NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, some Democrats are afraid that Rehnquist will retire or die and a conservative judge will be put in the Supreme Court. Why?

Don't they know that if that happens, nothing will change most likely? He's one of the most conservative members in there! He's anti-abortion and so the vote wouldn't change on that if Bush put one in. He's VERY conservative.

So why are the Dems. making a fuss? The only 2 members that look like they may die in the next 3 1/2 years are Rehnquist (quite possibly), and Sandra Day O'Connor, another conservative (probably won't die soon).

I just don't get it.

being in for life doesnt mean until death, it means until they die or STEP DOWN. they are all old and any of them might decide they are sick of it and retire.

Well, I think you forgot someone.

His name is Anthony M. Kennedy, I think. (Not too well versed in Terran politics.)

If Kennedy chooses to retire -- and conservatives are trying to convince him to -- conservatives will outnumber liberals in the Supreme Court for the first time since the 1960s. (I may be wrong, please correct if so.)

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

The Supreme Court is a very sensitive isssue. Even if the famous 4-4-1 split between Con-Lib-Moderate justices wasn't affected, the Democrats and many other worry about the problem all the same.

If a radical conservitive replaced a moderate conservitive, the court's dynamic would probably shift. Remember that Justices are not always party-line voters as it were, many display tendencies and preferences, but there's no law that says they have to follow their political supporters. IF someone was installed who represented more of a party shill than a consitutional scholar...there would be problems.

I think there is concern the shrub will want another Scalia type. When you hear him spew things like No founding father ever used the phrase seperation of chuch and state. You might be a little concerned.

Hey for all the legislating from the bench comments, they seem to want to plant judges that will do the same.

Yes they are concerned. Especially because if a Conservative gets confirmed to the Supreme Court (Please let it happen) Roe v. Wade will probably get overturned on the grounds that the Feds overstepped state bounds.

Don't they know that if that happens, nothing will change most likely?

Right, nothing will change, that's bad. No change means no progress.

Also, I don't care how "conservative" he is. Take a look at the current administration.

Yes they are concerned. Especially because if a Conservative gets confirmed to the Supreme Court (Please let it happen) Roe v. Wade will probably get overturned on the grounds that the Feds overstepped state bounds.Well, I certainly hope Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, simply because it would cause all sorts of problems from the pre-abortion era.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Okay, some Democrats are afraid that Rehnquist will retire or die and a conservative judge will be put in the Supreme Court. Why?

Don't they know that if that happens, nothing will change most likely? He's one of the most conservative members in there! He's anti-abortion and so the vote wouldn't change on that if Bush put one in. He's VERY conservative.

So why are the Dems. making a fuss? The only 2 members that look like they may die in the next 3 1/2 years are Rehnquist (quite possibly), and Sandra Day O'Connor, another conservative (probably won't die soon).

I just don't get it.

W/ a "conservative" SC, there's also an increased chance of a 2nd amendment case being heard and decided in favor of individual rights vs. collective. That is something a good portion of the democratic party doesn't want.

Well, I certainly hope Roe v. Wade will not be overturned, simply because it would cause all sorts of problems from the pre-abortion era.

~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

Leave it up to the states. That's where it needs to be. As for me, the only time I allow for abortion is if the life of the mother can be clinicaly proven is at risk or for rape and incest. Outside of that, you do the deed, you pay the price.

being in for life doesnt mean until death, it means until they die or STEP DOWN. they are all old and any of them might decide they are sick of it and retire.

I know that. That's why I put the word RETIRE in my post.


Yes, I'm sure I didn't get all the old members of the court in there. I only put the ones in that I am SURE have severe health problems.

We should not be worried I don't think. Even the conservative members of the court sometimes go against what some ultraright wingers want. For instance, even Clarence Thomas said no to sodomy laws. It's not as if he's gonna put Bolton in the Supreme Court. If Roe Vs. Wade is overturned, even then it will just go back to being a state-by-state decision, and if you want to have an abortion then and your state won't allow it, all you have to do is move.

Well, none of them are exactly spring chickens, and I think John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal members, is either pushing ninety or has passed it by. I'd say that as many as seven of the nine could kick it tomorrow in their sleep and few people would be shocked. Looking at it only as a replacement for Rehnquist is a little short-sighted.

Democrats fear that Rehnquist will be replaced by a justice even further to the right. With the recent failure of the Senate to effectively resolve the issue over judicial filibusters ("extraordinary circumstances"), it seems likely that Rhenquists' retirement or death will bring another round of partisan disputes. We fear that Bush will appoint a radically conservative justice, one even to the right of Rehnquist, and then not even need a single vote outside his party for confirmation. Such a nominee is not unprecedented. Bush recently appointed Janice Rogers Brown to a federal appellate court. Brown believes that a "higher law" than the Constitution may be invoked.

or maybe its just the "clarence thomas for chief justice" talk that makes them wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night

The only 2 members that look like they may die in the next 3 1/2 years are Rehnquist (quite possibly), and Sandra Day O'Connor, another conservative (probably won't die soon).

O'Connor is not conservative. She is the swing vote and has taken liberal stances on several issues. Her retirement and replacement by a conservative justice would tip the balance strongly in favor of the conservatives, a terrible blow to Democrats and liberals.

or maybe its just the "clarence thomas for chief justice" talk that makes them wake up in a cold sweat in the middle of the night

Nahhh I think Chief Justice Scalia is far more scary!

Nahhh I think Chief Justice Scalia is far more scary!

I second that.

Nahhh I think Chief Justice Scalia is far more scary!
i suppose but at least scalia knows stuff. thomas is the least distinguished justice we've had in a long time.

Yes they are concerned. Especially because if a Conservative gets confirmed to the Supreme Court (Please let it happen) Roe v. Wade will probably get overturned on the grounds that the Feds overstepped state bounds.
Well, if you get rid of Roe, then you have to get rid of Griswold and Lawrence as well, since they're all based on the same logic--and Griswold is the oldest of the bunch. It dealt with a Connecticut law that restricted the sale of birth control devices only to married couples. The Supreme Court ruled there first that there was an inherent right to privacy found in the 10th Amendment--individual rights section.

i suppose but at least scalia knows stuff. thomas is the least distinguished justice we've had in a long time.

I want Anthony Kennedy to be put in Rehnquist's place.

Well, if you get rid of Roe, then you have to get rid of Griswold and Lawrence as well, since they're all based on the same logic--and Griswold is the oldest of the bunch. It dealt with a Connecticut law that restricted the sale of birth control devices only to married couples. The Supreme Court ruled there first that there was an inherent right to privacy found in the 10th Amendment--individual rights section.

And that then in turned could've violated the 9th Amendment. Besides that, the Privacy laws didn't come about till much later. Therefor, you really don't have to overturn the Supreme Court Case. However, Roe v. Wade completely overstepped state bounds.

i suppose but at least scalia knows stuff. thomas is the least distinguished justice we've had in a long time.heheheh....


~Czardas, Supreme Ruler of the Universe

And that then in turned could've violated the 9th Amendment. Besides that, the Privacy laws didn't come about till much later. Therefor, you really don't have to overturn the Supreme Court Case. However, Roe v. Wade completely overstepped state bounds.
Bullcrap, I say 10th overrules 9th.

Bullcrap, I say 10th overrules 9th.

Then that case, why not declare that we only have 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights instead of 10 then?

And that then in turned could've violated the 9th Amendment. Besides that, the Privacy laws didn't come about till much later. Therefor, you really don't have to overturn the Supreme Court Case. However, Roe v. Wade completely overstepped state bounds.
No no no--this is the logic behind Roe v. Wade. The case which Roe used as precedent was Griswold v. Connecticut. If the Supreme court is going to overturn Roe, it's going to have to argue that Griswold was decided incorrectly. Now think about the implications of that. Griswold basically argued that the sexual activities of consenting adults are a private matter, no business of the states. It's also the basis for the overturning of sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas.

So if you want to overturn Roe, you have to say that the state has a compelling interest in regulating the legal sexual activities of its citizens, and I don't see how that will fly in today's day and age. How would you like to be forced to show a marriage certificate in order to purchase condoms? Birth control pills? gag gifts meant to embarass your friends? Any and all of those things could be denied you if Griswold is overturned--and that won't happen, because the outcry would be immediate and it wouldn't surprise me if a constitutional right to privacy were to pass in record time as a result, and if that happens, Roe is not only the law of the land again, it's in the constitution.

You may not want to believe this, but the last thing the Republican party wants is for Roe to be overturned. It's worth too much money to them. It's worth too many votes for them. It's something they can rail against. I have no doubt that many Republicans want Roe gone, but the party loves it. Absolutely loves it.

The Federal Courts still overstepped state bounds. However, we do have privacy laws on the book now so Griswald can stay. However, abortion was still legislating from the bench. It should be overturned and one day it will be overturned.

The Federal Courts still overstepped state bounds. However, we do have privacy laws on the book now so Griswald can stay. However, abortion was still legislating from the bench. It should be overturned and one day it will be overturned.
And so you prove beyond doubt that you understand exactly nada about how the legal system in this country works. If ignorance is bliss, then you're as jolly as Santa Claus.

And so you prove beyond doubt that you understand exactly nada about how the legal system in this country works. If ignorance is bliss, then you're as jolly as Santa Claus.

There's at least 1 political science professor that would disagree with you regarding my knowledge of the law.

No no no--this is the logic behind Roe v. Wade. The case which Roe used as precedent was Griswold v. Connecticut. If the Supreme court is going to overturn Roe, it's going to have to argue that Griswold was decided incorrectly. Now think about the implications of that. Griswold basically argued that the sexual activities of consenting adults are a private matter, no business of the states. It's also the basis for the overturning of sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas.
I think you might have slipped and hurt your head on the slope.

