U.S. Supreme Court Set To Hear Mississippi Abortion Case

#26
#26
Gandalf said:
I think you misunderstand. I am not advocating the position of a fetus being "mere tissue". I am simply stating the position that pro-abortionists must logically take. Either it is mere tissue or its a baby. At what point does mere tissue become a baby? How many people decide that seems mostly to do with whether the pregnancy is wanted or not rather than any supposed "viability". As someone who tends to believe a soul is created sui generis at conception, I find that sad.
Click to expand...

Okay. We're in agreement on that fact. My response to your first post on this subject was that I thought your post was nuts because the logical extension of the argument that you proposed in your original post was that a woman could abort a baby all the way until childbirth by simply stating she didn't want it. That was why I took offense to the argument.
 
#27
#27
Gandalf said:
On court packing - It is a concern that leftist go that route and yes, the only way to respond is with more and greater court packing. I think for that reason it is unlikely to happen because dems know they are about to lose the congress and a future Trump like President would not hesitate to expand the SC to "huge" numbers once the current precedent has been broken.
Click to expand...

I agree with this statement also, although you never really know what the liberal left will do. Logic very rarely enters the equation in any of their decisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#28
#28
Vol423 said:
Okay. We're in agreement on that fact. My response to your first post on this subject was that I thought your post was nuts because the logical extension of the argument that you proposed in your original post was that a woman could abort a baby all the way until childbirth by simply stating she didn't want it. That was why I took offense to the argument.
Click to expand...

Exactly, I am hard put to understand the logic of their argument - and thus, what I was pointing out.
 
#29
#29
Gandalf said:
Exactly, I am hard put to understand the logic of their argument - and thus, what I was pointing out.
Click to expand...
We agree. My interpretation of your original post was that YOU were making that argument. Hence, my response.
 
#33
#33
ClearwaterVol said:
You cannot unpack it you can only pack it more.
Click to expand...

I think congress could "unpack the court" I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that says a supreme court appointment is for life, just that a federal judicial appointment is for life. So in theory congress could "demote" justices to another federal appeals court. But I'm sure that would end up in front of the very people they were trying to demote and SCOTUS would protect itself just like all vermin do.
 
#34
#34
hog88 said:
I think congress could "unpack the court" I don't believe there is anything in the constitution that says a supreme court appointment is for life, just that a federal judicial appointment is for life. So in theory congress could "demote" justices to another federal appeals court. But I'm sure that would end up in front of the very people they were trying to demote and SCOTUS would protect itself just like all vermin do.
Click to expand...
Article III - They hold the office during good behavior. = lifetime appointment unless impeached.
 
#35
#35
ClearwaterVol said:
Article III - They hold the office during good behavior. = lifetime appointment unless impeached.
Click to expand...

You're probably right, it would take a constitutional amendment to "unpack" the court.

But kind of staying on subject of lifetime appointments. Since congress has the power to ordain and establish inferior courts it seems to reason they have the power to abolish an inferior court. What happens to the judges on a court congress abolished?
 
#36
#36
hog88 said:
You're probably right, it would take a constitutional amendment to "unpack" the court.

But kind of staying on subject of lifetime appointments. Since congress has the power to ordain and establish inferior courts it seems to reason they have the power to abolish an inferior court. What happens to the judges on a court congress abolished?
Click to expand...

I cannot even wrap my head around congress shrinking government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#39
#39
ClearwaterVol said:
You cannot unpack it you can only pack it more.
Click to expand...
How then did the court have 10 at one time?
The Constitution places the power to determine the number of Justices in the hands of Congress. The first Judiciary Act, passed in 1789, set the number of Justices at six, one Chief Justice and five Associates. Over the years Congress has passed various acts to change this number, fluctuating from a low of five to a high of ten. The Judiciary Act of 1869 fixed the number of Justices at nine and no subsequent change to the number of Justices has occurred.
Click to expand...
Frequently Asked Questions: General Information - Supreme Court of the United States
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol, Orangeburst and hog88
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top