Judges

[Oxonian]

Slate has a couple of articles today about what kind of judges a President Obama or McCain would appoint. (They are here (http://www.slate.com/id/2183929/) and here (http://www.slate.com/id/2183930/), although I should warn you that the Obama one is really terribly written.) I don't think I've seen a lot of discussion about judicial appointments around here, which is kind of interesting. After all, a President's judicial picks can have profound impact on issues like abortion, prisoner's rights, campaign finance reform, and a host of issues at least as important to our daily lives but less frequently debated. Moreover, judicial picks are some of the most irreversible decisions a President can make: the next President might withdraw from Iraq, roll back the tax cuts, and close Guantanamo, but Roberts and Alito will be on the Supreme Court for decades.

So I was curious whether people consider judicial nominations when choosing for whom to vote, and if so, how they think the President should pick nominees. My impression is that right-wingers generally tend to emphasize the importance of judicial philosophy ("The Constitution means what it says," "strict constructionism"), while left-wingers tend to demand the judges would rule in a specific way on certain cases (preserving Roe v. Wade, ending waterboarding). While both sides insist the President should have broad discretion in who he or she nominates when their side controls the White House, very few people are make that same argument when the other side's President makes a nomination. But perhaps I'm wrong.

Actually, my real impression is that very few people outside of the true ideologues on either side give much thought to this. I'll be surprised if this thread gets five responses, but any result is a result.

[Dr.Finger]

Personally? It's way down on my list. Like you said Ox, only the hardcore on either side care all that much.

[OUX]

It is hard to judge a president on who he would pick since once the judge is appointed they don't have to suck up to anyone and do what they damn well please. The pattern of appointed judges abandoning what was once their party line (so to speak) is fairly common.

[Schnoogs]

Hmmm...

Obama's choices....pro choice

McCains choices....pro life

Imagine that! ;)

[bean19]

I think you are incorrect about right-wingers vs. left-wingers on this. What I've found is that there are constitutionalists on both sides of this issue. This may be a temporary result of liberals and conservatives both feeling that Bush has far exceeded the powers intended for the executive branch by our nation's founders and our Supreme Court not doing anything to check his misuse of power.

This is one of the reasons I was so upset when Bush stole the Presidency. Many of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court had been holding out for a conservative Presidency before retiring. This allowed him to shift the Supreme Court from having been fairly balanced to being conservative.

Personally, I don't want a liberal or a conservative Supreme Court. The middle road usually finds the best answer (by this I mean the greatest good for the greatest number). I understand that you have a fundamentally different moral philosophy.

[asimonk]

I highly doubt any of the picks could be worse than the clusterfuck Bush unleashed on the nation. But that is just my own personal opinion.

[Furious Wang]

The pro-choice vs pro-life judges debate is entirely irrelevant. Its just a construct to goad the pro-lifers into thinking they need to continue electing conservatives to save the fetuses.

7 of the 9 current supreme court justices were installed by Republicans.

Roe vs Wade is still around.

It isn't going anywhere ever.

Electing more conservative presidents and installing more conservative justices isn't going to make abortion go away.

Electing liberal presidents and installing liberal justices isn't going to result in Roe vs Wade Times 1000. You'll just have the same old Roe vs Wade you have now.

There's lots of reasons to be concerned about what type of justices get on the supreme court. Their opinion on abortion is not one of those reasons.

[TheFlyingOrc]

I highly doubt any of the picks could be worse than the clusterfuck Bush unleashed on the nation. But that is just my own personal opinion.

I don't think we've seen almost any results of Bush's picks that were particularly controversial.

Several of them were controversial BEFORE they were elected, but I haven't seen much supreme court controversy so far.

I wish they'd repeal Roe V. Wade, though. That should be a state-level issue, not a federal one.

[Schnoogs]

This is one of the reasons I was so upset when Bush stole the Presidency. .

Electoral College...confusing liberals for 200 years! ;)

[asimonk]

I'd say when you get a guy who is hyped as this great constitutional scholar (Roberts/Alito) and said scholar immediately agrees that the president should more or less have carte blanche to rewrite or ignore any laws as he or she sees fit to be fairly controversial. I seem to recall something along the lines of "separate but equal" that used to have some meaning.

I wish they'd repeal Roe V. Wade, though. That should be a state-level issue, not a federal one.

Unfortunately, Roe v Wade has been used as a precedent for many civil liberties cases since its was ruled. It is far far more reaching than simply abortion. Then again, thanks to the "war on terror," we're losing those faster than we care to count anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter all that much.

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

Needs more Dredd

http://www.evolvedgames.com/images/cover-dreddA.jpg


Whoever will nominate him gets my vote. ¬_¬

[NationalKato]

Obama's judges would interpret the Constitution. McCain's judges would amend the Constitution.

[Oxonian]

I seem to recall something along the lines of "separate but equal" that used to have some meaning.
"Separate but equal" is a quote from Plessy v. Ferguson, the 1896 case in which the Supreme Court ruled racial segregation was constitutional. Plessy was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. To the best of my knowledge, the Roberts Court has not reconsidered Brown.

I presume you weren't talking about racial segregation, but I'm at a loss to figure out what you were talking about.

[Schnoogs]

Obama's judges would interpret the Constitution. McCain's judges would amend the Constitution.

This makes zero sense...especially when one of the main criticisms of Bush has been that he and his administration have IGNORED the Constitution.

