What ideas should the new SC Justice embody?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gabriella84, Jul 1, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I would hope the new Supreme Court appointment would vote to uphold all the existing rights and laws of the United States. Including, of course, the fundamental principle of Roe vs. Wade.
    The importance of having a woman on the High Court was that the justices could finally hear the opinions and viewpoints of law from a female perspective. Because abortion rights is a female issue. I don't know why males should even be allowed a voice in the issue.
    No male will ever get pregnant. Thus, no male will ever understand what transpires in the time from conception to birth. Nor will they ever understand the life-altering process of having a child to care for.
    If abortion if made illegal, then every unmarried female who is forced to carry to term and give birth should be financially supported. That is the twist that few every worry about. They want women to have children, but don;t care what happens after that.
    "Hey, we don't care how you manage to feed, house, clothe or take care of your child. You just have to do it. It's not our problem."
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    IT should be a strict constuctionist. This means someone who makes decision based on the constitution instead of doing whatever they want and then writing some bullsnap opinion that a two year can tell is illogical.
     
  3. musicman
    Offline

    musicman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2004
    Messages:
    5,171
    Thanks Received:
    533
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +533
    During Al Gore's 2000 "keep counting votes till I win" campaign, his team advanced one argument - which reached the USSC - stating that Florida ballots did not contain "an objective standard".

    Justice O'Connor - in shooting down this particular slapstick skit, said, simply, "If they want to find an objective standard, how about THE INSTRUCTIONS THAT ARE WRITTEN ON THE BALLOT, FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE??!!"

    I consider this a high point in Justice O'Connor's career, a redemption of jurisprudence in general, and a resurrection of sweet, blessed, and all-too uncommon common sense.
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    I'll settle for justice for all and no bench legislation. The question is how big of a frenzy both parties are gonna whip up on this one and will we be able to stand all the BS.
     
  5. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    I'll settle for someone who stops "finding" new rights and privledges in the Constitution that simply don't exist there.

    If we want a new right or privledge to be constitutionally protected in this country there is a way to go about getting it...its called ammending the Constitution not simply stating, "Hey...the first ammendment clearly states that I have the right to kill my neighbor...just so long as I am doing so in order to express my freedom of expression!" There is a whole process that must take place in order to do so that involves more than simply the people sitting on the Supreme Court...just as there should be.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Hell, forget new rights and privledges, I just want property rights put back where they should be. Kelo sucked!
     
  7. 5stringJeff
    Offline

    5stringJeff Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2003
    Messages:
    9,990
    Thanks Received:
    536
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Puyallup, WA
    Ratings:
    +540
    The next SCOTUS justice should prize federalism and strict construction of the Constitution above all else. To these ends, my ideal justice would (in the case of abortion, which Gabby brought up) overturn Roe V. Wade, and then rule that the federal government has no jurisdiction over abortion, effectively turning the legality of abortion over to the states. People would then be free to live in states where abortion is legal or illegal, according to their preference.
     
  8. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I obviously don't agree, but I would go for that as opposed to a complete overturning of Roe vs. Wade.
    But I believe any vote on abortion rights should be open ONLY to women. Since it only affects women.
     
  9. acludem
    Offline

    acludem VIP Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    1,500
    Thanks Received:
    49
    Trophy Points:
    71
    Location:
    Missouri
    Ratings:
    +69
    Abortion is NOT only a women's issue. There is always a man involved in the reproductive process. I do not want a justice who will overturn Roe v. Wade, not because of the abortion issue, but because it would overturn a very basic freedom inherent in the Constitution, the right to privacy.

    acludem
     
  10. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Gabby,

    After reading your posts I really feel that we have a remarkable amount in common and your thoughts and opinions are very similar to where mine were when I was 21 (only 5 years ago...not too long ago!).

    While I understand where you are coming from...I think that,you are neglecting to consider what such a decision: removing men from having any say in abortion rights, would mean in a bigger sense.

    Yes, it would mean that women and only women, would be able to decide what to do regarding this issue. Considering that only women carry and bear children, and all too often, are the only ones raising their children, it might sound like a refreshing idea.

    But in the larger sense, it would also remove one more layer of responsibility from men in our society. With birth control and the legality of abortion we have already raised at least two generations of men often do not feel a sense of obligation to the women they sleep with because 1) they are using protection so they don't get a girl pregnant and 2) because abortion is an option, if they do get a girl pregnant they can simply say that their choice is abortion...and if the girl disagrees then its her responsibility.

    To add to this already dangerous equation that the man's role in a pregnancy is absolutely zero means that young men everywhere will feel absolutely NO RESPONSIBILITY for their actions at all...Why should they, when we women have erased their responsibility for them?!?!

    While it sounds like a good idea to you now, the ultimate result of such a decision would be absolutely disasterous for a society that is already experiencing a HUGE crisis with young men not being willing to assist the women they "help" get pregnant. 75% of African-American children are presently born to single women, Gabby...their fathers run away because they don't feel any responsibility to stick around...your idea would just make it that much more acceptable for them.
     

Share This Page