If Roe v Wade were to be overturned, it doesn't mean that Griswold v Connecticut would also be overturned simply because it was used as a precedent. The Supreme Court could simply decide that there is indeed a right to privacy when it comes to sexual activities, but that the right dosen't extend to abortions more than a few days after conception (or abortions at all).

I think you might have slipped and hurt your head on the slope.

If Roe v Wade were to be overturned, it doesn't mean that Griswold v Connecticut would also be overturned simply because it was used as a precedent. The Supreme Court could simply decide that there is indeed a right to privacy when it comes to sexual activities, but that the right dosen't extend to abortions more than a few days after conception (or abortions at all).
Nope--in order to declare Roe invalid, they have to declare the theory behind it invalid, and that theory is rooted firmly in Griswold. For Roe to stand, there must be a right to privacy, and for Roe to fall, there must be no such right. Rarely is a case that simple, but this one really is. Why else hasn't it been overturned yet? It's not like the court hasn't been sufficiently conservative for the last fifteen years to do it. There have been plenty of test cases. So why not? Because it's solid law and the honest moderates on the Court know it andknow the ramifications of overturning it.

Nope--in order to declare Roe invalid, they have to declare the theory behind it invalid, and that theory is rooted firmly in Griswold. For Roe to stand, there must be a right to privacy, and for Roe to fall, there must be no such right. Rarely is a case that simple, but this one really is. Why else hasn't it been overturned yet? It's not like the court hasn't been sufficiently conservative for the last fifteen years to do it. There have been plenty of test cases. So why not? Because it's solid law and the honest moderates on the Court know it andknow the ramifications of overturning it.

Care to prove this whole theory of yours?

Nope--in order to declare Roe invalid, they have to declare the theory behind it invalid, and that theory is rooted firmly in Griswold. For Roe to stand, there must be a right to privacy, and for Roe to fall, there must be no such right. Rarely is a case that simple, but this one really is.
I don't see why, and you're not providing anything to show as to why Roe is unlike any other court case. In the decision it states, "We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

In order to neuter Roe v Wade, all that would have to happen would be that the judges decide that the right of personal privacy (already stated as not unqualified) does not include an abortion. Not that there is no right to privacy.

Why else hasn't it been overturned yet? It's not like the court hasn't been sufficiently conservative for the last fifteen years to do it. There have been plenty of test cases. So why not? Because it's solid law and the honest moderates on the Court know it andknow the ramifications of overturning it.
The court hasn't been sufficiently conservative. If there was one more solid anti-abortion judge then it would have been overturned - as it is, in the last 15 years, PP v Casey happened which did allow more limits on abortion than Roe did.

Care to prove this whole theory of yours?
If Roe is overturned, I'm clearly wrong, but Roe has stood in the face of extraordinarily motivated opposition for over forty years now, the last five of which, conservatives have been undeniably in power, and yet there's not even a remotely serious move to get it overturned. Why not?

There are a couple of reasonable options for that--the first, as I've said while referring to specific cases you can look up for yourself, is that it's good law. It's an iffily written decision, but it's solid law, based on solid precedent. Even people who are strong textualists admit that Griswold is a well-reasoned case, even if they disagree with the outcome (because they believe that if the Constitution don't say it, then it ain't so, a theory which has its own major problems).

The second is that the Republican party really doesn't want to get rid of Roe, because, as I've also said before, it's a major cash cow and motivator of voters. Get rid of Roe and lots of those people go away, and the Republicans need them to win elections.

If Roe is overturned, I'm clearly wrong, but Roe has stood in the face of extraordinarily motivated opposition for over forty years now, the last five of which, conservatives have been undeniably in power, and yet there's not even a remotely serious move to get it overturned. Why not?

Because all the decisions have been 5 to 4.

There are a couple of reasonable options for that--the first, as I've said while referring to specific cases you can look up for yourself, is that it's good law. It's an iffily written decision, but it's solid law, based on solid precedent. Even people who are strong textualists admit that Griswold is a well-reasoned case, even if they disagree with the outcome (because they believe that if the Constitution don't say it, then it ain't so, a theory which has its own major problems).

It is by no means solid law. It can be reversed with a snap of the fingers. Just that its always been 5 to 4 to uphold RvW

The second is that the Republican party really doesn't want to get rid of Roe, because, as I've also said before, it's a major cash cow and motivator of voters. Get rid of Roe and lots of those people go away, and the Republicans need them to win elections.

The Republican Party DOES want to get rid of it. How do I know? I read their scripts, I know its on the website too.

Because all the decisions have been 5 to 4.



It is by no means solid law. It can be reversed with a snap of the fingers. Just that its always been 5 to 4 to uphold RvW



The Republican Party DOES want to get rid of it. How do I know? I read their scripts, I know its on the website too.

Actually part of the Republican Party wants to get rid of it. Most really do not care that much, however, what they do almost all agree on is that it is a huge violation of States rights. How do I know? I was one and I live right down the street from where it all started!

W/ a "conservative" SC, there's also an increased chance of a 2nd amendment case being heard and decided in favor of individual rights vs. collective. That is something a good portion of the democratic party doesn't want.

So we could have the individuals right to own slaves recognized above the rights of people collectivly not to be enslaved? Sounds about right for current republican sentiment.

No no no--this is the logic behind Roe v. Wade. The case which Roe used as precedent was Griswold v. Connecticut. If the Supreme court is going to overturn Roe, it's going to have to argue that Griswold was decided incorrectly. Now think about the implications of that. Griswold basically argued that the sexual activities of consenting adults are a private matter, no business of the states. It's also the basis for the overturning of sodomy laws in Lawrence v Texas.
Them citing a case as their reason for their decision does not mean they interpreted the case in question correctly. An example of this would be the lower court decisions that state that US vs Miller is obviously a proponent of the states' rights interpretation of the 2nd when it is nothing of the sort

So we could have the individuals right to own slaves recognized above the rights of people collectivly not to be enslaved? Sounds about right for current republican sentiment.
*blinks* I wasn't aware there was a constitutional amendment stating americans were allowed to own slaves. also, you are comparing a sapient being to an inanimate object. Rather silly.

Yes they are concerned. Especially because if a Conservative gets confirmed to the Supreme Court (Please let it happen) Roe v. Wade will probably get overturned on the grounds that the Feds overstepped state bounds.

So few people actually understand the Roe vs. Wade decision, it's sad. The decision was not strictly about a woman's right to abortion. If you think so, you don't understand the Supreme Court at all, and have no business even trying to debate this. It was not about Abortion. It was about the Right to Privacy(Although not specifically stated in the Constitution, it was eluded to).

Simple terms:

Abortion is a medical procedure.
People have the right to privacy when concerning medical procedure: I.E. the government, and no one else for that matter, has any right to crack open your medical charts without your expressed permission.
We cannot choose which types of medical procedures are protected. It's all or nothing. Any kind of choosing which are and are not protected is unconstitutional, and treats certain types of people as second class citizens, with less rights and protection as others.

Okay, so if we choose "Nothing" on a right to privacy, then guess what! Any random joe can go into your doctors office and look up what you were in for. You have Gonnorea? Well, now the entire town knows. Penal cancer? Good luck getting a girl when she finds out half of your manhood was chopped off.

Roe vs. Wade was never truly about Abortion. It was about Privacy.

*blinks* I wasn't aware there was a constitutional amendment stating americans were allowed to own slaves. also, you are comparing a sapient being to an inanimate object. Rather silly.

Well, before the 14th and 15th Amendment, slaves were constitutionally legal, as it was not specifically mention illegal in teh constitution.

The Republican Party DOES want to get rid of it. How do I know? I read their scripts, I know its on the website too.
They're all talk is my point. They could have restricted the hell out of abortion by now if they wished--the Supreme Court has given them a blueprint: leave exceptions for the health and life of the mother and you're golden, but every time a red state gets a boner for banning abortion, they leave those exceptions out, and I think they do it deliberately, because abortion is a huge moneymaker and gets out the vote better than anything else they've got. If they actually came through with overturning Roe, they'd be seen for what they really are as a party--a buddy to the rich and corporate and butt-rape to everyone else. They'd never win another election.

So few people actually understand the Roe vs. Wade decision, it's sad. The decision was not strictly about a woman's right to abortion. If you think so, you don't understand the Supreme Court at all, and have no business even trying to debate this. It was not about Abortion. It was about the Right to Privacy(Although not specifically stated in the Constitution, it was eluded to).

Simple terms:

Abortion is a medical procedure.
People have the right to privacy when concerning medical procedure: I.E. the government, and no one else for that matter, has any right to crack open your medical charts without your expressed permission.
We cannot choose which types of medical procedures are protected. It's all or nothing. Any kind of choosing which are and are not protected is unconstitutional, and treats certain types of people as second class citizens, with less rights and protection as others.

Okay, so if we choose "Nothing" on a right to privacy, then guess what! Any random joe can go into your doctors office and look up what you were in for. You have Gonnorea? Well, now the entire town knows. Penal cancer? Good luck getting a girl when she finds out half of your manhood was chopped off.

Roe vs. Wade was never truly about Abortion. It was about Privacy.
Give that person a cookie--you nailed it. And that's what Griswold was all about--the right to privacy.

How come the Republicans think Roe v Wade is a violation of State Rights while a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage isn't?

How come the Republicans think Roe v Wade is a violation of State Rights while a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage isn't?
I got another one for you--why wasn't Bush v Gore a violation of states rights? Short answer--it was--but the outcome favored them, so they embraced it, same as the situation you posit.

*blinks* I wasn't aware there was a constitutional amendment stating americans were allowed to own slaves. also, you are comparing a sapient being to an inanimate object. Rather silly.

