• 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!

[W:212] Chief Justice Roberts should resign

jnug said:
States are states. The Congress of the United States is something else again. Congress can pass a Bill and the President can sign it. That is all that it would take. Should have been done years ago.
Click to expand...
so what do you think congress can pass that would override a state banning abortion if Roe gets 86'd?
 
Michael Cole said:
And here we may have the "why" it was leaked. What better way to show the nation how off the rails it is?
Click to expand...
Not so sure about that. Of the offered rationalizations we have:
- middling Justices putting their fingers up in the wind
- A Justice solidly holding the Majority view trying to use media to hold the middling Justices in line
- A dissenting Justice trying to motivate the dissenting view in the public

I discount the first in the list entirely. No need to stick a finger in the wind on this issue. The opinion is so forceful, so blistering, so scathing that I am inclined to think its a Justice solidly in the Majority that has leaked it. Possibly Alito himself or Thomas. Thomas has got a real ax to grind lately and has already been entirely off the rails. Would mot put it past Alito or Thomas to try to give a big middle finder to the country.

This SC is a mess.
 
TurtleDude said:
so what do you think congress can pass that would override a state banning abortion if Roe gets 86'd?
Click to expand...
A Law making Abortion the law of the Land.
 
Lisa said:
The current SCOTUS has lost any credibility. Im not sure how it will regain any credibility without a major house cleaning. Roberts is an embarrassment to the bench.
Click to expand...
did you feel the same way about the FDR court saying the commerce clause was intended to give congress power over individual citizens acting within their own sovereign states? Did you think the legal reasoning of Roe v Wade was sound?
 
Phys251 said:
Roberts is going to go down as one of the worst chief justices in SCOTUS history.
Click to expand...
His attempt to be clever on Obama care was proof of that-of course you all thought he was Solomon then.

How about waiting for an actual decision before all of the meltdowns take place
 
jnug said:
A Law making Abortion the law of the Land.
Click to expand...
under what provision or Article One Section Eight.

you didn't attend law school did you?
 
TurtleDude said:
His attempt to be clever on Obama care was proof of that-of course you all thought he was Solomon then.

How about waiting for an actual decision before all of the meltdowns take place
Click to expand...

I thought you were pro-choice. So much for that.
 
Phys251 said:
I thought you were pro-choice. So much for that.
Click to expand...
You need to spend more time actually trying to understand what I am saying

I am saying what John Hart Ely said 49 years ago. The Roe v Wade decision was political expediency and poorly reasoned, That being said, I can find no rational reason for states to ban most abortions. I realize such a legally sound argument might be hard for those unlearned in legal theory to understand. But Roe was a crappy decision in terms of legal thinking
 
jnug said:
Stop...now you are just embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...
Actually I am embarrassing your hysterical bullshit. Again, under what theory of jurisdiction can congress declare that abortion is legal throughout the land if Roe is stricken
 
TurtleDude said:
You need to spend more time actually trying to understand what I am saying

I am saying what John Hart Ely said 49 years ago. The Roe v Wade decision was political expediency and poorly reasoned, That being said, I can find no rational reason for states to ban most abortions. I realize such a legally sound argument might be hard for those unlearned in legal theory to understand. But Roe was a crappy decision in terms of legal thinking
Click to expand...
Roe simply extended on the accepted principle of inherent protections like the right to privacy. If this Court goes down this path it will lead to unraveling a good deal of opinion regarding a good many Court rulings. Our Founders were PROGRESSIVES....real progressives, not the far LEFT end of the DEM Party which absconded with the term Progressive.

Our founding documents are progressive, aspirational documents. Deal with it FINALLY.
 
jnug said:
Roe simply extended on the accepted principle of inherent protections like the right to privacy. If this Court goes down this path it will lead to unraveling a good deal of opinion regarding a good many Court rulings. Our Founders were PROGRESSIVES....real progressives, not the far LEFT end of the DEM Party which absconded with the term Progressive.

