Chat Forum
It is currently Fri Jul 10, 2020 2:08 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2678, 2679, 2680, 2681, 2682
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18094
One of the core issues is whether the rights of the mother over rule the rights of the unborn child.

Not a medical issue really, more of a moral one.

Trying to deduce whether the founders had a view on that is difficult.

About as difficult as deciding whether they wanted the entire political system that they’d spent years carefully designing for maximum equity, usurped by the money that companies can apply to express their ‘free speech’.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 11:03 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17420
shanky wrote:
One of the core issues is whether the rights of the mother over rule the rights of the unborn child.

Not a medical issue really, more of a moral one.

Trying to deduce whether the founders had a view on that is difficult.

About as difficult as deciding whether they wanted the entire political system that they’d spent years carefully designing for maximum equity, usurped by the money that companies can apply to express their ‘free speech’.


I think you can safely assume that their knowledge of biology was a lot less detailed than what we know now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4704
Rinkals wrote:
shanky wrote:
One of the core issues is whether the rights of the mother over rule the rights of the unborn child.

Not a medical issue really, more of a moral one.

Trying to deduce whether the founders had a view on that is difficult.

About as difficult as deciding whether they wanted the entire political system that they’d spent years carefully designing for maximum equity, usurped by the money that companies can apply to express their ‘free speech’.


I think you can safely assume that their knowledge of biology was a lot less detailed than what we know now.


At the time the prevailing view was that abortion was wrong after ensoulment. Around 20-24 weeks.

It wasn't until about 1870 that the Catholic church went all in and declared that ensoulment was at the moment of conception.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2014 9:01 am
Posts: 8518
4071 wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
shanky wrote:
One of the core issues is whether the rights of the mother over rule the rights of the unborn child.

Not a medical issue really, more of a moral one.

Trying to deduce whether the founders had a view on that is difficult.

About as difficult as deciding whether they wanted the entire political system that they’d spent years carefully designing for maximum equity, usurped by the money that companies can apply to express their ‘free speech’.


I think you can safely assume that their knowledge of biology was a lot less detailed than what we know now.


At the time the prevailing view was that abortion was wrong after ensoulment. Around 20-24 weeks.

It wasn't until about 1870 that the Catholic church went all in and declared that ensoulment was at the moment of conception.



The same Catholic Church that has no issue seemingly with nearly the entirety of its flock in the developed world having 2-3 children families


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 12:58 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10271
Location: Texas
Ted. wrote:
Mr Mike, and other bored legal eagles, what do think of the SCOTUS Oklahoma decision relating to Creek indian land?

It looks like your boy Roberts was a primary descenting voice, though for commercial, tax, social and law & order reasons rather than on legal, ethical and humanistic grounds, to right a long standing injustice.
I’m afraid I didn’t listen to the arguments in that case and haven’t yet read the opinion. My only observation on that case was that Gorsuch was again the swing vote, as he had been in earlier Indian land cases. It appears to be a niche interest of his.

The case is a good illustration of how challenging the role is. The immediate consequence of the decision was that a state conviction of raping a four year old girl was overturned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10271
Location: Texas
shanky wrote:
Rinkals wrote:
shanky wrote:
Santa wrote:
SCOTUS' job, and the job of the rest of the judicial branch, is to oversee the correct interpretation and implementation of the (federal) law not pursue social justice agendas or otherwise 'do the right thing' outside of that. That it has done a bit too much 'doing the right thing' has led to a few problems, like Roe vs Wade.


Spot on
Like in Citizen's United vs FEC

Where conservatives succeeded in getting the court to provide a novel interpretation of the First Amendment in pretty much exactly the same way as Roe vs Wade interpreted the Fourteenth.


Why exactly was the Roe vs Wade the wrong decision?

It seems to me that you and Santa are both suggesting that the verdict was only arrived at because of some kind of liberal agenda and that it should be reversed.


