The Filibuster: All That's Left for the Dems

[musicman]

MM, everyone is quibbling over the definition at this time period and you know that definition it is that they are 'quibbling' about.

Do me a favor and re-read the post I was answering.

 

[Annie]

You guys need to do some Constitution and legal study.
The answer is no, but they can restrict it..

As I googled it, the only play I see for the states is whether or not to impose parental notification-which federal courts have rather vigorously intervened with.

What is it you mean, as I would like to follow you reasoning? Here's mine:

1. Roe v Wade was bad law, basically law by fiat.
2. Since that time, courts have been ruling on the bad law, which of course
was the precedent-setting up the stacks of case law.
3. Since Roe, the members of the legislative branch that agreed with the
SCOTUS regarding Roe, have been in panic mode about judicial
appointees for fear that if a non-legislating judge with was appointed,
any rulings on Roe could overturn that bad law, and all the following cases.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Do me a favor and re-read the post I was answering.

whooops, sorry. my bad.

 

[musicman]

whooops, sorry. my bad.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

MM, everyone is quibbling over the definition at this time period and you know that definition it is that they are 'quibbling' about.

I've only see p quibble about this. Rulings have the same effect as new law. EVERYONE is not quibbling over this.

 

[pegwinn]

OK, after three painfull pages of catching up I see the topic morphed from filibusters to judicial legislation and case law. Wow. I was hoping to see frist use a mini-nuke and restore the original version of the filibuster. Imagine CSPAN with an ongoing democrat filibuster. Quorum Calls, no sleep, no surrendur, and an immediate vote when it comes tumbling down.

 

[Mr. P]

And you need to study basic intellectual honesty. Rulings become defacto law. You know it. Quit spinning.

So is it correct to say the US Constitution is the "LAW" of the land?
I think we can agree on that, I hope so anyway.
Now, when a state, Texas in this case with Roe, makes a law that supercedes Constitutional rights
shouldn't that be struck down? Agreed? That's what happened in roe. No new law was legislated, but a state law that infringed on Constitutional rights was struck down. So who's spinning here, and who's being intellectually honest?
It all depends on how close you are to the Constitution I guess.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So is it correct to say the US Constitution is the "LAW" of the land?
I think we can agree on that, I hope so anyway.
Now, when a state, Texas in this case with Roe, makes a law that supercedes Constitutional rights
shouldn't that be struck down? Agreed? That's what happened in roe. No new law was legislated, but a state law that infringed on Constitutional rights was struck down. So who's spinning here, and who's being intellectually honest?
It all depends on how close you are to the Constitution I guess.

It's a misreading of the constitution. It's claiming there's a right in the constitution which clearly is not there. I know you believe judges dictate reality, but that is not, in reality, the case. You're spinning.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Show us in the constitution where abortion rights are guaranteed.

 

[archangel]

Show us in the constitution where abortion rights are guaranteed.

Mr.P will somehow morph the second amendment on this one...lol I think he needs a little more Bud Lite to bolster his arguments...

 

[Annie]

Mr. P, here is one argument-privacy-I have problems with Roe..

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0440_George_Will_on_Rowe_.html

George Will calls Roe v.Wade "bad"
3/89

Newsweek columnist George Will recently called the Roe vs. Wade decision a "bad" and "anti-constitutional" decision which has "resulted in dismaying practices." The popular journalist, in a February 13 editorial, said that support for Roe was "collapsing perhaps in the Court and certainly among thoughtful people ... beneath the weight of its incoherence and accumulating weight of scientific and medical facts."

Will explained that the 1973 abortion decision was shaky due to a "doubly absurd proposition: no one knows when human life begins but the Court knows when 'meaningful' life begins." He went on to say, "The indisputable fact is that a fetus is alive and biologically human. Pregnancy is a continuum: what begins at conception will, if there is no natural misfortune or deliberate attack, become a child," he said.

He pointed out the contradictions in the decision making of the Supreme Court justices: on one hand, courts have ruled that a woman has the right to her own body; yet in other cases, courts have ruled to take custody of fetuses by "controlling, even jailing, pregnant women whose behavior (e.g. drug abuse) might jeopardize the health of their fetuses."

He explained that "science and society are radically and increasingly out of sync" in its treatment of human life. "Prenatal medicine's diagnostic and therapeutic techniques make possible intrauterine treatment of many forms of fetal distress and genetic problems. Medicine, the most humane science, can heal fetuses that the law says lack an attribute of humanity - rights."

Here's another:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/abortion.htm

Introduction
No decision of the Supreme Court in the twentieth century has been as controversial as the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision holding that women have a right to choose to have an abortion during the first two trimesters of a pregnancy. Attorneys for Roe had suggested several constitutional provisions might be violated by the Texas law prohibiting abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother. The law was said to have been an establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment, unconstitionally vague (the ground used in Blackmun's first draft of his opinion), a denial of equal protection of the laws, and a violation of the Ninth Amendment (which states that certain rights not specified in the first eight amendments are reserved to the people). The Court in Roe chose, however, to base its decision on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the so-called "right of privacy" protected in earlier decisions such as Griswold v Connecticut (striking down a ban on the use, sale, and distribution of contraceptives). Deciding HOW to protect the right to an abortion proved as difficult. Justice Blackmun's approach, one clerk at the time said, "As a practical matter, was not a bad decision--but as a constitutional matter it was absurd." Roe's trimester-based analysis generally prohibits regulation of abortions in the first trimester, allows regulation for protecting the health of the mother in the second trimester, and allows complete abortion bans after six months, the approximate time a fetus becomes viable.

