Opinion of Roe vs Wade

[John Dule]

Horribly decided, but with incredibly beneficial results for America as a whole.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

Implying that Roe v Wade is legally dubious

Didn't you just get done claiming that the law is inherently subjective? Wouldn't that make all landmark SC decisions "legally dubious"?

Within the context of how John Dule claims that the law should be interpreted, it's inconsistent to say that Roe is legally dubious

How do you reason that out? (Keeping in mind that reason is just a subjective social construct and I am free to entirely disregard the logic you use if it conflicts with my personal morality.)

[John Dule]

This is a Forum for brosocialists; John Dule's post outright asserting white male superiority frankly shows this.

Uh...