[NationalKato]

Who's talking about Bush?

[[GH-SC]Ryctor]

Unfortunately, Roe v Wade has been used as a precedent for many civil liberties cases since its was ruled. It is far far more reaching than simply abortion. Then again, thanks to the "war on terror," we're losing those faster than we care to count anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter all that much.

For once i'd like some hippie to please tell me ONE civil liberty they've personally lost due to the war on terror and/or Patriot act.

[Furious Wang]

I think you are incorrect about right-wingers vs. left-wingers on this. What I've found is that there are constitutionalists on both sides of this issue. This may be a temporary result of liberals and conservatives both feeling that Bush has far exceeded the powers intended for the executive branch by our nation's founders and our Supreme Court not doing anything to check his misuse of power.

This is one of the reasons I was so upset when Bush stole the Presidency. Many of the conservative justices on the Supreme Court had been holding out for a conservative Presidency before retiring. This allowed him to shift the Supreme Court from having been fairly balanced to being conservative.

Personally, I don't want a liberal or a conservative Supreme Court. The middle road usually finds the best answer (by this I mean the greatest good for the greatest number). I understand that you have a fundamentally different moral philosophy.

I'll go ahead and call you a liberal hippie commie for the "bush stole the presidency" line and save grinr and schoogs the trouble. Now that the insults are out of the way....

The constitution is a set of words on some paper. And its a few hundred years old. The populace of America didn't even have a freaking popular vote on the damn thing when it was written. Its not the written word of God the father. And if something in it needs to be changed or reinterpreted to meet modern times or the natural evolution of society then so be it, but lets do it in a democratic manner.

That said, its words on paper written hundreds of years ago. And anyone's interpretation of those words, be it called conservative, liberal, constitutionalist, constructionist or whatever, its still only an interpretation.

You read those words and you get one thing out of them. I read those words and I get something different out of them. Great! We disagree! But who is "right"? Why, whoever gets to make the final decision, of course! And the persons who make the final decision are selected by the individual who wins the presidency.

Thus, in my opinion, whomever is placed on the supreme court should have values and opinions which match those of the President that nominated them, whoever that President may be. Thus is the will of the electorate appeased. Not everyone will be happy, but there's no way to make everyone happy anyway. I'm fine with the system we have.

[SuicideKing]

The judges are the only thing really holding me back from sitting this one out or writing in Thompson (I realize it's a pointless gesture, but I'd do it for the principle of the thing). I remain sceptical that a Dem president would actually pull us out of Iraq immediately despite rhetoric to the contrary, I expect them to have better sense than that.

It's true the that dems have been pushing the defeatist rhetoric really hard, what with "cold-blooded killers" Murtha and "the war is lost" Reid, but actually given the chance to make us lose the war, I don't think they'd do it, right now it's a convenient talking point to gain liberal cred, since they know Bush and the rest of Congress wouldn't actually let any of it come to pass.

When it comes to judges however, we have 3 Supreme Court judges who might very well need replacing in the new president's first term. As Ox mentioned, the makeup of the Supreme Court has a profound and lasting impact on America, but even that isn't an issue I necessarily trust McCain with since the rumors of him not liking Alito because he thought he "wore conservatism on his sleeve."

But if Obama were to appoint Supreme Court judges, with a significant Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, (assuming the Dems pick up some more seats this year) I truly find the possibilities frightening... Just on the abortion issue for instance, Obama seems to be for tax payer funded partial birth abortion based on his past comments, his wife's fund raising rhetoric, and his voting record. That kind of ideaology generally brings a whole lot of other baggage with it. Clinton judges might be slightly more moderate in their left leanings, but it would still be a disaster in all probablity.
While the issue matters very much to me, I'd agree that it probably doesn't factor much, if at all for most voters.

[IrishWhiskey]

But if Obama were to appoint Supreme Court judges, with a significant Democratic majority in both Houses of Congress, (assuming the Dems pick up some more seats this year) I truly find the possibilities frightening... Clinton judges might be slightly more lmoderate in their left leenings, but it would still be a disaster in all probablity.The court is already right-wing leaning, and the judges closest to retirement are left-leaning. like Stevens. In other words the court would likely still be run by far-right Justices. Of course the possibilities of having a court that respects civil liberties and opposes discrimination are indeed truly frightening.

I remain sceptical that a Dem president would actually pull us out of Iraq immediately despite rhetoric to the contrary, I expect them to have better sense than that. Uh, as do I. They are all for phased withdrawals.It's true the that dems have been pushing the defeatist rhetoric really hard, what with "cold-blooded killers" Murtha and "the war is lost" Reid, but actually given the chance to make us lose the war, I don't think they'd do it, right now it's a convenient talking point to gain liberal cred, since they know Bush and the rest of Congress wouldn't actually let any of it come to pass. ...sigh. People aren't just pointing out the ethnic cleansing, divisions of power, and the failure of a national government to come together, they are cheering for failure and thousands more deaths. Democrats don't care about the soldiers dying, its just faked concern as a talking point. Brilliant.

[Beelzebud]

That should be a state-level issue, not a federal one.

Unless you look at it from a privacy issue. It's no ones business what a doctor and their patient decide. The 4th amendment guarantees a right to privacy, and states don't have any right to impede on that.