Our founding documents are progressive, aspirational documents. Deal with it FINALLY.
Click to expand...
interesting retreat there
 
TurtleDude said:
Actually I am embarrassing your hysterical bullshit. Again, under what theory of jurisdiction can congress declare that abortion is legal throughout the land if Roe is stricken
Click to expand...
You are granting the Article 3 power authorities that even it does not claim it has. Congress has the jurisdiction to pass a Bill and the President can sign it. Article 1 has the juristicition to draft Legislation. Article 2 has the juristiction to sign it into Law. Its just that simple. Article 3 can just interpret Constitutionality. That is it!!!!
 
jnug said:
You are granting the Article 3 power authorities that even it does not claim it has. Congress has the jurisdiction to pass a Bill and the President can sign it. Article 1 has the juristicition to draft Legislation. Article 2 has the juristiction to sign it into Law. Its just that simple. Article 3 can just interpret Constitutionality. That is it!!!!
Click to expand...
so you are claiming congress can pass a law demanding that all fifty states recognize a "right" to abortion


okie dokie
 
TurtleDude said:
so you are claiming congress can pass a law demanding that all fifty states recognize a "right" to abortion


okie dokie
Click to expand...
Congress absolutely can draft such a Law. In fact, Article 1, section 8 which you keep referring to expressly gives Congress that right.

Congress can draft a Bill that says no state has the right to dictate control over a woman's body. That right belongs to the woman herself. Let me ask this question. Does a state have the right to dictate to a man regarding vasectomy?
 
jnug said:
Congress absolutely can draft such a Law. In fact, Article 1, section 8 which you keep referring to expressly gives Congress that right.
Click to expand...
congress has no rights but rather powers. Congress can try to pass such a law-are you claiming it can be enforced? and if so-under what theory?
 
TurtleDude said:
congress has no rights but rather powers. Congress can try to pass such a law-are you claiming it can be enforced? and if so-under what theory?
Click to expand...
It would be a Federal Law. States can choose to ignore it if they wish and bear the consequences.

Now you are making a different argument. Enforcement is an Article 1 issue. If the President signs such a Bill he can enforce it. Of course since the Right appears to be ready to start another Civil War at the drop of a hat, you boys can try to start another over Abortion Rights. See how far that gets you.
 
jnug said:
It would be a Federal Law. States can choose to ignore it if they wish and bear the consequences.

Now you are making a different argument. Enforcement is an Article 1 issue. If the President signs such a Bill he can enforce it. Of course since the Right appears to be ready to start another Civil War at the drop of a hat, you boys can try to start another over Abortion Rights. See how far that gets you.
Click to expand...
what jurisdictional grounds would sustain this law. It is like saying that congress could pass a law requiring people to wear something. It would be stricken down immediately
 
TurtleDude said:
what jurisdictional grounds would sustain this law. It is like saying that congress could pass a law requiring people to wear something. It would be stricken down immediately
Click to expand...
Ah but you have the shoe on the wrong foot. The Law would not force women to do anything. The Law would prevent States from restricting the Abortion Rights of a Woman.
 
jnug said:
Ah but you have the shoe on the wrong foot. The Law would not force women to do anything. The Law would prevent States from restricting the Abortion Rights of a Woman.
Click to expand...
and I say again Congress doesn't have that proper power and you have not given any sound argument why it does
 
TurtleDude said:
and I say again Congress doesn't have that proper power and you have not given any sound argument why it does
Click to expand...
I have already. Congress has the jurisdiction as stated in the very Article of the Constitution that you keep bringing up.
 
Gateman_Wen said:
Don't be silly, I'm not talking about crap from more than half a century ago, I'm talking about the last couple of years. What the FDR court did is totally irrelevant to my statement.
Click to expand...
Better an FDR than a do nothing Republican Hoover. 1930's Republicans where quite hapoy to let Americans starve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom