CDZ Abortion

Discussion in 'Clean Debate Zone' started by Bonzi, Jun 5, 2015.

  1. Publius1787
    Offline

    Publius1787 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2011
    Messages:
    6,211
    Thanks Received:
    668
    Trophy Points:
    190
    Ratings:
    +1,402
    Why? This wouldn't interfere with the politics or commerce of other states at all. People used to cross state lines all the time in order to get an abortion. likewise, if the abortion happened in a state where abortion was not criminalized then the state of residence cannot charge a person for murder committed in another state. I see no conflict. Where is the conflict that would push this up to the Supreme Court?
     
  2. alang1216
    Online

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,023
    Thanks Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +855
    The same SCOTUS that enacted Roe v. Wade? Could the gay marriage decision have been 15 years ago?
     
  3. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    I think Justice Potter made the most salient point on this, long before Scalia was ever to be a Justice on the court.

    He said (and the pro-abortion attorney Sara Weddington agreed) that - "once a State establishes personhood for a human fetus, the case for abortion become nearly impossible to make"



    Justice Potter's comment is much more along the lines of a person's Constitutional rights than Justice Scalia's comments were.
     
  4. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    I can't think of any era in which our Supreme Court would have upheld a law like a Fetal Homicide law that they felt had nothing more than a political basis.

    Can you?
     
  5. alang1216
    Online

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,023
    Thanks Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +855
    Dred Scott or
    Korematsu v. United States (Japanese internment) or
    McDonald v. City of Chicago (2nd amendment)
     
  6. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    How exactly were either of those LIKE a fetal Homicide law?
     
  7. alang1216
    Online

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,023
    Thanks Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +855
    I added McDonald v. City of Chicago (2nd amendment).

    I think in every case SCOTUS interpreted the Constitution in light of current political atmosphere. None was very good law and two have proven to be an enduring embarrassment to the US claim of freedom and equal protection.
     
  8. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189
    Politics are always a factor. That's a given and I have not denied that fact.

    However, you have not made the case for how our "Fetal Homicide" laws are purely Political.

    Neither have you explained why you might think our Supreme Court is only upholding our Fetal Homicide Laws - for political reasons.
     
  9. alang1216
    Online

    alang1216 Pragmatist

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2014
    Messages:
    3,023
    Thanks Received:
    292
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Location:
    Virginia
    Ratings:
    +855
    I doubt politics is the only factor, my only point was that constitutional law is NOT the only factor.

    Unfortunately I only see SCOTUS getting more political not less as the battle over Scalia's replacement shows. This is having a detrimental impact on how we view SCOTUS and their moral authority will diminish as a result.
     
  10. Chuz Life
    Offline

    Chuz Life Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2015
    Messages:
    4,982
    Thanks Received:
    646
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    USA
    Ratings:
    +3,189

    What an odd take on the court.

    I always viewed the court as a Constitutional authority and not as a moral authority.

    It is the Courts duty to rule on cases from a Constitutional standpoint and not from a position based upon their perceived morality.

    Isn't it?
     

Share This Page

Search tags for this page

content