[Oxonian]

Unless you look at it from a privacy issue. It's no ones business what a doctor and their patient decide. The 4th amendment guarantees a right to privacy, and states don't have any right to impede on that.
Really? Because the FDA interferes a lot in the decisions my doctor and I make. My doctor isn't allowed to prescribe Vioxx anymore, because the FDA thinks it's bad for me. The same goes for thalidomide, except thalidomide isn't bad for adults; it's bad for fetuses. Are you saying the FDA is unconstitutional?

[Beelzebud]

Really? Because the FDA interferes a lot in the decisions my doctor and I make. My doctor isn't allowed to prescribe Vioxx anymore, because the FDA thinks it's bad for me. The same goes for thalidomide, except thalidomide isn't bad for adults; it's bad for fetuses. Are you saying the FDA is unconstitutional?

Are you saying Vioxx and thalidomide are safe drugs?

[Schnoogs]

Who's talking about Bush?

Oh my bad...he was basing his comment on McCains history as our President.

Oh wait... :rolleyes:

[SuicideKing]

The court is already right-wing leaning, and the judges closest to retirement are left-leaning. like Stevens. In other words the court would likely still be run by far-right Justices. Of course the possibilities of having a court that respects civil liberties and opposes discrimination are indeed truly frightening.


Was expecting you to drop by. The court is hardly "run" by "far-right" Justices. Roberts and Alito replaced a conservative, and a more often that not liberal-trending swing voter. More often than not, on issues with marked differences by ideaological divide, the court currently votes 5 to 4 one way or the other.
The trend was to be more liberal before the last two appointments. With six Supreme Court justices over the age of 68, forgive me for being concerned as to possible replacements swinging to the left in a big way, if Democrats control the White House and gain even one of the five seats held by the center-right majority of current justices.

The notion that civil liberties and opposition to discrimination is something only liberals can get right is downright absurd, and I'd venture to say you're smart enough to know that. Talk about fear-mongering....


People aren't just pointing out the ethnic cleansing, divisions of power, and the failure of a national government to come together, they are cheering for failure and thousands more deaths.Democrats don't care about the soldiers dying, its just faked concern as a talking point. Brilliant.

There is no ethnic cleaning currently going on, but all signs point to it happening in a major way should we withdraw early. As for the political state of Iraq, it's a mess, but improving, and as far as our casualties and the security situation, things are undeniably looking up. Call me callous, but the amount of casualties we've suffered frankly is low enough to be called more than acceptable IMO. It's a war... people die. Everyone over there is over there because it's their job to be over there, they knew what they were signing up for. Every one of our deaths remains tragic, but casualties are a un-preventable part of war. My opinion is that we are far from reaching a tipping point as to how many casualties are "acceptable" to ensure the success of the goal.

Are you saying Vioxx and thalidomide are safe drugs?
Surely you realize that that completely side-steps the point Oxonian is making? Or are you stating that the safety of a particular treatment as determined by the FDA should always trump privacy?

[Oxonian]

Are you saying Vioxx and thalidomide are safe drugs?
Thalidomide seems to be safe for non-pregnant women and adult men.* Vioxx has dangerous effects, but so do a lot of drugs.

But hey, let's say taking those drugs is as dangerous as Russian roulette. You just said that it's nobody's business what my doctor and I do. So if my doctor wants to prescribe me Vioxx -- heck, if my doctor wants to prescribe a loaded revolver -- that's none of the government's business, right?

Of course, I'm still having some difficulty understanding how the Fourth Amendment protects some right of doctor-patient privacy, since it doesn't seem to include any version of the words "doctor" or "patient" in it. But I'll defer to your expert constitutional interpretation.

*Indeed, I should correct my earlier post: it appears the FDA now does permit doctors to prescribe thalidomide to some patients under tightly controlled conditions. There's still a lot of interference in this supposedly private relationship, however, so I don't think that negates my point.

[DaXIthR]

There is no ethnic cleaning currently going on...

Hey, call for you. It's Darfur. What should I tell them?

I know you're talking about Iraq...

[SuicideKing]

Hey, call for you. It's Darfur. What should I tell them?

I know you're talking about Iraq...

You know, you almost got me, until I saw the spoiler inside the quote tags.

[IrishWhiskey]

Was expecting you to drop by....Thtas nice. I was sure that you'd be weighing in as well.... Not sure what the point of that is, but okay.The court is hardly "run by "far-right" Justices. Roberts and Alito replaced a conservative, and a more often that not liberal-trending swing voter. You mean like replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito?
The notion that civil liberties and opposition to discrimination is something only liberals can get right is downright absurd, and I'd venture to say you're smart enough to know that. Talk about fear-mongering....
I'm not sure you're using that word right. I'm not suggesting only liberals practice civil liberties, but I do think a left leaning court would be better at protecting them. Obviously you would disagree, but my statement was to point out that you perspective that Obama appointees would be "disastrous" is an issue of political perspective, just as mine is.

There is no ethnic cleaning currently going on, but all signs point to it happening in a major way should we withdraw early. Uh.... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-is-disintegrating-as-ethnic-cleansing-takes-hold-478937.html) Thats (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1550441,00.html) just (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/international/middleeast/21sufis-web.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) not (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/border/20030308-9999_1n8cleansing.html) the (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1573037,00.html) case. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402.html)

Call me callous, but the amount of casualties we've suffered frankly is low enough to be called more than acceptable IMO. It's a war... people die. Everyone over there is over there because it's their job to be over there, they knew what they were signing up for.Okay. Call me... not callous, but I think that being lied into an invasion and occupation that costs thousands of US lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and billions upon billions of dollars isn't something to shrug off. Its not enough to say "War sucks anyway, so lets just stay there until hopefully things someday work out and there is political reconciliation". Of course, this doesn't have much to do with judges, so I'll stop arguing this here, but would gladly chat with you about it in the war photo thread.

