|
Post by james on Jun 24, 2022 15:43:50 GMT -5
You're out of your depth.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 15:44:46 GMT -5
It's all a matter of getting government to function the way it was originally designed to. Which way when, precisely? When men (that is, males) of property could vote? When slaves were officially counted as 3/5 of a full human for legislative-representation purposes? Of course, those inequities/iniquities were addressed by Amendments. And other iniquities (segregation, criminalization of sexual behavior) were addressed by Court decisions. Both of those, along with legislation and regulation are part of the history and functional design of our government. Not just the parts that, say, the Texas GOP wants enshrined.
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 24, 2022 15:53:15 GMT -5
"Prohibitions of interracial and same-sex marriage have been been ruled out by the Court. One of them, Loving v. Virginia, struck down laws against interracial marriage. One of the SC justices is half of such a marriage.
"Other personal and domestic matters have been protected against local/state interference by SC rulings, viz. contraception, sexual behavior (between consenting adults). Then, of course, there are Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Shelley v. Kraemer (restrictive covenants). Maybe the Court will decide that stare decisis needs to be rewound to Plessy v. Ferguson--or, for that matter, Dred Scott."
It's interesting how outrageous we find it to think of these decisions being overruled. That's because we grew up in a world that had been shaped by these decisions. We take all these things for granted. But these decisions weren't inevitable. If I understand the Scalia/Alito view correctly, these cases should all have turned out the other way.
What these folks miss, in my view, is that the Bill of Rights articulated principles, not rules. Any drafters who weren't stupid would have known that society would change in unforeseeable ways. The application of constitutional principles would need to change with it.
These views are hardly unique to me but those who disagree with us now have a majority of the votes on the Court.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 24, 2022 16:43:00 GMT -5
"Prohibitions of interracial and same-sex marriage have been been ruled out by the Court. One of them, Loving v. Virginia, struck down laws against interracial marriage. One of the SC justices is half of such a marriage. "Other personal and domestic matters have been protected against local/state interference by SC rulings, viz. contraception, sexual behavior (between consenting adults). Then, of course, there are Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Shelley v. Kraemer (restrictive covenants). Maybe the Court will decide that stare decisis needs to be rewound to Plessy v. Ferguson--or, for that matter, Dred Scott." It's interesting how outrageous we find it to think of these decisions being overruled. That's because we grew up in a world that had been shaped by these decisions. We take all these things for granted. But these decisions weren't inevitable. If I understand the Scalia/Alito view correctly, these cases should all have turned out the other way. What these folks miss, in my view, is that the Bill of Rights articulated principles, not rules. Any drafters who weren't stupid would have known that society would change in unforeseeable ways. The application of constitutional principles would need to change with it. These views are hardly unique to me but those who disagree with us now have a majority of the votes on the Court. You want to change the constitution? Go through the amendment procedure. The founders were smarter than you.
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Jun 24, 2022 16:47:56 GMT -5
A complete ban on abortions by its nature assumes a two cell blastomere is a human being with all the rights afforded under the law. To be consistent, anything that impedes the right of a fertilized egg to thrive in the uterus would have to be illegal as well. This would include making many forms of contraception illegal and of course force any pregnancy to term under penalty of law regardless of the cause of the pregnancy or health of the mother.
Given the inability to prove a soul for the two celled embryo and the unique relationship with the mother, giving it life until extrauterine viability is possible, the premise supporting a ban on all abortions is basically religious. An atheist or agnostic would logically assume a fetus is not a person under the law until it has reached the potential time of extrauterine viability.
This smacks of the technique of assuming a stance and then cherry picking parts of the bible that support it and ignoring the parts that get a little messy except this time it's the constitution. I would think that the freedom of religion and separation of church and state would allow another interpretation if one assumes the inability to prove when a fetus has a soul, or if a soul really exists. It could be viewed as basically a religious issue and pro choice protected by the constitution.
What do the lawyers here think?
