Posted on 10/14/2005 12:38:54 PM PDT by Theodore R.
Well, I didn't feel like using it.
So you be nice
Do you think Griswold V. CT, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood V. Casey were decidely properly, under the Constitution? If you say yes, they they all stand. If you say no, then it undermines the COurt's credibility to let them stand.
From Roe v. Wade ...And you argue that the voters aren't ready to handle the issue. Do you think that might be, pehaps, just a little bit "elitist?" Afraid of debate in the public square, and need the Court to make public policy? Is that not what we are fighting against here?MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST, dissenting.
The Court's opinion brings to the decision of this troubling question both extensive historical fact and a wealth of legal scholarship. While the opinion thus commands my respect, I find myself nonetheless in fundamental disagreement with those parts of it that invalidate the Texas statute in question, and therefore dissent. ...
The fact that a majority of the States reflecting, after all, the majority sentiment in those States, have had restrictions on abortions for at least a century is a strong indication, it seems to me, that the asserted right to an abortion is not "so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental," Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934). Even today, when society's views on abortion are changing, the very existence of the debate is evidence that the "right" to an abortion is not so universally accepted as the appellant would have us believe.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=410&invol=113
From Planned Parenthood ...JUSTICE SCALIA, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE, JUSTICE WHITE, and JUSTICE THOMAS join,
concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.My views on this matter are unchanged from those I set forth in my separate opinions in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490, 532 (1989) (opinion concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and Ohio v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502, 520 (1990) (Akron II) (concurring opinion). The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so. The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting. As the Court acknowledges, "where reasonable people disagree, the government can adopt one position or the other." Ante, at 851. The Court is correct in adding the qualification that this "assumes a state of affairs in which the choice does not intrude upon a protected liberty," ibid., - but the crucial part of that qualification [505 U.S. 833, 980] is the penultimate word. A State's choice between two positions on which reasonable people can disagree is constitutional even when (as is often the case) it intrudes upon a "liberty" in the absolute sense. Laws against bigamy, for example - with which entire societies of reasonable people disagree - intrude upon men and women's liberty to marry and live with one another. But bigamy happens not to be a liberty specially "protected" by the Constitution. ...
Roe's mandate for abortion on demand destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level. At the same time, Roe created a vast new class of abortion consumers and abortion proponents by eliminating the moral opprobrium that had attached to the act. ("If the Constitution guarantees abortion, how can it be bad?" - not an accurate line of thought, but a natural one.) Many favor all of those developments, and it is not for me to say that they are wrong. But to portray Roe as the statesmanlike "settlement" of a divisive issue, a jurisprudential Peace of Westphalia that is worth preserving, is nothing less than Orwellian.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=505&invol=833
According to the Antis 90+% of the GOP is RINOs.
Dane and some others could take a lesson from you on this post number I'm replying to (go back and look at an intelligent converse, Dane). You make some good points; they sound unhinged. We will see what happens in the coming months. I wish I had your confidence, but I'm afraid I do not.
Please go back and READ the thread. No one has responded to me? I was the one that responded, that we have a right to express our views. I have not expressed what my views are. You have mistook me for someone else.
He was asked about that and would not commit to vote for her.
And if he had nominated Putin, conservatives should just shut up and take it?
Of course it isn't but that won't stop the Ultras from slashing and burning.
I sorry if you disagree with the First and the Seventeenth Amendments.
Two duck hunters ran into one another early one morning. One of them noticed that the others dog was just sitting there, with absolutely no interest in retrieving any of the fowl his master had downed.
"What s wrong with your dog?" the first hunter asked. "The last time I saw you two he was one of the best bird dogs I had ever seen!"
"Well," the other hunter replied, "His name is Lawyer. He used to run all over creation, working hard to get the job done. Then one day someone made the mistake of calling him Judge. Now all he does is sit on his ass and bark."
Bene Dictus
Returning some power of legislation to the states, that the SCOTUS has taken away by the power of Roe and its progeny, would mean that women would lobby the states to pass "sensible" laws regulating abortion. Until the laws in the various states are changed, the situation is status quo. States may be chicken to tackle the issue too. But simple because it is a divisive issue, better it be made by more of the people, instead of by "the Imperial Judiciary."
The way the Antis are carrying on anyone they don't want probably would be pretty good.
We'll see if you're right about Miers in the coming months. If your not, should I come after you in a (pagan) devil's costume?
There has been nothing said about the first and there have been many comments over the years questioning the wisdom of having Senators be elected. I am ambivalent about it given the idiots who make up state legislatures.
I was making a point about the intentions of the Founders.
Listen: one of the primary traits of conservatives is self reliance. You could have found out more about Phyllis by googling her in the same time it took you to ask that question. Let me tell you something 'cause you seem to be newer than yours truly here: people here value self-help and reliance unlike the folks at DUmmieland. If you want to avoiding answers like mine, start being a true conservative and do some research. Sorry if I sound harsh - but people here don't spoonfeed others. Help - yes, spoonfeeding - no.
"Of course it isn't but that won't stop the Ultras from slashing and burning."
Yep. Sometimes its much easier to see differences than commonality.
Well said.
I don't know what you mean wrt the costume but we won't really know much of anything for a couple of years at least.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.