Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 25 Mar 2017, 4:29 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:So, you didn't read the long excerpt from the article I posted, wherein the history of the politicization of the Court was partially recounted? To blame the Republicans and pretend they are THE guilty party is to ignore history.


I read it, but most of it was all so old that it's just not relevant to what happen last year. With the exception of the Alito mention (which wasn't successful, so is not noteworthy) 1988 was the most recent date. That was 30 years ago and completely irrelevant to the world, politics and parties of today.


Right. So, everything that happened 30 years ago is irrelevant? Out with Roe v. Wade then!

With all respect, and much is due, you're not being serious here.


One is law, which is slow to change, and the other is politics, which has a half-life of 4 years. We have fundamental disagreements about politics: you look at history and talk about Dems or Reps as if history means anything to the current parties. The parties of the past are gone. The only reason our two parties have lasted so long is that they are constantly shifting, moving according to the electorate they pursue. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt are gone.

Republicans denied the democratic president his supreme court nominee last year. There will, there must, be payback. No one in that capital building gives a fig about what happened in 1988, they don't even know and don't care to.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 27 Mar 2017, 11:22 am

"there will, there must be payback"
I understand the sentiment but the voters really don't give a damn about why a party is being obstructionist. Funny though how all we heard was how the Republicans were obstructionists against Obama and against Clinton yet the Democrats were not called such when they did the same thing against Bush or now that they are doing it against Trump.

The media is pretty damned liberal, this helps point it out. The Dems have a "reason" for obstruction. The Republicans have no such reasons and are always painted as evil by the media, just as is being done here. No, the Democrats are doing nothing but obstructing anything and everything they can. I don't really blame them, but Puh-Lease, let's not think they are so much better than that other side of the aisle!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Mar 2017, 12:15 pm

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Right. So, everything that happened 30 years ago is irrelevant? Out with Roe v. Wade then!

With all respect, and much is due, you're not being serious here.


One is law, which is slow to change, and the other is politics, which has a half-life of 4 years.


Did Roe "slow(ly) change" law re abortion? No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system.

This article is on point re the differences.

But at the same time, Feinstein prattled on about how Roe v. Wade is a “super-precedent,” which I assume is a version of what Senator Arlen Specter (D., R. & I., Republic of Jackassistan) called a “super-duper precedent” — which actually sounds more intelligent when sung by Young Frankenstein. After noting a bunch of court cases that reaffirmed Roe, Feinstein went on to make an additional point: “Importantly, the dozens of cases affirming Roe are not only about precedent, they are also about a woman’s fundamental and constitutional rights.” I’m a bit fuzzy about what she sees as the distinction between fundamental and constitutional rights, but that doesn’t matter. Clearly her bedrock belief is that the process of constitutional evolution stopped with Roe v. Wade. One might say that instead of being a 1789 originalist, she’s an originalist of 1973. As Bill Clinton said to the intern after sitting on the couch and patting his lap, do you see what I’m getting at? TAMPERING FOR ME, BUT NOT FOR THEE The doctrine of the Living Constitution is a perfect example of how behind every double standard is an unconfessed single standard.


Inow, Democrats demand some parts of the Constitution be updated or viewed as malleable. Of course, they would never "bother" with the notion of amending it--that's too legal. Instead, they pretend that judges changing it is fine AS LONG AS it is a change they agree with. Any changing of a previous decision (i.e. Roe) that they agreed with is "dangerous" or "unconstitutional."

Judicial activism for me, not for thee.

We have fundamental disagreements about politics: you look at history and talk about Dems or Reps as if history means anything to the current parties. The parties of the past are gone. The only reason our two parties have lasted so long is that they are constantly shifting, moving according to the electorate they pursue. The party of Lincoln and Roosevelt are gone.


1. This shows what you declare to be unprecedented is no such thing, whatever parties there were.

2. Even in going way, way back, you know--when Biden and Obama were in the Senate, there is no relevancy? That is patent nonsense and hypocrisy.

Republicans denied the democratic president his supreme court nominee last year. There will, there must, be payback. No one in that capital building gives a fig about what happened in 1988, they don't even know and don't care to.


