On Roe V Wade, I agree With Everything He Says Except

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I'm for a woman's right to 'choose':

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/008507.html#008507

Rudy And Abortion

I'm one of the few people who doesn't have strong opinions about abortion. I have opinions (I'd like to see a world in which we have none, but I'm not sure that the government should be involved), but no candidate's position on it is going to be a deal breaker for me, either way. But, as I said, I'm one of the few, and to many people it matters a lot, which is one of Rudy Giuliani's biggest problems. As it happens, my biggest problem with him is his apparent indifference to the Second Amendment.

But for those to whom abortion is a deal breaker, I ask: what does a president have to do with abortion? What difference does it make what he thinks about the issue?

Well, the obvious rejoinder, from both pro and anti whatever, is that he appoints Supreme Court justices.

OK. Well, here's the thing. I know that it's tough to do for a lot of people--it actually requires some sophisticated thought, but one has to divorce Supreme Court decisions from their real-world consequences. That is, the court doesn't rule on whether or not things are good ideas, or even moral. They (at least in theory) rule on whether or not they follow the law, and are in accordance with the Constitution. It is about process, not result.

I know that this will be hard to comprehend, but it is quite possible to believe that abortion is wonderful, that every woman should have at least one, and still believe that Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty. Similarly, one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document. My position is that, regardless of one's position on abortion (including mine) that it was a mess. I also agree with the notion that it is something that should be decided politically, and that many legislators on both sides were relieved when the Court made up a new law out of whole cloth, because it relieved them of the responsibility of having to make any decisions on it, for which they might be held politically accountable....
 

Emmett

Active Member
Joined
Sep 1, 2005
Messages
557
Reaction score
101
Points
28
Location
Murrayville, Ga
I agree with the article. The president really does not have much to do with the law other than the popshot that his/her selection of a supreme court justice may be involved in a reversal decision , or not!

Really Democratti (Rudy) won't be the president anyway so it really does not matter.

I like Rudi but it is his 2nd Amendment positions that bother me. I also like Jimmy Carter as a person but I agree with absolutely nothing he stands for politically.
 
OP
Annie

Annie

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 22, 2003
Messages
50,848
Reaction score
4,826
Points
1,790
I agree with the article. The president really does not have much to do with the law other than the popshot that his/her selection of a supreme court justice may be involved in a reversal decision , or not!

Really Democratti (Rudy) won't be the president anyway so it really does not matter.

I like Rudi but it is his 2nd Amendment positions that bother me. I also like Jimmy Carter as a person but I agree with absolutely nothing he stands for politically.
I'm sure we'll be hearing more about the 2nd amendment. As for Jimmy Carter, the man is a weasel! His last book, pffft. If he had stayed with Habitat for Humanity I could have at least respected him. Now I think he's just a bitter has been.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
I know that this will be hard to comprehend, but it is quite possible to believe that abortion is wonderful, that every woman should have at least one, and still believe that Roe v. Wade was a judicial travesty. Similarly, one could believe that abortion is an ongoing genocide, and think Roe great, if one is inclined to want judges to find imaginary rights in the document. My position is that, regardless of one's position on abortion (including mine) that it was a mess.

Yes, and believe it or not, someone occasionally picks up on this. In law school there were liberal women smart enough to understand that the ruling was a terrible one, legally speaking. Though they still supported abortion rights.

The fact is that abortion is not and never should be a federal issue. Roe v. Wade was dead wrong. There is nothing in the Constitution forbidding a state from banning abortion.

Unfortunately, most people aren't going to slice it that thin. And I mean both pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Like so many other issues that never should have been federalized, nobody really gives a crap anymore about the distinction between state and national power. They just want their way. Making this distinction is the sort of measured intelligence that we just don't bring to our politics. It would be perfectly acceptable to me if a presidential candidate just said that much, without getting into the morality of abortion.

So that brings us back to the absurdity that the chief executive of the national government has to come up with an opinion on abortion, homosexuality and how much sugar to include in your cookie recipe, instead of immigration, war, and foreign policy.
 

acludem

VIP Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2003
Messages
1,502
Reaction score
49
Points
71
Location
Missouri
I actually agree that Blackmun missed the boat in a way, he missed where the right to privacy is plainly spelled out in the Constitution, it's in the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."

It's right there. Debate it all you want, but it's right there in plain language.

acludem
 

musicman

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2004
Messages
5,171
Reaction score
533
Points
48
Location
Ohio
I actually agree that Blackmun missed the boat in a way, he missed where the right to privacy is plainly spelled out in the Constitution, it's in the fourth amendment "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.."

It's right there. Debate it all you want, but it's right there in plain language.

acludem
Ummm...no - this "right to privacy" has been manufactured out of whole cloth by a subjective judicial interpretation. More to the point, this subjective judicial interpretation directly contradicts the plain language of the United States Constitution. It insinuates central government - in the person of the federal judiciary - into matters where it is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN - in the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Tenth Amendment - to go.
 

William Joyce

Chemotherapy for PC
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
9,758
Reaction score
1,146
Points
190
Location
Caucasiastan
Ummm...no - this "right to privacy" has been manufactured out of whole cloth by a subjective judicial interpretation. More to the point, this subjective judicial interpretation directly contradicts the plain language of the United States Constitution. It insinuates central government - in the person of the federal judiciary - into matters where it is EXPRESSLY FORBIDDEN - in the PLAIN LANGUAGE of the Tenth Amendment - to go.
If the Court is pressed on where the "right to privacy" is found, they'll say it's a part of due process under the 5th and 14th Amendment. That whole idea is big enough to drive a semi through, and liberals are truckin' on through the night.

acludem, I doubt anyone would try basing abortion rights on the 4th Amendment, but you may just have given an attorney an idea...
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top