No. I'm merely pointing out that the whole "states rights" thing is usually just a huge crock of horseshit trotted out by people who don't give a damn about states rights. "States Rights" for the last 30 years has merely been a Republican code word for legalized racism. Why are all the republicans who are so pro-states rights on gun control and abortion so anti-states rights on medical litigation, medical marijuana, gay marriage, and Federal ID cards? Why? because they don't give a shit about states rights. If they agree with the Federal Government's stance on things then states rights be damned. If the Federal Government is against them, then "liberal judges are trying to take away states rights, wa wa wa." States rights has not been a genuine issue in American politics since the end of the Civil War.

I think they do it deliberately, because abortion is a huge moneymaker and gets out the vote better than anything else they've got. If they actually came through with overturning Roe, they'd be seen for what they really are as a party--a buddy to the rich and corporate and butt-rape to everyone else. They'd never win another election.

well, they'd still have guns and queers, but neither of those has quite the same punch.

i find it sad that more people don't see through the whole scam. it's not like they even play it particularly well.
"vote for us, we hate gay people and love fetuses!"
*after the election*
"now on to important things, like making it nearly impossible for poor schmucks to declare bankruptcy while making it easier for the corporations, and destroying the social safety net."

States rights has not been a genuine issue in American politics since the end of the Civil War.

hell, even back then it was largely bullshit. the support for states rights magically disappeared when it came to northern states refusing to capture and return runaway slaves - then the south outright demanded that the federales intervene.

How come the Republicans think Roe v Wade is a violation of State Rights while a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage isn't?

Ya got a point there. The answer: If it favors them, it's okay to bend the rules. Dems. do the same thing. Politics are inherantly evil.

Ya got a point there. The answer: If it favors them, it's okay to bend the rules. Dems. do the same thing. Politics are inherantly evil.
You're right that Dems do the same thing--but we don't claim to be defenders of states rights, so there's a little less hypocrisy involved. :p

Both parties use States rights to their advantage, not just the Repuklicans. The Demoncats are all for state rights when it comes to drugs, etc. but when it comes to gun control and issues like that, the states aren't smart enough for some reason to set up laws of their own. It was mentioned before that the Repuklicans don't want RVW overturned. That is exactly true. That is the one issue that really galvanises people into voting for them. Don't think for one second though that the Demoncats are clean in this game, they are just as bad. The Demoncats will never want the healthcare system solved or massive social welfare to be passed because this is a huge cash cow for them as well. The truely sad thing is that probably both parties are working behind the scenes together to undermine the original intent of the constitution. I know that sounds conspiratorial in nature but read Orwell.

Both parties use States rights to their advantage, not just the Repuklicans. The Demoncats are all for state rights when it comes to drugs, etc. but when it comes to gun control and issues like that, the states aren't smart enough for some reason to set up laws of their own. It was mentioned before that the Repuklicans don't want RVW overturned. That is exactly true. That is the one issue that really galvanises people into voting for them. Don't think for one second though that the Demoncats are clean in this game, they are just as bad. The Demoncats will never want the healthcare system solved or massive social welfare to be passed because this is a huge cash cow for them as well. The truely sad thing is that probably both parties are working behind the scenes together to undermine the original intent of the constitution. I know that sounds conspiratorial in nature but read Orwell.Well, I think you overestimate the amount of money or number of votes the Democrats get from the healthcare issue or welfare reform, but we certainly have our own dark secrets. I'd guess that separation of church and state maybe falls in the same type of category, and of course, Roe. The Democrats raise an awful lot of money and motivate a lot of people by defending choice.

Both parties use States rights to their advantage, not just the Repuklicans. The Demoncats are all for state rights when it comes to drugs, etc. but when it comes to gun control and issues like that, the states aren't smart enough for some reason to set up laws of their own. It was mentioned before that the Repuklicans don't want RVW overturned. That is exactly true. That is the one issue that really galvanises people into voting for them. Don't think for one second though that the Demoncats are clean in this game, they are just as bad. The Demoncats will never want the healthcare system solved or massive social welfare to be passed because this is a huge cash cow for them as well. The truely sad thing is that probably both parties are working behind the scenes together to undermine the original intent of the constitution. I know that sounds conspiratorial in nature but read Orwell.

Not to mention that although both parties are rather different on paper, they are pretty much the same when put into effect. In practice, you can conceivably use the "equation" Dem=Rep. Why, you ask? Because neither wants to stray a great deal away from the center. People who belong to certain political parties don't get people elected. No, the VAST majority of voters are neither Democrat nor Republican et al, and actually have no party lean. The vast majority of voters belong to the "Passionate Center". Generally the Passionate center is Pro-Choice(Not head over heals for it mind you, Pro-Gay Marriage(Not Head over heals, but it basically doesn't bother them), along with many other traits. I am 100% sure that if an Anti-Gay Marriage or Anti-Abortion law would have passed before last election, Bush would not have been reelectecd. The only reason why he won this time around was because Kerry was a weak candidate, and a jackass who teh people could not relate to. If he would have done a full-blown assault on Gay-Marriage or Abortion, he would not have been re-elected, simple as that.

So we could have the individuals right to own slaves recognized above the rights of people collectivly not to be enslaved? Sounds about right for current republican sentiment.

Won't happen. Why? Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Try again.

Well, before the 14th and 15th Amendment, slaves were constitutionally legal, as it was not specifically mention illegal in teh constitution.

That's the 13th and 14th Amendments. You don't even know the Constitution. Geez

How come the Republicans think Roe v Wade is a violation of State Rights while a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual marriage isn't?

I do and I'm a republican.

I got another one for you--why wasn't Bush v Gore a violation of states rights? Short answer--it was--but the outcome favored them, so they embraced it, same as the situation you posit.

Sorry but when there isn't a uniform way of interpretting a ballet, and that the Florida Supreme Court kept changing the rules in the middle of a recount...

Yea the Supreme Court had to step in. I didn't like it either but then, they did their Job for once.

You're right that Dems do the same thing--but we don't claim to be defenders of states rights, so there's a little less hypocrisy involved. :p

Actually, yes you do.

Yes they are concerned. Especially because if a Conservative gets confirmed to the Supreme Court (Please let it happen) Roe v. Wade will probably get overturned on the grounds that the Feds overstepped state bounds.

LOL

"overturned on the grounds that the Feds overstepped state bounds"?

It may be that Roe v. Wade and its progeny will someday be overturned due to conservative judicial activism. Of course, it will not just be Roe that will need to be overturned, but the score or so cases that have reaffimred and relied on Roe during its over 30 year history.

But even Clarence Thomas would make up actual constitutional reasoning for doing so.

"the Feds overstepped state bounds" won't qualify.

It is by no means solid law. It can be reversed with a snap of the fingers. Just that its always been 5 to 4 to uphold RvW

Only if your "conservative" judge throws aside the principles of stare decisis.

O'Connor and Kennedy are very conservative. But they recognized in Planned Parenthood v. Casey that judges are not supposed to reverse decades of precedent merely because you don't like it.

That is part of what the rule of law is supposed to be about.

There's at least 1 political science professor that would disagree with you regarding my knowledge of the law.

ROTFLASTC

:p

Gee, now that you've made an unverifiable appeal to an authority that is anonymous, we'd better all just take your word for the "law." :rolleyes:

That's the 13th and 14th Amendments. You don't even know the Constitution. Geez

Yeah. You tell 'em.

That is almost as stupid as someone confusing the 9th and 10th Amendments and thinking the 9th Amendment protects states' rights ...

Or thinking the right to privacy caselaw came after Roe ...

And that then in turned could've violated the 9th Amendment. Besides that, the Privacy laws didn't come about till much later. Therefor, you really don't have to overturn the Supreme Court Case. However, Roe v. Wade completely overstepped state bounds.


Doh! :eek:

As of 2005, the United States Supreme Court Justices are:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

BUT: If you look closely, Breyer & Ginsburg are the only Democratic Party nominees since 1972. That's 33 years!

If the DEMs fail to win the White House in 2008 and/or 2012, (not impossible), that would mean that the the Court would have been all GOP nominees. (Odds of Breyer & Ginsburg lasting until 2017 are remote at best.)

The court has leaned to the right since the Reagan years, though Souter & Stevens are more liberal than you'd expect. If the court drifts much more to the right, the DEMs would basically be ceading any power in the Judiciary for another generation.

The court has leaned to the right since the Reagan years, though Souter & Stevens are more liberal than you'd expect. If the court drifts much more to the right, the DEMs would basically be ceading any power in the Judiciary for another generation.

Lets not forget that some of the Republican seated members of the court have grown liberal as time has passed or have been liberal all along. For instance, my favorite one is Kennedy and he was put there by Ford, a Republican. Also, Sandra Day O'Connor is a swing voter. She was put in by Reagan.

As of 2005, the United States Supreme Court Justices are:

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist (born 1924, appointed by Richard Nixon in 1971 and elevated by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice John Paul Stevens (born 1920, appointed by Gerald Ford in 1975);
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (born 1930, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1981);
Justice Antonin Scalia (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1986);
Justice Anthony Kennedy (born 1936, appointed by Ronald Reagan in 1988);
Justice David Souter (born 1939, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1990);
Justice Clarence Thomas (born 1948, appointed by George H. W. Bush in 1991).
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (born 1933, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1993);
Justice Stephen Breyer (born 1938, appointed by Bill Clinton in 1994);

BUT: If you look closely, Breyer & Ginsburg are the only Democratic Party nominees since 1972. That's 33 years!

If the DEMs fail to win the White House in 2008 and/or 2012, (not impossible), that would mean that the the Court would have been all GOP nominees. (Odds of Breyer & Ginsburg lasting until 2017 are remote at best.)

The court has leaned to the right since the Reagan years, though Souter & Stevens are more liberal than you'd expect. If the court drifts much more to the right, the DEMs would basically be ceading any power in the Judiciary for another generation.

Hold your ponies there, does that mean that (*gasp*) the SCOTUS isn't filled with a bunch of liberal activist judges?