This whole thing has a bit of a theocractic/back to the 50's feel to it.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 17:07:59 GMT -5
You're out of your depth. That's flat out hilarious coming from you.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 17:12:28 GMT -5
It's all a matter of getting government to function the way it was originally designed to. Which way when, precisely? When men (that is, males) of property could vote? When slaves were officially counted as 3/5 of a full human for legislative-representation purposes? Of course, those inequities/iniquities were addressed by Amendments. And other iniquities (segregation, criminalization of sexual behavior) were addressed by Court decisions. Both of those, along with legislation and regulation are part of the history and functional design of our government. Not just the parts that, say, the Texas GOP wants enshrined. No. I mean like it was originally designed. Congress legislates, the Executive executes, and the Judicial judges. You know, old Schoolhouse Rock stuff. Or maybe that was after your time, like when dinosaurs were no longer roaming the earth. Like, as enumerated if you need one of your 50 cent words.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 17:16:16 GMT -5
"Prohibitions of interracial and same-sex marriage have been been ruled out by the Court. One of them, Loving v. Virginia, struck down laws against interracial marriage. One of the SC justices is half of such a marriage. "Other personal and domestic matters have been protected against local/state interference by SC rulings, viz. contraception, sexual behavior (between consenting adults). Then, of course, there are Brown v. Board of Education (school segregation), Shelley v. Kraemer (restrictive covenants). Maybe the Court will decide that stare decisis needs to be rewound to Plessy v. Ferguson--or, for that matter, Dred Scott." It's interesting how outrageous we find it to think of these decisions being overruled. That's because we grew up in a world that had been shaped by these decisions. We take all these things for granted. But these decisions weren't inevitable. If I understand the Scalia/Alito view correctly, these cases should all have turned out the other way. What these folks miss, in my view, is that the Bill of Rights articulated principles, not rules. Any drafters who weren't stupid would have known that society would change in unforeseeable ways. The application of constitutional principles would need to change with it. These views are hardly unique to me but those who disagree with us now have a majority of the votes on the Court. So again, maybe you can answer a real question. On what basis was Loving v. Virginia decided and is it in any way similar to Roe v. Wade?
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 17:18:43 GMT -5
A complete ban on abortions by its nature assumes a two cell blastomere is a human being with all the rights afforded under the law. To be consistent, anything that impedes the right of a fertilized egg to thrive in the uterus would have to be illegal as well. This would include making many forms of contraception illegal and of course force any pregnancy to term under penalty of law regardless of the cause of the pregnancy or health of the mother. Given the inability to prove a soul for the two celled embryo and the unique relationship with the mother, giving it life until extrauterine viability is possible, the premise supporting a ban on all abortions is basically religious. An atheist or agnostic would logically assume a fetus is not a person under the law until it has reached the potential time of extrauterine viability. This smacks of the technique of assuming a stance and then cherry picking parts of the bible that support it and ignoring the parts that get a little messy except this time it's the constitution. I would think that the freedom of religion and separation of church and state would allow another interpretation if one assumes the inability to prove when a fetus has a soul, or if a soul really exists. It could be viewed as basically a religious issue and pro choice protected by the constitution. What do the lawyers here think? This whole thing has a bit of a theocractic/back to the 50's feel to it. So you'd support today's non-religious view that abortion is legit up to birth?
