Posted on 11/17/2005 12:39:15 AM PST by AZRepublican
I grant you have a point. Sometimes things we can never imagine happening in our lifetimes happens only a few years later. I just mean I don't feel optimistic about it in the forseeable future.
I believe Bush knows the position of both Roberts and Alito on Roe v. Wade. I think Larry Tribe is correct that a filibuster on the Alito nomination is coming from the Democrats. Democrats are beholden to the "broad vote." This is all going to get very ugly very soon.
DA740
I believe Bush knows the position of both Roberts and Alito on Roe v. Wade. I think Larry Tribe is correct that a filibuster on the Alito nomination is coming from the Democrats. Democrats are beholden to the "broad vote." This is all going to get very ugly very soon.
DA740
Thanks for setting me straight.
It looks like I missed by 1 vote. I'm glad I'm wrong.
And, because of the consequences, I think it will take more than 5 votes to reverse Roe.
I actually think that there are (or could be) some laws that are unconstitutional because they violate a Ninth Amendment retained right of privacy.
But "privacy", however much of a right as it is, cannot create a zone of privilege wherin you can commit felonies.
For example, let's say that a Constitutional amendment were passed saying, "Since privacy in the bedroom is the foundation of a free people, the right to free choice of sexual conduct shall not be infringed".
This would not mean that you could cheat on your taxes if you could prove you were having sex while doing them.
That you are free from unreasonable searches and seizures in your home does not mean if you kill your wife and bury her body in the basement of your home, as opposed to at the airport, that you cannot be prosecuted.
The problem with Roe v. Wade is that it is a non sequitur - the killing of your child does not follow from the privacy righht announced in the decision.
A Court with the power to include murder within an hypothetical privacy right is a Court without any definable limit on its power.
But an abortion is no a felony because a fetus under a certain level of development is not considered a person. Until that changes then your arguement is moot.
When Roe v. Wade was announced, abortion was illegal in 48 states. Second-trimester abortion was illegal in the other two.
None of these fifty laws rested on the personhood of the fetus.
Grand theft auto is a felony, even though a car is not a person.
What exactly are you saying?
What I am saying is that abortion is not a felony because a fetus is not considered a person being killed.
So, prior to Roe v. Wade, is it your belief that abortion was illegal because all 50 states defined a fetus as a person?
You're forgetting about Kennedy.
Also, Stevens probably won't make it past Bush's second term. He is very old and ailing. Bush may get yet another pick!
DA740
Have a Merry Christmas
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.