Lets not forget that some of the Republican seated members of the court have grown liberal as time has passed or have been liberal all along. For instance, my favorite one is Kennedy and he was put there by Ford, a Republican. Also, Sandra Day O'Connor is a swing voter. She was put in by Reagan.

Ford was barely a President, much less a Republican. Seriously. He was the Dan Quayle of his day.

Right. I'm not saying that they all vote the party line all the time, but they do lean (at least somewhat!) right on many issues.

Hold your ponies there, does that mean that (*gasp*) the SCOTUS isn't filled with a bunch of liberal activist judges?

Well, not in my lifetime... (I'm 32).

Ford was barely a President, much less a Republican. Seriously. He was the Dan Quayle of his day.

Hey now! Ford and Carter are my favorite former presidents!

Hey now! Ford and Carter are my favorite former presidents!

Um... yeah... (whistles, starts backing away slowly)

Um... yeah... (whistles, starts backing away slowly)

Yes, I know. I like "Do nothing" presidents. I don't feel that the job of the US president should be to form a new scandal or piss some group of people off every week.

Yes, I know. I like "Do nothing" presidents. I don't feel that the job of the US president should be to form a new scandal or piss some group of people off every week.

Don't look at me! My favourite President is Rutherford B. Hayes!

Hold your ponies there, does that mean that (*gasp*) the SCOTUS isn't filled with a bunch of liberal activist judges?

Nobody wants Liberal Activist Justices. It would be remarkably damaging. Also, the reverse is true-Fundamental Convservatives are just as dangerous. Most of the Justices are neither to far left, nor to far right.

Right now the Supreme Court is slightly conservative leaning. Also, the Supreme Court should be the ONE place where politics should NEVER exist. If you get bogged down in politics, the Supreme court will be a puppet used, and everything will be controlled by conservative Republicans(There is such a thing as liberal Republicans). Trust me, you do NOT want this to happen, just as it would be bad for it to be controlled by Liberal Activists. Supreme Court justices should not concern themselves with politics: Only with interpretation.

Why do you believe that the SC is filled with a bunch of Liberal Activists? These are all EXTREMELY well educated people, who know more about the law of the land than you can ever even dream to know, and frankly more than any politician every can. Just because you disagree with them does not make them "Liberal Activists". In truth, the SC has had decisions ALL OVER the spectrum, from Liberal to Conservative. We only hear about the Liberal ones because these ones tend to bring about overall social change, but there are probably more Conservative decision than you think. You just don't here about them because they don't change anything.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part 2, directed to "Roe vs. Wade" and those against it.

I would like to say that even if the Court would become "Conservative" it is HIGHLY unlikely Roe vs. Wade would be overturned. First off, those who have studied it know that it is not about Abortion. Secondly, it is not so simple as the Supreme Court just reversing it's opinion. It can't do that. A brand new hearing must take place. Of course, for those of you who know the rules of the Court, it's not just that easy also. A person who is personally harmed by a case can take it to court. A religious nut who thinks it's bad can't just bring it to court, it has to be someone who has personally been harmed. I highly doubt that Roe vs. Wade cases would make it this far, let alone be heard by the SC. The Supreme Court just isn't that easy, bub.

Also, for Roe vs. Wade to be overturned, that would PROBABLY mean that there are political intentions behind it. Remember: The Supreme Court is not in place to appeal to the people. It's sole purpose is to protect the rights of the people, whether they want it or not. The Supreme Court Justices are not elected because politics should NEVER have a place in justice. If we were to load the court with people with political agendas, it would destroy it from teh inside.

Once more: Replicans do not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. Remember: the primary goal of most politicians is to be reelected, not to represent the people. On paper, they may say so, but primarily they have their own ambitions in mind. Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned by Republicans because it gives ample fodder to them. It's great for a political agenda minded party(Democrats are the same way, mind you). If Roe vs. Wade were overturned, there would be massive political backlash, and Republicans would lose almost all of their power. Why, you ask? Remember: It is not Republicans or Democrats that elect officials, it is the Passionate Center, who for the most part are Pro-Choice. If Roe vs. Wade were overturned by a republican nominated SC, then we would not see a Republican president for a LONG time. Republicans will always "fight" abortion, but no real movement will be made. Same goes with Gay Marriage. A gay marriage Amendment will never come to be. If it does, Republicans lose their fodder, and lose support with the Passionate Center.

I think there is concern the shrub will want another Scalia type. When you hear him spew things like No founding father ever used the phrase seperation of chuch and state. You might be a little concerned.

Hey for all the legislating from the bench comments, they seem to want to plant judges that will do the same.

While I am generally pro choice, I hope Roe v Wade gets overturned. It is time to lance this boil. Let the American people finally decide how we stand on this issue.

Hopefully, once this is resolved, we can get back to more productive politics.

They're all talk is my point. They could have restricted the hell out of abortion by now if they wished--the Supreme Court has given them a blueprint: leave exceptions for the health and life of the mother and you're golden, but every time a red state gets a boner for banning abortion, they leave those exceptions out, and I think they do it deliberately, because abortion is a huge moneymaker and gets out the vote better than anything else they've got. If they actually came through with overturning Roe, they'd be seen for what they really are as a party--a buddy to the rich and corporate and butt-rape to everyone else. They'd never win another election.

Wow, and I never thought I would find someone as cynical as myself. I am trying to fix it though.

Okay, some Democrats are afraid that Rehnquist will retire or die and a conservative judge will be put in the Supreme Court. Why?

Don't they know that if that happens, nothing will change most likely? He's one of the most conservative members in there! He's anti-abortion and so the vote wouldn't change on that if Bush put one in. He's VERY conservative.

So why are the Dems. making a fuss? The only 2 members that look like they may die in the next 3 1/2 years are Rehnquist (quite possibly), and Sandra Day O'Connor, another conservative (probably won't die soon).

I just don't get it.

O'Connor is a moderate. A rather well known moderate. You don't seem to really know the situation to begin with. Why do you complain about other people complaining?

O'Connor is a moderate. A rather well known moderate. You don't seem to really know the situation to begin with. Why do you complain about other people complaining?

Oooooooh, big person wants to start another fight today, eh? Listen, I can classify things differently than Wikipedia does if I want to thank you very much. I am classifying her as a conservative due to her views on things like abortion.

So until you have achieved the highest IQ ever recorded, don't start thinking that just because you think you are smarter than someone on something, that the other person doesn't know anything.

While I am generally pro choice, I hope Roe v Wade gets overturned. It is time to lance this boil. Let the American people finally decide how we stand on this issue.

Hopefully, once this is resolved, we can get back to more productive politics.

We are not a Tyranny of the Majority. The Supreme Court does not have to appeal to the masses. Remember this. Even if the majority of Americans wanted something, if it goes against Constitutional rights, it is the Supreme Court's duty to stike it down, regardless of what the populace wants.

We are not a Tyranny of the Majority. The Supreme Court does not have to appeal to the masses. Remember this. Even if the majority of Americans wanted something, if it goes against Constitutional rights, it is the Supreme Court's duty to stike it down, regardless of what the populace wants.

Amen!!

Why are Dems worried about Supreme Court?

It's not just the democrats that are worried. I think it's every sane person in this country who wants to keep what freedom we have. Who want to make sure the government stays out of our bodies and personal lives. Sane people are worried. As they should be.

Oooooooh, big person wants to start another fight today, eh? Listen, I can classify things differently than Wikipedia does if I want to thank you very much. I am classifying her as a conservative due to her views on things like abortion.

So until you have achieved the highest IQ ever recorded, don't start thinking that just because you think you are smarter than someone on something, that the other person doesn't know anything.

I'm not trying to start a fight. You simply don't seem to know the situation well enough to complain about why other people complaining. The hypocrisy is kind of stupid.

Here's a guide for you. A REAL guide basicly recognized by all those in the Judicial system. Don't believe me, go to any knowledgeable judge with this list and ask if it is correct.

The Rehnquist Court

Moderates:
Anthony Kennedy
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter

Liberals:

John Paul Stevens
Ruth Ginsburg
Sephen Breyer

Conservatives

William Rehnquist
Antonin Scalia
Clarance Thomas.

What is being argued about is the balance of this court. It is the ideal court at the moment. Bush will likely change that intentionally and will distort the balance of centrists.

I'm not trying to start a fight. You simply don't seem to know the situation well enough to complain about why other people complaining. The hypocrisy is kind of stupid.

Okay... Let me get this straight. You don't want to start a fight, but then you include the phrase "The hypocrisy is kind of stupid." I don't believe you. I think you WANT to see me angry.

As for your list.... I have the right to disagree with it, but your list is faulty.

The real issue is how those people interprit the Constitution. A originalist view? A Federalist view? A populist view? Things aren't just left and right after all.

Now please. Stop baiting me.

Lets not forget that some of the Republican seated members of the court have grown liberal as time has passed or have been liberal all along. For instance, my favorite one is Kennedy and he was put there by Ford, a Republican. Also, Sandra Day O'Connor is a swing voter. She was put in by Reagan.

I presume you mean Stevens, who was put there by Ford.

Not Kennedy, who was put there by Reagan.

Being a swing voter on the Supreme Court in the last 20 years does not make one a liberal. Or even a moderate. It means one is not a uniform archconservative like Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas.

And, although the Court is very political, its decisions do not always break along political or ideological lines -- even in highly political cases.

I presume you mean Stevens, who was put there by Ford.

Not Kennedy, who was put there by Reagan.

Yes. Sorry. Was very tired when I was writing that.

O'Connor is a moderate. A rather well known moderate. You don't seem to really know the situation to begin with. Why do you complain about other people complaining?

Justice O'Connor is not a moderate. Relative to other members of the Court, she may be "moderate," but not in terms of her politics or judicial ideology.

