Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We want judges who understand they can't ignore the constitution when they feel like it. We want judges who will adhere to the constitution even when they might personally hate the result. There is zero hypocrisy there.

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

So why then did Trump offer a list of candidates engineered by Conservatives to have the best change of voting to overturn Roe?

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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.

.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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.

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The list was judges who will adhere to the constitution. If that means overturning past mistakes, that’s good.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by zimmy

The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned. 40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned. The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in, which the Republicans supposedly hate. I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim and people like him who have a religious and moral objection to it. Jim could have more kids. He thinks he can't have more kids and life the lifestyle he wants. Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have or what happens with his families gametes.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"The American people, almost 7/10 don't want roe v Wade overturned"

I don't think it will be overturned. I said I think Amy Barrett should bee the nominee for other reasons.

"40 years of precedent says it shouldn't be overturned."

Ahh, precedent. Slavery was legal. So was segregation. According to you and Spence, once SCOTUS settled these issues, we should have stopped debating. Right? We should have just dropped it? Try making that wrong. Go ahead, and try to respond to that.

Earth to you and Spence...the SCOTUS is capable of royally screwing up. They are human. There is nothing that says their rulings are carved in stone forever.

"The only way it is overturned is if he puts an activist judge in"

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.

"I trust every woman on Earth far more to make that decision than I trust Jim"

Who is asking you to trust me? There are lots and lots of women opposed to it. Are they all self-loathing masochists? Or go watch a hi-def ultrasound of a 4 month old baby, and tell me that it's no more alive than a mole or a tattoo to be removed.

"He thinks he can't have more kids"

Well my urologist went to Harvard, and he gave me the old snip-snip, so it's not some crazy theory of mine that I can't have any more kids. Not sure where the hell you got that idea.

"Lucky for him, no one, other than maybe his church, gets to tell him how many kids he has to have"

You must be some theology scholar! Please tell me, what church tells its members how many kids to have? I am unaware of one that does so, sure as hell not my church. Please enlighten me!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Exactly wrong. The only way it got settled in the first place, was because of activist judges. The constitution lists specific powers enumerated to the feds, and it explicitly states that everything else, is left to the states. The word abortion isn't in there. They justified it, by claiming that the federal protection against "unreasonable search and seizure" implies that abortion is OK? That's quite a leap, which is akin to activism. In my opinion, it should go to the states, the vast majority of which would uphold it, because as you say, that's what people want.

You are mostly correct in everything you say here. Just one very important thing you should correct. It's not that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. There are, and will eventually be, an unlimited amount of words (concepts) that are not in the Constitution, but which the federal government has the power to regulate. What makes a concept subject to federal regulation is if it fits within the sphere of a federal enumerated power.

What so-called judicial activism does is twist and stretch beyond all sense the meaning of a word or concept so that it can theoretically appear to fall within the sphere of an enumerated power. Of course, brilliant minds with sinister intent can do that with almost any word or concept. So, for a judicial activist, the Constitution can be shaped to mean whatever the activist claims it means. And he can justify his verbal machination with the judicial cover of "interpretation."

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You are mostly correct in everything you say here. Just one very important thing you should correct. It's not that the word abortion isn't in the Constitution. There are, and will eventually be, an unlimited amount of words (concepts) that are not in the Constitution, but which the federal government has the power to regulate. What makes a concept subject to federal regulation is if it fits within the sphere of a federal enumerated power.

What so-called judicial activism does is twist and stretch beyond all sense the meaning of a word or concept so that it can theoretically appear to fall within the sphere of an enumerated power. Of course, brilliant minds with sinister intent can do that with almost any word or concept. So, for a judicial activist, the Constitution can be shaped to mean whatever the activist claims it means. And he can justify his verbal machination with the judicial cover of "interpretation."

Correct, something doesn’t have to be explicitly in there to be constitutional. But connecting search and seizure with abortion? Evil Kineval couldn’t make that leap. I guess the difference between sound judgment and radical judicial activism, has to do with how far you are willing to stretch the bounds of common sense. As you say, a sinister genius can be quite effective in this regard.

I’m curious to see who he picks. I also wonder if Clarence Thomas is giving any thought to retiring while the gop has the White House and senate. Ginsberg screwed up royally by not retiring when obama was in office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device