Opinion of Roe vs Wade

[WD]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

What an inane pair of comments. Seriously, why even bother having laws at all? Why not just let judges, with their superior """subjective personal morality,""" decide on a case-by-case basis who wins and loses? I hope to God that subjectivist postmodern zoomers like you two never find yourselves in charge of the law in this country. What you are describing is the foundation of a theocracy or a dictatorship.

Why don't you explain to be how you can objectively interpret the law?

Jesus Christ.

The very definition of objective, according to the Oxford Dictionary, is to “not [to be] influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts”

Some synonyms to Objective are: impartial, non biased, neutral. This is the very definition of what a Judge is supposed to do, how they should conduct themselves and how they should interpret the law: In a fair, and unbiased way. Apply the law in a way that is contrary to that is unacceptable and unbecoming of a Judge. It’s shocking that you’re questioning this.

To objectively interpret the law is to simply view and apply the law as it is written, without injecting your person opinions or feels. Of course there are disagreements over how specifically to interpret or view it, with regards to philosophy (Textualisim, Doctrinalism, Originalism etc....) But every Judge who’s worth their salt knows to view the law through an unbiased lens without regard to personal feelings.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

Ok name me where in the constitution does it mention abortion at all . It’s clear just clear that it’s a 10th amendment issue and the states have the power to decide

It was decided as an issue of privacy, which is honestly a fair decision. It also doesn't say in the constitution that states have the right to ban reproductive healthcare.

Uh that’s not what the 10th amendment says ,

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The constitution does not give the US Government the power to makes laws on abortion and doesn’t mention anywhere that states have the right to ban it .

It's a ruling based on due process in the 14th amendment, not based on the 10th amendment

Ok then the only requirement states must be required to have is to have a life exception and health of mother exception .

 

What about rape or incest?

Do you really want a woman to be reminded of such a horrid experience?

Ok the point is it banned states from banning abortion even with those exceptions

Also correction, it only did in the first trimester, which is perfectly ok... Many times, the fetus isn't even viable in the first trimester, so it isn't a life, even if you consider yourself pro-life

Like I said we would have gotten a European-style solution if we the people so there would not have been a ban anyway and this country wouldnt have been nearly as polarized as it is today.

Sometimes you have to let some issues be decided by the people and this should be one of them

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

The worst SCOTUS ruling that has not yet been overturned.  Even many pro-choicers acknowledge that it was poorly decided.

[Horus]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Yeah, no. If I didn't know what this was in response to I'd think it was someone advocating conversion therapy or being anti Obergefell something. This is absolutely not the way.

[Dr. MB]

neutral but against overturning it

[GeneralMacArthur]

I can never take any of SWE's posts seriously after his utterly bizarre calls in the "Ranking the Presidents" thread.

[John Dule]

Legally: Doesn't matter, there's no way to objectively interpret the law and trying to is stupid, judges should only rule based on what's morally right

Morally: Fantastic

Hard agree here. It doesn't make sense to pretend that there's an objective way to interpret something inherently subjective.

What an inane pair of comments. Seriously, why even bother having laws at all? Why not just let judges, with their superior """subjective personal morality,""" decide on a case-by-case basis who wins and loses? I hope to God that subjectivist postmodern zoomers like you two never find yourselves in charge of the law in this country. What you are describing is the foundation of a theocracy or a dictatorship.

Why don't you explain to be how you can objectively interpret the law?

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation. Someone like S019 would probably say that they should do five years of hard labor. I, on the other hand, might err on the side of lenience and say that the law's intent was not meant to be read that way. One interpretation is supported by the literal text; the other is supported by the apparent intent of the original law. Both interpretations are valid.

So in that sense, the law's meaning is not objective. But we can still approach it with objective analysis and reasoning. By your logic, a judge could take the above law and say "Well, language is a social construct and is totally subjective, so perhaps we can say that a gun is a 'vehicle' of sorts for bullets, which means that you should be arrested for carrying a gun into this park." At that point, the judge is no longer attempting to be objective. He has now chosen to bring his own personal biases into the case, thus polluting the law with his subjective interpretations of right and wrong-- and he is attempting to corrupt an existing statue to suit his own ends. After all, guns are bad, right? And the ends justify the means, right? And foisting your own ideas of right and wrong upon an unsuspecting public is totally justified, yes?

