Roe v. Wade

[Rin-chan]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

Once again, I agree with you.  Are you sure you're not as conservative as I am?

Rin-chan

[Frodo]

Judging by the results on these and other polls, I can see why other more liberal Democrats would wonder whether -given my moderately conservative disposition on cultural issues and my hawkish stance on foreign policy- I am even in the right party.... 

[© tweed]

Another thing the Supreme Court could potentially do is hand out a ruling that is the inverse of Roe v. Wade; that is, rule all state laws that allow abortions unconstitutional by deeming them murder.

Legalizing murder is not unconstitutional. As long as the murder is being committed by private parties, without the involvement of the state, no constitutional problem arises.

Yes, by your interpretation.  The SCOTUS' interpretation might be very different based on their personal feelings on the issue.

Also, I doubt any of the current SC justices would deem murder as a constitutional act.

[Emsworth]

Another thing the Supreme Court could potentially do is hand out a ruling that is the inverse of Roe v. Wade; that is, rule all state laws that allow abortions unconstitutional by deeming them murder.

Legalizing murder is not unconstitutional. As long as the murder is being committed by private parties, without the involvement of the state, no constitutional problem arises.

Yes, by your interpretation.  The SCOTUS' interpretation might be very different based on their personal feelings on the issue.

Also, I doubt any of the current SC justices would deem murder as a constitutional act.

No, I think that this is actually a very clear issue. Virtually every judge and lawyer understands that the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution) prohibits government action, not private action.

[dazzleman]

Yes.  I think the ruling has distorted our political process for 33 years, and is a particularly egregious example of judicial activism, and has had no end of ill effects for our form of government.

The issue should be turned over to the state legislatures, where it should have been left in the first place.  And you know what will change effectively -- nothing.  The state legislatures, on balance, will vote to keep early term abortions legal and place restrictions on late term abortions.  That is what the American people want.  Those who oppose this should lobby legislators for change, not courts.  The states that would put more restrictive bans on abortion effectively offer little access to abortion at this point anyway, so there's no real change there.

Once again, I agree with you.  Are you sure you're not as conservative as I am?

Rin-chan

We're probably equally conservative.  I think we're both conservative leaning Republicans, but not extreme right-wingers.

[A18]

Check out her PC score.

[nclib]

Democrat - No

a cutback on third trimester abortions would be nice.

Do you mean less need for third trimester abortions or more restrictions on them? I agree with the former but not the latter.

Most third trimester abortions are done for health reasons.

[dazzleman]

Check out her PC score.

Average them together, and we're about equal...
Rin-chan's scores don't really seem to jibe with the opinions she expresses here, so maybe some of the questions were misleading.

[dazzleman]

Most third trimester abortions are done for health reasons.

That's the standard NOW line.  As such, I doubt that it's true.  Probably about as true as their statistic that 85% of American men beat their wives on Superbowl Sunday, or some such thing.  I believe nothing those people say.

[minionofmidas]

Define overturned.

In the context of the question, I am asking whether you would have the issue of abortion 'rights' removed from the courts and given back to the state legislatures to decide the issue as they see fit.  That's what I mean by 'overturning' Roe v. Wade. 

That#s not a question that is at all related to Roe vs Wade.

[Frodo]

Define overturned.

In the context of the question, I am asking whether you would have the issue of abortion 'rights' removed from the courts and given back to the state legislatures to decide the issue as they see fit.  That's what I mean by 'overturning' Roe v. Wade. 

That#s not a question that is at all related to Roe vs Wade.

Can you elaborate as how and why you think it is not related in any way to the decision?  Any overturning of Roe vs. Wade will simply defederalize this issue and return it back to the states, as was the case prior to the decision. 

[Speed of Sound]

Democrat - No

a cutback on third trimester abortions would be nice.

Do you mean less need for third trimester abortions or more restrictions on them? I agree with the former but not the latter.

Most third trimester abortions are done for health reasons.

true, but i still wish that less third trimester aboritons wouild happen.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Define overturned.

