• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could this be true about the Roe decision?

You seem very attached to state legislatures . Would it change your view if you live in a state where state appellate judges( including state supreme courts , are often elected officials nowaday (or originally appointed by Governor and then run for re-election), interpreting statutes, and constitutional language to reach decision,, who theoretically, at least have one eye towards legal precedent including federal legal precedent, and another towards re-election?
This doesn't have to be done by the state. It can be done at the Federal level as well. However, state politicians appear to be more willing to do the hard work of legislating.

In Texas, the Supreme Court is elected and although that is the case, I would still want the congress (either Federal or State) to actually make law on this and have it affirmed. In my opinion, this is not a decision for the judiciary or the executive. This is a decision of the people through their elected legislative representatives.
 
This doesn't have to be done by the state. It can be done at the Federal level as well. However, state politicians appear to be more willing to do the hard work of legislating.

In Texas, the Supreme Court is elected and although that is the case, I would still want the congress (either Federal or State) to actually make law on this and have it affirmed. In my opinion, this is not a decision for the judiciary or the executive. This is a decision of the people through their elected legislative representatives.

This doesn't have to be done by the state. It can be done at the Federal level as well. However, state politicians appear to be more willing to do the hard work of legislating.

In Texas, the Supreme Court is elected and although that is the case, I would still want the congress (either Federal or State) to actually make law on this and have it affirmed. In my opinion, this is not a decision for the judiciary or the executive. This is a decision of the people through their elected legislative representatives.
One of your problems is that any state with an initiative and referendum, like mine, has often voters themselves actually shoving 'law' into state constitutions via the ballot. Voters tend to want what they believe ought to be law, enshrined there as well as the statutes. What's a state appelate court to do once its in there, competing possibly contradicting with the broader provisions?

i guess my question is what to you think of initiative, recall and referandum systems by which voters can ditch that whole 'representation' loop? and do it themselves.
 
Seriously? You are invested in a discussion about Roe v. Wade and you don't even know what it's about?

This is what's wrong with you people. You're bringing a knife to a gunfight.

For the third time, explain to me how Roe is not about abortion.
 
Roe held that Texas law violated a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Casey affirmed Roe.

It could have been any law that violated privacy. That's what the Court based Roe on, a right, not the practice of abortion.

Yet everyone is up in arms about the Roe's overruling and its affects on abortion in particular, when abortion isn't even what it's about according to you? Could you explain that?
 
Which is done by democratic deliberation, and submitted to states for ratification, which is also decided democratically.
That is not really correct. The people do not "democratically" ratify amendments.

More importantly, the founders made very clear thru the 9th amendment that the other amendments were not intended to suggest rights were being "granted" to the people, or that only those rights enumerated in the constitution existed. They said the exact opposite.

Many of the amendments to the constitution are the prohibition on the states to infringe on various rights of citizens, not a grant of rights to the citizens.
There is a difference.
 
That is not really correct. The people do not "democratically" ratify amendments.


"The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention, depending on what Congress has specified."

The states do. And that is done by democratic deliberation.

More importantly, the founders made very clear thru the 9th amendment that the other amendments were not intended to suggest rights were being "granted" to the people, or that only those rights enumerated in the constitution existed. They said the exact opposite.

Many of the amendments to the constitution are the prohibition on the states to infringe on various rights of citizens, not a grant of rights to the citizens.
There is a difference.

Okay.
 
Yet everyone is up in arms about the Roe's overruling and its affects on abortion in particular, when abortion isn't even what it's about according to you? Could you explain that?
That's clear as mud. What are you asking me to explain? I've already explained myself, several times. If you don't get it yet, any further comment by me would be wasted.
 
That's clear as mud. What are you asking me to explain? I've already explained myself, several times. If you don't get it yet, any further comment by me would be wasted.

Explain how Roe isn't about abortion, yet the prospect of its overruling has everyone talking about abortion.

I don't know how to put it any clearer.
 