She is pragmatic and more centrist than some others on the Court, but she is rather uniformly conservative in her opinions. She may be a moderate conservative, but she is a conservative.

I know not how to prove your wrong without going into a lengthy discussion of Justice O'Connor's voting record.

I'll try a short version. O'Connor is a swing vote, but one that most often sides with the arch-conservatives on the Court. She is a staunch advocate of states rights and a limited federal judiciary. She consistently votes with Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas on criminal procedure, the death penalty, affirmative action, school vouchers, and a host of other issues.

What may be "well known" to you is not an opinion shared by those who seriously follow the Court.

I'm not trying to start a fight. You simply don't seem to know the situation well enough to complain about why other people complaining. The hypocrisy is kind of stupid.

Here's a guide for you. A REAL guide basicly recognized by all those in the Judicial system. Don't believe me, go to any knowledgeable judge with this list and ask if it is correct.

The Rehnquist Court

Moderates:
Anthony Kennedy
Sandra Day O'Connor
David Souter

Liberals:

John Paul Stevens
Ruth Ginsburg
Sephen Breyer

Conservatives

William Rehnquist
Antonin Scalia
Clarance Thomas.

What is being argued about is the balance of this court. It is the ideal court at the moment. Bush will likely change that intentionally and will distort the balance of centrists.

LOL.

I agree that there is great cause for concern about the future of the Court.

But let us be clear. It is a conservative Republican Court.

In terms of Court factions on a spectrum, your division is accurate -- if the labels are not. Rehnquist, Thomas, and Scalia are at one end of the spectrum in terms of their views and voting record. Breyer, Ginsburg, and Stevens tend towards the other end of the spectrum. Souter, Kennedy, and O'Connor are swing votes.

But these factions bear a heavily conservative tilt.

I've already explained Justice O'Connor is a conservative.

Calling Justice Kennedy a moderate is simply laughable. He was a close friend and political advisor of Ronald Reagan and Ed Meese dating back to the 1960s. He was known as a leading conservative as a federal appellate judge. He has a consistently conservative voting record on the Supreme Court. Simply because he has gone against social conservatives on a handful of high profile cases does not make him a moderate.

Breyer, Stevens, and Souter are moderates ideologically.

Uh, it isn't laughable. Your designation of conservative, liberal, and moderate does not reside on what you believe on pro-choice, gay rights, and such.

I, for instance, am very conservative (paleo-conservative). I also am pro-state rights, and pefer to enact on a "original intent" perspective. Most of all I do prefer limited government.

I for instance am against gay marriage due to my belief on it being a state issue. HOWEVER. If one presents a highly constitutional argument for it, (and I have actually seen a legit one by a very smart person) then I will sway for allowing such an initative even though I HIGHLY prefer not to drag this to the Constitution.

My ability to reason and discuss it with others and take only the best most intellectually sound stance makes me a moderate. Not one who thinks to himself "well they presented a very sound argument, but despite their very constitutional point, I will side against it due to a right and left wing bias."

That is why you consider them not the cliche liberal or in this case conservative. Because they likely use the finalization of reasoning as their main compass despite having their set ideological disposition.

Uh, it isn't laughable. Your designation of conservative, liberal, and moderate does not reside on what you believe on pro-choice, gay rights, and such.

I, for instance, am very conservative (paleo-conservative). I also am pro-state rights, and pefer to enact on a "original intent" perspective. Most of all I do prefer limited government.

I for instance am against gay marriage due to my belief on it being a state issue. HOWEVER. If one presents a highly constitutional argument for it, (and I have actually seen a legit one by a very smart person) then I will sway for allowing such an initative even though I HIGHLY prefer not to drag this to the Constitution.

My ability to reason and discuss it with others and take only the best most intellectually sound stance makes me a moderate. Not one who thinks to himself "well they presented a very sound argument, but despite their very constitutional point, I will side against it due to a right and left wing bias."

That is why you consider them not the cliche liberal or in this case conservative. Because they likely use the finalization of reasoning as their main compass despite having their set ideological disposition.

Nice job. You've explained why the labels you used are without meaning.

You described yourself as "very conservative" (a "paleo-conservative") who is pro-state rights, prefers limited government, and advocates an "original intent" view of the Constitution.

But then you say you are a "moderate" because you are able to reason and discuss your views with others (persumably without violence).

All Supreme Court Justices think through individual cases despite their ideological dispositions. All have the ability to reason and discuss the cases with others. And all, presumably, believe they reach "the best most intellectually sound stance" on each case.

So, by your twisted logic, all of the Supreme Court Justices are moderates. And all Justices in the history of the U.S. are moderates. :rolleyes:

If pale-conservative = moderate, then Justices O'Connor and Kennedy are moderates.

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Kennedy are all quite conservative in terms of political ideology.

They are also conservative if judged by the ideological spectrum of their votes on individual cases.

They are all pro-states' rights.

Whether or not they are conservative in terms of judicial philosophy depends on how you define things. Justice Scalia is an advocate of original intent (at least at times), but he is also very activist.

It is amusing that you assume my characterization of the Justices' ideology is based on their views on a handful of social issues, such as abortion and gay rights.

It is only because they do not always vote with the arch-conservatives on those issues that Justices O'Connor and Kennedy are considered more moderate.

If you'd like to create another thread, I'll gladly explain why your view on gay marriage is (a) self-contradictory and (b) foolish.

Nice job. You've explained why the labels you used are without meaning.

You described yourself as "very conservative" (a "paleo-conservative") who is pro-state rights, prefers limited government, and advocates an "original intent" view of the Constitution.

But then you say you are a "moderate" because you are able to reason and discuss your views with others (persumably without violence).

All Supreme Court Justices think through individual cases despite their ideological dispositions. All have the ability to reason and discuss the cases with others. And all, presumably, believe they reach "the best most intellectually sound stance" on each case.

So, by your twisted logic, all of the Supreme Court Justices are moderates. And all Justices in the history of the U.S. are moderates. :rolleyes:

If pale-conservative = moderate, then Justices O'Connor and Kennedy are moderates.

Justices Rehnquist, Scalia, Thomas, O'Connor, and Kennedy are all quite conservative in terms of political ideology.

They are also conservative if judged by the ideological spectrum of their votes on individual cases.

They are all pro-states' rights.

Whether or not they are conservative in terms of judicial philosophy depends on how you define things. Justice Scalia is an advocate of original intent (at least at times), but he is also very activist.

It is amusing that you assume my characterization of the Justices' ideology is based on their views on a handful of social issues, such as abortion and gay rights.

It is only because they do not always vote with the arch-conservatives on those issues that Justices O'Connor and Kennedy are considered more moderate.

If you'd like to create another thread, I'll gladly explain why your view on gay marriage is (a) self-contradictory and (b) foolish.

I'm simply trying to explain why they are likely "swing voters" and conservatives at the same time. But as I said, they are classified moderates. The court is at the moment considered balanced due to 3 liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

As for my stance on gay marriage, sorry but it is actually undecided. Because I heard that argument, I am willing to hear the best constitutional arguments for or against making an ammendment. We both recognized that perhaps one isn't needed at the moment though. In anycase, I have become less staunch in preventing any constitutional ammendment to recognize gay marriage. But I have remained staunch thus far in having a constitutional ban against it.

Make any arguments for or against it that you want. I'd enjoy reading it.

Dems are scared because they have lost control. Simple.

I'm simply trying to explain why they are likely "swing voters" and conservatives at the same time. But as I said, they are classified moderates. The court is at the moment considered balanced due to 3 liberals, moderates, and conservatives.

And, as I explained, they are not moderates. They are -- as you say -- conservatives who happen to be swing votes on some issues.

I know not by whom other than yourself "the court is at the moment considered balanced due to 3 liberals, moderates, and conservatives." Whoever holds this view is rather poorly informed.

As for my stance on gay marriage, sorry but it is actually undecided. Because I heard that argument, I am willing to hear the best constitutional arguments for or against making an ammendment. We both recognized that perhaps one isn't needed at the moment though. In anycase, I have become less staunch in preventing any constitutional ammendment to recognize gay marriage. But I have remained staunch thus far in having a constitutional ban against it.

Make any arguments for or against it that you want. I'd enjoy reading it.

I'm not going to hi-jack this thread with an argument about gay marriage.

There is really not much the dems CAN do but to fight. They are a minority party and have no other power. Their liberal base is demanding it. Even if W nominated a judicial Michael Moore they'd fight it - simply because if they don't fight it then their Barbara Boxer type base will roll over them for acquiescing to the Republicans. This is much how it was for Republicans fifteen years ago.
The only thing is that now momentum is against them. They already got beaten in the last Senate election for obstructionism (Daschle aanyone?) and now they are being forced by their base to do more of the same. Their base is shrinking.

Meanwhile the Republican base isn't none too happy either. They are tired of seeing the Republicans 'pussy-foot'. It is a very dynamic struggle and fun to watch.

There is really not much the dems CAN do but to fight. They are a minority party and have no other power. Their liberal base is demanding it. Even if W nominated a judicial Michael Moore they'd fight it - simply because if they don't fight it then their Barbara Boxer type base will roll over them for acquiescing to the Republicans. This is much how it was for Republicans fifteen years ago.
The only thing is that now momentum is against them. They already got beaten in the last Senate election for obstructionism (Daschle aanyone?) and now they are being forced by their base to do more of the same. Their base is shrinking.

Meanwhile the Republican base isn't none too happy either. They are tired of seeing the Republicans 'pussy-foot'. It is a very dynamic struggle and fun to watch.

Beyond being bizarre and inaccurate, how does this relate to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Oh, it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Beyond being bizarre and inaccurate, how does this relate to the U.S. Supreme Court?

Oh, it doesn't. :rolleyes:

Well, instead of a feeble attempt at being trite you described what it is you find so difficult to follow, I could help you with your reading comprehension difficulty and clean up any part of my post which is too difficult to be followed.

