A very, very flawed analysis. No, there is no "federal law," there is something much deeper and stronger - a constitutional right to privacy, under which the right to make decisions about your own body, among other things, are considered fundamental. Other fundamental rights include the right to free speech and freedom of religion.
So wouldn't that mean you have the right to do your own abortion? If corporations are people wouldn't you think unborn children could be considered people?
Not sure what triggered your response. It seems unrelated to my statement, "There is not a federal law generally prohibiting abortion, Nor should there be".
Forty five years of the same drivel from hundreds of candidates is redundant as hell and pointless to boot. The issue was never solved, it was covered in bullshit but not buried.
In thinking through the events of the past 45 years as to why the appointment of a SC justice has become so political, no single event seems to hold the answer. It has been 45 years since the Roe V Wade decision became the law. Even though this ruling really has no basis in law and lacks specific support in the Constitution, it did not begin the left right polarization of the appointments. Justice Scalia, known to follow the original intent of the Constitution, was appointed 13 years later than the Roe v Wade ruling, received a 98 to 0 vote of approval in the Senate. So clearly the the Democrats began altering their view of the court upholding the Constitution since then. I do not remember Democrats having a group view of ignoring the Constitution in favor of creating law by precedent even though it has been done a few time. Not really always a left right thing historically. But it is now. It seems to have begun in the last 25 years while I was not watching, as I missed it. Anyone know what set the Democrats on this track?
You seem oblivious to the fact that President Trump is a man working towards world peace, and has already been more successful at it than any President in our lifetimes.
May it please the Court: Justice Azul, please prove your assertion that Roe v. Wade has "no basis in law and lacks specific support in the Constitution." Kindly direct some of your responses to the Court's specific opinion that bases the decision on the 9th and 14th Amendments, and how the Constitutional right to liberty and privacy that form the basis of the opinion, are inapplicable in your opinion. Why did it get a 7-2 vote, including Republican Chief Justice Burger (appointed by Nixon)? Thank you your honor.
You don't know what you are talking about. Literally. Precedent is the basis of American law and that is based on English Common Law. The use of precedent is practically a thousand years old. EVERY CASE IS BASED ON PRECEDENT. The Supreme Court uses precedent to make every decision. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE. Laws are not just made by legislators passing laws. There are three branches of government, not two. When a higher court makes a ruling, that ruling then applies to lower courts. That's called a precedent. That's a law. No legislature needed. And that's true whether you like it or not. And it's not just the Supreme Court that creates precedent. Federal courts do, State appellate courts do. Any appellate court does, and they decide based on previous precedent. Anyone who has told you that precedent is a newfangled theory or illegal is feeding you the worst sort of lie.
This is the fundamental distinction right here. In the US, Legislators are answerable to the people and therefore the creators of law. Federal Judges and especially Justices are not answerable directly to the people. The Constitution specifically gives congress the law making power and the court the role of interpreting the law. While precedents is rightfully followed by the courts, rather than retry cases repeatedly, it is not to be the origin of law. That is the job of the legislative body, which is accountable to the people. A lower court following precedents of upper or prior courts is efficient. The SC must follow the Constitution from which it gains it's authority and is given no authority to creating law. There are two method of adding to or modifying the Constitution. The Amendment process. Constitutional Convention. I see no intent of the framers of the Constitution for third method of changing the Constitution, by precedent. Bogus precedent can always be corrected.
Judges need to be able to interpret the law according to the law, and not popular opinion. Legislatures back in the day passed Jim Crow laws, and they were popular, but the court determined they were illegal, unconstitutional. That's why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life - so they don't have to worry about re-election when adjudicating a case. And unfortunately for you, your "two ways" are not the only ways to make law. Let's say the one court decides an issue one way and another decides it another way, based on different interpretations of a statute. The Supreme Court will take it on appeal and decide who is right, and what the rule is. That is how law is made. It would be impossible for a legislature to decide every case in the land, absurd really.
I’m curious why there isn’t an independent body deciding who’s the next justice? Seems odd we get “conservative” and “liberal” judges in the first place.
Exactly! What a load of crap! The court could not even agree with whether the 9th or 14th apply. The ninth is rather meaningless but hopeful. The 14th says nothing about privacy or abortion or anything to do with... It simply is a poorly conceived amendment at the close of the civil war. It speaks nothing about privacy or a woman's rights. It does speak to due process which sure might be a point in the right to life of a child. But I will not make that argument even though it is closer to the point in the 14th. Read this Convoluted stuff; "The Court declined to adopt the district court's Ninth Amendment rationale, and instead asserted that the "right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the district court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy."[38] Douglas, in his concurring opinion in the companion case, Doe, stated more emphatically, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Nothing in this decision belongs in the Constitution. However, it is apparent, women, indeed our society does need concerns addressed, and rights protected, as does our society, but this decision points to nothing meaningful in law to settle the issue. It is time for the best we have to come with a solution or at least get the process to a solution back on track for resolution. The 9th is an empty bucket waiting for a need. Perhaps the with careful logic worked out with reasoned mix of sound thought and sensitive feeling can be used to lead reasonable men and women settle on an acceptable law. Possible even giving meaning to the empty 9th.
I expect if you draft something up congress will pass it and the states will ratify it post haste. We are just waiting for you to get the process started. barfo
I appreciate your confidence. But at this stage, I think I will just take the MarAzul out on another cruise. Especially since I spent the afternoon in the Hospital as a result of excessive work using a 10 lbs splitting hammer. I feel like a dumb shit. But it is a correctable error.
