Opinion of Roe vs Wade

[Ferguson97]

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

[Ferguson97]

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.

[Ferguson97]

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?

[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.

[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.

[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?

[Ferguson97]

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

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.

Supreme Court justices? Yeah, absolutely.

[Ferguson97]

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