Well, instead of a feeble attempt at being trite you described what it is you find so difficult to follow, I could help you with your reading comprehension difficulty and clean up any part of my post which is too difficult to be followed.

OK, sparky.

What U.S. Supreme Court nominee are the Democrats opposed to and obstructing?

Perhaps it is you who are having difficulty following the topic of the thread.

(snip)
......What is being argued about is the balance of this court. It is the ideal court at the moment. Bush will likely change that intentionally and will distort the balance of centrists.
The 'ideal' court according to whom? Every president in the past has had the right to nominate whomever they wish to the SCOTUS. In fact, it was FDR who proposed increasing the number of justices on the bench when he couldn't get some of his pet legislation passed. (So that he could stack the bench).

There is nothing new about a president wanting a justice favorable to his political values. It is why he names them - because he has already recieved a mandate from a majority (or the largest majority in the event of a three or more party election) of Americans.

The 'ideal' court according to whom? Every president in the past has had the right to nominate whomever they wish to the SCOTUS. In fact, it was FDR who proposed increasing the number of justices on the bench when he couldn't get some of his pet legislation passed. (So that he could stack the bench).

There is nothing new about a president wanting a justice favorable to his political values. It is why he names them - because he has already recieved a mandate from a majority (or the largest majority in the event of a three or more party election) of Americans.

I partially agree with you.

A President may nominate whomever he or she chooses to be a Supreme Court Justice.

And a Senator seek to obstruct and defeat any nomination that he or she opposes.

It is all part of how the system of separation of powers and checks and balances is supposed to work.

OK, sparky.

What U.S. Supreme Court nominee are the Democrats opposed to and obstructing?

Perhaps it is you who are having difficulty following the topic of the thread.

None, yet, however they have made it abundantly clear that they want to reserve the right to do so. By doing so they are setting the stage for them to have no other option but to follow through - their base will not only expect it, they will demand it.

The rational is not hard to follow considering the weak objections they have fronted so far when filibustering.

Dems are scared because they have lost control. Simple.


Actually, that couldn't be further from teh truth. "Dems" are scared for the reason that SC justice nomination are permanent. There is no term limit to it. So if a political-orientated justice gets in, we're stuck with him.

Also, Dems will regain control. If you don't think so, you are just a naive little baffoon who doesn't understand American politics. We go through such periods. The Dems will probably regain control within the next 4-8 years. Then it's the Reps turn to whine. And they will.

However, it is very difficult to regain control in the SC. If it is loaded one way or the other, then it will be a dangerous, damaging time, that we cannot do anything about. We can vote out Congressmen and Presidents, we can't vote out SC justices.

There is really not much the dems CAN do but to fight. They are a minority party and have no other power. Their liberal base is demanding it. Even if W nominated a judicial Michael Moore they'd fight it - simply because if they don't fight it then their Barbara Boxer type base will roll over them for acquiescing to the Republicans. This is much how it was for Republicans fifteen years ago.
The only thing is that now momentum is against them. They already got beaten in the last Senate election for obstructionism (Daschle aanyone?) and now they are being forced by their base to do more of the same. Their base is shrinking.

Meanwhile the Republican base isn't none too happy either. They are tired of seeing the Republicans 'pussy-foot'. It is a very dynamic struggle and fun to watch.
That's not true, but it's easy to claim because it's never been put to the test. But the Dems haven't had too many problems allowing Bush to appoint lower court judges. All of his appointees to courts lower than the Court of Appeals have gone through, and all but nine of his Appeals Court judges have gone through. It's not like the Dems are simply being ornery or anything--Bush has nominated some real shitheads for more than just judgeships, and the vast majority of the time, the Dems have gone along.

And by the way--the demographics are what got Dems last time, not obstructionism. We lost seats in the south--like no one saw that coming. And Daschle lost for largely the same reason--his state went something like 60-40 for Bush. It was bound to happen eventually.

Well, I just read a news article on Excite, and it says that Bush's favorite justices are Scalia and Thomas. Now, I agree with Thomas a lot, but for some reason, I find Scalia to be a rat most of the time.

I hope he picks someone that either goes more liberal as time goes on than the president thought they would do, like what happened with O'Conner and Kennedy, 2 of our centrists.

Dems are scared because they have lost control. Simple.

Pretty much accurate :D

Leave it up to the states. That's where it needs to be.

As for me, the only time I allow for abortion is if the life of the mother can be clinicaly proven is at risk or for rape and incest. Outside of that, you do the deed, you pay the price.
I agree with leaving it up to the states, but are you in favour of banning abortion even for those women who can pay the price for it? I know I'm not in favour of government paid abortions (except in rape or under 16s).

W/ a "conservative" SC, there's also an increased chance of a 2nd amendment case being heard and decided in favor of individual rights vs. collective. That is something a good portion of the democratic party doesn't want.
Yet collectivist priorities trump individual rights in the abortion issue?

Bullcrap, I say 10th overrules 9th.
I am pro-choice, so what I'm about to say is not based on partisanship.

Hasn't the 10th Amendment routinely been violated since the Civil War? It's barely relevant anymore.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If the 10th Amendment was followed, the states would be allowed to take on many more responsibilities than they should.

I agree with leaving it up to the states, but are you in favour of banning abortion even for those women who can pay the price for it? I know I'm not in favour of government paid abortions (except in rape or under 16s).

This makes absolutely no sense! Perhaps you should clarify what you mean.

This makes absolutely no sense! Perhaps you should clarify what you mean.
He took you literally. Pay the price=pay for it in cash.

This makes absolutely no sense! Perhaps you should clarify what you mean.
I mean that women should have the right to an abortion as long as they can pay for it themselves and not rely on the government. In rape cases, the government should force the rapist to pay for the abortion.

I mean that women should have the right to an abortion as long as they can pay for it themselves and not rely on the government. In rape cases, the government should force the rapist to pay for the abortion.

I only support abortions for clinically proven cases that the health of the Mother is at stake, rape, and incest. That is what I'm saying. The government should overturn R v. W and give it back to the states where it belongs.

As for the right if they can afford it, see comment above this one. I say again, only if the health of the mother is clinically proven to be at stake, rape, and incest. PERIOD

While I am generally pro choice, I hope Roe v Wade gets overturned. It is time to lance this boil. Let the American people finally decide how we stand on this issue.

Hopefully, once this is resolved, we can get back to more productive politics.
I agree with you, but I thought you were Indian.

I only support abortions for clinically proven cases that the health of the Mother is at stake, rape, and incest. That is what I'm saying. The government should overturn R v. W and give it back to the states where it belongs.


Great idea. Let's let the states decide on slavery, enfranchisement of non-landowners, and safety regulations, too. :rolleyes:

I mean that women should have the right to an abortion as long as they can pay for it themselves and not rely on the government. In rape cases, the government should force the rapist to pay for the abortion.
And the men who father these babies who aren't rapists? Do they have to put up half then? And what if there's a disagreement between the two parents? Who gets ultimate veto control over the decision--mom or dad?

In the end, this really is about who gets to control what happens inside the woman's body, which is why it's a battle over choice--does a pregnant woman get to choose what happens to her or does someone else--male or female--decide what's "best" for her? Personally, I know what my answer would be if someone told me I couldn't have a medical procedure I wanted because it bothered their religious sensibilities--it would involve a big fat finger.

Great idea. Let's let the states decide on slavery, enfranchisement of non-landowners, and safety regulations, too. :rolleyes:

The Slavery issue is already decided. Civil War ring a bell? Besides that, we have the 13th amendment which was ratified by all states. Sorry.

The Slavery issue is already decided. Civil War ring a bell? Besides that, we have the 13th amendment which was ratified by all states. Sorry.
So what about the other two?

So what about the other two?

The 14 and 15th were also approved by the states so therefor, they did decide the issue. Next?

Its always been this way on both sides.

The 14 and 15th were also approved by the states so therefor, they did decide the issue. Next?
They decided the issues of enfranchisement through land ownership and safety regulations? You can almost get to the enfranchisement argument through the 15th Amendment, but there's nothing in either of them about safety regulations. You'll have to do better.

They decided the issues of enfranchisement through land ownership and safety regulations? You can almost get to the enfranchisement argument through the 15th Amendment, but there's nothing in either of them about safety regulations. You'll have to do better.

What the hell are you babbling about? Safty regulations? This isn't a workplace environment Nazz.

What the hell are you babbling about? Safty regulations? This isn't a workplace environment Nazz.
Markreich's original comment was "Originally Posted by Markreich
Great idea. Let's let the states decide on slavery, enfranchisement of non-landowners, and safety regulations, too." to which you so succinctly replied, "Originally Posted by Corneliu
The Slavery issue is already decided. Civil War ring a bell? Besides that, we have the 13th amendment which was ratified by all states. Sorry."

So I asked "What about the other two?" referring, obviously to "enfranchisement of non-landowners, and safety regulations," to which you popped off "The 14 and 15th were also approved by the states so therefor, they did decide the issue. Next?" to which I replied--well, you ought to be caught up by now. So don't say I'm the one who's babbling when you can't even keep up with a conversation. Now, do you want to start over, or should you simply retract your current dumbassitude and go on?

Markreich's original comment was "Originally Posted by Markreich
Great idea. Let's let the states decide on slavery, enfranchisement of non-landowners, and safety regulations, too." to which you so succinctly replied, "Originally Posted by Corneliu
The Slavery issue is already decided. Civil War ring a bell? Besides that, we have the 13th amendment which was ratified by all states. Sorry."

So I asked "What about the other two?" referring, obviously to "enfranchisement of non-landowners, and safety regulations," to which you popped off "The 14 and 15th were also approved by the states so therefor, they did decide the issue. Next?" to which I replied--well, you ought to be caught up by now. So don't say I'm the one who's babbling when you can't even keep up with a conversation. Now, do you want to start over, or should you simply retract your current dumbassitude and go on?

I suggest you read up on the Constitution of the United States some more. Amendment XV gave the African Americans the right to vote, Amendment XIV gave the right to vote to the women, Amendment XXIV did away with the poll tax, Amendment XXVI gave 18 year olds the right to vote.

Now show me in the Constitution that mentions property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote prior to the amendments that I just mentioned. I just looked at it and guess what? I don't see a single mention of property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote.

I suggest you read up on the Constitution of the United States some more. Amendment XV gave the African Americans the right to vote, Amendment XIV gave the right to vote to the women, Amendment XXIV did away with the poll tax, Amendment XXVI gave 18 year olds the right to vote.

Now show me in the Constitution that mentions property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote prior to the amendments that I just mentioned. I just looked at it and guess what? I don't see a single mention of property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote.
I suggest you do the reading, good sir. I did mine before I posted last time--if you read my original reply, I said that you might get to enfranchisement through the 15th Amendment, although it's iffy. The Amendment reads (http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html)Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. It says nothing about restricting the vote of citizens on the basis of land-ownership, a common practice in the early days of the Republic, and there is only public opinion that keeps the government from reverting to that standard if they wish. As you have noted, they can't make you pay a poll tax (Amendment 24), can't discriminate based on sex (Amendment 19) or age (Amendment 26), but they can based on land-ownership, should they so choose. The states themselves have done away with this requirement, and did so long ago, but there is no constitutional protection against a revival of it, because it would apply fairly to all landowners regardless of age, sex, and race.

And you still haven't addressed the other issue Markreich brought up--that of safety regulations.

The Slavery issue is already decided. Civil War ring a bell? Besides that, we have the 13th amendment which was ratified by all states. Sorry.

The Abortion issue is already decided. Roe v Wade ring a bell?

My point was that in your desire to overturn RvW, you're arguing for state powers to overshadow Federal ones. And in doing so, you overturn the Civil War.

I suggest you read up on the Constitution of the United States some more. Amendment XV gave the African Americans the right to vote, Amendment XIV gave the right to vote to the women, Amendment XXIV did away with the poll tax, Amendment XXVI gave 18 year olds the right to vote.

Now show me in the Constitution that mentions property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote prior to the amendments that I just mentioned. I just looked at it and guess what? I don't see a single mention of property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote.

Erm, no, it didn't.

Amendment XV: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

African Americans don't exist. At least, no more than Czechoslovakian-Americans. I say black, because people call me white. Except for that Obama guy. His FATHER was from Africa. He's an African-American.

...missing the point. I put up those examples to show that your desire to overturn RvW is Quixotic.

The Abortion issue is already decided. Roe v Wade ring a bell?

My point was that in your desire to overturn RvW, you're arguing for state powers to overshadow Federal ones. And in doing so, you overturn the Civil War.

If it was decided then why is it still be fought? hmm?

If it was decided then why is it still be fought? hmm?
You've really got nothing, as far as argument, don't you. You can try to hide behind these cute little one-liners, but anyone who reads this segment of the thread knows you've gotten your ass handed to you. By all means, keep it up.

You've really got nothing, as far as argument, don't you. You can try to hide behind these cute little one-liners, but anyone who reads this segment of the thread knows you've gotten your ass handed to you. By all means, keep it up.

If it was decided already, don't you think that no one would be fighting over it. Since there's still a fight, it ain't over yet.

If it was decided then why is it still be fought? hmm?

Because for some bizare reason, people don't understand what *over* means anymore. Ever since the 60s, there's never been an end to anything.

Because for some bizare reason, people don't understand what *over* means anymore. Ever since the 60s, there's never been an end to anything.

Now there we are in agreement. :)

The Slavery issue is already decided. Civil War ring a bell? Besides that, we have the 13th amendment which was ratified by all states. Sorry.

Cute. Although The Nazz has already pwned you on this, let me point out some additional fallacies.

The Thirteenth Amendment was not ratified by all states.

It became part of the Constitution after it was raftified by 26 of the then 37 states.

After the fact, a few additional states have ratified it.

Cute. Although The Nazz has already pwned you on this, let me point out some additional fallacies.

The word is OWNED! Spell it right for heaven's sake.

The Thirteenth Amendment was not ratified by all states.

It became part of the Constitution after it was raftified by 26 of the then 37 states.

Correct. Your saying something that I already know.

It was still ratified therefore the slavery issue is settled.

After the fact, a few additional states have ratified it.

And every state that came into the Union after it approved of it when they agreed to become states.

Correct. Your saying something that I already know.

So you knew your earlier statement was false when you said it.

And every state that came into the Union after it approved of it when they agreed to become states.

Not technically true. Every new state thereby agrees to be subject to the Constitution, it does not thereby necessary "approve of" of every provision in the Constitution.

So you knew your earlier statement was false when you said it.

No. My statement wasn't false. The XIII was ratified by the states. The minute that the requisite number of states ratified it, it immediately becomes ratified by all states because it became part of the Constitution. So what I said was true. Froma certain point of view.

Not technically true. Every new state thereby agrees to be subject to the Constitution, it does not thereby necessary "approve of" of every provision in the Constitution.

THey have to agree to the Constitution. Therefor, they have to agree to abide by ALL AMENDMENTS. Therefore, yes they did technically "approved" all the amendments.

Cat, I have a question.

The bogeyman that the Democrats raise is that if enough Supreme Court justices change to Republican-chosen (I think most of them are already, though), or to Bush-chosen, that somehow Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Well, you've made a clear argument that there are decades of case history behind the current SCOTUS view on the 2nd Amendment - and that with this substantial history, no SCOTUS is likely to upset the apple cart.

I could make the same argument concerning Roe. I don't believe it's plausible.

If it is plausible, then anything is plausible - the 2nd Amendment could be enshrined as a personal, individual right.

The 14 and 15th were also approved by the states so therefor, they did decide the issue. Next?

How do the 14th and 15th Amendments specifically address either enfranchisement of non-landowners or safety regulations?

They don't.

The Constitution itself and all Amendments were ratified by at least the required proportion states, but not by all states.

So your, premise that states consented to these limits on their powers is false. They apply equally to states whether they ratified or rejected them.

The 14th Amendment became law when it was ratified by 28 of the then 37 states.

The 15th Amendment became law when it was ratified by 29 or the then 37 states.

As your theory essentially boils down to the idea that states ratified the Constitution so it cannot be an outside-imposed limit on state authority, it directly contradicts your objection to enforcement of constitutional law as "the Feds overstepping."

How do the 14th and 15th Amendments specifically address either enfranchisement of non-landowners or safety regulations?

They don't.

And yet I'm still waiting for someone to point out where landowners fit into the Constitution of the United States. Care to point to something that I missed Cat-Tribe or are you going to continue to spout something that is false? As for safety regulations, show me in the Constitution where it mentions this too. I'm still waiting.

The Constitution itself and all Amendments were ratified by at least the required proportion states, but not by all states.

But when they reached the required numbe of states, it AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES RATIFIED BY ALL STATES! It doesn't matter if they opposed it or not. All that matters is that it was ratified and therefore, it is automatically ratified by all states wether they opposed it or not.

So your, premise that states consented to these limits on their powers is false. They apply equally to states whether they ratified or rejected them.

:confused:

The 14th Amendment became law when it was ratified by 28 of the then 37 states.

Correct and therefore it was ratified by all states the minute the proper number of states ratified it. Is that hard to comprehend?

The 15th Amendment became law when it was ratified by 29 or the then 37 states.

See previous statement.

As your theory essentially boils down to the idea that states ratified the Constitution so it cannot be an outside-imposed limit on state authority, it directly contradicts your objection to enforcement of constitutional law as "the Feds overstepping."

Huh? Constitutional Law DOES override the states because it is part of the Constitution. No law can violate the Constitution of the United States. If it does, it is up to the Federal Courts to strike down such laws. However, I'm still waiting on how Abortion fits into the Constitution.

Cat, I have a question.

The bogeyman that the Democrats raise is that if enough Supreme Court justices change to Republican-chosen (I think most of them are already, though), or to Bush-chosen, that somehow Roe v. Wade will be overturned.

Well, you've made a clear argument that there are decades of case history behind the current SCOTUS view on the 2nd Amendment - and that with this substantial history, no SCOTUS is likely to upset the apple cart.

I could make the same argument concerning Roe. I don't believe it's plausible.

If it is plausible, then anything is plausible - the 2nd Amendment could be enshrined as a personal, individual right.

Of course, it is possible that the Supreme Court to overturn Roe and its progeny or reinterpret the Second Amendment.

Slight difference.

Over 65 years of consistent judicial precedent re the Second Amendment. Nary a hint of significant concern by the Supreme Court on this history. Although the NRA constantly brings cases seeking Court reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment, it appears there are not even enough Justices thinking the issue needs to be addressed to grant certiorari. Influential conservative, Republic judges over the years -- such as Chief Justice Burger and Judge Robert Bork -- have been outspoken in rejecting a individualist view of the 2nd Amendment. I am not aware of any concern expressed on the issue by any of the sitting members of the Supreme Court -- although Thomas wrote one ambiguous footnote with at "what if" scenario. Nor do gun rights appear to be a significant issue that Republicans have used to vet potential Court nominees.

Also the appellate courts have been consistently uniform on this issue. There do not appear to be a lot potential Supreme Court nominees that would reverse the course of the current 2nd Amendment jurisprudence.

No federal court in the history of the US has ever struck down a firearms ban or restriction as violating the 2nd Amendment. Thus, a change in course on the 2nd Amendent is possible, but improbable.