[maverick106]

I wish they'd repeal Roe V. Wade, though. That should be a state-level issue, not a federal one.

Here, here! Different cultures (and this includes different states in the US) may just have different sets of ideals or rules that work for them. In issues where we know the country is divided, why should we force any one opinion on everyone? Let the states (i.e. subcultures) decide for themselves.

[Beelzebud]

Thalidomide seems to be safe for non-pregnant women and adult men.* Vioxx has dangerous effects, but so do a lot of drugs.

But hey, let's say taking those drugs is as dangerous as Russian roulette. You just said that it's nobody's business what my doctor and I do. So if my doctor wants to prescribe me Vioxx -- heck, if my doctor wants to prescribe a loaded revolver -- that's none of the government's business, right?

Of course, I'm still having some difficulty understanding how the Fourth Amendment protects some right of doctor-patient privacy, since it doesn't seem to include any version of the words "doctor" or "patient" in it. But I'll defer to your expert constitutional interpretation.

*Indeed, I should correct my earlier post: it appears the FDA now does permit doctors to prescribe thalidomide to some patients under tightly controlled conditions. There's still a lot of interference in this supposedly private relationship, however, so I don't think that negates my point.

Here is the difference. The FDA should regulate drugs because some of them are just dangerous. snake-oil salesmen and all of that.

Abortion isn't just used for birth control. A woman's life could be in danger, and then it's a real medical treatment, and it's not the government's business to stop someone from having a treatment that their doctor knows could save their life.

Admittedly it is used for birth control far more than a real medical treatment, but the option should be open for those cases without interference.

[IrishWhiskey]

Here, here! Different cultures (and this includes different states in the US) may just have different sets of ideals or rules that work for them. In issues where we know the country is divided, why should we force any one opinion on everyone?Isn't taking away women's choice the definition of forcing an opinion? And wouldn't having abortion as legal in some states but not others, simply create a division between people who are able to, or can afford to travel to a willing hospital, and those who can't?

[SuicideKing]

...Thtas nice. I was sure that you'd be weighing in as well.... Not sure what the point of that is, but okay.You mean like replacing Sandra Day O'Connor with Samuel Alito?
I'm not sure you're using that word right. I'm not suggesting only liberals practice civil liberties, but I do think a left leaning court would be better at protecting them. Obviously you would disagree, but my statement was to point out that you perspective that Obama appointees would be "disastrous" is an issue of political perspective, just as mine is.

Uh.... (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iraq-is-disintegrating-as-ethnic-cleansing-takes-hold-478937.html) Thats (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1550441,00.html) just (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/international/middleeast/21sufis-web.html?_r=1&oref=slogin) not (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/iraq/border/20030308-9999_1n8cleansing.html) the (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1573037,00.html) case. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102602402.html)

Okay. Call me... not callous, but I think that being lied into an invasion and occupation that costs thousands of US lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi lives, and billions upon billions of dollars isn't something to shrug off. Its not enough to say "War sucks anyway, so lets just stay there until hopefully things someday work out and there is political reconciliation". Of course, this doesn't have much to do with judges, so I'll stop arguing this here, but would gladly chat with you about it in the war photo thread.

I can agree that this isn't the place for another Iraq discussion, but regarding the ethnic cleansing bit, all those articles are old enough to be oudtated regarding current facts on the ground regardless of whether they might have been true at the time(I would differ as to whether the scale of the conflicts was sufficient to be deemed ethnic cleansing), my contention was it's no longer the case. But yeah, that's all I'll say on the matter here.

Back to the subject at hand, I'm not quite sure which word you seem to think I might be misusing, but O'Connor was the left-leaning swing voter I was talking about, yes. As noted, I disagree as to whether a liberal court would be better at protecting civil liberties, fairly vehemently in fact, but I know that neither you nor I are undecided on the issue, so there's no real point in trying to "prove" you wrong.

Isn't taking away women's choice the definition of forcing an opinion? And wouldn't having abortion as legal in some states but not others, simply create a division between people who are able to, or can afford to travel to a willing hospital, and those who can't?

We take away people's choice on lots of issues, i.e. murder, drug use, pedophilia, etc, it's a simple fact of living in society. As for the disenfranchisement argument you're making regarding the means required to get an abortion if it becomes a state issue, generally there is enough of a delay between getting pregnant and aborting the baby for the person in question to make an informed decision. I would venture it's entirely reasonable to assume the vast majority of people would be capable of planning a road trip months in advance. As for financial means, that issue will always be around, as I don't think fully-subsidized abortion will ever become law.

[Oxonian]

Here is the difference. The FDA should regulate drugs because some of them are just dangerous. snake-oil salesmen and all of that.
So the Fourth Amendment protects a right to privacy, except when you might do something dangerous? You're beginning to sound like Bush.

Abortion isn't just used for birth control. A woman's life could be in danger, and then it's a real medical treatment, and it's not the government's business to stop someone from having a treatment that their doctor knows could save their life.
Likewise, I could have an ailment that only Vioxx can treat. And it's not the government's business to stop someone from having a treatment that their doctor knows could save their life, is it?

