NationStates Jolt Archive

Just a question, assuming John Roberts (Bush's nominee for the Sup. Ct.) disagrees with Roe v. Wade, does that mean he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? It seems to me that many on the far left at least have taken that position. If he said he disagreed with it because abortion was wrong and Jesus told him so, then I'd have a problem. ON the other hand, if he said he found the legal reasoning flawed in some fashion and felt it was wrongly decided, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Disagreement with past cases and on current cases happens all the time - 5-4 decisions are common, that means some on the court disagree with others on the court and/or the outcome or reasoning used to reach a decision.

So, I'm just curious, if John Roberts thinks that R v W is improperly decided and should even be overturned, does that me he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? Why or why not?

Has he found sound legal reasoning to overturn Roe v. Wade?

There is a difference between disagreeing with a decision and actively pursuing it overturnment with gusto. Roberts has proven himself to be those among the latter. If he does win nomination to the bench he should recuse himself of any case even remotely related to Roe, or any privacy issue honestly. He is a conservative activist judge, like Scalia or more like Thomas who turn a supposed wish to follow "strict" constitutional law into zealous activism

Has he found sound legal reasoning to overturn Roe v. Wade?

None that I'm aware of, I'm just asking the question if he felt he did, does it mean he can't serve.

Ihatevacations']There is a difference between disagreeing with a decision and actively pursuing it overturnment with gusto. Roberts has proven himself to be those among the latter. If he does win nomination to the bench he should recuse himself of any case even remotely related to Roe, or any privacy issue honestly. He is a conservative activist judge, like Scalia or more like Thomas who turn a supposed wish to follow "strict" constitutional law into zealous activism

On what do you base your assertion that he has actively sought to overturn the decision, I see no evidence of that. On behalf of a client he argued it was incorrectly decided, but we don't know anything about his own view yet. Also, if confirmed, why should he recuse anymore than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Justice Souter, they can be portrayed as liberal activists. Would you argue they should recuse? I doubt it.

Again, it doesn't answer my original question though.

If a justice was opposed to Brown v. Board, would you consider them as a viable SC justice?

None that I'm aware of, I'm just asking the question if he felt he did, does it mean he can't serve.

Well, most of the "far" left do not believe there is sound legal justification to overturn Roe v. Wade, so we approach anyone who says they want it overturned with a healthy amount of trepidation. And the real crux of the argument isn't his standing on the issue, it's the eagerness that he's expressed in getting it overturned no matter the cost.

On what do you base your assertion that he has actively sought to overturn the decision, I see no evidence of that. On behalf of a client he argued it was incorrectly decided, but we don't know anything about his own view yet. Also, if confirmed, why should he recuse anymore than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Justice Souter, they can be portrayed as liberal activists. Would you argue they should recuse? I doubt it.

Again, it doesn't answer my original question though.



Because Ihatevacations agrees with them, so they're above reproof ;)

Because Ihatevacations agrees with them, so they're above reproof ;)

The usual personal argument, then Neo? I expected as much from your quarter.

*Edit: :)

If a justice was opposed to Brown v. Board, would you consider them as a viable SC justice?

I might, it would depend on his reasons for opposing it. If it was because it diluted racial purity or some such other racial garbage, yeah, I would oppose it. On the other hand if he had a legal argument that was rational and logical which explained why in his view the case was improperly decided, that would be another matter.

I've answered your question, answer mine. :)

The usual personal argument, then Neo? I expected as much from your quarter.

*Edit: :)



I try to place myself above ad hominem attacks, but, after being subjected to them myself for quite some time, I had to let off some steam :)

If a justice was opposed to Brown v. Board, would you consider them as a viable SC justice?

If you've read that opinion (you may have) you may remember that the Brown court wrote that 9-0 opinion without any "concurring" opinions for the explicitly stated reason that the court and everyone knew for some time that the school segregation was unconstitutional, but they wanted to wait until they had so certain a concensus that the matter would be forever resolved. In other words, this law is truly settled. If the same could be said of Roe v. Wade, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

I see what you're getting at with your question, but I don't think that it applies here.

It wouldn't mean he's not fit for the bench.

