Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

     

Left Nav S-B Home FAQ Members List S-B on Facebook Arcade WEAX Tides Buoys Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Right Nav

Left Container Right Container
 

Go Back   Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating » Striper Chat - Discuss stuff other than fishing ~ The Scuppers and Political talk » Political Threads

Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi:

 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
Old 07-03-2018, 10:21 PM   #1
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution? Trump offered up his list during the campaign as evidence he would overturn Roe, he said it was inevitable. Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law.
"I thought you said it was the job of all justices to adhere to the Constitution?"

Correct. I said that, and I stand by it.

"Even the SCOTUS Chief Justice has said it's settled law."

So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.

.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 07:40 AM   #2
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
So was slavery at one time. Ever heard of the Dredd Scott case? That was settled law, thanks to a horrific mistake by the SCOTUS, which was later corrected. Should subsequent courts have thoughtlessly deferred to their predecessors who legalized slavery, out of the blind respect you apparently have for "precedent"?

Not your best day.
Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning

Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.

Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time.
spence is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 08:00 AM   #3
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Yea, we're all getting tired with your winning

Precedent doesn't just mean a single judgement was found. Roe has been repeatedly tested in the courts and stood up. Even if it wasn't the best example of a ruling technically speaking, it was essentially fixed with Casey in 1992. To really make a dent on abortion rights you'd have to flip all these decisions.

Per your other blabber, neither slavery or Dred Scott were overturned in the courts, they were both made square via Constitutional amendment. You might want to pick some relevant examples next time.
Oh i see. So it’s ok to turn precedence on its head via constitutional amendment,but it’s wrong for some reason to pursue it in the courts.

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

If the founding fathers intended for precedent to be unassailable in the courts, they would have designed it to be such. They didn’t.

It’s moot, because neither one of us sees it being overturned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 09:54 AM   #4
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The supreme Court ruled on right to abortion up until viability. The time frame has moved from 23 or 24 weeks to 22 or 23 weeks. Nothing has changed that should allow for overturning that ruling. The supreme Court did not make a mistake just because it offends the morals of some.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 10:16 AM   #5
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy View Post
The supreme Court ruled on right to abortion up until viability. The time frame has moved from 23 or 24 weeks to 22 or 23 weeks. Nothing has changed that should allow for overturning that ruling. The supreme Court did not make a mistake just because it offends the morals of some.

Not every baby achieves viability at the same time. And if the justification for abortion is that the woman has the right to bodily self autonomy, why does she surrendernthatbat some arbitrary point? That makes zero sense, the baby is never any different than it was an hour before.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
And again, what was not viable then, is obviously viable now, thanks to awesome advances in technology. Thanks to western medicine, viability occurs earlier and earlier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 01:35 PM   #6
zimmy
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
And again, what was not viable then, is obviously viable now, thanks to awesome advances in technology. Thanks to western medicine, viability occurs earlier and earlier.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It has hardly changed. Awesome advances have made it so viability has improved by a week or so in a limited percentage of cases. Nothing in that to change roe v. Wade. Appreciate you confirming that though.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
zimmy is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 11:05 AM   #7
spence
Registered User
iTrader: (0)
 
spence's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: RI
Posts: 21,496
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
Oh i see. So it’s ok to turn precedence on its head via constitutional amendment,but it’s wrong for some reason to pursue it in the courts.

We have new knowledge now, new data, of what is going on in the womb, information not remotely available when roe v Wade was decided.

If the founding fathers intended for precedent to be unassailable in the courts, they would have designed it to be such. They didn’t.

It’s moot, because neither one of us sees it being overturned.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.
spence is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 11:28 AM   #8
Jim in CT
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 20,441
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process .
True.
Jim in CT is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 11:42 AM   #9
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.
It would be easy in this day and age for states to make it legal, which most probably would. Abortion legality is not the primary consideration. It's most importantly about maintaining the constitutional order and keeping political power where it belongs--the people, not the Court.

The Court's decision in Roe rested on a misreading of various portions and amendments in the Constitution. A Court revisit of the matter could correctly return power over a hotly disputed societal issue back into the hands of the people where it belongs.
detbuch is offline  
Old 07-04-2018, 05:44 PM   #10
detbuch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,725
Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
Precedent isn't unassailable but respect for it is part of the judicial process without which you'd have chaos in the courts. We're not talking about a bad ruling on littering here, this is a super precedent. To really make abortion illegal would likely require an amendment.
There seems to be a disconnect between what you say and what various pundits on the left are worried about re the future of Roe v. Wade and abortion if Trump can stack the court in favor strict construction originalists:

https://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-ma...r-scotus-news/
detbuch is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Please use all necessary and proper safety precautions. STAY SAFE Striper Talk Forums
Copyright 1998-20012 Striped-Bass.com