Abortion debate (split from bball forum)

#351
#351
LawVol13 said:
I disagree with that. I don't think each state should be given the right to determine what rights they "think" the U.S. Constitution gives people. If the U.S. Supreme Court determines the right of privacy includes the right of choice, the states shouldn't be allowed to decide if they agree or disagree.
Click to expand...

the Constitution is pretty clear that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the individual. Also, what I meant by the states handling things responsibly is that say Alabama has strict anti-abortion laws, but Louisiana doesn't. A young Alabama women travels to Louisiana to have an abortion, Alabama should then not be permitted to punish her.

Are you this inflexible with gay marriage?
 
#352
#352
MG1968 said:
the Constitution is pretty clear that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved for the states or the individual.
Click to expand...

If the Constitution is deemed to contain a right to privacy, then obviously it's not something that's left up for the states to decide. And, if you're asking if I would like to see the gay marriage debate handled at the state level, the answer is no. I don't believe that the rights people have or don't have under the Constitution should be determined at the ballot box.
 
#353
#353
LawVol13 said:
If the Constitution is deemed to contain a right to privacy, then obviously it's not something that's left up for the states to decide. And, if you're asking if I would like to see the gay marriage debate handled at the state level, the answer is no. I don't believe that the rights people have or don't have under the Constitution should be determined at the ballot box.
Click to expand...

What is this mythical "right to privacy" you speak of? The Constitution neither explicitly states nor implicitly confers a right to privacy.

The prohibition against illegal search and seizures has never been ruled to be read as some universal right to privacy.
 
#354
#354
therealUT said:
What is this mythical "right to privacy" you speak of?
Click to expand...

The one that the Supreme Court has recognized for over 100 years. And, the Court over the years has used the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment as a basis for the right of privacy. So, you're probably in a losing battle to suggest that one does not exist.
 
#355
#355
LawVol13 said:
The one that the Supreme Court has recognized for over 100 years. And, the Court over the years has used the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendment as a basis for the right of privacy. So, you're probably in a losing battle to suggest that one does not exist.
Click to expand...

It exists in precedent, not in the Constitution. That precedent was set by a dissenting opinion, by the way.

If a state passed a law outlawing abortion, I highly doubt that the sitting SCOTUS Justices would rule the law unConstitutional; they certainly would not do so on the grounds of "the right to privacy".
 
#356
#356
therealUT said:
It exists in precedent, not in the Constitution. That precedent was set by a dissenting opinion, by the way.

If a state passed a law outlawing abortion, I highly doubt that the sitting SCOTUS Justices would rule the law unConstitutional; they certainly would not do so on the grounds of "the right to privacy".
Click to expand...

I guess you must have missed Roe v. Wade. They've already deemed it unconstitutional and it absolutely would be shot down. And the entire basis of the decision in Roe v. Wade and its predecessor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was the right of privacy. So, I have no idea where you're coming up with any of that.
 
#357
#357
LawVol13 said:
I guess you must have missed Roe v. Wade. They've already deemed it unconstitutional and it absolutely would be shot down. And the entire basis of the decision in Roe v. Wade and its predecessor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was the right of privacy. So, I have no idea where you're coming up with any of that.
Click to expand...

I know it was used in Roe v. Wade; I am saying that if a state banned abortion, the legislation was challenged, and the case appeared before the sitting SC, the states legislation would be upheld as Constitutional, thus nullifying Roe v. Wade.
 
#358
#358
Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts have already stated that they do not believe the Constitution guarantees any general right to privacy.
 
#359
#359
therealUT said:
I know it was used in Roe v. Wade; I am saying that if a state banned abortion, the legislation was challenged, and the case appeared before the sitting SC, the states legislation would be upheld as Constitutional, thus nullifying Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...

I think there is absolutely no way that happens. First, there would be no reason to even grant cert on the case as it is well settled law that there is a right to abortion. Second, there's no way, even if they did grant cert, that they're suddenly going to overrule well-settled precedent.
 
#363
#363
therealUT said:
Roe v. Wade was ruled by a higher court than the Supreme Court???

Precedents have been overruled before.
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're talking about in the first sentence. Yes, precedent has been overturned before. But, you're kidding yourself if the Court is going to tackle abortion now and overturn it. There's zero chance of that happening. And, they're not overturning the right of privacy either; it's well settled law at this point.
 