That is ridiculous.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 27 Mar 2017, 1:54 pm

Fate
No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system


Whats unscientific about the trimester system?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 27 Mar 2017, 2:05 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system


Whats unscientific about the trimester system?


The development of babies in the womb doesn't neatly fit into it.

Better question: what is scientific about it?

Best question: what in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to impose a trimester system? Seriously, what power?

They made the system of whole cloth and derived the power from the same bolt of cloth.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 5:00 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:
Republicans denied the democratic president his supreme court nominee last year. There will, there must, be payback. No one in that capital building gives a fig about what happened in 1988, they don't even know and don't care to.


That is ridiculous.


No, it's reality. Politics is forward-looking.

The only question that remains is that will Democrats be strong enough to actually carry through with something. Republicans are normally the stronger gang, but that may be shifting in a Trump administration.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 5:10 am

Doctor Fate wrote:
geojanes wrote:One is law, which is slow to change, and the other is politics, which has a half-life of 4 years.


Did Roe "slow(ly) change" law re abortion? No, in fact, it created law, including the unscientific "trimester" system.


While Roe changed law immediately, there was a generation of activism, mostly led by Republicans in Planned Parenthood (I posted a history of Planned Parenthood a few years ago of you recall, fascinating read) that led to Roe. Roe immediately changed the law but the roots that change were at least 30 years old.

My point remains that laws are slow to change, while politics and parties evolve quickly. Since you brought it up, look at the Republicans and their history with Planned Parenthood, though there are better examples.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 11:07 am

Fate
The development of babies in the womb doesn't neatly fit into it

And yet every medical text out there uses the trimester system to explain the stages of pregnancy.
And has for more than a hundred years..

fate
Best question: what in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to impose a trimester system? Seriously, what power?


Medical science has used the term trimester to label and define the stages of pregnancy for a very long time. Centuries.
The SCOTUS did not define the stages. They did not impose a system. It was in use around the world, by the way, not just the US.
Scotus did recognize the science, known at the time, in their decision.
I think the part you may be unhappy with is the recognition that life does not begin at conception, (since spontaneous abortion eliminates so many fetus naturally...)
and that a fetus cannot exist outside the womb till around the 28th week...
Still ... scientific fact. And in no way a creation of 9 judges.

Fate
They made the system of whole cloth and derived the power from the same bolt of cloth

What is your source for this disinformation?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 11:49 am

geojanes wrote:While Roe changed law immediately, there was a generation of activism, mostly led by Republicans in Planned Parenthood (I posted a history of Planned Parenthood a few years ago of you recall, fascinating read) that led to Roe. Roe immediately changed the law but the roots that change were at least 30 years old.

My point remains that laws are slow to change, while politics and parties evolve quickly. Since you brought it up, look at the Republicans and their history with Planned Parenthood, though there are better examples.


"Roe immediately changed the law . . ."

That's why it's bad (beyond the millions killed as a result). Courts should not write law. The Court had the means to rule without writing law, which is the sole purview of the Congress (except as it has designated).
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 11:56 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
The development of babies in the womb doesn't neatly fit into it

And yet every medical text out there uses the trimester system to explain the stages of pregnancy.
And has for more than a hundred years..


So, it's "settled science?"

How does "viability" fit into the trimester system?

How does DNA fit into the trimester system?

The trimester system is a human concoction, not science.

As viability continues to require less time, it renders the trimester system more of a relic.

What is your source for this disinformation?


Dude, you should talk.

The larger point: the Court did not have the Constitutional authority to rule as it did in Roe. It usurped both States' rights and the legislative power of Congress. The only reason liberals like it is they love to murder babies.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Mar 2017, 1:28 pm

Liberals "love to murder babies." Yeah, that sure enhances your credibility. You could argue that liberals in favoring the interests of women in having the unfettered power to make the decision regarding abortion until viability are not giving the fetus enough consideration, but your statement is ridiculous.