Admittedly it is used for birth control far more than a real medical treatment, but the option should be open for those cases without interference.
So... you just declare you are right? That sounds like fun. Let me try.

"Abortion is always and everywhere bad. Therefore it should not be permitted."

Hey, you were right! It is fun!

[maverick106]

Isn't taking away women's choice the definition of forcing an opinion? And wouldn't having abortion as legal in some states but not others, simply create a division between people who are able to, or can afford to travel to a willing hospital, and those who can't?

California has strict gun control and other states don't...are they creating a division between people who are able to carry guns and those who aren't?

If different states are allowed to form their own opinions and legislation, we aren't taking anyone's choice away. Are you saying there aren't people in this country that don't want to live in certain states because they don't like the politics/culture of that state? I know plenty of people who don't want to live in California, or Iowa, for just that reason.

I'm not saying that this (abortion) isn't a difficult issue. It is. But its also a personal one. I disagree entirely with a constitutional amendment or national law of any sort that will force a view on someone for an issue such as this. For the record, i don't agree with a constitutional amendment for gay marriage either, for or against. There is a reason we have states, instead of just being a big country...so different subcultures of people will each be represented. Its a good design. People get to choose what is right for them.

[Beelzebud]

So the Fourth Amendment protects a right to privacy, except when you might do something dangerous? You're beginning to sound like Bush.


Likewise, I could have an ailment that only Vioxx can treat. And it's not the government's business to stop someone from having a treatment that their doctor knows could save their life, is it?


So... you just declare you are right? That sounds like fun. Let me try.

"Abortion is always and everywhere bad. Therefore it should not be permitted."

Hey, you were right! It is fun!

You aren't going to convince me that Roe Vs. Wade should be overturned, just as I'm not going to convince you that it should stay.

The right to privacy is why the supreme court ruled the way they did on Roe vs. Wade.

If you go to Tiujauna I'm sure they'll sell you some Vioxx, although I'm not sure why anyone would want to take it.

[maverick106]

Likewise, I could have an ailment that only Vioxx can treat. And it's not the government's business to stop someone from having a treatment that their doctor knows could save their life, is it?


There is no law saying you can't take Vioxx, there is only one saying that your doctor can't prescribe it to you (and it cant be sold in our country), because its deemed to be dangerous, with the risks outweighing the benefits and alternative treatments existing. And the main reason that law is in place is because people love to sue when they do something stupid and dangerous and hurt themselves.

When the benefits outweigh the risks, even if the risks are substantial, treatments are allowed. I'll cite birth control pills as an example. They have proven side effects that increase the risk of stroke, among other serious problems. But since the demand is great, and the benefits are judged to be high enough, it is a legally sold drug.

[Oxonian]

The right to privacy is why the supreme court ruled the way they did on Roe vs. Wade.
Yes. Although if you knew much about Roe v. Wade, you would know:
1. That the Supreme Court did not say this right to privacy was guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment, but rather that some vague and somewhat undefined right to privacy was suggested by the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.

2. That the Supreme Court considered the argument that "a woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses" and concluded, "With this we do not agree... a State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, in maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision."

3. That Roe v. Wade is no longer even the law of the land; the Supreme Court significantly modified the legal regime surrounding abortion in Casey and Carhart, and the "right to privacy" is no longer really the reason abortion is protected. Instead, it's "stare decisis."

So, in short, you have adopted a far more extreme position than the Supreme Court has, on a far slimmer textual basis than the Supreme Court used. You can interpret the Constitution any way you like, of course; but you don't even seem to be aware you are an extremist. Moreover, your theory of the Fourth Amendment seems no more consistent than "the Fourth Amendment protects an absolute right to privacy, except when I don't like the results." I realize that's an uncharitable view, but you don't seem to be willing to provide an explanation of how you reason your way to your positions, so I don't know what else I'm supposed to conclude.

[Johan]

Sometimes I wonder how the hell you gather this much information in one head. Really.

[IrishWhiskey]

California has strict gun control and other states don't...are they creating a division between people who are able to carry guns and those who aren't?
Um, thats a very different scenario. States can easily pass laws banning people from bringing objects like assault weapons into a state, or making ownership of it illegal. You can't exactly stop people from having an abortion in a neighboring state where it is legal, as its a one-time procedure, not owning something you bring back with you. California's gun laws don't restrict people from buying a gun elsewhere, just what happens in their state boundaries.
If different states are allowed to form their own opinions and legislation, we aren't taking anyone's choice away.Prohibiting women from deciding whether they carry a baby to term is keeping someone from making a choice. It may be that, like many other things we ban in society, there is a good reason to ban it and make it illegal, but it seems ironic to argue that allowing states to ban women from choosing should be done to allow more freedom of choice.

Are you saying there aren't people in this country that don't want to live in certain states because they don't like the politics/culture of that state? I know plenty of people who don't want to live in California, or Iowa, for just that reason.I actually have no idea where that statement comes from, but whatever. If thats the only reason its a silly one. California is huge, and there are many parts that are among the most conservative counties in the country, and still have sun, beaches, and have all the other advantages of living in California. But then, I'm in no rush for them to come out.

[Heretic Machine]

I wish they'd repeal Roe V. Wade, though. That should be a state-level issue, not a federal one.

That isn't happening, and no, there is no reason it should be a state issue and not a federal one. Either way, this society has made a decision, and certain people need to move on. I really hate how conservatives like to pretend that every state should be it's own little country.