It WOULD mean that a great many pressure and lobby groups would be up in arms to fight the nomination, though. As it is their right. And any senator that feel strongly in Roe V. Wade would be in his perfect legal right to filibustier the hell out of the nomination process.

As I remember, an interview with some conservative guy said the Christian Lobby groups were not sure about Roberts because he specifically did not argue against abortion, but said the Roe vs. Wade was wrongly decided, therefore giving the impression he could support abortions

Just a question, assuming John Roberts (Bush's nominee for the Sup. Ct.) disagrees with Roe v. Wade, does that mean he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? It seems to me that many on the far left at least have taken that position. If he said he disagreed with it because abortion was wrong and Jesus told him so, then I'd have a problem. ON the other hand, if he said he found the legal reasoning flawed in some fashion and felt it was wrongly decided, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Disagreement with past cases and on current cases happens all the time - 5-4 decisions are common, that means some on the court disagree with others on the court and/or the outcome or reasoning used to reach a decision.

So, I'm just curious, if John Roberts thinks that R v W is improperly decided and should even be overturned, does that me he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? Why or why not?
It would mean that to me, for two reasons. First, it would mean that he doesn't believe in the right to privacy that was enumerated in the earlier decision of Griswold v Connecticut, a decision about whether the state had the right to regulate the sale of birth control to married couples. You have to remember that Roe is seated in that decision, that it's about privacy more than abortion.

Secondly, it would cause me to wonder just how much he respects stare decisis, namely, precedent set by earlier courts. Of course, he has the right to question earlier decisions as to whether they were decided accurately. If the court didn't do that, and didn't occasionally overturn itself, we'd be living in a far different country today. But overturning a prior decision ought to be unusual, especially on a decision that's as recent as Roe, and a lot of deference ought to be given to cases that have come before.

Just a question, assuming John Roberts (Bush's nominee for the Sup. Ct.) disagrees with Roe v. Wade, does that mean he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? It seems to me that many on the far left at least have taken that position. If he said he disagreed with it because abortion was wrong and Jesus told him so, then I'd have a problem. ON the other hand, if he said he found the legal reasoning flawed in some fashion and felt it was wrongly decided, I wouldn't have a problem with this. Disagreement with past cases and on current cases happens all the time - 5-4 decisions are common, that means some on the court disagree with others on the court and/or the outcome or reasoning used to reach a decision.

So, I'm just curious, if John Roberts thinks that R v W is improperly decided and should even be overturned, does that me he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? Why or why not?
In a word: Yes. Somebody who opposes Roe v. Wade, or who would seek to undermine it by adding run-around restrictions like waiting periods, is a totally inappropriate choice for ANY public office. Just like somebody who opposes Brown v. Board of Education is totally inappropriate. Somebody who opposes one of the most important civil and human rights advances in the history of this country should be kept far far away from any position of power.

Considering that the Supreme Court has been making very politically charged decisions pretty much as long as its been around, it's naive to think that there aren't political tests for the office. I can't imagine the Republicans (or really the Democrats) standing for a justice who thinks that the death penalty is inherently unconstitutional or that gays have a consitutional right to marriage.

On what do you base your assertion that he has actively sought to overturn the decision, I see no evidence of that. On behalf of a client he argued it was incorrectly decided, but we don't know anything about his own view yet. Also, if confirmed, why should he recuse anymore than Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Justice Souter, they can be portrayed as liberal activists. Would you argue they should recuse? I doubt it.

Again, it doesn't answer my original question though.
his multiple and repeated opinions edited onto various barely relative briefs demanding roe be overturned

Ihatevacations']his multiple and repeated opinions edited onto various barely relative briefs demanding roe be overturned

So, it is a position he has advocated on behalf of a client at a client's direction, hardly proof of his own personal opinion. Briefs are written to argue a position and are done at the behest of clients. I've written plenty of briefs and argued on behalf of clients for things I did not personally believe in, however, as an attorney that is my job.

So, it is a position he has advocated on behalf of a client at a client's direction, hardly proof of his own personal opinion. Briefs are written to argue a position and are done at the behest of clients. I've written plenty of briefs and argued on behalf of clients for things I did not personally believe in, however, as an attorney that is my job.
Except at his level he has control not only of the policy, but also the tone used. He could have argued much of those cases without going all the way for a full repeal of Roe.