Explain how Roe isn't about abortion, yet the prospect of its overruling has everyone talking about abortion.
The question is nonsensical. You misunderstand the duties of our three branches of government. I tried explaining it, but here we are.
 
Yet everyone is up in arms about abortion. Why?

Listen - I'm not going here with you. This is not 8th grade government class. When you put me on the payroll of being a private tutor to you, I'll gladly cover all the gaps and holes you seemingly have found in what you can call an education.

Unless you're just trying to be coy, and play "gotcha" with your questions, and you won't do that to me, either.

Tata. Best of luck in your continuing education.
 
The question is nonsensical. You misunderstand the duties of our three branches of government. I tried explaining it, but here we are.

Listen - I'm not going here with you. This is not 8th grade government class. When you put me on the payroll of being a private tutor to you, I'll gladly cover all the gaps and holes you seemingly have found in what you can call an education.

Unless you're just trying to be coy, and play "gotcha" with your questions, and you won't do that to me, either.

Tata. Best of luck in your continuing education.

For God's sake, such evasiveness must be exhausting for both of you. Roe's practical effect is obviously about abortion. Everyone on the forum is talking about abortion because Roe is imperiled. The subject of abortion is paramount at every supreme court nomination because of the effect overturning Roe would have on it. Roe has been in the crosshairs of the right for the last 50 years because we can't restrict abortion while it survives.

To claim that Roe isn't about abortion is childish.
 
They are trying to do so in Missouri by making i illegal to assist in any way the abortion as it would not be constitutional to make it illegal to get an abortion out of state.
I do believe that would be found unconstitutional. States rights have no bearing on what the next State over does and you have freedom of movement between the two as a citizen.
 
For God's sake, such evasiveness must be exhausting for both of you. Roe's practical effect is obviously about abortion. Everyone on the forum is talking about abortion because Roe is imperiled. The subject of abortion is paramount at every supreme court nomination because of the effect overturning Roe would have on it. Roe has been in the crosshairs of the right for the last 50 years because we can't restrict abortion while it survives.

To claim that Roe isn't about abortion is childish.

While abortion is affected by the ruling, at it's core, it's about a right to privacy.

Justice Blackmun in his majority opinion stated:
This right of privacy...is broad enough to encompass a woman’s decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent.

It encompasses abortion - but the decision is not about abortion, but all rights to privacy. If you still struggle with that, let one of us know. I have some ConLaw books from undergrad somewhere in my closet, and there are a few attorneys on here that might be able to shed some light on what you seem to be having such a hard time with.
 
While abortion is affected by the ruling, at it's core, it's about a right to privacy.

Justice Blackmun in his majority opinion stated:


It encompasses abortion - but the decision is not about abortion, but all rights to privacy. If you still struggle with that, let one of us know. I have some ConLaw books from undergrad somewhere in my closet, and there are a few attorneys on here that might be able to shed some light on what you seem to be having such a hard time with.
No right is absolutely guaranteed, as we have found out with any/all of the enumerated rights.
Speech isn't, Gun Possession isn't, and neither is privacy all encompassing.
 
I heard a talking head on one of the talking head shows state that this was the first time in the modern era that the Supreme Court had taken away a right from a group, rather then held to a right or increased the scope of a right. I do not know enough bout the history of the court to know if the talking head knew what he was saying or just blabbing. Anyone out there able to let me know

Which network did you hear this on?

The SCOTUS is way too old to have not taken a right away before. However, I am not sure if you can count the Monkey Trial and Dred Scott cases as taking rights away.
 
Ah, but they did have them. This is the first time in history the Supreme Court will revoke a right that it affirmed, and re-affirmed.
One that was non-existent from it's inception. Oh, an the right is NOT being repealed - it will still exist in any state that chooses to have it so.
 
No right is absolutely guaranteed, as we have found out with any/all of the enumerated rights.
Speech isn't, Gun Possession isn't, and neither is privacy all encompassing.

