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

What the hell? Are you serious? Morality is subjective, certainly more-so than the law, and what is moral varies depending on who you ask. If Judges can just ignore the law and rule on whatever they think is right, whats the point of having laws? You might as well not have a legal system.

[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.

[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.

[WD]

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

1. It certainly is legally dubious.

2. How is that inconsistent? Saying Roe is dubious is one of many conclusions and interpretations you can come too by objectively applying the law and the constitution to the issue.  Which is exactly what he was arguing: Being Objective and unbiased in your analysis of a case will lead different people to different conclusions or views. Which is completely fair, as long as the conclusions are made based on the facts of law/ statues and not personal opinions or feelings of what is right or moral.

One side of the argument is “Roe is perfectly fine and acceptable” and another is “Roe should be overturned”, while another could be “Roe is legally questionable and should be looked at closer”, these are all reasonable and objective interpretations, to say “Roe is legally dubious” doesn’t contradict anything. You’re assuming the idea that it’s legally dubious is being stated as unchallenged fact, when it’s simply a valid and reasonable opinion that many people hold.