So, it is a position he has advocated on behalf of a client at a client's direction, hardly proof of his own personal opinion. Briefs are written to argue a position and are done at the behest of clients. I've written plenty of briefs and argued on behalf of clients for things I did not personally believe in, however, as an attorney that is my job.
the position that roe v wade should be overturned was irrelevant to the case at hand: Rust v Sullivan, which was won again by the ever pervasive rightwing to prevent any knowledge of abortion being legal. Also his personal work has been with that of the anti-abortion crowd. His wwife is a staunch anti-abortionist, though that in and of itself means nothing, he himself has been involved with personally staunch anti-abortion groups.

And being anti-abortion is only one reason he is a closet extremist.

If you've read that opinion (you may have) you may remember that the Brown court wrote that 9-0 opinion without any "concurring" opinions for the explicitly stated reason that the court and everyone knew for some time that the school segregation was unconstitutional, but they wanted to wait until they had so certain a concensus that the matter would be forever resolved. In other words, this law is truly settled. If the same could be said of Roe v. Wade, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

I see what you're getting at with your question, but I don't think that it applies here.

It does from the point-of-view of a staunch Roe v. Wade supporter. The numbers on the vote mean little to such a person except that the government could usurp the civil rights of the people with only a slight change. One way or another, many people see Roe v. Wade as a civil rights action just as important as Brown v. Board.

I was simply trying to get people to think about it from another angle. It is all well and good for someone opposed to Roe to ask why it is a big decider in choosing judges - as they don't understand the POV of the other side.

It does from the point-of-view of a staunch Roe v. Wade supporter. The numbers on the vote mean little to such a person except that the government could usurp the civil rights of the people with only a slight change. One way or another, many people see Roe v. Wade as a civil rights action just as important as Brown v. Board.

I was simply trying to get people to think about it from another angle. It is all well and good for someone opposed to Roe to ask why it is a big decider in choosing judges - as they don't understand the POV of the other side.

If I've given the impression I'm am opposed to Roe, then let me correct that impression now. I tend to agree with the result that Roe reached, that you cannot criminalize all abortions as the law in question in Roe did. However, I do have some issues with the reasoning used to reach that result.

I asked my question because I see some on the far left attempting to make agreement with Roe a sort of "litmus test" for judges. I was and am still interested in hearing if it should be that way and if so why. I am attempting to gain an understanding of that POV. Just because I believe in the result of Roe and favor that result standing does not mean that I automatically oppose someone as a justice who disagrees with that point of view. However, some who agree with Roe automatically oppose someone who disagrees with Roe, I'm trying to understand that POV.

People who support roe automatically opposed those who are against it because its black or white, you either support the decision reached or you don't and don't think ti should have been made. Though the overturnment of Roe is just a support for any government actions in overturning any other privacy issues. Roe was just as much about privacy as abortion and the anti-abortionsits don't seem to get that, there was no constituional right of abortion found; however, it further confirmed the right of the individual to tell the government to keep its opinionated nose of of their private business. If Roe is overturned, what next? Lawrence v Texas? Maybe we can toss out Griswold v Connecticut because it was made on this false premise of right to privacy

Considering that the Supreme Court has been making very politically charged decisions pretty much as long as its been around, it's naive to think that there aren't political tests for the office. I can't imagine the Republicans (or really the Democrats) standing for a justice who thinks that the death penalty is inherently unconstitutional or that gays have a consitutional right to marriage.


That's odd, what do you mean 'not stand for?' Of course they 'stand' for it, there are already judges that think the death penalty is inherently unconstitutional and that gays have a constitutional right to marriage (Ginsburg comes to mind as a possible candidate for just such a justice).

Of course, there are other judges that think otherwise as well, that the death penalty is perfectly constitutional and that same-sex marriages are not a right at all and certainly not a protected civil right (Thomas, Scalia).

We 'stand' for them all or we face anarchy and revolution.

same-sex marriages are not a right at all and certainly not a protected civil right (Thomas, Scalia).

