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

[ScoobyDoo]

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, 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.

Dude. You gotta stop listening to Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Expand your mind.

 

[True Blue Fan]

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

Dude. You gotta stop listening to Rush, Hannity, and O'Reilly. Expand your mind.

I have never listened to any of them. Elections are another area the court has stepped in, when the Constitution clearly leaves matters of electing its representatives to the states. So I guess you believe the court is stacked with 9 traditionalist jurists?

 

[FreshFish]

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

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?

You seemed to miss the essence of my argument by getting distracted by the details. What I said was that, on this particular issue, state legislatures and perhaps Congress needed to pass laws that result from give and take and compromise that reflects the general consensus of the electorate, and not have a few closet idealogues impose their preferences on all of us when there is no clear justification one way or the other. Suppose the make-up of the Court had been different by one judge?? should the outcome be so extremely different as it would have been then?

You seem to think that if the Court did not provide explicit guidance, none would exist. That is not at all the case. State laws would be in place, eventually there would be a Federal standard too. However it would be the result of negotiation and compromise such that everyone would grudgingly accept the result. The fact that people still have not accepted it shows how very flawed it was as a practical procedural matter.

I tried to keep my personal views out of it as much as I could. There are compelling arguments on both sides: can the state compel a woman to carry a fetus against her will?? when does a fetus become an infant? babies born prematurely after seven months generally do live, after all. My only point was that this issue needed to be resolved by society not the courts.

Of course there is a gray line, and there are difficult "yeah but what if..."scenarios. No one person, no nine people, have the "right" answer simply because there is no one "right" answer. We have a process by which such difficult issues are ultimately hammered out, and a premature ruling short-circuited that process. If Roe vs Wade had not been decided, then we'd have had a viable, acceptable compromise in place for many years; because the Court did not allow that process to run its course, it is still a divisive issue.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

I have never listened to any of them. Elections are another area the court has stepped in, when the Constitution clearly leaves matters of electing its representatives to the states. So I guess you believe the court is stacked with 9 traditionalist jurists?

Define "Traditional Jurist". One mans traditional jurist is another mans activist.

 

[LynahFan]

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

I have never listened to any of them. Elections are another area the court has stepped in, when the Constitution clearly leaves matters of electing its representatives to the states. So I guess you believe the court is stacked with 9 traditionalist jurists?

Again, equal protection clause, which explicitly applies to the states. A state cannot shunt off some of its citizens into districts, or make it more difficult for some types of people to register to vote, with the intention of reducing that group's influence in elections, which is the underlying issue for lots of election law cases. You can't separate those so-called state issues from the citizens' Constitutional rights.

 

[FreshFish]

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

Again, equal protection clause, which explicitly applies to the states. A state cannot shunt off some of its citizens into districts, or make it more difficult for some types of people to register to vote, with the intention of reducing that group's influence in elections, which is the underlying issue for lots of election law cases. You can't separate those so-called state issues from the citizens' Constitutional rights.

Doesn't the act of drawing district lines to make sure minorities are "properly represented" also "shunt off" (your term) all the non-minority citizens into districts, and thereby dilute those citizens' Constitutional rights?

 

[True Blue Fan]

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

Again, equal protection clause, which explicitly applies to the states. A state cannot shunt off some of its citizens into districts, or make it more difficult for some types of people to register to vote, with the intention of reducing that group's influence in elections, which is the underlying issue for lots of election law cases. You can't separate those state issues from the citizens' Constitutional rights.

That is a perfect example of the court overstepping its bounds and finding a reason to hear a case. The constitution clearly states that the States have the rights regarding the election process. The states do have the right to require a photo id if they so choose as an example IMO, there are no, except if this happens items in the constitution as far as I know. Districts have been in place for decades in the States and it only comes up when re-districting becomes needed in some areas, there are many reasons this takes place. The States have the authority granted in the Constitution to do this, and when the court steps in they are overstepping their intented purpose.

 

[bronconick]

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

Doesn't the act of drawing district lines to make sure minorities are "properly represented" also "shunt off" (your term) all the non-minority citizens into districts, and thereby dilute those citizens' Constitutional rights?

The redistricting seems to end up in front of a judge before approval (from the party out of power in that state) in most states eventually, so I assume they rule on that.

 

[bronconick]

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

That is a perfect example of the court overstepping its bounds and finding a reason to hear a case. The constitution clearly states that the States have the rights regarding the election process. The states do have the right to require a photo id if they so choose as an example IMO, there are no, except if this happens items in the constitution as far as I know. Districts have been in place for decades in the States and it only comes up when re-districting becomes needed in some areas, there are many reasons this takes place. The States have the authority granted in the Constitution to do this, and when the court steps in they are overstepping their intented purpose.