This is the world you've imagined for us. Laws are ephemeral, words are meaningless, interpretations are subjective, and justifications for rulings are made ad hoc. In this world, no one can know what is or is not against the law, because even reading the statutes as carefully as possible cannot account for the myriad of subjectivist mumbo-jumbo claptrap interpretations that left-wing activist goons in judge's robes can dream up. At best, you've created a situation in which one person could be given the death penalty or set free, depending upon the "morality" of the judge he happens to face. At worst, you've created a breeding ground for dictators, who will use this ever-changing, amorphous, ill-defined system of """laws""" to their advantage, locking up dissidents, punishing those who misbehave, and altering the meaning of the statutes as they see fit. This is a nightmare world. I hope you think long and hard about the opinions you've outlined here, because they are the road to madness.

[Ferguson97]

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation.

That’s... literally all I meant? I’m rejecting the notion that there is a single objective way to read the law.

And Jesus Christ, maybe try and have a discussion with someone with being aggressive and condescending.

[7,052,770]

I wish they'd waited a year or so to make a decision, because maybe the extra babies born in the intervening years would have been enough to swing the 2000 election to Gore.

kind of a tongue-in-cheek post, but not 100%

[😥]

Very horrible decision, but it should not be overturned

[John Dule]

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation.

That’s... literally all I meant? I’m rejecting the notion that there is a single objective way to read the law.

And Jesus Christ, maybe try and have a discussion with someone with being aggressive and condescending.

Don't try to backpedal. We can all read the previous page. You said that the legal justifications for the ruling literally didn't matter and that judges should rule only based on morality.

[DC Al Fine]

Legally vacuous decision  that quite frankly has set the pro-choice movement (and I would argue the American left in general) back in a great many ways.

[President Johnson]

Huge FF decision, one of the best decisions in SCOTUS history.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Pseudoconstitutional claptrap. The trimester framework is the epitome of legislating from the bench and not even hardcore CLS scholars like Mark Tushnet defend it. If the Court absolutely had to find a constitutional right to have an abortion, surely there was something better to ground it in than impressionistic substantive due process esotericism. I think the equal protection argument is tenuous too, but at least it's not an affront to common sense.

[Ferguson97]

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation.

That’s... literally all I meant? I’m rejecting the notion that there is a single objective way to read the law.

And Jesus Christ, maybe try and have a discussion with someone with being aggressive and condescending.

Don't try to backpedal. We can all read the previous page. You said that the legal justifications for the ruling literally didn't matter and that judges should rule only based on morality.

That’s what all judges do already.

[John Dule]

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation.

That’s... literally all I meant? I’m rejecting the notion that there is a single objective way to read the law.

And Jesus Christ, maybe try and have a discussion with someone with being aggressive and condescending.

Don't try to backpedal. We can all read the previous page. You said that the legal justifications for the ruling literally didn't matter and that judges should rule only based on morality.

That’s what all judges do already.

That is completely untrue. Judges are constrained in their actions by thousands of regulating statutes that they must rely upon in order to justify their reasoning.

[Ferguson97]

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation.

That’s... literally all I meant? I’m rejecting the notion that there is a single objective way to read the law.

And Jesus Christ, maybe try and have a discussion with someone with being aggressive and condescending.

Don't try to backpedal. We can all read the previous page. You said that the legal justifications for the ruling literally didn't matter and that judges should rule only based on morality.

That’s what all judges do already.

That is completely untrue. Judges are constrained in their actions by thousands of regulating statutes that they must rely upon in order to justify their reasoning.

This is just naive. The vast majority of judges know what outcome they want, and then justify it accordingly. Yes, they use those thousands of statues to justify their ruling but how is that objective?

[WD]

Let me explain something to you: With any law, there is a range of interpretation in which you can make a credible, rational argument in one direction or another. For instance, a park might have a sign that says "no vehicles allowed," which was originally meant to ban golf carts from a nearby golf course from driving through. However, if someone tries to ride their bike through that park, are they breaking the law? It's open to interpretation.

