Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please read the Announcement
concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
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!
With all due respect, mentioning other cases is not helping your argument. Abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the US Constitution and Roe VS Wade is a simple case of judicial activism.
That's exactly what the SC is supposed to do. Look at past cases to see how they relate to current questions, make judgements based on relevant decisions. Respect the past and tie it to the future. It's called continuity.
You keep tossing around the words activism and fragile ground. They are meaningless unless you can cite what you mean by activism and describe this "fragile ground"?
That's exactly what the SC is supposed to do. Look at past cases to see how they relate to current questions, make judgements based on relevant decisions. Respect the past and tie it to the future. It's called continuity.
You keep tossing around the words activism and fragile ground. They are meaningless unless you can cite what you mean by activism and describe this "fragile ground"?
You lost the argument a long time ago. If Roe VS Wade were not on shaky ground we would not be having this conversation as Roe VS Wade would not be under any threat. The right to bear firearms for instance has had relevant SCOTUS decisions supporting it, however the such decisions are backed up by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Roe VS Wade has no such protection. It's merely a SCOTUS decision subject to getting overturned by future SCOTUS decisions, which is why the left is wetting it's pants now over the leak of the Alito draft. Understand?
You lost the argument a long time ago. If Roe VS Wade were not on shaky ground we would not be having this conversation as Roe VS Wade would not be under any threat. The right to bear firearms for instance has had relevant SCOTUS decisions supporting it, however the such decisions are backed up by the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution. Roe VS Wade has no such protection. It's merely a SCOTUS decision subject to getting overturned by future SCOTUS decisions, which is why the left is wetting it's pants now over the leak of the Alito draft. Understand?
Throwing it to the states to decide is not at all moral and of course it also interferes with our first amendment rights . We should be keeping the church and state separate.
I think we both know that abortion will never be completely banned. A rare state or two might try, however they have their own state constitutions and voters to contend with. The most that will ever take hold will be some common sense restrictions on how late in a pregnancy abortion will be allowed. For instance the repugnant late term abortions may be banned in many states with the exception of mortal danger to the life of the mother. So you can stop pretending that abortion will be outlawed if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
The abortion issue is a religious freedom issue. A specific religious group is attempting use political clout to establish their religious belief about a fertilized egg, an embryo and a fetus to deny women the right to make a private reproductive decision that effects her personal life. That's establishing a religious tenet as law.
I think we both know that abortion will never be completely banned. A rare state or two might try, however they have their own state constitutions and voters to contend with. The most that will ever take hold will be some common sense restrictions on how late in a pregnancy abortion will be allowed. For instance the repugnant late term abortions may be banned in many states with the exception of mortal danger to the life of the mother. So you can stop pretending that abortion will be outlawed if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
I think you are being optimistic about how angry white Christian males are about women's ability choose abortion. The Texas, Oklahoma and Idaho anti-abortion laws are a vendetta. Exempting for rape and forcing the birth of the rapists child is an expression of anger at women.
I disagree. In fact Judicial activism is not mentioned in the Constitution.
Separation of Church and state,
The size of the Supreme Court,
The right to remain silent, and
Executive Privilege are not mentioned in the Constitution either.
Judicial activism is the act of legislating from the bench. One example of that besides Roe Vs Wade is Justice Robert's changing the text of the AHA to make it appear constitutional. The size of the Supreme Court Should have been addressed in the Constitution and probably would have with hindsight if the founding fathers were around today. And amendment should be required to add justices to the court. The right to remain silent is covered in the 5th amendment. As for executive privilege, you are right. It's not covered in the constitution and can be challenged, however neither party wants to give that up as they want to have that tool if a president is elected from their party.
Judicial activism is the act of legislating from the bench. One example of that besides Roe Vs Wade is Justice Robert's changing the text of the AHA to make it appear constitutional. The size of the Supreme Court Should have been addressed in the Constitution and probably would have with hindsight if the founding fathers were around today. And amendment should be required to add justices to the court. The right to remain silent is covered in the 5th amendment. As for executive privilege, you are right. It's not covered in the constitution and can be challenged, however neither party wants to give that up as they want to have that tool if a president is elected from their party.
Hmmm: That's not the way Wikipedia defines it
Judicial activism is a judicial philosophy holding that the courts can and should go beyond the applicable law to consider broader societal implications of its decisions. It is sometimes used as an antonym of judicial restraint. The term usually implies that judges make rulings based on their own views rather than on precedent.
Even before this phrase was first used, the general concept already existed. For example, Thomas Jefferson referred to the "despotic behavior" of Federalist federal judges, in particular Chief Justice John Marshall.
Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."
Others have been less confident of the term's meaning, finding it instead to be little more than a rhetorical shorthand.
*Kermit Roosevelt III has argued that "in practice 'activist' turns out to be little more than a rhetorically charged shorthand for decisions the speaker disagrees with",
*Theodor Oleson said in an interview on Fox News Sunday, with regard to a case for same-sex marriage he had successfully litigated, that "most people use the term 'judicial activism' to explain decisions that they don't like."
*Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy said that, "An activist court is a court that makes a decision you don't like."
furthest seem hard to condemn in light of the practical stakes."[15]
The following rulings have been characterized as judicial activism.
• Brown v. Board of Education – 1954 Supreme Court ruling ordering the desegregation of public schools.[24]
• Roe v. Wade – 1973 Supreme Court ruling creating the constitutional right to an abortion.[25]
• Bush v. Gore – The United States Supreme Court case between the major-party candidates in the 2000 presidential election, George W. Bush and Al Gore. The justices voted 5–4 to halt the recount of ballots in Florida and as a result Bush was chosen as president.[26]
• Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District – 2005 Supreme Court decision declaring that intelligent design is not science.[27]
• Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission – 2010 Supreme Court decision declaring congressionally enacted limitations on corporate political spending and transparency as unconstitutional restrictions on free speech.[28][29]
• Obergefell v. Hodges – 2015 Supreme Court decision declaring same-sex marriage as a right guaranteed under the Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment.[30]
• Janus v. AFSCME – a 2018 Supreme Court decision addressing whether unions can require dues from all workers who benefit from collective bargaining agreements. The decision overturned the 41-year-old precedent of Abood v. Detroit Board of Education.[31][32][33]
• Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California – a 2020 Supreme Court decision addressing whether the Department of Homeland Security under President Donald Trump had the authority to dismantle the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program initiated by Executive Order under former President Barack Obama.[34][35]
Interestingly all of the cases above in which accusations of activism were leveled have been highly controversial.
I believe the definition of judicial activism means: "I don't like this decision" Looking carefully at who is outraged by Roe's terrible decision canceling judicial activism I suspect they want state control so their women don't get to make decision without consulting some male figure.The following posts will express the usual deep concern over little innocent babies being painfully torn asunder. ..... Or some variation on that theme.
Yes , the First Amendment does apply to pro choice religions.
If the government overturn s Roe it takes away our soul competency.
The First amendment Provides that the government “shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
According to the Supreme Court, the clause protects individuals’ right to exercise their religion of choice and prohibits government regulations that target religious beliefs.
The free exercise clause protects not only religious beliefs but acts involved with religious practice. Under the clause, the government may not compel religious belief, punish religious expression, or impose regulations that favor one religion over another.
I think we both know that abortion will never be completely banned. A rare state or two might try, however they have their own state constitutions and voters to contend with. The most that will ever take hold will be some common sense restrictions on how late in a pregnancy abortion will be allowed. For instance the repugnant late term abortions may be banned in many states with the exception of mortal danger to the life of the mother. So you can stop pretending that abortion will be outlawed if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
In 2019 4 out 5 abortions occurred in the first 9 weeks of pregnancy.
In 2019 92.7 percent of abortions occurred during the first trimester.
Most of the abortions that occurred past the first trimester were because of health complications withe woman or the fetus.
Info stats from a 2018 abortion study.
Switzerland had the lowest abortion rate at 5 per 1,000 women.
The U.S. rate is 13 per 1,000 women, the same as Britain's, the report found.
Colombia and Mexico had abortion rates of 34 per 1,000 women.
Pakistan’s estimated abortion rate was the highest at 50 per 1,000 women.
"Abortions take place around the world, no matter the legal setting," the report reads.
But, it adds, “Provision of abortion is lowest and safest where it has long been legal.”
I'm confused. How is restoring the healthy functioning of one's immune system judicial activism? It's a medical treatment for an unhealthy immune system. It's impossible to argue reasonably that the state has an interest in keeping women in an unhealthy state and the women have no right to self-defense.
You keep saying this but do not actually explain it. The clause is like an amuletic expression for you as a cultist. At least Alito tries to explain it, but he does a terrible job. There are many things not backed up by clear text in the Constitution. Alito doesn't like abortion for the same reason Thomas doesn't - they say abortion is a unique act because it deliberately ends a human life. But if the embryo or fetus isn't a person constitutionally, and it isn't, there is no reason to pay attention to this. Alito and Thomas just want to say a fetus is a constitutional person but they can't because it isn't.