#365
#365
MG1968 said:
how many times have you enjoyed something you were forced to do under penalty of law? The militant pro-life crowd would force unwanted pregnancies come to term and then expect these mothers (many of whom are unfit to begin with) to then take care of the child. Conservatives and republicans can't have this both ways, they can't force more and more mouths into the welfare state and then deny the welfare state funding.

Like I said before, this is an issue I wrestle with more than most and I don't believe that there will ever be a satisfactory resolution. I would like to see Roe v. Wade looked at and possibly overturned, but only, ONLY, if it were an issue that the states could handle responsibly.
Click to expand...
Don't know how much of an effect that would have anyhow... If everywhere outside of Massachusetts outlawed abortion, and I broke a condom and knocked my girlfriend up, our asses would be at the Greyhound station across the river at the crack of dawn waiting to get on a bus to Boston.
 
#366
#366
milohimself said:
Don't know how much of an effect that would have anyhow... If everywhere outside of Massachusetts outlawed abortion, and I broke a condom and knocked my girlfriend up, our asses would be at the Greyhound station across the river at the crack of dawn waiting to get on a bus to Boston.
Click to expand...

Insert.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#367
#367
LawVol13 said:
I don't know what you're talking about in the first sentence.
Click to expand...

There are many interpretations of stare decisis.

- One of them is simply that lower courts are obliged to follow precedents set by higher courts.

- One is that all courts should follow earlier precedents.

Considering that the Roberts court has overturned earlier rulings, I would imagine that Roberts does not believe in the second interpretation.

LawVol13 said:
Yes, precedent has been overturned before. But, you're kidding yourself if the Court is going to tackle abortion now and overturn it. There's zero chance of that happening. And, they're not overturning the right of privacy either; it's well settled law at this point.
Click to expand...

Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Rasul v. Bush all overturned "well settled law" from precedents set in 1942 and affirmed during the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

Unless explicitly stated in the Constitution, I would consider little to be "well settled law".

You are right that it is unlikely that we will see Roe v. Wade overturned; I hope we do not. However, the possibility is certainly there and I would not put it past this court.
 
#368
#368
therealUT said:
There are many interpretations of stare decisis.





Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, and Rasul v. Bush all overturned "well settled law" from precedents set in 1942 and affirmed during the Korean War and the Vietnam War.

Unless explicitly stated in the Constitution, I would consider little to be "well settled law".
Click to expand...

First, no there really aren't multiple interpretations of stare decisis. When asked specifically about the abortion issue, Roberts told Congress he is a strong advocate of stare decisis, which obviously meant he would uphold it.

Now, on the list of cases you mentioned. Maybe you can remind the Supreme Court case that Hamdi overturned that allowed the U.S. government to detain U.S. citizens for long periods of time with no due process, no hearing? I'm certainly not aware of 70 year old precedent that ever allowed that to happen, and it's not mentioned in the opinion, so that's quite a mystery. Rasul v. Bush simply stated that U.S. detainees could file for a writ of habeas corpus in the federal courts. It didn't overturn any precedent as it was obviously factually distinguishable for Johnson v. Eisentrager because the German War criminals were never held on sovereign American soil like Rasul was at Guantanamo Bay. I'm also not aware of any precedent that Hamdan overturned either.
 
#370
#370
therealUT said:
Ex parte Quirin
Click to expand...

It did not overturn Ex Parte Quirin. The question in all of these cases was not if the President held the executive power to create the commission; it was whether the president had the power to create commissions and then deny the combatants due process. The combatants in Quirin were allowed access to attorney and given due process. Those in the cases you mentioned above were not.
 
#372
#372
therealUT said:
The dissenting opinions from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito say otherwise.
Click to expand...

No, the dissents point out that Congress explicitly denied the federal courts from reviewing petitions from combatants, so they said that habeas corpus petitions should not be heard.
 
#374
#374
kidbourbon said:
Thomas certainly hasn't stated this. That dude pays no mind to stare decisis.
Click to expand...

That is definitely correct. I certainly overgeneralized that statement. But, the others mentioned do adhere to stare decisis as a matter of practice.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top