[maverick106]

Um, thats a very different scenario. States can easily pass laws banning people from bringing objects like assault weapons into a state, or making ownership of it illegal. You can't exactly stop people from having an abortion in a neighboring state where it is legal, as its a one-time procedure, not owning something you bring back with you. California's gun laws don't restrict people from buying a gun elsewhere, just what happens in their state boundaries.
Prohibiting women from deciding whether they carry a baby to term is keeping someone from making a choice. It may be that, like many other things we ban in society, there is a good reason to ban it and make it illegal, but it seems ironic to argue that allowing states to ban women from choosing should be done to allow more freedom of choice.


A state could never ban people that live there from having abortions, they could just ban abortions from taking place in their state. Same for the US...if someone really wanted to they could hop on a plane and get one in another country. Its actually exactly the same as the gun laws, in that respect.


I actually have no idea where that statement comes from, but whatever. If thats the only reason its a silly one. California is huge, and there are many parts that are among the most conservative counties in the country, and still have sun, beaches, and have all the other advantages of living in California. But then, I'm in no rush for them to come out.

I'm not necessarily talking about people not wanting to live in an particular social environment, i'm talking about the fact that different laws exist in different states, and people certainly do take that into account when deciding where to live.

[Heretic Machine]

A state could never ban people that live there from having abortions, they could just ban abortions from taking place in their state. Same for the US...if someone really wanted to they could hop on a plane and get one in another country. Its actually exactly the same as the gun laws, in that respect.



I'm not necessarily talking about people not wanting to live in an particular social environment, i'm talking about the fact that different laws exist in different states, and people certainly do take that into account when deciding where to live.

Or maybe if someone doesn't like abortions, they could just choose not to have one? Maybe that'd be a good solution to the problem.

Oh wait, that is what we fucking decided to do.

[Oxonian]

Either way, this society has made a decision, and certain people need to move on.
I recall when nine people made a decision about abortion. When did "society" make a decision about it?

[SuicideKing]

That isn't happening, and no, there is no reason it should be a state issue and not a federal one. Either way, this society has made a decision, and certain people need to move on. I really hate how conservatives like to pretend that every state should be it's own little country.

Umm, society didn't make the decision, a panel of judges did. That decision has since been amended and constrained by other judges, and even other judges retain the right to repeal the decision the first set made. That's how the judicial branch works. If enough of the judges with the appropriate authority believe that Roe v Wade was bad law to begin with, and can present a legitimate case for their position, they can repeal it.

As to you hating federalism, well not much I can do about that, though perhaps you might want to consider why exactly you hate something so intrinsic to the USA...

[IrishWhiskey]

As to you hating federalism, well not much I can do about that, though perhaps you might want to consider why exactly you hate something so intrinsic to the USA...Just wondering, do you also support Federalism in terms of drug enforcement and medical marijuana laws, gay marriage, environmental regulation, allowing states to reject Patriot Act library search requests, etc.

I'm not saying you don't, just curious if its a consistent philosophy.

[SuicideKing]

Just wondering, do you also support Federalism in terms of drug enforcement and medical marijuana laws, gay marriage, environmental regulation, allowing states to reject Patriot Act library search requests, etc.

I'm not saying you don't, just curious if its a consistent philosophy.

First off you're operating under the false assumption that I said federalism is the end all be all. Heretic said he hated people thinking states should have different laws. That's a pretty categorical blanket statement that I felt I should call him on to explain.

If you're actually interested, regarding the issues you mentioned:

- "Federalism in terms of drug enforcement and medical marijuana laws" No (If it was purely a trade issue, probably, but given associated criminal cartel etc baggage, no)
- "Gay marriage" Yes
- "Environmental regulation" Probably, though it's a really complex issue I don't want to give an unconditional yes to whatever you might consider falls under environmental regulation.
- "allowing states to reject Patriot Act library search requests" No

The "no" regarding drugs and Patriot Act requests are because they have to do with National Security. All states benefit from strong National Security, so they don't get a choice.

[Heretic Machine]

First off you're operating under the false assumption that I said federalism is the end all be all. Heretic said he hated people thinking states should have different laws. That's a pretty categorical blanket statement that I felt I should call him on to explain.

If you're actually interested, regarding the issues you mentioned:

- "Federalism in terms of drug enforcement and medical marijuana laws" No
- "Gay marriage" Yes
- "Environmental regulation" Probably, though it's a really complex issue I don't want to give an unconditional yes to whatever you might consider falls under environmental regulation.
- "allowing states to reject Patriot Act library search requests" No

The "no" regarding drugs and Patriot Act requests are because they have to do with National Security. All states benefit from strong National Security, so they don't get a choice.

All people in all states benefit from having the freedom to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

All people in all states would benefit from having the freedom to join in a homosexual marriage.

All people in all states would benefit from being able to choose to use a drug that is relatively harmless compared to what is already legal.

We have a country for a reason, and it isn't just to have a bigger army.

[maverick106]

First off you're operating under the false assumption that I said federalism is the end all be all. Heretic said he hated people thinking states should have different laws. That's a pretty categorical blanket statement that I felt I should call him on to explain.

