Amy Barrett for Supreme Court?

[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