The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgiving

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

As much as it disturbs me, abortion will be around for a long time. But, there have to be limits. This is where Roe is faulty as abortion was decided by judicial diktat rather than legislatively. Yes, you can have an abortion in the 1st trimester without restriction (YUK!), but beyond that states may or may not limit the right to kill a fetus/baby.

Up to the point of viability (Roe v Wade) is a much better standard, as well as medical necessity. I don't want a state having the legal right to say "no abortions whatsoever" after 12 weeks. You might not know of serious damage to the fetus before that time for example. That's your decision to make, not politicians.

 

[LynahFan]

As much as it disturbs me, abortion will be around for a long time. But, there have to be limits. This is where Roe is faulty as abortion was decided by judicial diktat rather than legislatively. Yes, you can have an abortion in the 1st trimester without restriction (YUK!), but beyond that states may or may not limit the right to kill a fetus/baby.

I don't understand. Your heartburn with Roe is that it allows states to make their own decisions for the last 28 weeks, and your remedy is to allow them to decide for all 40 weeks? When you want to put out a fire, do you use a flamethrower?

 

[joecct]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I don't understand. Your heartburn with Roe is that it allows states to make their own decisions for the last 28 weeks, and your remedy is to allow them to decide for all 40 weeks? When you want to put out a fire, do you use a flamethrower?

JFC! As much as I hate abortion, until the country changes its mind, we're not going to lose it. That's a harsh reality. I hope and pray that the kill em at any time folks would be willing to compromise and accept limitations. I suggested a compromise. Obviously, it's not for you. OK.

Rover. Politicians make decisions for us all the time. Drunk driving laws, age of consent, age to contract marriage & method(s) of divorce, legalized suicide, to name a few. What's another one? Because we're talking about a future member of the human race and not a skin tag, I hope that a frank and honest discussion can occur and limits put on us killing our seed corn, so to speak.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Rover. Politicians make decisions for us all the time. Drunk driving laws, age of consent, age to contract marriage & method(s) of divorce, legalized suicide, to name a few. What's another one? Because we're talking about a future member of the human race and not a skin tag, I hope that a frank and honest discussion can occur and limits put on us killing our seed corn, so to speak.

Within limits joe. Politicians can't legalize discrimination for example. Likewise, they can't force you to carry a child you don't want regardless of the circumstance (medical, rape victim, etc). To me at viability (and I mean realistic viability) seems reasonable. 12 weeks is absurd in order to tell if there are any serious medical complications.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

JFC! As much as I hate abortion, until the country changes its mind, we're not going to lose it. That's a harsh reality. I hope and pray that the kill em at any time folks would be willing to compromise and accept limitations. I suggested a compromise. Obviously, it's not for you. OK.

Rover. Politicians make decisions for us all the time. Drunk driving laws, age of consent, age to contract marriage & method(s) of divorce, legalized suicide, to name a few. What's another one? Because we're talking about a future member of the human race and not a skin tag, I hope that a frank and honest discussion can occur and limits put on us killing our seed corn, so to speak.

In Texas a 13 year old girl is being forced to have her rapists baby. As far as I'm concerned all conversation on this topic is over until that never happens in this country again.

 

[unofan]

Within limits joe. Politicians can't legalize discrimination for example.

Yeah they can. They just can't legalize discrimination by the government itself.

They could strip all anti discrimination lawsfoff the books tomorrow, if they wanted to, thereby legalizing discrimination by private parties

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

WaPo's short list for the vacancy.

The candidates under consideration include two judges who joined the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 2013, Sri Srinivasan and Patricia A. Millett; Jane L. Kelly, an Iowan appointed that year to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit; Paul J. Watford, a judge since 2012 on the California-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit; and a lower-court judge, Ketanji Brown Jackson, appointed in 2013 to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

No doubt the RNC is building slander files on them as we speak.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Yeah they can. They just can't legalize discrimination by the government itself.


They could strip all anti discrimination lawsfoff the books tomorrow, if they wanted to, thereby legalizing discrimination by private parties

Wouldn't that run afoul of the Constitution? As in a private business serving the public can no longer be whites only? Or No Jews or something like that?