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Jun 24, 2022 17:26:07 GMT -5
A complete ban on abortions by its nature assumes a two cell blastomere is a human being with all the rights afforded under the law. To be consistent, anything that impedes the right of a fertilized egg to thrive in the uterus would have to be illegal as well. This would include making many forms of contraception illegal and of course force any pregnancy to term under penalty of law regardless of the cause of the pregnancy or health of the mother. Given the inability to prove a soul for the two celled embryo and the unique relationship with the mother, giving it life until extrauterine viability is possible, the premise supporting a ban on all abortions is basically religious. An atheist or agnostic would logically assume a fetus is not a person under the law until it has reached the potential time of extrauterine viability. This smacks of the technique of assuming a stance and then cherry picking parts of the bible that support it and ignoring the parts that get a little messy except this time it's the constitution. I would think that the freedom of religion and separation of church and state would allow another interpretation if one assumes the inability to prove when a fetus has a soul, or if a soul really exists. It could be viewed as basically a religious issue and pro choice protected by the constitution. What do the lawyers here think? This whole thing has a bit of a theocractic/back to the 50's feel to it. Speaking as an agnostic, I think you're speaking with a bias against science. Science says a human being occurs at conception. It contains DNA and the DNA is human. If we found something similar on another planet we'd still call it life and according to the federation we'd have to protect it. The concept of soul is religious. I don't believe in souls or after-life and whether there is a God is a question I can't answer. Based on my experiences so far I assume that when I die the lights go out and never come back on but I'm not aware of it. It's like anesthesia except the nurse never comes to wake you up. Everybody dies so far, after awhile no one remembers you and it doesn't matter. On the up side no one expects you to fix anything after you're dead. Really, all that matters is what you did while alive and while someone still remembers you for something you did. Religion is just a way to deal with life and death without being scared. Now, that's not to say that when in deep shit I never said "Lord get me out of this" because I have a few times and so far I got out of it. Maybe I'll be surprised.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 17:41:29 GMT -5
OK, here's a snippet of Thomas's opinion (pp. 118-119): The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con-curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
|
|
Roe V Wade
Jun 24, 2022 17:54:35 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 17:54:35 GMT -5
OK, here's a snippet of Thomas's opinion (pp. 118-119): The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con-curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Thank you. It really was that simple a question.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 17:58:01 GMT -5
Bruce: The question is at what point some quantity or organization of human DNA becomes a legal person. In the case of Terry's two-cell proto-embryo (which would not yet be implanted), the Catholic Church (and now a range of conservative Protestant sects) insist that such an entity is indeed a human person (because it has a soul). But then, the Church also forbids sex without the possibility of procreation*, thus outlawing artificial birth control methods (among other practices). The basis for both these positions are rooted in supernaturalist metaphysics and epistemologies and not subject to one of the fundamental requirements of science: that a proposition be falsifiable.
Peter: "Today's non-religious view that abortion is legit up to birth" is a right-wing canard. I'll return the favor and ask for evidence that such a "view" is anything like common in legal or medical circles. And by the way, about Loving: You have a computer and an internet connection. Look it up--it should take maybe ten seconds.
* Between married heterosexuals who at some time could possibly have conceived--otherwise geriatric married sex would be forbidden.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Hanesworth on Jun 24, 2022 18:03:28 GMT -5
...otherwise geriatric married sex would be forbidden. I thought it was.😄
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 24, 2022 18:05:04 GMT -5
"...otherwise geriatric married sex would be forbidden."
You mean...it's allowed?
|
|
|
Post by Cornflake on Jun 24, 2022 18:05:30 GMT -5
Rob was faster on the draw.
|
|
|
Post by jdd2 on Jun 24, 2022 19:33:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Jun 24, 2022 20:02:51 GMT -5
Peter: "Today's non-religious view that abortion is legit up to birth" is a right-wing canard. I'll return the favor and ask for evidence that such a "view" is anything like common in legal or medical circles. And by the way, about Loving: You have a computer and an internet connection. Look it up--it should take maybe ten seconds. I wasn't that interested. My interest, if I haven't said it before, is WV v. EPA which has the potential to do some real damage to the Deep State (reference my Politico link if you want to know what I mean. Goes all the way back to the New Deal. Yes, that one- no "Green"). But really why I asked (aside from general professional curiosity) is if anyone here gets the difference between Roe v. Wade and the other crap you're talking about. Namely, Roe v. Wade is the only one that involves taking a life. You might want to ponder that for a minute or two.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Jun 24, 2022 20:28:21 GMT -5
A complete ban on abortions by its nature assumes a two cell blastomere is a human being with all the rights afforded under the law. No, it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Jun 24, 2022 21:00:08 GMT -5
Check out the Catholic position on deliberate termination of a pregnancy at any stage*. Also a number of Protestant moralists. Then there's the Texas trigger law, which, according to the Texas Tribune, "bans all abortions from the moment of fertilization, except in rare cases to save the life of a pregnant patient or prevent 'substantial impairment of major bodily function.'" I don't think Texas is or will be alone in that position. I have been hearing the human-from-the-moment-of-conception argument my whole life, and now I'm hearing that position taken by a non-trivial number of anti-choice activists. * For example, a couple of lay explainers: www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/abortion/life-begins-at-conception.htmlcatholicstand.com/science-says-life-begins-at-conception/*For the official version, see Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2270: "Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person – among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life."
|
|