This is ridiculous. Before Roe, lots of states didn't even have a health exception for the woman. Those states were literally making women sick and injured, and pretending that "God" did it, in the manner of excuse we would expect from junior high school boys.
The first amendment concerns many things of relevance. First, freedom of religion should include the right to live in accord with definitions of when human life begins of various religions. No one should ever privilege the definitions of the Catholic and Evangelical churches. Second, freedom of assembly means no one should ever be forcibly biologically connected to others' genetic codes. Third, freedom of expression means no one should ever make one's body express something one believes is false or, in their religion, blasphemy.
I think we both know that abortion will never be completely banned. A rare state or two might try, however they have their own state constitutions and voters to contend with. The most that will ever take hold will be some common sense restrictions on how late in a pregnancy abortion will be allowed. For instance the repugnant late term abortions may be banned in many states with the exception of mortal danger to the life of the mother. So you can stop pretending that abortion will be outlawed if Roe vs Wade is overturned.
This is actually not true. There is one state that recently made a ban without an exception to save a woman's life - I forget which one it is. Lots of states have made bans with no health exceptions or exceptions for rape, either. The trigger laws are going to result in cases like those of Savita in Ireland and Izabela in Poland. Just wait till you see how outrageous these far right wing idiots actually are.
The first amendment concerns many things of relevance. First, freedom of religion should include the right to live in accord with definitions of when human life begins of various religions. No one should ever privilege the definitions of the Catholic and Evangelical churches. Second, freedom of assembly means no one should ever be forcibly biologically connected to others' genetic codes. Third, freedom of expression means no one should ever make one's body express something one believes is false or, in their religion, blasphemy.
This is actually not true. There is one state that recently made a ban without an exception to save a woman's life - I forget which one it is. Lots of states have made bans with no health exceptions or exceptions for rape, either. The trigger laws are going to result in cases like those of Savita in Ireland and Izabela in Poland. Just wait till you see how outrageous these far right wing idiots actually are.
Two points. One is that the fight over abortion will be where it belongs, at the state level, and two, no matter what laws some states pass in regards to abortion, it will still not amount to a nationwide ban on abortion as there is a such thing as transportation....you know, automobiles, planes, trains, etc? Margaret Sanger's Planned Parenthood will probably even offer plane fare.
I'm confused. How is restoring the healthy functioning of one's immune system judicial activism? It's a medical treatment for an unhealthy immune system. It's impossible to argue reasonably that the state has an interest in keeping women in an unhealthy state and the women have no right to self-defense.
I would hope that you can do better then that. Any established religion has some sort of text or scripture backing up what they claim to believe. For Christians, it's the bible. For Catholics, it's the bible and the missal. For muslims, it the Koran.
I would hope that you can do better then that. Any established religion has some sort of text or scripture backing up what they claim to believe. For Christians, it's the bible. For Catholics, it's the bible and the missal. For muslims, it the Koran.
So, you've accidentally answered my question. You think religious beliefs are only protected by the government when the government says so. "Oh you have to have a book we approve of."
Sorry, but religious beliefs can be passed on verbally too.
No, I am not. When I say "my religious beliefs" I am not referring to a religion I literally created for myself. I am referring to the religion that I belong to. Many share it.
When Christians say "my religion says 'thou shalt not kill'" they are not saying they invented Christianity, understand?
But you know what? Let's say it is a religion of one. Let's say I did make up my own. Does that actually make a difference as far as the first amendment goes? No new religion can ever be established? Because that's ground to throw out Christianity entirely.
No, I am not. When I say "my religious beliefs" I am not referring to a religion I literally created for myself. I am referring to the religion that I belong to. Many share it.
When Christians say "my religion says 'thou shalt not kill'" they are not saying they invented Christianity, understand?
But you know what? Let's say it is a religion of one. Let's say I did make up my own. Does that actually make a difference as far as the first amendment goes? No new religion can ever be established? Because that's ground to throw out Christianity entirely.
Yet when asked what religion you belong to, you would not directly answer, probably because I asked for text or scripture published or claimed by that religion and you cannot provide it. Enjoy your Sunday.
Yet when asked what religion you belong to, you would not directly answer, probably because I asked for text or scripture published or claimed by that religion and you cannot provide it. Enjoy your Sunday.
I am intentionally not telling you which religion to trap you into admitting you think it matters which religion I belong to, and it worked. If you truly believed in freedom of all religion, it wouldn't matter which religion I belong to. I declare victory on this point. Here's some text from the abortion-relevant tenet:
III
One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