They aren't. The legal version of marriage is not protected anywhere in the constitution. End of discussion. Now, they couldn't ban same-sex church marriages from the churches that allow it because that would be a violation of the 1st amendment.

Well, in one sense Roe v Wade is a good litmus test for me, because, while I'm male and the decision itself is of dubious direct importance to me, I am in fact a freedom pig. That it's about abortion is of nominal importance. The concept that catches my attention is what manner of health care can the state mandate for individuals (of which I am one.) And abortion, it is a medical decision. It's about my right to be secure in my body, and use what I concider thoughtful advice from medical experts to take care of it.

If I don't have that right, because it's not expressly written down (despite the fact that it's exactly the kind of obvious fact the framers didn't feel the need to write down, thank you sophist Scalia) then do I have the right to refuse expensive, painful, probably fruitless medical treatment to preserve my estate for heirs or trusts and die with quiet dignity? It speaks to every persons right to self-determination. For what, something that's not even close to being a person, and might well die inspite of the best medical science of the day anyway? My real freedom, for the emotional convience of someone else's imagined ideal.

But.... I might be willing to trade that for what I might consider more or better freedom. Like a restoration of the public domain, and the sweeping away of ludicriously long copyright terms. George Lucas no longer has any natural right to be making Star Wars movies or preventing people from enjoying the originals (where Greedo didn't shoot first among other things). The legal standing of mashups like The Grey Album etc.

So, I'm just curious, if John Roberts thinks that R v W is improperly decided and should even be overturned, does that me he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? Why or why not?
It doesn't mean anything. And if R v W gets overturned, the abortion debate goes back to the state level (and frankly, I think it is much better that way).

It doesn't mean anything. And if R v W gets overturned, the abortion debate goes back to the state level (and frankly, I think it is much better that way).
It won't stop there. Either the smartass court will make it illegal (which could happen in an overturn, if they rule that the right of a fetus to come to term outweighs the right to privacy) or the federal government attempts to play games like they do with gay marriage (they already do with, see partial birth abortion banning).

It doesn't mean anything. And if R v W gets overturned, the abortion debate goes back to the state level (and frankly, I think it is much better that way).

I personally don't feel that human rights questions are best answered at the state level. Civil rights should be universally applied, and to force anyone to move to a new state to reach a higher level of civil rights is ludicrous. If states had their choice on civil rights, segregation would most likely still be a policy in some of the Deep South states.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since that is going off topic, I will say that I still haven't seen a post that convinces me that someone's opinion on Roe v. Wade is enough to exclude them from the SCOTUS, and I am a supporter of the full legalization of abortion.

... if John Roberts thinks that R v W is improperly decided and should even be overturned, does that me he is unfit to serve on the Sup. Ct.? Why or why not?
Not at all, but try telling that to the left. After all, they're sooo much wiser and more intelligent that the rest of us, why oh why don't we just admit that they can run our Country and our lives far, far much better than we, and get it over with? Groan. :rolleyes:

Not at all, but try telling that to the left. After all, they're sooo much wiser and more intelligent that the rest of us, why oh why don't we just admit that they can run our Country and our lives far, far much better than we, and get it over with? Groan. :rolleyes:
And why does the right believe that they can LITERALLY run our lives better than ourselves? I don't recall being pro-choice and supporting Roe v Wade to be intruding on how anyone runs their lives, as opposed to pro-life...

Ihatevacations']There is a difference between disagreeing with a decision and actively pursuing it overturnment with gusto. Roberts has proven himself to be those among the latter. If he does win nomination to the bench he should recuse himself of any case even remotely related to Roe, or any privacy issue honestly. He is a conservative activist judge, like Scalia or more like Thomas who turn a supposed wish to follow "strict" constitutional law into zealous activism

Actually, Roberts hasn't articulated a position on overturning Roe v. Wade and during the hearings for his appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals of Washington D.C. actually stated that he would respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade, it has yet to be shown whether he was merely being obedient to the Supreme Court, as he was required to be, or whether that is his personal opinion.

And he is a constructionist, he relies heavily on precedent, as far as you can get from being an activist. As for Scalia and Thomas, they are both originalists, meaning they take the Constitution as literally and close to its original meaning as possible (as opposed to a living, loosely-interpreted Constitution) which I wouldn't exactly call activism either.