Learn the difference between "guaranteed" and "protected."
 
What are conservatives values? All you ever see from them is me me me. What else do they stand for? What has republicans done? You get the BS slogans "small government' , "freedoms", and other BS slogans but what they really mean is government the way I and only I want it, freedoms for only me. ANd any fiscal conservatism went out the window a long time ago. Conservatives don't give a shit about spending, just when dems do it.

And what is a single conservative thing republicans have done? They cut taxes, start wars and run up bigger deficits, and pass bigoted and anti abortion laws. Nothing else

Conservatives appear to mean I want government to spend on only things I want, I want rights but only for me or rights I like, everything is the fault of liberals, immigrants, people of color. What is a single thing republicans have done or proposed? It's nothing but tax cuts for rich, reduced regulations to make the rich weatlhier, and dumb hateful laws to pander to their taliban base
I dont want to derail this thread, but not sure if this is intended inflammatory response but I will try a little.

Conservative in the initial name is that, Liberal is much the same. My view and your view of a conservative as we can see is VERY jaded. You have taken all the negatives of the extreme and applied it as a blanket to conservatives.

Its easy to play that game as I can do the same and call "Liberals" all kinds of nasty stuff much like you have. But this is where its unfortunately become. Extremes. I will say it out loud, why do I have to be ONLY a Conservative or a liberal. Why cant I take the best of the Liberals and the best of the conservative. And come to agreement to try and make the best conditions for as many people as possible?

In generic terms, from my personal stance to be conservative. Spend less then I make, meaning my expenses do NOT exceed income. Pretty simple conservative action.

I respect the law for what it is. If I don't want an interaction with LEO's I just dont break laws.

Roe V. Wade. as the topic. Its simple conservative action, I am not going out of my way to have unprotected sex to inadvertently have an unwanted pregnancy. To which I am not forced with a choice to keep a child with a women I am not sure about. NOR the women is sure to keep with me. Having some responsibility FOR that action is based on MY action alone. Period I have the choice,

1) To have sex with X women
2) I have the choice to have protected sex or confirm if she has protection as well
3) I would responsibly want to have sex with a women that I consider potential to be both the mother of my child as well as the women I want to marry.

having a government provide "easy access" to make up for poor choice. Thus the Government revenue is based on Taxation of its people. Where much of those taxes are spent to help those that made poor decisions.

You know the saying, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life"

Have unprotected sex today, you indulge in your instant pleasure, but potentially suffer/struggle (Physically & mentally) a life time

Have protected responsible sex and likely have a joyous and fulfilled life.


of course this is just my personal view.
 
One that was non-existent from it's inception. Oh, an the right is NOT being repealed - it will still exist in any state that chooses to have it so.

So I asked this earlier of another poster and was ignored. Maybe you'll have the balls to answer. What do you propose that the women do who live in red states, that choose to prosecute them if they travel to another state for an abortion?
 
So I asked this earlier of another poster and was ignored. Maybe you'll have the balls to answer. What do you propose that the women do who live in red states, that choose to prosecute them if they travel to another state for an abortion?
Has it happened or been threatened? When it does get back to me and I'll give you an answer.
 
Has it happened or been threatened? When it does get back to me and I'll give you an answer.

There are already states talking about this. I'm not asking you about "when it happens." I'm asking you right ****ing now.

Have the balls to answer.

What do you suggest the women do who live in red states, that plan to prosecute women who go across state lines to have an abortion?

Have the balls to answer.
 
There are already states talking about this. I'm not asking you about "when it happens." I'm asking you right ****ing now.

Have the balls to answer.

What do you suggest the women do who live in red states, that plan to prosecute women who go across state lines to have an abortion?

Have the balls to answer.
Have the balls to give specifics from reliable sources and I'll give you an answer. Give me specifics, I'm not a Democrat; I don't set my hair on fire and run around screaming until I know the facts.
 
Back
Top Bottom