As for your non-existent legal analysis I suppose you would find that all of the legislative acts are permissible:

(1) A state or Congress banning people from more than x number of children or banning people from having children at all;
(2) A state or Congress banning the use of any contraceptive
(3) A state or Congress allowing for forced sterilization of people with IQs under 80
(4) A state or Congress mandating that all children should be raised in Kibbutz like collectives

If people have no fundamental control over procreation/parental rights--as you are suggesting--then what's to stop the above from occurring?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 2:26 pm

freeman3 wrote:Liberals "love to murder babies." Yeah, that sure enhances your credibility. You could argue that liberals in favoring the interests of women in having the unfettered power to make the decision regarding abortion until viability are not giving the fetus enough consideration, but your statement is ridiculous.


No, it's not ridiculous. Consider:

1. In many states, including CA, when a pregnant woman is murdered, it's considered the murder of two people--not one person and some unnamed clump of cells.

2. The science is clear: babies in the womb have their own DNA, and everything else a human being has. They are human beings.

As for your non-existent legal analysis I suppose you would find that all of the legislative acts are permissible:

(1) A state or Congress banning people from more than x number of children or banning people from having children at all;
(2) A state or Congress banning the use of any contraceptive
(3) A state or Congress allowing for forced sterilization of people with IQs under 80
(4) A state or Congress mandating that all children should be raised in Kibbutz like collectives

If people have no fundamental control over procreation/parental rights--as you are suggesting--then what's to stop the above from occurring?


Oh, it's liberals who want to control children, wresting them away from their parents, not conservatives. Did you know it's illegal in Germany (as but one example) to homeschool? There is no reason to think that parents are incapable of judging what is best for their children, but THE STATE overrules them.

It's liberals who want children to have the right to abort without parental notification. It's liberals who think every manner of sexual proclivity should be taught to children in public schools.

Conservatives don't believe government is the source of all wisdom and knowledge. Liberals do.

All of your examples are the kind of thing liberals would do. Who has always be enthralled with eugenics? Progressives/liberals. Who now is pushing euthanasia? Progressives/liberals.

This is the kind of "help" we can look forward to from our progressive leaders:

A former victim of child sex abuse has ended her life under Dutch euthanasia laws because she could not live with her mental suffering.
The woman, in her twenties, was given a lethal injection after doctors and psychiatrists decided that her post-traumatic stress disorder and other conditions were incurable.
It went ahead despite improvements in the woman's psychological condition after 'intensive therapy' two years ago, and even though doctors in the Netherlands accept that a demand for death from a psychiatric patient may be no more than a cry for help.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z4cerVOTiM
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


No thank you.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Mar 2017, 3:07 pm

With regard to the murder of a fetus Calcrim 520 states that a "fetus is an unborn human being that has progressed beyond the embryonic stage after major structures have been outlined, which typically occurs st 7 or 8 weeks after fertilization." So it's not just a clump of cells. There is a further reason to give a fetus more protection with regard to a third-party committing a criminal act against it as opposed to its interests vis-a-vis the mother with regard to abortion: the interests involved are different. With regard to abortion, the rights of the fetus are weighed against that of the mother and once it reaches viability its interests are deemed legally significant enough so that the mother can be constrained from an unfettered right to abortion. There is no weighing of interests with regard to a third-party killing the fetus, so protection at an earlier stage is possible.

You seem to be arguing with regard to the examples I set forth with regard to procreation rights that liberals are in favor of such things. If they were, why would they favor a legal interpretation that does not allow for them? So if liberals gain power and pass such laws would conservatives say, well, nothing we can do about it because there is no fundamental procreation rights?

I think we have a fundamental right to make decisions related to reproduction. Apparently, you do not agree or else you would just say you agree instead of trying to blame liberals for actions that are not allowed under the right of privacy interpretation of the Constitution favored by liberals.
Last edited by freeman3 on 28 Mar 2017, 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 28 Mar 2017, 3:07 pm

Freeman/Fate, this might be a different thread.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 28 Mar 2017, 3:13 pm

If a am not mistaken...I think we are within the tangent of a tangent of a tangent degree of relatedness to the original topic allowed under Redscape debating rules...if there are such things!