If you're actually interested, regarding the issues you mentioned:

- "Federalism in terms of drug enforcement and medical marijuana laws" No (If it was purely a trade issue, probably, but given associated criminal cartel etc baggage, no)
- "Gay marriage" Yes
- "Environmental regulation" Probably, though it's a really complex issue I don't want to give an unconditional yes to whatever you might consider falls under environmental regulation.
- "allowing states to reject Patriot Act library search requests" No

The "no" regarding drugs and Patriot Act requests are because they have to do with National Security. All states benefit from strong National Security, so they don't get a choice.

:::claps::: I don't think I could have put it better. :)

[Oxonian]

All people in all states benefit from having the freedom to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy.
Ummm... maybe I technically have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. But since I don't have a uterus, I don't think the opportunity to exercise that right is going to arise anytime soon. So how do I benefit from this "freedom"?

[IrishWhiskey]

The "no" regarding drugs and Patriot Act requests are because they have to do with National Security. All states benefit from strong National Security, so they don't get a choice.Sorry but if the definition is "all states benefit from it" you can use that reasoning to enforce a national ruling on anything. And drugs harm public health, but thats not the same as National Security, unless a whole lot of other things fall under that umbrella.

And when it comes to cases like Washington state having euthanasia and medical marijuana and decriminalization laws, I find it hard to understand the Executive Branch overriding the states decisions without it violating Federalist principles.

Ummm... maybe I technically have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. But since I don't have a uterus, I don't think the opportunity to exercise that right is going to arise anytime soon. So how do I benefit from this "freedom"?Haven't you ever seen the movie Junior?

http://www.afrotechmods.com/arnold/choice/Junior.jpg

[SuicideKing]

All people in all states benefit from having the freedom to choose to abort an unwanted pregnancy.

All people in all states would benefit from having the freedom to join in a homosexual marriage.

All people in all states would benefit from being able to choose to use a drug that is relatively harmless compared to what is already legal.

We have a country for a reason, and it isn't just to have a bigger army.

First off regarding abortion, you're assuming the choice of aborting a baby is something people benefit from, a significant portion of the US population disagrees very strongly with you on that. So put it at a state level and make it a referendum, let the people decide, government doesn't always know best.

Homosexual "marriage" being a purely legal issue, and also being so controversial also gets sent to the states to decide.

When I say all states benefit from National security, I mean, if your state decides it won't have a national guard etc etc, the other states HAVE to pitch in and cover their ass. I'm NOT saying that since it's something that I believe is good for everyone, we should just go ahead and make it law. You know what I think I would be good for everyone? A ban on abortion. Period. You know what else? No gun control laws.

And the list goes on and on, but at least I'm not pretentious enough to think I should force everyone to tow the line. And I don't want anyone else forcing their stupid views on me regarding those issues, so you make it a state issue, and like minded people can band together, and still get all the other benefits that come from being an American, living in the US.

Sorry but if the definition is "all states benefit from it" you can use that reasoning to enforce a national ruling on anything.

I'm sorry I assumed people would know how I meant it. I don't mean it would be good for everyone, I meant it's a gobal variable. If the west coast decides it doesn't want to have anything to do with National Security, National Security as a whole suffers, and jeopardizes everyone. That make sense now?

[Heretic Machine]

Ummm... maybe I technically have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy. But since I don't have a uterus, I don't think the opportunity to exercise that right is going to arise anytime soon. So how do I benefit from this "freedom"?

Whether or not I have the right to abort a pregnancy is entirely up to personal philosophy, as virtually no one on the planet is qualified to give a definitive answer on whether or not it is wrong.

[Oxonian]

Whether or not I have the right to abort a pregnancy is entirely up to personal philosophy, as virtually no one on the planet is qualified to give a definitive answer on whether or not it is wrong.
Does that same logic apply to other moral decisions? I'm kind of tempted to beat the crap out of my obnoxious neighbors who listen to crappy music. Is anyone on the planet qualified to give a definitive answer on whether or not it is wrong? Is there a special correspondence course you can take?

[Baron Samedi]

Does that same logic apply to other moral decisions? I'm kind of tempted to beat the crap out of my obnoxious neighbors who listen to crappy music. Is anyone on the planet qualified to give a definitive answer on whether or not it is wrong? Is there a special correspondence course you can take?

I, for one, teach a Beat the Shit Out of Your Neighbors 101. :p

[Heretic Machine]

First off regarding abortion, you're assuming the choice of aborting a baby is something people benefit from, a significant portion of the US population disagrees very strongly with you on that. So put it at a state level and make it a referendum, let the people decide, government doesn't always know best.

A significant portion of the population disagrees with virtually anything you can come up with. I don't see how that means it should be a state issue, or how making it a state issue would give the people any more or less say in the matter. The federal government doesn't always know best, but the state always does? Why have the federal government then?

Homosexual "marriage" being a purely legal issue, and also being so controversial also gets sent to the states to decide.

Why should it be legal in one state and not in another? And what happens when a homosexual couple married in California move to Utah, where they decided not to allow homosexual marriages? Does a little border crossing really make dumb fuck know-nothings feel more secure in their masculinity?

When I say all states benefit from National security, I mean, if your state decides it won't have a national guard etc etc, the other states HAVE to pitch in and cover their ass. I'm NOT saying that since it's something that I believe is good for everyone, we should just go ahead and make it law. You know what I think I would be good for everyone? A ban on abortion. Period. You know what else? No gun control laws.

How do you relate marijuana use to the National Guard? On that subject, why have a National Guard, why not have a State Guard? I don't want them to be funded as much as they are (especially since Kentucky has very few natural disasters, and that is all they're really good for), shouldn't I have the right to go find a state where they are underfunded? While we're at it, why not give the states the right to form their own armies, and declare war on other countries (maybe even other states)?