In the context of the question, I am asking whether you would have the issue of abortion 'rights' removed from the courts and given back to the state legislatures to decide the issue as they see fit.  That's what I mean by 'overturning' Roe v. Wade. 

That's absurd. Abortion has never and can never be the domain of the Supreme Court. Simple republican principle dictates that issues such as abortion should lie forever with the legislators. It is impossible for anything to be made legal or illegal by the Supreme Court because to elevate court decisions to the pedestal of Supreme Law of the Land would clearly be tyranny. As Roberts wrote in Butler, "It is sometimes said that the court assumes a power to overrule or control the action of the people's representatives. This is a misconception. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ordained and established by the people. All legislation must conform to the principles it lays down. When an act of Congress is appropriately challenged in the courts as not conforming to the constitutional mandate, the judicial branch of the government has only one duty; to lay the article of the Constitution which is invoked beside the statute which is challenged and to decide whether the latter squares with the former. All the court does, or can do, is to announce its considered judgment upon the question. The only power it has, if such it may be called, is the power of judgment. This court neither approves nor condemns any legislative policy. Its delicate and difficult office is to ascertain and declare whether the legislation is in accordance with, or in contravention of, the provisions of the Constitution; and, having done that, its duty ends."

[Tory]

Overturn it, let the states decide. I think one of the most dishonest things the left has done is fight to protect a ruling they know to be dead wrong in order to force thier beliefs on the American people.

ABORTION IS NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION

[Tory]

Like all arguments it is black and white and very simple. Roe V Wade was an illegal, activist decision. The house didn't vote, the prez didn't look at it. It is judicial activism at its core, and it will be overturned within three years.

It wasn't illegal, and it's ignorant to claim it was. It was fully in the power of the court to declare anti-abortion laws unconstitutional. They were just simply wrong. And the house and the president don't have anything to do with this matter, I think you need to re-learn your checks and balances.

[Keystone Phil]

dare I say there would be the possibility of secession. 

You're silly.

[Keystone Phil]

Well the Dakotas have a pretty Democratic delegation to Congress and are more or less libertarian in ideology as are most of the High Plains. 

The Dakotas have Dems representing them in the House and Senate (besides Thune) and that means that the states are Pro Choice? Are you serious?

but the similarities beyond that are almost nonexistent. They are polar opposities on economic issues, as well as quite a few other social issues.

Wrong.

[opebo]

Overturn it, let the states decide. I think one of the most dishonest things the left has done is fight to protect a ruling they know to be dead wrong in order to force thier beliefs on the American people.

You idiot, the decision doesn't force anyone beliefs on anyone else, it merely prevents the intolerants from forcing their beliefs on pregnant women and their doctors. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That is irrelevant, Tory, the Right to Privacy is in the constitution.

[MasterJedi]

Yes it should be overturned.

[A18]

That is irrelevant, Tory, the Right to Privacy is in the constitution.

No, it's not. You've admitted you're just making it up, so why do you keep posting it as if it's fact?

[opebo]

That is irrelevant, Tory, the Right to Privacy is in the constitution.

No, it's not. You've admitted you're just making it up, so why do you keep posting it as if it's fact?

No, I never made it up, the Foundling Fathers did.

[A18]

You admitted that your 'interpretation' was just a political decision.

If the founding generation believed in a 'right to privacy,' they wouldn't have executed people for sodomy. Moreover, you are unable to cite any text that supports your conclusion that the Constitution contains a generic right to privacy.

[opebo]

You admitted that your 'interpretation' was just a political decision.

No, not my interpretation, but that of the Supreme Court is a political decision.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

They were inconsistent, which is unsurprising given what awful primitives they were.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, the Bill of Rights. 

[A18]

You said anyone who interprets something is just making a political decision.

No one thought there was a right to privacy then, even though state bills of rights had many of the same provisions as the U.S. Bill of Rights. Clearly, your interpretation is not the original understanding.

Quote the part of the Bill of Rights that establishes a right to privacy.

[opebo]

You said anyone who interprets something is just making a political decision.

That is certainly true.. though of course meaningless unless you have power.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does the original understanding have to do with it? 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not familiar with the document.