Do research before you spout your venomous rhetoric.

Actually, Roberts hasn't articulated a position on overturning Roe v. Wade and during the hearings for his appointment to the Circuit Court of Appeals of Washington D.C. actually stated that he would respect the precedent of Roe v. Wade, it has yet to be shown whether he was merely being obedient to the Supreme Court, as he was required to be, or whether that is his personal opinion.

HOW MANY DAMN TIMES MUST PEOPLE WITH COMMON FUCKING SENSE REITERATE THIS ONE FUCKING FACT? AN APPELLATE COURT'S FUCKING JOB IS TO ENFORCE PRECEDENT, I DAMN WELL HOPE HE FUCKING RESPECTED THE PRECEDENT IN A CASE MADE BY A HIGHER DAMN COURT


As I said, an appellate court is not a place where you can sit around ignoring precdent of a higher court for your own agenda; however, once you are on said higher court you can overturn the decision you don't like because you are no longer REQUIRED to follow precedent

As for Scalia and Thomas, they are both originalists, meaning they take the Constitution as literally and close to its original meaning as possible (as opposed to a living, loosely-interpreted Constitution) which I wouldn't exactly call activism either.

To the point scalia and thomas take it - it's activism

Ihatevacations']


To the point scalia and thomas take it - it's activism
They drop lip service to 'originalism', but they interpret as much as any other justice (the leaps of logic scalia has taken...). Originalism is a flawed legal philosophy because no one knows the intent of the founders applied to this era (eg, I doubt they would have ever thought of the internet, does that mean congress has no power over the internet?), and any person attempting to enforce it must interpret the founders intent (just like everyone else). They just claim not to be 'activist'.

There's a difference between precedent and direspecting a higher court's order.

Precedent would be a similar case or pertinent case in the past which could or should influence the decision in a case. It's a given that any judge has to follow the orders of a superior court, but what I was trying to say is that he doesn't make decisions based solely on his own opinion whenever possible, rather he structures his decisions on previous ones, which he does not necessarily have to follow. This makes him the opposite of an activist.

Activism constitutes a judge arbitrarily making a decision based on no evidence or facts. Scalia and Thomas can't be called activists, extreme perhaps, but they have a basis in the law as opposed to activism.

As for Roe v. Wade, even many proponents of abortion realize it is based on a poor interpretation of the law, like the court went through the motions to base it on law even though they knew it was their own opinion. Real activism.

They drop lip service to 'originalism', but they interpret as much as any other justice (the leaps of logic scalia has taken...). Originalism is a flawed legal philosophy because no one knows the intent of the founders applied to this era (eg, I doubt they would have ever thought of the internet, does that mean congress has no power over the internet?), and any person attempting to enforce it must interpret the founders intent (just like everyone else). They just claim not to be 'activist'.

It's not the court's place to hand down orders from on high to expand the Constitution. That's for the legislature and the states to legislate and ratify a new amendment, or for 50 Constitutional conventions. Having the court do it is a quickfix and the wrong way. Expanding the Constitution must be left to the people and their representatives.

Originalism might not be a perfect way, but it's the only right way.

As far as I can tell, a judge is only “unfit to serve” if he doesn’t get confirmed by the Senate.

As far as I can tell, a judge is only “unfit to serve” if he doesn’t get confirmed by the Senate.

Whether they're fit to serve and whether they're allowed to serve are two seperate issues. ;)

(See Taney, Black, and Eminent Domain 5.)

It's not the court's place to hand down orders from on high to expand the Constitution. That's for the legislature and the states to legislate and ratify a new amendment, or for 50 Constitutional conventions. Having the court do it is a quickfix and the wrong way. Expanding the Constitution must be left to the people and their representatives.

Originalism might not be a perfect way, but it's the only right way.
would you please liek to inform me of the age of antonin scalia and clarence thomas? if either of them is below 230, there is no "originalist" interpretation because they are not old enough to know the original interpretation. The first "activist" decision did not occur a few eyars ago, it was made by the first chief justice of the supreme court who ruled that the courts have the ability of judicial review

Anything that's not rooted in law is activism and wrong, no matter how old it is.