Although I feel the attack on the right to choice has little validity, it obviously has a far greater chance of success. Roe has been under constant attack since it was decided 32 years ago. The right to choice has survived repeated challenges, but often by only slim majorities or by plurality. At least a third of the current Court is actively seeking complete reversal. For some time, Republicans have actively sought to place more Justices on the Court that wish to reverse Roe. It is highly likely any Bush nominee would meet this litmus test. Legislation challenging Roe or seeking to dimish the right to choose is constantly being passed and often receives a pass from lower courts -- requiring Supreme Court intervention.

Thus, a change in course on the right to abortion is far, far more likely than a reversal of 2nd Amendment precedent.

It just seems obvious to me that this is the first presidential administration to make it a matter of DOJ policy that it sees the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

Maybe there hasn't been a lot of action in this regard. But if they succeed with Roe, I'm sure that will embolden them to more changes.

SCOTUS changes are very, very hard to undo. But if a party has the political upper hand, what do they have to lose by trying?

And yet I'm still waiting for someone to point out where landowners fit into the Constitution of the United States. Care to point to something that I missed Cat-Tribe or are you going to continue to spout something that is false? As for safety regulations, show me in the Constitution where it mentions this too. I'm still waiting.

The point appears to have sailed right over your head.

As has already been explained to you, under your view limitating enfranchisment to landowners and safety regulations are entirely within the purview of the states and it would be "federal overstepping" to interfere.

No one --other than you --- said or implied that these issues were addressed by the Constitution.


But when they reached the required numbe of states, it AUTOMATICALLY BECOMES RATIFIED BY ALL STATES! It doesn't matter if they opposed it or not. All that matters is that it was ratified and therefore, it is automatically ratified by all states wether they opposed it or not.

Ridiculous.

When ratified by a sufficient number of states, an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution. It then applies to all the states, whether or not it was ratified or reject by a particular state. It is not "automatically ratified" by all states.

Think about it. When a refendum or initiative is passed during a state election, it becomes law if voted for by a majority or the citizens of that state. It applies to all within the state, whether or not they are citizens of the state or whether they voted against it. It does not, however, automatically become voted for by every citizen.


:confused:

Correct and therefore it was ratified by all states the minute the proper number of states ratified it. Is that hard to comprehend?

See previous statement.

Your confusion arises from your misunderstanding of the process of ratification.

That enough states ratify an Amendment to make it part of the Constitution does not mean that all states automatically ratified it. That is simply wrong and makes nonsensical.

Huh? Constitutional Law DOES override the states because it is part of the Constitution. No law can violate the Constitution of the United States. If it does, it is up to the Federal Courts to strike down such laws.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

So, your complaint that federal courts have overstepped their bounds and encroached on the states by enforcing the Constitution is inherently silly!

However, I'm still waiting on how Abortion fits into the Constitution.

This is a new point here, but I've explained this to you before.

Try reading:
Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ), 410 US 113 (1973)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ). 505 US 833 (1992).

You may be shocked to learn these tend to answer your question. :rolleyes:

The point appears to have sailed right over your head.

As has already been explained to you, under your view limitating enfranchisment to landowners and safety regulations are entirely within the purview of the states and it would be "federal overstepping" to interfere.

No one --other than you --- said or implied that these issues were addressed by the Constitution.

Care to show me where I implied or said it since I'm not the one that brought up landowners to begin with. I know for a FACT that landowners ARE NOT mentioned in the Constitution because every white male had the right to vote. This then went on to include the black community followed by the women's right to vote all the way to 18yos voting.

Ridiculous.

When ratified by a sufficient number of states, an Amendment becomes part of the Constitution. It then applies to all the states, [b]whether or not it was ratified or reject by a particular state.[b] It is not "automatically ratified" by all states.

You just made my point for me. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Think about it. When a refendum or initiative is passed during a state election, it becomes law if voted for by a majority or the citizens of that state. It applies to all within the state, whether or not they are citizens of the state or whether they voted against it. It does not, however, automatically become voted for by every citizen.

Difference between apples and oranges actually. We were talking about Constitutional Amendments, not state referendums. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two.

Your confusion arises from your misunderstanding of the process of ratification.

HAHA!! Now this has got to be the funniest thing someone has said to me in the last month. I know full well the process of ratification as well as the number needed for it to be approved. When it is approved, it becomes apart of the constitution regardless of how others vote. Therefore, what I've been saying is true, from a certain point of view.

That enough states ratify an Amendment to make it part of the Constitution does not mean that all states automatically ratified it. That is simply wrong and makes nonsensical.

Actually it does since they have to abide by it regardless of how they voted. They may have voted against it when it is approved by the required number of states, they have to follow it so therefore, they did agree to it in the abstract by being part of the Union to begin with.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

So, your complaint that federal courts have overstepped their bounds and encroached on the states by enforcing the Constitution is inherently silly!

Has it ever occured to you that the Federal Courts HAVE overstepped their bounds on numerous occassions or are you going to be in fantasyland and tell me no they haven't?

This is a new point here, but I've explained this to you before.

Try reading:
Roe v. Wade (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/410/113.html ), 410 US 113 (1973)
Planned Parenthood v. Casey (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/505/833.html ). 505 US 833 (1992).

You may be shocked to learn these tend to answer your question. :rolleyes:

How does getting an abortion fit into the constitution of the United States? No laws are being violated nor amendments were being violated. I'm still waiting for an answer! Thank you.

I suggest you read up on the Constitution of the United States some more.

Oh, the irony.

You should try following your own advice.

Amendment XV gave the African Americans the right to vote,

You will find nothing in the Constitution that expressly gives citizens either the right to vote or the right to cast a ballot in equal weight to those of other citizens. Those are both rights that the Supreme Court has found to be unenumerated, but protected by the Constitution -- like the rights to privacy and to abortion.

The Fifteenth Amendment provides that the right to vote may not be denied on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

The Fifteenth Amendment does not confer an affirmative right to vote. Instead, it prohibits discrimination in the exercise of enfranchisement on the grounds of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. See, e.g., United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 217 -18 (1876); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 566 (1876); Ex parte Yarbrough, 110 U.S. 651, 665 (1884); Guinn v. United States, 238 U.S. 347, 363 (1915).


Amendment XIV gave the right to vote to the women,

The Fourteenth Amendment says nothing directly about women's sufferage.

The Nineteenth Amendment, like the Fifthteenth Amendment, does not grant an affirmative right to vote, but rather bans the denial of the right to vote on account of sex. See, e.g., State v. Mittle, 120 S.C. 526 (1922), writ of error dismissed, 260 U.S. 705 (1922); Graves v. Eubank, 205 Ala. 174 (1921); In re Cavelier, 287 N.Y.S. 739 (1936); Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277, 283-84 (1937).

Amendment XXIV did away with the poll tax,

Yay! You got one right!

Amendment XXVI gave 18 year olds the right to vote.

Darn. There is no joy in Mudville.

The Twenty-Six Amendment, like the Fifteenth and Nineteenth, does not confer an affirmative right to vote. It prohibits denial of the right to vote to those who are 18 or older on account of age.

Now show me in the Constitution that mentions property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote prior to the amendments that I just mentioned. I just looked at it and guess what? I don't see a single mention of property owners were the only ones that had the right to vote.

<sigh>

It is not that the Constitution restricts voting to property owners.

It is that the Constitution did not grant an affirmative right to vote to anyone and left voting qualifications to the states -- which restricted then voting to white, male, property owners.

Although some states lifted the requirement of property ownership and some new states did not implement such a requirement, it persisted as a common requirement well into the the 19th Century.

Thanks, Cat.

(CT supporting "my side"... just another sign of the coming apocalypse...)

The day I agreed with Cat was the first sign of the Apocalypse.

Care to show me where I implied or said it since I'm not the one that brought up landowners to begin with. I know for a FACT that landowners ARE NOT mentioned in the Constitution because every white male had the right to vote. This then went on to include the black community followed by the women's right to vote all the way to 18yos voting.

I've answered this in the post above.

But, pray tell, where does the Constitution expressly grant every white male the right to vote?

You just made my point for me. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Only in an bizarro universe. I just proved your point wrong. A state is subject to an Amendment that has passed, but that does not mean the state ratified it.

Care to provide any support for your theory that passage = automatic ratification by all states?

Difference between apples and oranges actually. We were talking about Constitutional Amendments, not state referendums. There is a BIG DIFFERENCE between the two.

Really? I did not know there was any difference. :rolleyes:

The analogy is sound. You've pointed to no reason why it is not.

HAHA!! Now this has got to be the funniest thing someone has said to me in the last month. I know full well the process of ratification as well as the number needed for it to be approved. When it is approved, it becomes apart of the constitution regardless of how others vote. Therefore, what I've been saying is true, from a certain point of view.

"From a certain point of view"? That would be the wrong one.

Passage != ratification by all the states. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Actually it does since they have to abide by it regardless of how they voted. They may have voted against it when it is approved by the required number of states, they have to follow it so therefore, they did agree to it in the abstract by being part of the Union to begin with.

LOL.

Yes, as I have said repeatedly, a state must abide by an Amendment if it passes -- regardless of whether they ratified it.

You've now essentially conceded the point.

Why not do the intellectually honest thing and admit your error?

Has it ever occured to you that the Federal Courts HAVE overstepped their bounds on numerous occassions or are you going to be in fantasyland and tell me no they haven't?

"overstepped their bounds," how?

which federal courts?

Do I think that federal courts on all levels have occasionally made wrong decisions? Of course! I never said or implied otherwise.

How does getting an abortion fit into the constitution of the United States? No laws are being violated nor amendments were being violated. I'm still waiting for an answer! Thank you.

You were given an answer! Thank you.

But you didn't read the cases, did you?

The Due Process Clause of the Constitution was violated by bans on abortion.

I've previously had threads on this exact point. You've hijacked this thread enough.

If you want to argue that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are wrongly decided, then (a) read them and (b) start another thread.

Then you can be proven wrong in that thread as well.