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Wouldn't that run afoul of the Constitution? As in a private business serving the public can no longer be whites only? Or No Jews or something like that?

What part of the Constitution?

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Wouldn't that run afoul of the Constitution? As in a private business serving the public can no longer be whites only? Or No Jews or something like that?

I think they needed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to prevent people from, say, only serving whites in a restaurant. The Constitution doesn't as far as I know say anything about private individuals discriminating. It only prevents, say, only serving whites at the Capital Building lunchroom.

See: public accommodations.

That's why private clubs can still ban anybody they want -- they were exempted from federal law so there has to be a state law in place. I imagine we can guess the states that somehow never got around to it.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

What part of the Constitution?

Hmmm....I'm probably thinking more of the Declaration of Independence (life liberty and the pursuit of happiness) truth be told..

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Wouldn't that run afoul of the Constitution? As in a private business serving the public can no longer be whites only? Or No Jews or something like that?

This is the mistake that people like Rover make. They think the Constitution governs my life. No chance. It governs my government. That's why a place like the Mayo clinic can completely ban abortions in any of its facilities, notwithstanding a woman's "constitutional right" to get one.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

This is the mistake that people like Rover make. They think the Constitution governs my life. No chance. It governs my government. That's why a place like the Mayo clinic can completely ban abortions in any of its facilities, notwithstanding a woman's "constitutional right" to get one.

The woman does have a "Constitutional right" against the government passing a law to outlaw abortions. That's the mistake righties make, and why laws like Texas' blatant harassment of clinics are clearly unconstitutional.

 

[burd]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Wouldn't that run afoul of the Constitution? As in a private business serving the public can no longer be whites only? Or No Jews or something like that?

You mean like Augusta National Golf Club denying women membership until 2012?

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

This is the mistake that people like Rover make. They think the Constitution governs my life. No chance. It governs my government. That's why a place like the Mayo clinic can completely ban abortions in any of its facilities, notwithstanding a woman's "constitutional right" to get one.

That's a bit of a stretch on the analogy. Operating a business open to the public (my original thought) and banning people based on race or religion smells funny in terms of Constitutional legality but I will defer to the lawyers. That's not the same as saying every medical facility needs to perform abortions because abortions are a legal right.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

You mean like Augusta National Golf Club denying women membership until 2012?

I should have clarified I mean a business open to the public. If the Stonecutters want a "No Homers" policy to keep out Homer Simpson, as a private club I would think they could do so.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

I should have clarified I mean a business open to the public. If the Stonecutters want a "No Homers" policy to keep out Homer Simpson, as a private club I would think they could do so.

Again, this is just your vision of government as the arbiter of our conduct that is clouding your understanding. The Constitution bars the "state" from depriving people of due process, or equal protection, the right to free speech or religious conduct. Until Congress and the States stepped in, private discrimination in the workplace, business or elsewhere was completely legal.

 

[Kepler]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Again, this is just your vision of government as the arbiter of our conduct that is clouding your understanding.

Yeah, that's such an unusual vision.

 

[Rover]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Well lets look at this. In Brown v Topeka Board of Education, the court ruled separate was inherently unequal which I assume violated the Constitution? Or did they say it violated a certain law that had been passed, but not the Constitution itself? Because this seems on point about whether discrimination can be tolerated...

 

[St. Clown]

Re: The Power of the SCOTUS VIII - I am certiorari we'll be arguing until Thanksgivin

Well lets look at this. In Brown v Topeka Board of Education, the court ruled separate was inherently unequal which I assume violated the Constitution? Or did they say it violated a certain law that had been passed, but not the Constitution itself? Because this seems on point about whether discrimination can be tolerated...

Separate but Equal applied to schools funded by government agencies, be they local, county, state, or federal. Private discrimination was still legal after that. That case took place in 1954, Jim Crow was still in effect after that, and Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott took place in 1955. It wasn't until 1956 that the Supreme Court ruled to end government bus segregation. These various SCOTUS rulings all had widespread impacts, but they were generally widespread in targeted areas of government interactions with the public.