The criticism of the ruling is that it was arrived at by reading (inferring) meanings into the Constitution that weren't explicitly there, and by also failing (having done that) to balance the competing needs created by that precedent

If you believe that if the Constitution is silent on something, then the Founders didn't have a view on that something, then you're a textualist. If you believe that the Founders intended us to make such readings for modern times, then you're a judicial activist.
I don't think you can switch around, as it suits your politics.
Less about the Founders for Fourteenth Amendment cases, given that came a while after all of the Founders were dead. There’s also originalism, which is often confused with textualism, which gives rise to variations in outcomes. On the recent Title VII (Bostock v Clayton) Gorsuch in his majority opinion and those in the minority all argued that they were taking a textual approach and arrived at different outcomes. I thought Gorsuch was closest.

There were a series of debates and discussions between Scalia and Breyer about Textualism vs. Activism. All good stuff and you can access them online but if you want absolute clarity, be prepared to be disappointed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 19931
EverReady wrote:
The blacks must be very annoying to get the whites so wound up

Not "whites", "people".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3184
Santa wrote:
New guy wrote:
Leinster in London wrote:
If Biden produces his tax returns at the beginning of October the 2020 election will be remembered as being lost by Trump because he refused to show his.
The last time he obfuscated, but he will not be able to fall back on the same excuses.
Every debate shall open and close with, Well Mr president, are you trying to hide something?


It's one of those issues that's of enormous importance to people who would have never voted Trump anyway.

If anything loses him this election its Covid19. Prior to the pandemic I'd have bet my house on him winning.


I'll go along with that.


It's unlikely he'll lose. Helmut Norpoth's Primary Model has successfully called 24 out of the last 26 elections. He turned up in an unheralded Fox Business segment a few weeks back and announced the model predicted a 91% chance of Trump's re-election. It's a simple but ingenious methodology that measures voter enthusiasm during the primaries, and avoids the pitfalls that invariably benight polls and surveys where large demographic chunks aren't detected properly- such as non college educated whites. The metrics the model uses have failed to call it right only twice since 1912. The first of these occasions was 1960 when TV played a huge role for the first ever time, and a sweating, fidgeting Nixon was caught cold by a telegenic, smooth Kennedy in an iconic TV debate. The second was in 2000 when the model predicted Gore over Bush. And Gore actually did win the popular vote. If it's calling Trump, Biden will need something absolutely seismic to win. And it ain't going to be Covid.

The Trafalgar Group are the only others I'm aware of to call it right last time out - apart from the LA Times tracker poll - and they're also confident it's a Trump win. Some tight races in the crucial swing states, but nothing that's going to derail him. I think it's very possible it could end up a turkey shoot, where the media and punditry class discover once again that the sources they use are miles off the real world picture, and - just as in the UK - a silent majority give the incumbents a landslide rather than swing left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jul 10, 2020 1:27 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17117
Mr Mike wrote:
Ted. wrote:
Mr Mike, and other bored legal eagles, what do think of the SCOTUS Oklahoma decision relating to Creek indian land?

It looks like your boy Roberts was a primary descenting voice, though for commercial, tax, social and law & order reasons rather than on legal, ethical and humanistic grounds, to right a long standing injustice.
I’m afraid I didn’t listen to the arguments in that case and haven’t yet read the opinion. My only observation on that case was that Gorsuch was again the swing vote, as he had been in earlier Indian land cases. It appears to be a niche interest of his.

The case is a good illustration of how challenging the role is. The immediate consequence of the decision was that a state conviction of raping a four year old girl was overturned.


Cheers Mike.

Ree the case that was overturned, the alleged offender will still face a federal prosecution, right. Perhaps a waste of resources and messy, as Roberts alluded to, but not a reason against the decision that was made, yes?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 107249 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 2678, 2679, 2680, 2681, 2682

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, dpedin, Google Adsense [Bot], message #2527204, Mullet 2, ovalball, Rinkals, robmatic, World Class Phil and 43 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group