That’s... literally all I meant? I’m rejecting the notion that there is a single objective way to read the law.

And Jesus Christ, maybe try and have a discussion with someone with being aggressive and condescending.

Don't try to backpedal. We can all read the previous page. You said that the legal justifications for the ruling literally didn't matter and that judges should rule only based on morality.

That’s what all judges do already.

That is completely untrue. Judges are constrained in their actions by thousands of regulating statutes that they must rely upon in order to justify their reasoning.

This is just naive. The vast majority of judges know what outcome they want, and then justify it accordingly. Yes, they use those thousands of statues to justify their ruling but how is that objective?

It’s objective  because looking at prior statues and applying to the case at hand, without injecting any personal biases, is exactly what objectivity  means. And sure, Judges have an outcome that they want, but that doesn’t mean that outcome is the one that the will arrive at. There’s a difference between what you personally want and believe and what the right and lawful outcome should be. That is objective.

Are you insinuating that judges don’t really apply the law when ruling? And just just the law to justify a pre-determined conclusion? Because thats just not true, quite literally no judge with any self-respect does that.

[lfromnj]

https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/justice-scalia-says-jail-bearded-193812256.html

"I hate the result [in Texas v. Johnson]," Scalia said at a Q&A sponsored by Brooklyn Law.

"I would send that guy to jail so fast if I were king," he added, then referring to Gregory Lee Johnson as a "bearded weirdo."

Here's a good example of a judge being objective while still morally believing the guy should have gone to jail if he(Scalia) was king. This was flag burning.

[Beet]

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

[Alcibiades]

Although the court’s reasoning could have been better, I believe that Roe was correctly decided. Making abortion illegal both deprives women of liberty without due process of law and does not offer them the equal protection of the laws.

One can argue about whether the decision made America more polarised, but judges do not and should not make such considerations in their decisions.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

A decision that we have paid for in 62,262,682 lives lost (as of this writing).

Not to mention that it was clearly a decision where the court had its desired outcome and needed very tenuous reasoning to make it happen.

Imagine if those unborn lives were able to see the light of day and able to bring joy to the world.
If Roe was not handed down, some of them might have lived.

[John Dule]

Great historic decision.

The fact that it's only polling 49% here as opposed to 60%-75% nationally is one of the cases where the white male skew of this Forum really outweighs its liberalism.

Maybe your conclusion follows logically if you assume that white males have a superior ability to apply the law without bias, but I dunno, that sounds kinda racist to me.

[Person Man]

I mean, the outcome was a good outcome but I waffle on whether or not it was a good decision. I guess in a vacuum, its totally a made up law and that the democratic process would have done better but if you accept the argument that aborting a fetus in the first trimester isn't killing a person (Blackmun relied on the fact society never truly has come to a consensus of this as proof that it wasn't) AND if you see preventing the use of birth control is more constitutionally suspect than preventing other vices, it totally makes sense. I'm not too sure how good this is. For example, there was a case where they tried to overturn anti-gay laws in the 80s based on the right to privacy and those laws were upheld based on the fact the SCOTUS didn't think being gay was a reasonable exercise of privacy.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I mean, the outcome was a good outcome but I waffle on whether or not it was a good decision. I guess in a vacuum, its totally a made up law and that the democratic process would have done better but if you accept the argument that aborting a fetus in the first trimester isn't killing a person (Blackmun relied on the fact society never truly has come to a consensus of this as proof that it wasn't) AND if you see preventing the use of birth control is more constitutionally suspect than preventing other vices, it totally makes sense. I'm not too sure how good this is. For example, there was a case where they tried to overturn anti-gay laws in the 80s based on the right to privacy and those laws were upheld based on the fact the SCOTUS didn't think being gay was a reasonable exercise of privacy.

It's not the court's role to decide what society thinks, but what the law is.  Making the law be based upon what society thinks is up to the Constitution (as amended), or if the Constitution is silent, then is up to Congress and/or the State legislatures.

The best that can be said about Roe is that it probably came close to what Congress would have enacted at the time had it passed a law concerning abortion, tho probably more permissive because the Court saw that abortion laws at the State level had been becoming more permissive of the practice and decided to get ahead of the curve.