The state's right to do whatever the hell they want to "from the Constitution" ends at where the individual's right to vote begins. You're clearly not getting that part. That's where the Supreme's step in.

 

[Bob Gray]

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.

Again, don't expect logic on this issue. It's generally emotion-driven. People think that somehow a blob of tissue one day magically changes into a human being the next day, and it's ok to take a vacuum to the blob of tissue, but not the human being. Make sense of that one. For various reasons, people ignore plain realities as to what is inside the womb and use distorted language to convince themselves and others that it's ok.

 

[LynahFan]

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

Doesn't the act of drawing district lines to make sure minorities are "properly represented" also "shunt off" (your term) all the non-minority citizens into districts, and thereby dilute those citizens' Constitutional rights?

Well, if you are using the literal, dictionary definition of "properly" (which I doubt) then the answer is no. If everyone is properly represented, then nobody's constitutional rights have been violated - that's pretty much the definition of proper representation. If districts were drawn to improprely over-represent any particular class of citizen (including any given minority), then yes, Constitutional rights have been violated and those whose rights had been violated would have a case that could ultimately end up in the Supreme Court. I don't understand why this seems to be confusing you.

The state's right to do whatever the hell they want to "from the Constitution" ends at where the individual's right to vote begins. You're clearly not getting that part. That's where the Supreme's step in.

Exactly.

 

[Priceless]

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

Again, don't expect logic on this issue. It's generally emotion-driven. People think that somehow a blob of tissue one day magically changes into a human being the next day, and it's ok to take a vacuum to the blob of tissue, but not the human being. Make sense of that one. For various reasons, people ignore plain realities as to what is inside the womb and use distorted language to convince themselves and others that it's ok.

Right, because one side only uses logic and reason and the other only uses irrational emotions.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Redistricting is a huge political football, and always will be fought over to the death. And there's enough legitimate reasons to draw boundaries in all sorts of ways that there'll always be plenty to argue about. Here in Arizona, we have an "independent" redistricting commission of five people, with two Dems, two Reps, and one independent. Which of course makes the one independent all important. In the recent go-around here, the independent sided with the Dems, who were quite pleased with the boundaries drawn, while the two Republicans on the panel were steamed as were other Republicans. Much fighting ensued, but the Dem-favoring boundaries held up. I don't see a process where this type of political warfare doesn't take place, meaning the courts will be involved. I don't know if boundaries drawn by the courts are better or worse than boundaries drawn by people with various political agendas.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

Right, because one side only uses logic and reason and the other only uses irrational emotions.

You're as responsive as ever.

 

[bronconick]

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

Again, don't expect logic on this issue. It's generally emotion-driven. People think that somehow a blob of tissue one day magically changes into a human being the next day, and it's ok to take a vacuum to the blob of tissue, but not the human being. Make sense of that one. For various reasons, people ignore plain realities as to what is inside the womb and use distorted language to convince themselves and others that it's ok.

And for some reason some people want to protect the rights of an unborn child for 9 months and then immediately punish him or her for their mother being a lazy whore as soon as the burden of raising that child begins.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

 

[Priceless]

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

You're as responsive as ever.

As responsive as the comment deserves.

 

[Bob Gray]

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

As responsive as the comment deserves.

More quality.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Oh, goody. The abortion discussion is back on the forum.

 

[FreshFish]

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

And for some reason some people want to protect the rights of an unborn child for 9 months and then immediately punish him or her for their mother being a lazy whore as soon as the burden of raising that child begins.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

Yes, though I would choose the term "ironic." It also is "funny" to me that people who are most stridently pro-abortion often are equally strident against the death penalty!

I don't have firm views one way or the other on the "debate" except at the very end of term....if it could live on its own unassisted, then it is a human life; if it needs mechanical assistance to survive on its own, I punt and waffle and try to avoid an answer one way or the other. I do think much of the "debate" is actually on the wrong part of the broader "issue": were people to be more thoughtful at the outset, using abortion as retroactive birth control would not be such a big deal since those fetuses never would have been conceived in the first place. Especially now with the incidence of sexually transmitted diseases being so high and the consequences potentially so dire.

Now, if all the parents of pro-abortion advocates were as strident as their offspring, perhaps we wouldn't have such a debate, eh?

 

[ScoobyDoo]

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

Yes, though I would choose the term "ironic." It also is "funny" to me that people who are most stridently pro-abortion often are equally strident against the death penalty.

Yes, and the term is definitely pro-abortion. Cause we all know that that's what we are, pro-abortion. Not pro-choice, or pro-individual liberty. No, it's definitely PRO-ABORTION.

As for the Death Penalty I oppose that strictly on economic grounds. It just plain costs more to whack them then it does to put them in jail for the rest of their life. One appeal can feed, clothe, and store them for decades.