Just because Marshall is an ancient bastard doesn't make him right.

The reason there are multiple judges on the court is because there will always be disagreements on interpretation, what makes them originalists is they truly seek to find the original meaning of the founders, and if they cannot find any interpretation they leave the matter to the other branches of government, as opposed to deciding to try to mold the Constitution to the situation or add additional meaning to the words. They don't try to fit a square block in a round hole.

Anything that's not rooted in law is activism and wrong, no matter how old it is.

Just because Marshall is an ancient bastard doesn't make him right.
well i dont recall them maknig an amendment against judicial review

Ihatevacations']The first "activist" decision did not occur a few eyars ago, it was made by the first chief justice of the supreme court who ruled that the courts have the ability of judicial review
Good ol’ John Jay. You know, the Liberty Bell broke at his funeral.
Edit: Mixed up Jay and Marshal. :p

Ihatevacations']well i dont recall them maknig an amendment against judicial review
It doesn't work that way. The Constitution reserves anything left out to the Congress and the states. The Constitution is limited to what it says is law, not to what it says isn't law.

The federal government only has what powers are given to it. Not just any powers not denied to it.

Good ol’ John Jay. You know, the Liberty Bell broke at his funeral.
Edit: Mixed up Jay and Marshal. :p
good point, bad mistake aha, good . well john marshall made it up back in teh day

The Constitution reserves anything left out to the Congress and the states. The Constitution is limited to what it says is law, it isn't limited to what it says isn't law.
To the states and the people respectively. But should we allow stand a state or local law that conflicts with the constitution

Ihatevacations']good point, bad mistake aha, good . well john marshall made it up back in teh day


To the states and the people respectively. But should we allow stand a state or local law that conflicts with the constitution

Of course not, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and has precedence over all others, but that is hardly the issue here.

Does anyone know where this comes from?

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Betcha no one can guess.

That's odd, what do you mean 'not stand for?' Of course they 'stand' for it, there are already judges that think the death penalty is inherently unconstitutional and that gays have a constitutional right to marriage (Ginsburg comes to mind as a possible candidate for just such a justice).

Of course, there are other judges that think otherwise as well, that the death penalty is perfectly constitutional and that same-sex marriages are not a right at all and certainly not a protected civil right (Thomas, Scalia).

We 'stand' for them all or we face anarchy and revolution.

Well I certainly don't mean that we anyone is planning on overthrowing the government over it. The point is, the right didn't want those justices to be on the court, and would definitely fight hard if there were a chance they would be a swing vote on any of those issues. My point is, the office of Supreme Court is political, whether we like it or not. Their decisions tend to be intensely political, so their confirmations are bound to involve politics.

Of course not, because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and has precedence over all others, but that is hardly the issue here.
of course it is. without "activism" you would have no rights to contraceptives, or the right to have any sort of sex except by missionary position with the lights out. The former is Griswold v Connecticut, and they were getting damn close to the latter. Why not? There is no spelled out right to privacy in the constitution

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.
Texas also has the reserved right to secede from the union, which I'm not sure many would disagree with..

Ihatevacations']There is no spelled out right to privacy in the constitution
People seem to forget that a lot, don't they?

Ihatevacations']of course it is. without "activism" you would have no rights to contraceptives, or the right to have any sort of sex except by missionary position with the lights out. The former is Griswold v Connecticut, and they were getting damn close to the latter. Why not? There is no spelled out right to privacy in the constitution


Texas also has the reserved right to secede from the union, which I'm not sure many would disagree with..
I bet the Federal Government would disagree. They weren't that easygoing about it last time.

Oh come on! No one's going to even try? You all suck <_<

B. The pregnant woman cannot be isolated in her privacy. She carries an embryo and, later, a fetus, if one accepts the medical definitions of the developing young in the human uterus. See Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 478-479, 547 (24th ed. 1965). The situation therefore is inherently different from marital intimacy, or bedroom possession of obscene material, or marriage, or procreation, or education, with which Eisenstadt and Griswold, Stanley, Loving, Skinner, and Pierce and Meyer were respectively concerned. As we have intimated above, it is reasonable and appropriate for a State to decide that at some point in time another interest, that of health of the mother or that of potential human life, becomes significantly involved. The woman's privacy is no longer sole and any right of privacy she possesses must be measured accordingly.


Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

Can't anyone guess where that's from?

I bet the Federal Government would disagree. They weren't that easygoing about it last time.
if I recall, when texas joined it reserved the right to secede

It's not the court's place to hand down orders from on high to expand the Constitution. That's for the legislature and the states to legislate and ratify a new amendment, or for 50 Constitutional conventions. Having the court do it is a quickfix and the wrong way. Expanding the Constitution must be left to the people and their representatives.

Originalism might not be a perfect way, but it's the only right way.
You really didn't read my post.


Originalism will work when we can call up the spirits of the founding fathers and ask them. Until then originalism is as much conjecture as any other legal theory.


Besides, most legal theories focus around interpreting the document in it's original intent anyway, as applied to modern situations.

Ihatevacations']if I recall, when texas joined it reserved the right to secede
No it didn't.

Ihatevacations']if I recall, when texas joined it reserved the right to secede
If I recall, the last time they seceded they were returned to the union at the point of a gun. Texas can reserve whatever rights it wants, but enforcing those rights is another matter entirely.

No it didn't.
i was probably wrong

I doubt that anyone will overturn RvW overnight. It will probably be overwritten incrimentally.
The moral and legal question to be determined, is when is a fetus considered human with all of the attendant rights?
From the legal perspective, in the past that was set at birth.
At this time, a fetus becomes a person legally, when it is viable, or able to survive outside the mother. With incubaters and intensive care this is constantly being moved. I don't know where that is currently, but I suspect somewhere midway between conception and birth.
From the religious perspective As soon as the egg is fertalized it becomes a human.
What makes these handful of cells more valuable than the millions of cells sloughed off each day is that the newly fertalized egg is supposedly endowded with a soul. A soul is what makes us more special than say a gorilla or chimp that can achieve inteligence equivilant to a human child of 3 or 4.
This is part of the reason that birth control is condemned by the religious. Many birth control pills prevent the fertalized egg from finding a cozy home in the uterous. They think this is just as bad as getting an abortion.
Of course they also condemn condoms, diaphrams, and spermacides, and anything else that prevents conception. The reason for that is they think the only good reason to have sex is to have babies. Anything else is sinful. (They just don't want you to have any fun).
Religious people that are halfway rational, make a distinction between birth control devices that prevent the egg from becoming fertalized, and birth control devices that tricks the uterous into sloughing off it's lining after a fertalized egg is embedded.
The plan B pill and the morning after pill, should be placed in the first group, because it gets rid of the egg before it is fertalized, and therefore should not be objectionable to the rational religious. Use of condems could save millions of lives, but unfortunatly the irrational religious (running the country) are condeming these people to die of AIDS and other diseases because they won't even allow education about the subject.

It doesn't mean anything. And if R v W gets overturned, the abortion debate goes back to the state level (and frankly, I think it is much better that way).
Problem is, it won't go back to the states--the Congress will manufacture some federalist argument to enact a nationwide ban on abortion, and this time, it's doubtful that there will be a health or incest/rape exception. And all this despite the fact that over 60% of Americans, according to a poll released just about a week ago, don't want Roe v Wade overturned, and that a similar percentage think that Roberts ought to tell the Senate his position.

This is about the individual rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution--not states' rights (which, by the way, is a misnomer--states have powers, individuals have rights).

It's not the court's place to hand down orders from on high to expand the Constitution. That's for the legislature and the states to legislate and ratify a new amendment, or for 50 Constitutional conventions. Having the court do it is a quickfix and the wrong way. Expanding the Constitution must be left to the people and their representatives.

Originalism might not be a perfect way, but it's the only right way.
Well, if by interpreting the Constitution and determining the legality of congressional legislation or acting as a check on the other two branches of government, you mean "hand down orders on high to expand the Constitution," then you're wrong--that's precisely what the Supreme Court's place is. Suggesting that the only place where the current understanding of what the Constitution is can be changed is in the legislature is to effectively nullify the place of the court altogether.