Let's Get Rid of Roe

No intent to be clever, finn. It isn't often that I read your first paragraph and close the book, but I did here. There are particular theses which you are simply not willing to consider possible.

I could pull up numerous pieces of commentary from senior Republican politicians and ex-politicians who describe how control of the party has now fallen under the sway of extremists...and you won't buy it, regardless of their experience over years and in the midst of it all.

So, no sense continuing.

0 Replies

slkshock7 wrote:

blatham wrote:
It's a complex matter and black/white don't do the trick.

But, for the record, the SC justice who has ruled to overturn Congressional acts least is Breyer (some 25 %) and the justice who has overturned Congressional acts most often is Thomas (some 60+ %).

Blatham,

These statistics you quote have been soundly discredited by Orin Kerr (among others) in his Legal Review article Upholding the Law.
Kerr wrote:
I think it is fairly clear that under my definition of activism, the current court is not activist on the scale of either the Lochner Court or the Warren Court. Consider the role of the Supreme Court in those eras. The Lochner Court battled the progressive reforms, constitutionalizing pro-business regulation. The Warren and Burger Courts rewrote and constitutionalized fields such as criminal procedure, voting rights, obscenity, the death penalty, and abortion. In both periods, the Supreme Court played a major role in several of the most significant political debates of the day. The court created new rules that often eclipsed legislative and executive action, engaging in both separation-of-powers activism and precedent activism.

In another article,
Kerr wrote:
As a result, using judicial invalidation of federal laws as a quantitative measure of activism seems particularly unhelpful. Perhaps the more relevant quantitative measure would compare how often the Rehnquist Court and Warren Court have struck down legislative acts as a whole, or, better yet, how often they have overruled precedents. I suspect it would reveal a very different picture.
source

Taking Kerr's suggestion, I took a look at the SC cases that the Warren Court (16 years - 1953-1969) and the Rehnquist court (19 years - 1986-2005) had overruled during their tenure. Using GPO statistics as my source, a quick count reveals that the Warren court overruled precedent 44 times, while the Rehnquist court did so only 21 times.

I do not have time to read the article you claim refutes Blatham's premise. Nothing in the text you quoted refutes it. Kindly quote the portion of the text that refutes Blatham's facts.

0 Replies

I see now that Blatham has soundly refuted ss7's absurd now. I missed it scrolling back through.

It is clear tha Kerr started with a premise (that conservative judges are not activists) then twisted the meaning of activism to fit his criteria.

0 Replies

Blatham's "so no sense continuing" is another feeble attempt to avoid Finn again( no pun intended)--"Somewhat on the par with another Blathamic pronouncement-"But I'm not going to get into this with you".

I would think the erudite and almost apparently omniscient( if you listen to what he says and how he says it)Blatham could destroy humans like Finn in a paragraph. Alas, now we know Blatham is really not God-like.

0 Replies

Mortkat, the less-than-masterful king of feeble arguments and feeble attempts at deflection, accuses others of his own flaws, AGAIN.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

No intent to be clever, finn. It isn't often that I read your first paragraph and close the book, but I did here. There are particular theses which you are simply not willing to consider possible.

I could pull up numerous pieces of commentary from senior Republican politicians and ex-politicians who describe how control of the party has now fallen under the sway of extremists...and you won't buy it, regardless of their experience over years and in the midst of it all.

So, no sense continuing.

You're right. I won't buy it and therefore there is no use in continuing.

Enjoy you paranoia.

0 Replies

I'm sorry, Finn, but you have just heard the word of the LAW!!!
Debra, that is. What kind of person would label themselves as Debra LAW?

Would it be the same as a person who calls himself Daniel Doctor or Peter Policeman or even Charles Congressman?

What are the implications of such a sobriquet?

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

I'm sorry, Finn, but you have just heard the word of the LAW!!!
Debra, that is. What kind of person would label themselves as Debra LAW?

Would it be the same as a person who calls himself Daniel Doctor or Peter Policeman or even Charles Congressman?

What are the implications of such a sobriquet?

That she is a lawyer and you are not.

That she is an expert on the law and you are not.

That her postings have an imprimatur that yours do not.

My bet: Debra is a either a first year law student or someone who has failed to pass the bar; maybe a claims adjuster.

0 Replies

Debra LAW a claims adjuster? No, Finn, I can't believe it. Haven't you read the trenchant commentary? --The almost flawless dissection of constitutional principles? We have, of course, no way to discover whether Debra LAW is copying her missives from a source other than her own brain.

Despite Debra LAW's meanderings about Roe vs. Wade, I stand by my original statement that Roe vs. Wade will be picked apart by the present USSC, especially after Alito is appointed.

