Amy Coney Barrett Supreme Court

#1,827
#1,827
volinbham said:
Kinda the point - we don't know her reasoning other than the quote. Hard to label her as something based on assumptions of what she really means.
Click to expand...

Which is why I said "at least in this case" in OP.

In the quote, she doesn't even acknowledge the fact that the 14th amendment is in play. That's the real angle here. She's expressing that SCOTUS judges should not make rulings based on preference, and if she's consistent on that, then it doesn't even matter what her feelings on economic liberty are. Completely misunderstanding the ruling (or misrepresenting it) is the cause for concern.
 
#1,831
#1,831
n_huffhines said:
Which is why I said "at least in this case" in OP.

In the quote, she doesn't even acknowledge the fact that the 14th amendment is in play. That's the real angle here. She's expressing that SCOTUS judges should not make rulings based on preference, and if she's consistent on that, then it doesn't even matter what her feelings on economic liberty are. Completely misunderstanding the ruling (or misrepresenting it) is the cause for concern.
Click to expand...

Context please...the statement has to be plucked from an entire conversation.
 
#1,832
#1,832
Ashevolle said:
They're not born. So life hasn't started. Can I murder the already dead?

Last I checked my birthday marked the beginning of life. Otherwise I would have started hitting the bars 9 months earlier.
Click to expand...

Lol so your heart didn’t start beating until your exact birthdate ? Come on man
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, Rickyvol77 and MR_VOL
#1,836
#1,836
0nelilreb said:
Lol so your heart didn’t start beating until your exact birthdate ? Come on man
Click to expand...
I didnt say that. But I dont define life's beginning at the heart beat. Life begins at birth. Abortion is legally permissible until viability (which has nothing to do with the hearbeat). Should we worry about when the gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, and liver start working as well? How about eyeballs, lungs, nails..... what's so important about the heart to the beginning of life?
 
#1,838
#1,838
Ashevolle said:
I didnt say that. But I dont define life's beginning at the heart beat. Life begins at birth. Abortion is legally permissible until viability (which has nothing to do with the hearbeat). Should we worry about when the gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, and liver start working as well? How about eyeballs, lungs, nails..... what's so important about the heart to the beginning of life?
Click to expand...

Can you live without a heart ? You are smarter than this I hope . Life begins when the heart starts beating , no heartbeat .. no life .
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, MR_VOL and W.TN.Orange Blood
#1,840
#1,840
Ashevolle said:
I didnt say that. But I dont define life's beginning at the heart beat. Life begins at birth. Abortion is legally permissible until viability (which has nothing to do with the hearbeat). Should we worry about when the gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, and liver start working as well? How about eyeballs, lungs, nails..... what's so important about the heart to the beginning of life?
Click to expand...

I’ve wondered about the abortion cut off line a lot. “Viability” used to mean around 36wks when the baby could live outside womb by itself. But advancements in maternal-fetal medicine have been able to keep babies alive at much younger ages of gestation. So if medicine can keep a baby alive at 18 weeks until it’s no longer in need of medical assistance, is that the new “age” of viability??
 
#1,841
#1,841
0nelilreb said:
Can you live without a heart ? You are smarter than this I hope . Life begins when the heart starts beating , no heartbeat .. no life .
Click to expand...
Well, the easy one to point out is that defining "life" as beginning at birth is stupid, considering some things with life aren't necessarily "birthed".
 
#1,843
#1,843
Y9 Vol said:
Context please...the statement has to be plucked from an entire conversation.
Click to expand...

You can find it I'm sure, if you want the full quote. The problem is, even if she acknowledges the 14th amendment somewhere in her quote, why would she make this personal preference point about the SCOTUS ruling? It would mean that she's dismissing their declared reasoning and saying "this is their real reasoning" which is also a problem. Even if she thinks that and is right about that, she needs to be addressing the legal crux of their decision, not what their hidden agenda is.
 
#1,844
#1,844
n_huffhines said:
Which is why I said "at least in this case" in OP.

In the quote, she doesn't even acknowledge the fact that the 14th amendment is in play. That's the real angle here. She's expressing that SCOTUS judges should not make rulings based on preference, and if she's consistent on that, then it doesn't even matter what her feelings on economic liberty are. Completely misunderstanding the ruling (or misrepresenting it) is the cause for concern.
Click to expand...

It was a quick answer to a question in a hearing. If this had been a speech or writing then we could dig into her rationale. Making some judgment about her judicial philosophy based on that one statement is a huge reach.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MWR
#1,845
#1,845
n_huffhines said:
You can find it I'm sure, if you want the full quote. The problem is, even if she acknowledges the 14th amendment somewhere in her quote, why would she make this personal preference point about the SCOTUS ruling? It would mean that she's dismissing their declared reasoning and saying "this is their real reasoning" which is also a problem. Even if she thinks that and is right about that, she needs to be addressing the legal crux of their decision, not what their hidden agenda is.
Click to expand...

On October 14, Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.) asked Barrett to "talk just a little bit about how a court could substitute its own views on economic policy for those of a law-enacting body, of a legislature or of Congress."
 
  • Like
Reactions: n_huffhines
#1,846
#1,846
volinbham said:
It was a quick answer to a question in a hearing. If this had been a speech or writing then we could dig into her rationale. Making some judgment about her judicial philosophy based on that one statement is a huge reach.
Click to expand...

Ding...Ding...Ding...
 
#1,847
#1,847
Ashevolle said:
I didnt say that. But I dont define life's beginning at the heart beat. Life begins at birth. Abortion is legally permissible until viability (which has nothing to do with the hearbeat). Should we worry about when the gallbladder, kidney, pancreas, and liver start working as well? How about eyeballs, lungs, nails..... what's so important about the heart to the beginning of life?
Click to expand...

Define viability. The ability to survive on its own? My 4 year old can't survive on his own. Hell, there are some 40 year olds who can't survive on their own. Can we abort them because they aren't viable?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Y9 Vol
#1,848
#1,848
Ashevolle said:
Life begins at birth.
Click to expand...

Says who? Roe vs. Wade introduced the Right to Privacy that had not been found in the Constitution prior to 1973, but did not create a legal definition of when life starts, although it referenced the traditional concept it began at birth. In fact, it expressly recognized the different phases of pre-natal development.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TN-POSSUM, NorthDallas40 and Y9 Vol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top