brought under the Federal Constitution.

Also, SCOTUS doesn't really scrutinize the 9th Circuit any more than another. It's just the 9th Circuit happens to be the biggest and busiest. So it seems like it's getting more scrutiny since SCOTUS's limited number of cases are often from the 9th circuit.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Also, SCOTUS doesn't really scrutinize the 9th Circuit any more than another. It's just the 9th Circuit happens to be the biggest and busiest. So it seems like it's getting more scrutiny since SCOTUS's limited number of cases are often from the 9th circuit.

I'm sure you're right, but are there stats about this? Are their Court sabermetrics? Left-handed light-hitting Jews on the bench -- the next market inefficiency!

I thought there was support for redrawing the 9th because it's become so big it's basically unworkable.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

I'm sure you're right, but are there stats about this? Are their Court sabermetrics? Left-handed light-hitting Jews on the bench -- the next market inefficiency!

I thought there was support for redrawing the 9th because it's become so big it's basically unworkable.

More importantly, we need to track WAR:

"Wins Above Replacement"

 

[alfablue]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

SCOTUS can't say jack shiat about California's Constitution (and anything it does say on that level can be expressly overruled by California). SCOTUS can only rule on Federal issues. The reason this is in Federal court is because the challenge is being brought under the Federal Constitution.

Also, SCOTUS doesn't really scrutinize the 9th Circuit any more than another. It's just the 9th Circuit happens to be the biggest and busiest. So it seems like it's getting more scrutiny since SCOTUS's limited number of cases are often from the 9th circuit.

What is a state's consitution is in conflict with the US Consitution? If a state passes an amendment making a specific religion the state fixed religion, and intentionally overturning it's own restrictions on that, couldn't the Supreme Court over rule that?

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

You almost had me believing in the beginning of your post that you thought they over-stepped their bounds with their decision, but by the end it was clear it comes down to ideology for you.

If a woman gives birth and then immediately smothers the newborn infant, what do YOU call it??

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If a woman gives birth and then immediately smothers the newborn infant, what do YOU call it??

Foresight.

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The Supreme Court long ago started over stepping it's intended purpose as spelled out in the Constitution. Activist judges are now the norm on the court, and IMO the court should be filled with traditional jurists, who will apply a limited scope and holding to the true purpose and intentions of the Constitution.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The Supreme Court long ago started over stepping it's intended purpose as spelled out in the Constitution. Activist judges are now the norm on the court, and IMO the court should be filled with traditional jurists, who will apply a limited scope and holding to the true purpose and intentions of the Constitution.

LOL.

It's the opposite. The people who tout the Constitution and the founders the most as their guide are the same people that trample the Constitution as soon as it doesn't fit their agenda.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

The Supreme Court long ago started over stepping it's intended purpose as spelled out in the Constitution. Activist judges are now the norm on the court, and IMO the court should be filled with traditional jurists, who will apply a limited scope and holding to the true purpose and intentions of the Constitution.

Wow. I knew talk radio paid people to say stuff like this, but I didn't know any actual person bought it.

Please take a Con Law class. Please.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If a woman gives birth and then immediately smothers the newborn infant, what do YOU call it??

Don't expect people to make logical conclusions on this issue. It interferes with desired outcomes. Though medical advances make it harder and harder to ignore realities.

 

[bronconick]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If a woman gives birth and then immediately smothers the newborn infant, what do YOU call it??

 

[JuveGG24]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

What is a state's consitution is in conflict with the US Consitution? If a state passes an amendment making a specific religion the state fixed religion, and intentionally overturning it's own restrictions on that, couldn't the Supreme Court over rule that?

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If something is in violation, the Court can rule. Prop 8 was a vote to amend the California constitution.

 

[Priceless]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If a woman gives birth and then immediately smothers the newborn infant, what do YOU call it??

What does that scenario have to do with abortion?

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

What is a state's consitution is in conflict with the US Consitution? If a state passes an amendment making a specific religion the state fixed religion, and intentionally overturning it's own restrictions on that, couldn't the Supreme Court over rule that?

An official state religion would be in pretty clear violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment ("nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws") and could run afoul of the prohibition on religious tests for state offices in Article VI: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

If you have to treat all citizens equally under your state laws and you're not allowed to have religious tests for state office, I don't know what a state would be able to accomplish by naming one religion as its "official" one. I suppose if a state can designate an official neckwear*, it can designate an official religion, but it would make about the same amount of difference in the lives of its citizens. Of course, that lack of difference wouldn't stop the ACLU and/or Foxton from suing anyway.


*Bolo ties in AZ, NM, and TX in case you care.

 

[True Blue Fan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Wow. I knew talk radio paid people to say stuff like this, but I didn't know any actual person bought it.

Please take a Con Law class. Please.

Immigration is a perfect example of where the court oversteps its authority. The Constitution clearly leaves matters of immigration to the States and Congress, however numerous times over the years the Supreme Court has heard cases on immigration. How do you think that happened? An activist judge stretched the limited scope and meaning of an item in the constitution until they could reason how the case falls under the courts authority.

 

[FreshFish]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

What does that scenario have to do with abortion?

If a baby is born and then immediately suffocated, what do you call that action?

If, two weeks before a baby is born, you stick a vacuum cleaner into its head and suck out its brains, what do you call that action?

Most people call the former "murder" yet some people call the latter "partial-birth abortion." For suggesting that the latter is comparable to murder, I was accused of having "bias" when I said that if an unborn child, were it born prematurely and was able to survive unassisted on its own, should be considered the equivalent of a newborn under the eyes of the law.

The discussion was that from time to time, the Supreme Court should decline to rule one way or the other on certain issues because there is not enough guidance in the Constitution one way or the other. In those cases, I suggested, it seems that we are better off admitting that states and voters have to decide some issues that the writers of the Constitution could not have anticipated.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Immigration is a perfect example of where the court oversteps its authority. The Constitution clearly leaves matters of immigration to the States and Congress...

How do you figure? In general, review of *any* act of Congress or the States falls under the SCOTUS's authority (Marbury vs. Madison). More specifically, in Article III Section 2, SCOTUS is explicitly given judicial power to decide cases "between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects." So if a US state has a dispute with a foreign State or foreigner (i.e. immigrant), that case is *explicitly* within the purview of the SCOTUS.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

If a baby is born and then immediately suffocated, what do you call that action?

If, two weeks before a baby is born, you stick a vacuum cleaner into its head and suck out its brains, what do you call that action?

Most people call the former "murder" yet some people call the latter "partial-birth abortion." For suggesting that the latter is comparable to murder, I was accused of having "bias" when I said that if an unborn child, were it born prematurely and was able to survive unassisted on its own, should be considered the equivalent of a newborn under the eyes of the law.

The discussion was that from time to time, the Supreme Court should decline to rule one way or the other on certain issues because there is not enough guidance in the Constitution one way or the other. In those cases, I suggested, it seems that we are better off admitting that states and voters have to decide some issues that the writers of the Constitution could not have anticipated.

Do you know the difference between an abortion, a partial-birth abortion, and late-term abortion?