Video and Audio
See other Video and Audio Articles
Title: We are the Pro-Life Generation and we will abolish abortion
Source:
Students for Life of America
URL Source: http://studentsforlife.org/
Published: Jul 3, 2018
Author: Students for Life of America
Post Date: 2018-07-03 16:51:43 by Hondo68
Keywords: Baby assassin Trump, Funds Planned Parenthood, Three times, so far
Views: 9793
Comments: 51
Our mission statement Students for Life of America exists to recruit, train, and mobilize the Pro-Life Generation to abolish abortion.
Poster Comment: The spending bill passed the Senate by a vote of 80-17 and was approved by the House, 316 to 90. Trump signed the bill into law on Friday. The deal places the president in the position of abandoning a specific promise made to his conservative base during his 2016 campaign. Trump and Vice-President Mike Pence outlined a pro-life agenda for a Trump administration. “I am committed to…Defunding Planned Parenthood as long as they continue to perform abortions, and re-allocating their funding to community health centers that provide comprehensive health for women,” Trump said in a letter to national pro-life leaders in 2016. Republicans, of course, claim to be a pro-life party, but have failed to defund Planned Parenthood, despite promises to the contrary. Terence Jeffrey, editor-in-chief at CNSNews.com, observes this is “the third spending deal President Trump has signed that funds Planned Parenthood”
Thank God that these courageous youngsters are opposing Trump's baby killing D&R establishment funded, abortion mills. 
Trump’s Spending Deal with Democrats Is Funding Planned Parenthood
The deal Trump cut with Minority Leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi – and that the Republican-led Congress passed – funds abortion giant Planned Parenthood into fiscal year 2018 with taxpayer funds from the Medicaid program and Title X family planning grants.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-11) not displayed.
.
.
.
#12. To: Vicomte13 (#9)
CRUSHINGLY pro-choice? Then the U.S. Supreme Court might feel safe in overturning Roe v Wade and returning the decision to the states. Nothing would change, right?
They do have that power. The Constitution demands Equal justice under the law . They're human beings whose rights are being violated. Murder is a crime you dumbass.
They're human beings, when? At conception? Heartbeat detected? First trimester? Well then, Congress would have to pass a law saying that life begins at that point and abortion is murder and is thereore illegal. Any exceptions for rape, incest, or health of the mother? And what are the penalties for the mother? The abortionist? The clinic? You put that all together and then tell me how many votes you think you can get. I'll tell you. Not enough.
It's on like a f****** liberal
No exceptions b****
No, solipsist, I am simply stating the facts as determined by the polls by all of the major research organizations. Example: 2017 Pew Research Study: "Though abortion is a divisive issue, more than half of U.S. adults take a non-absolutist position, saying that in most – but not all – cases, abortion should be legal (33%) or illegal (24%). Fewer take the position that in all cases abortion should be either legal (25%) or illegal (16%)." 25% are absolutists who say that abortion should be legal in all cases, and 33% think that abortion should be legal in most cases. That's 58% of the nation that is pro abortion. (I said 55% in my post - Pew says it's a bit more of a pro-abortion country than I said) Only 16% have my view and yours, that abortion should be illegal. Another 24% think it should be illegal in most cases. That's 40% pro-life. (I said 45% in my post, so the country is a bit less pro-life than I said.) I am a realist, living in the real world, with real data. You're a solipsist, who believes that your personal view of the way things OUGHT to be is the way things ARE. I said the way things ARE, and you accused me of pulling fables out of my ass. Actually, I was direct, honest, and telling you what the field of battle really looks like, and why - if the pro- lifers do some damn fool Pickett's Charge thing like shut down the government until abortion is illegal, that we will certainly LOSE. We will lose everything. We will not win on abortion AND we will lose the rest of government and lose everything ELSE we care about too. We are not strong enough to win this battle in a direct fight. We have too few men. We are outnumbered. Really. YOU are the one pulling ideas out of your ass. You hate abortion, therefore you manufacture in your mind some sort of non-existent majority that can overthrow it. Ok, General Lee, ok, General Pickett, you go right ahead and charge those guns at Gettysburg. And die. 100% of the time. You cannot win this fight in a head to head battle, because your side is too weak and the other side is too strong. The difference is not so lopsided that the Supreme Court could not IMPOSE a solution that the majority would not like. If they overturned Roe and outlawed abortion, the pro-abortion folks would go berserk BUT the country would continue to be governed, it would not be shut down, the economy could grow, and people could still vote for the Republicans on their pocketbooks and just blame the Supreme Court. That's how you can win. But you're a child in your thinking. You want to be RIGHT, and that means NOT using the Supreme Court to do it. Unfortunately, that means you want to be right more than you want to win. So you lose, and then you lose. And then you bitch at a realist like me, and mock me, when I tell you the way it actually IS, the actual lay of the real battlefield. Because God brought a lizard back to life in my hand and I told you about it, therefore I am to be dismissed as a liar and a spinner of fables on every other thing. While YOU blunder ahead in error after error, misjudgment after misjudgment, factual fantasy after fantasy, and what you believe in loses. So, you call me lizard-boy, if it pleases you, and I'll call you solipsist, because that's exactly what you are.
Nothing would change, right? The Supreme Court would not overturn its precedent under such circumstances.
