Uhm, my position has remained consistent, no matter what your interpretation might be. Here's my position:
1. Roe v. Wade is bad law.
2. There are a lot of grounds on which Roe can be overturned, some of which Alito and Roberts subscribe to.
3. You end up supporting my point, that Hunter's requirement - for the justices to affirm the humanity of fetuses - would ultimately lead to judicial activism, namely, the overturning of liberal abortion laws.
4. My opinion is as follows: it should be up to the states to determine its policy regarding unborn life and abortion, not up to the court. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Court to make determinations about unborn life and impose them on the states.
I think you really weaken your own case against judicial activism, when it you reveal that you only actually suppport activism when you agree with the result. I'm sorry to say, cause you seem really friendly.
it should be up to the states to determine its policy regarding unborn life colored people and abortion slavery, not up to the court. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the Court to make determinations about unborn life slavery and impose them on the states. [except where the Constitution USED to say that non-whites were worth less than white people]
Just something to consider. I don't wish to sidetrack the thread into a debate about the Civil War, as I do wish the issue could have been decided via the "state's rights" course, and indeed, I hope that abortion can be done so as well. I wouldn't mind if some states still allowed abortion, as long as others could outlaw it; this would make it (abortion) easier to contain, combat, and eventually destroy in all 50 states.
However, I will not be saddened in the least bit if we have a bit of "conservative judicial activism" (to use an oxymoron), with regards to abortion. Abortion is an inherent evil, just like murder: Sometimes, extremism is justified in resisting inherent evil, because if we "preserve the Constitution" above all else, by tolerating inherently evil acts, then the "Constitution" is worthless.
Dear LtdGovt,
"3. You end up supporting my point, that Hunter's requirement - for the justices to affirm the humanity of fetuses - would ultimately lead to judicial activism, namely, the overturning of liberal abortion laws. "
No, I don't.
It certainly must lead to overturning Roe.
It could possibly lead to more than that.
However, under your interpretation of the Constitution, it could not. Even admitting the humanity of unborn children, you believe does not permit the Court construing the Constitution to ban abortion, as a judicial fiat.
So you are assuming that Mr. Hunter's justices will go further than you do based on the same evidence.
It's an assumption on your part that isn't logically required. And when you make like it is logically required, then you're typing out of both sides of your keyboard.
"I think you really weaken your own case against judicial activism, when it you reveal that you only actually suppport activism when you agree with the result."
I never said:
- what my own interpretation of the Constitution might be vis-a-vis whether or not the fact of the humanity of unborn children requires banning abortion;
- whether I think that such a judicial act would be a good idea.
Rather, I said that I think that the case could be made for such a judicial ruling. It is certainly easier to make the case that an appropriate interpretation of the Constitution would BAN abortion rather than BAN laws restricting abortion.
However, if I do believe that the Constitution is best construed to require legal protection of unborn children, then obviously, it wouldn't be judicial activism, in my view, for the Court to rule in such a way. It would be strict constructionism.
Which is kind of the point with Mr. Giuliani. He believes that there is a right to abortion. A constitutional right for a woman to procure the killing of her unborn child. He believes that the Constitution is rightly construed in affirming such a "right."
Thus, for him, "strict constructionism" could easily include upholding Roe.
sitetest