Norma McCorvey, the woman who as "Jane Roe" challenged the abortion law of Texas in Roe v. Wade.

It was assumed by most observers of the Court in 1992 that Planned Parenthood v Casey would be the vehicle for for overturning Roe. Instead, three swing members of the Court (Souter, O'Connor, Kennedy) joined in an opinion retaining the core right recognized in Roe while rejecting the trimester-based framework. The three justices used stare decisis to justify their decision. Casey leaves courts to grapple with abortion regulations through application of a new test: Does the regulation in question place an undue burden on a woman's right to choose an abortion? Using this new test, courts have upheld some abortion regulations (such as 24-hour waiting periods) while striking down others.

Then again, there is Justice Blackmun's own admission that the law was arbitrary:

http://www.nrlc.org/news/1998/NRL2.98/kmiec298.html

There is lots more here:

None of the justices claim there is a specific textual guarantee of abortion to be found anywhere in the constitutional document. Nor does the abortion claim find legitimacy within the background principles of common law out of which the American Constitution emerged. As Bracton records, and the draft opinions within the internal Marshall papers indicate the justices knew, abortion has little common law support, and was clearly thought by some to be homicide [II Bracton, On the Laws and Customs of England 341 (Thorne ed. 1968), a citation to which can be found in Justice Blackmun's fourth circulated draft in December 1972]. Because of the more rudimentary nature of science in the 18th and 19th centuries, the common law drew a distinction between abortions before and after quickening [16 to 18 weeks], but under English codification in 1803 both were criminal only in different degrees. When medical science advanced, the quickening distinction receded, and penalties for all abortions increased. In 1868, when the 14th Amendment was adopted, statutory prohibitions or restrictions on abortion were commonplace. Twenty-eight states of the then 37 and 8 territories banned or limited abortion, [J. Mohr, Abortion in America (1978)].

The Court's drafts also reveal that the decision was not being guided by ancient precepts of medical ethics. In this respect, the Hippocratic Oath, dating back three to four hundred years before Christ, had doctors pledging that they "will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest any such counsel; and in like manner...not give to a woman a pessary to produce abortion." [The fourth circulated draft of Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe cites the Hippocratic Oath, but cavalierly dismisses it on the basis of academic writing that found it to be held as true only within Pythagorean Greek culture. Why the Pythago-reans should be so ill-treated, or deemed uninfluential, is not explained. Indeed, the Oath, which coincides with prevalent Christian belief since the end of antiquity, became the "nucleus" of medical ethics.]
[...]

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Mr.P will somehow morph the second amendment on this one...lol I think he needs a little more Bud Lite to bolster his arguments...

Or more Kool-aid!

 

[Mr. P]

Show us in the constitution where abortion rights are guaranteed.

You're still missing the point..
This (ROE) was not about abortion being made law..it was about a state taking away constitutional rights..
Like I said it all depends on how close you are to the constitution.
I'm afraid most people are closer to the issue and refuse to look past it. So be it..tis what makes good chat boards, I guess.

 

[Adam's Apple]

Show us in the constitution where abortion rights are guaranteed.

He can't, and neither can the Supreme Court justices who made the ruling.

 

[SmarterThanYou]

Show us in the constitution where abortion rights are guaranteed.

why do so many people continue to construe the constitution as a prohibitive document of citizens rights instead of a probitive document of governments authorities?

Anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution is automatically retained by the people and then the states.

 

[archangel]

why do so many people continue to construe the constitution as a prohibitive document of citizens rights instead of a probitive document of governments authorities?

Anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution is automatically retained by the people and then the states.

Ya kinda lost me on this one...what is it that you are really saying?

 

[Mr. P]

Ya kinda lost me on this one...what is it that you are really saying?

I think he said, "YOU don't have a f'ing CLUE".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You're still missing the point..
This (ROE) was not about abortion being made law..it was about a state taking away constitutional rights..
Like I said it all depends on how close you are to the constitution.
I'm afraid most people are closer to the issue and refuse to look past it. So be it..tis what makes good chat boards, I guess.

I think you're missing the point. There's no right to abortion in the constitution. IF there is, show us. Put up or shut up.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

why do so many people continue to construe the constitution as a prohibitive document of citizens rights instead of a probitive document of governments authorities?

Anything not specifically prohibited by the constitution is automatically retained by the people and then the states.

exaclty dk. It's a states rights issue. You seem to be learning. If put to a vote in the states, some would probably outlaw it, but some would retain it. Worst case scenario: one might have to travel to new york or mass. for an abortion.

 

[archangel]

I think he said, "YOU don't have a f'ing CLUE".

I'm not really good on four letter dirt ball words...Just the Facts mam'..just the facts..clear and concise is what I say...back to CNN et al for you...sound bites...suck! see I am learning!