Where and why does the line between federal and state governments lay? I was under the impression that we have a federal government to protect my rights, and that state/local governments were only around to deal with localized issues; like highway maintenance and speed limits.

And the list goes on and on, but at least I'm not pretentious enough to think I should force everyone to tow the line. And I don't want anyone else forcing their stupid views on me regarding those issues, so you make it a state issue, and like minded people can band together, and still get all the other benefits that come from being an American, living in the US.

Why not band together in another country?

[SuicideKing]

Why not band together in another country?

Feel free to emigrate.

[Oxonian]

I was under the impression that we have a federal government to protect my rights, and that state/local governments were only around to deal with localized issues; like highway maintenance and speed limits.
That might be how you see it, but that's certainly not the historical context or the legal status of states. In fact, it works exactly the other way around: states have plenary power, and they have delegated some of that power to the federal government for situations (such as national defense) where coordinated action is necessary or desireable.

[Heretic Machine]

Feel free to emigrate.

That is exactly what you just said though, if I don't like how my state does something, I should move. Why don't you just go ahead and GTFO of my country? It is no more or less feasible for me to move from Kentucky to California than it would be for me to move from the USA to the Netherlands.

That might be how you see it, but that's certainly not the historical context or the legal status of states. In fact, it works exactly the other way around: states have plenary power, and they have delegated some of that power to the federal government for situations (such as national defense) where coordinated action is necessary or desireable.

Really? Because I thought we fought a war over this issue, and your side lost big.

[SuicideKing]

That is exactly what you just said though, if I don't like how my state does something, I should move. Why don't you just go ahead and GTFO of my country? It is no more or less feasible for me to move from Kentucky to California than it would be for me to move from the USA to the Netherlands.



Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't feasible for you to move to a different state? You know, not it might just inconvenience you, but that you are actually incapable of packing your shit up, selling some of it, and buying new shit and settling down somewhere a couple hours away?

In that case, you are in a very small minority. Small enough, the general citizenry of the United States need not pass blanket legislation to cater to you IMO. Especially as we have yet to determine that any of the things that should be delegated to a State's authority would somehow place a sizeable enough burden on you for most people to agree that it would be a necessity.

[Heretic Machine]

Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't feasible for you to move to a different state? You know, not it might just inconvenience you, but that you are actually incapable of packing your shit up, selling some of it, and buying new shit and settling down somewhere a couple hours away?

I'd have to find a new place to live, a new job, meet new people, sever ties with my family... etc. It would be exactly like moving to another country, except I wouldn't have a whole new set of laws and rights; hence the part where I don't leave the country. So, if moving from state to state removes basic (huge) parts of my rights, what is the point of having the country?

[Oxonian]

Really? Because I thought we fought a war over this issue, and your side lost big.
I disagree with the "states' rights" argument, so I wouldn't call the Confederacy "my side." But let me see if I can find some quotes for you:

"The [federal] government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers. The principle, that it can exercise only the powers granted to it . . . is now universally admitted. But the question respecting the extent of the powers actually granted, is perpetually arising, and will probably continue to arise, as long as our system shall exist." Id., at 405. See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., at 195 ("The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated"). The Constitution mandates this uncertainty by withholding from Congress a plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation.

That presupposition, first observed over a century ago in Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U.S. 1 (1890), has two parts: first, that each State is a sovereign entity in our federal system; and second, that "`[i]t is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent.'" Id., at 13 (emphasis deleted), quoting The Federalist No. 81, p. 487 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton). See also Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority, supra, at 146 ("The Amendment is rooted in a recognition that the States, although a union, maintain certain attributes of sovereignty, including sovereign immunity"). For over a century we have reaffirmed that federal jurisdiction over suits against unconsenting States "was not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States."

There's significant debate over where the line between federal and state authority lies and just how much sovereignty states retain. But even the most liberal jurists pay lip service to the notion that the federal government's authority is derived from the states, and that the states have retained some authority, not been granted it by a condescending federal government.

[Xerxes]

A judge Dredd system would kick so much ass.

[Krispy]

The sovereignty of a state is a tricky thing to define. The trend seems to be that we let the states decide on social issues until society evolves towards a single side so much that the federal government passes a federal law and goes "hey you, get with the times." Slavery and segregation come to mind off hand. This may be a very vague way of looking at thing, certainly I don't account for all the steps of the law, but I would be surprised if similar reforms did not happen with gay marriage and abortion (all though abortion seems to have skipped ahead of the pack).

[pacman]

Does that same logic apply to other moral decisions? I'm kind of tempted to beat the crap out of my obnoxious neighbors who listen to crappy music. Is anyone on the planet qualified to give a definitive answer on whether or not it is wrong? Is there a special correspondence course you can take?

No not really, but police will lock you up for doing so because society would become a much less organized place if everyone started beating each other up for such offenses. Removing morality altogether, the police in general serve the utilitarian purpose of keeping society moving and organized. Now, that's not to say that laws haven't overstepped those original bounds, but people aren't completely logical in their actions.

I'll be honest, if you can find for me that the general consensus of scientists is that human life (not just any life) begins at conception, then abortion should not be up for grabs. However, if people are basing their stance on abortion on religious principles that many do not share, then abortion should still be legal in my opinion.