Debra LAW may be quite surprised when she learns that the USSC has upheld the New Hampshire law concerning parental notification. That will be the first shot fired in the volley which will leave Roe vs. Wade a mere shell, offering the right to abortion, but under a panoply of restrictions.

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

I'm sorry, Finn, but you have just heard the word of the LAW!!!
Debra, that is. What kind of person would label themselves as Debra LAW?

Would it be the same as a person who calls himself Daniel Doctor or Peter Policeman or even Charles Congressman?

What are the implications of such a sobriquet?

The above demonstrates that you failed to pay attention to elementary school lessons concerning parallel construction.

0 Replies

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

My bet: Debra is a either a first year law student or someone who has failed to pass the bar; maybe a claims adjuster.

You lose.

Do we now start taking bets on what you are?

0 Replies

Mortkat wrote:

Despite Debra LAW's meanderings about Roe vs. Wade, I stand by my original statement that Roe vs. Wade will be picked apart by the present USSC, especially after Alito is appointed.

Where is your "original statement" on this issue? Please post a link.

If my memory serves me correctly, you have revised and contradicted your "original statement" (which wasn't what you said above) numerous times--usually when you paint yourself in a corner.

I'm still waiting for you to clarify your position, but you avoid responding to every post where I point out your inconsistencies.

See:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1685845#1685845

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1692818#1692818

Mortkat wrote:

Debra LAW may be quite surprised when she learns that the USSC has upheld the New Hampshire law concerning parental notification. That will be the first shot fired in the volley which will leave Roe vs. Wade a mere shell, offering the right to abortion, but under a panoply of restrictions.

I already informed you that the Supreme Court established precedent long ago upholding parental notification statutes. I provided you with a link to the authority cited. Parental notification statutes have existed for many years; they are not new restrictions for minors; nor have these statutes turned Roe v. Wade into a mere shell.

The state may regulate abortion EXCEPT when necessary, according to appropriate medical judgment, to preserve the life or health of the woman. That has been the law of the land ever since Roe v. Wade was decided. The issue in the New Hampshire case is whether the state's judicial bypass procedure serves as the functional equivalent of a health exception. How will a decision one way or the other gut Roe v. Wade and make it a mere shell?

If you wish to discuss the case, please educate yourself on the issues involved and place your comments here:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1700105#1700105

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
My bet: Debra is a either a first year law student or someone who has failed to pass the bar; maybe a claims adjuster.

You lose.

Do we now start taking bets on what you are?

Be my guest.

0 Replies

I will repeat( at the risk of facing the dreaded authority Debra L A W)
Roe vs. Wade will be picked apart so that in a few years it will be rendered meaningless because of the numerous exceptions that will be made to the decision.

Chicago Tribune- December 1st, 2005

HEADLINE

JUSTICES TAKE UP NOTIFICATION LAW

QUOTE

"IN ITS FIRST ABORTION CASE IN FIVE YEARS, the Supreme Court grappled with a state law requiring teenagers to notify their parents before getting an abortion and several judges--including new Cheif Justice John Roberts, Jr. appeared to be looking for a way TO PRESERVE MOST OF THE LAW"

I am so sorry- Debra L A W!!!

0 Replies

How will it make a difference? I am sure that Debra L A W knows that a Boston based federal appeals court struck down the law BECAUSE IT HAD NO HEALTH EXEMPTION.

That won't happen this time, Debra L A W

0 Replies

I just don't understand why abortion is a political issue. Shows how low our collective IQs can go.

0 Replies

Because the conseratives can use it politically without doing anything about it except talk. They have held both houses of congress for 10 years and have done nothing but talk. But for the religious right talk is good enough.

0 Replies

Why is abortion a political issue?

Why, because it stems from legislative actions and legislative actions, especially on such a critical issue, always involve politics.

It is clear that laws forbidding abortion were held by most states not too long ago. In fact, prior to 1973, not a single state had such unrestricted abortion such as abortion on demand.

The idea that there has been no movement on this issue is wrong. In fact, laws involving parental notification and partial birth abortion have been passed in many states.

We shall see whether Roe Vs. Wade will be revisited after Judge Alito is confirmed by the US Senate in January 2006 .

I think there is good reason to believe that Roe Vs.Wade will not be revoked but that it will be cut to pieces by state legislation which will, in effect, make abortions difficult to get.

0 Replies

Well Mortkat, I hope you won't be crying the blues when you have to support all those extra children you're fighting to "save".

0 Replies

Any idea how long the wait to adopt a child is Stevepax? Any concept of what families incapable of bearing children have to go through?

0 Replies

Let's Get Rid of Roe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know