Yes. There needs to be an exception to preserve the life of the mother under dire circumstances, when all efforts to preserve both mother and baby have been exhausted. And of course, therefore, we must vastly increase our spending on orphanages and child welfare, because there will be a whole lot more poor children, in our country if we abolish abortion. And you’re right, there are not the votes to get that through the democratic process. Only about 16% of the country agrees. We need the Supreme Court to impose the rule as a constitutional interpretation, because we cannot win the point democratically. And then we have to be ready, once the court does that, for the political hellstorm to follow. We have to be ready with the really massive social spending on all of those millions of new children, most of them poor minorities, who will be born as the result. The way has to be made easy for women to offload the babies into good orphanages, etc. That might - MIGHT - be sufficient to deflect the political hellstorm long enough to survive some elections and make the new system stick. More likely, that decision would be a 21st Century Dredd Scott decision, that would hurtle us almost immediately into political civil war, which the Democrats would win easily.
Under those circumstances, of course they would. They'd know it would have no effect.
The U.S. Supreme Court does not have the power to write law. You can't even take a case directly to the U.S. Supreme Court -- it's an appellate court. Meaning, a law must first be written declaring abortion to be murder, someone has to violate that law and be arrested (to have standing), then be convicted, appeal to a circuit court, conviction affirmed, then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Who decides when life begins? A state? The U.S. Supreme Court? Who should be punished and what's a "just and fair" penalty? Can these definitions vary from state to state?
The Supreme Court has written the most important laws of the country. Abortion, gay marriage, legal segregation, then desegregation - all Supreme Court-made law. Judge-made law has always been the principle of the Common Law system. So, one can say that the Supreme Court “can’t”, but it manifestly DOES. One might say that it SHOULDN”T, but that’s a philosophical question.
Abortion wouldn't necessarily be abolished. The decision would be returned to each state as it was prior to Roe v Wade. Since each state would bear the financial burden of orphanages and child welfare, the goal would be to reduce pregnancies to begin with. An anti-abortion state might allow first-trimester abortions. Or free birth control. They could declare the "morning after" pill (Plan B) to be legal. They could make an abortion exception for the mental health of the mother. They could prosecute the father for statutory rape in underage pregnancy cases. They could cut off state aid after the first child. Or they could even offer cash assistance to a pregnant woman to go to another state to get an abortion. Just spitballin' here.
No. Those were legal decisions concerning the constitutionality of a law that was being challenged. The law, passed by some legislative body, already existed. The law was applied to some action, creating an aggrieved party, who then challeged it on constitutional grounds.
It gets to be a semantic game and a game of legal history. I can see that the principle here is very, very important to you. I suppose we could go back to the beginning of our legal system and come forward, and I would show you how our law was originally all judge made, and how statutes gradually filled in the interstices, or changed some aspect of the Common Law (which is mostly judge made, not legislature made). I would show you how statutes gradually codified the judge made law It would be an interesting drill for a legal historian. Trouble is, what happened and how we got here is rather different from the nice picturebook civics story of how our system works, and you'll dig in on the theory and insist that the theory is the reality, while I will keep saying that, no, the reality is about 75 degrees off of the theory. We will not be able to resolve the dispute, and we'll walk away irritated. So let's cut to the chase and walk away irritated without expending all of the time and effort.
They still would not, because the concept of Roe is not anathema to the majority of justices. The Supreme Court, for the most part, believes itself to have the power to be the final arbiter of what the Constitution IS. Sure, there are justices like Scalia who say "No, no, no!", but they have never yet been a majority (and with John Roberts' defection on Obamacare, it's clear that that in the clinch there are a maximum of three such justices now). Roe was correctly decided according to the bulk of the justices, and the manner in which it was decided exalts the power of the court. They would not reverse their precedent and say they were wrong unless there were five pro-life justices on the court. If there is a crushing pro-choice majority in the country, that would be reflected on the court, and the court would have no interest whatever in reversing Roe and suggesting that it didn't have the power to make a Roe-like decision. They would let Roe stand, and they would retain their power to decide new Roes. The majority of the Supreme Court have never shared your view of the civics.
According to Marbury v Madison, the bulk of the justices define correct. So your statement is superfluous.
The Rule of Five, yes. And that’s why even a court with a majority of pro-lifers on it might not vote down Roe, but a court that was majority pro-choice never would.
Well then, Congress would have to pass a law saying that life begins at that point and abortion is murder and is thereore illegal. You don't need Congress saying when life begins. We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
It isn't the current courts precedent. You are just giving your very flawed opinion as if it is fact. You regularly do that which makes you dishonest and not credible. Not to mention your lunatic belief that you raise mice and cockroaches from the dead.
And the Supreme Court could so declare in drawing the line to trigger when protection of the person begins under the Constitution, thereby reversing Roe and ending all abortion in one swoop, not sending the subject back to the states for a vote. That's the only way to get it done all the way to zero. I doubt the pro-lifers on the court have the stomach for THAT. I do think Roe could be overturned and the issue thrown back to the states.
I would show you how statutes gradually codified the judge made law You would show lol. Make a YouTube video of your raising mice from the dead. You can't can you.
I can’t raise mice or lizards from the dead. God did it, once each. I was merely present.
Do you actually believe that the only precedent the Supreme Court has are those cases decided by the justices currently sitting on the bench?
When? Before the U.S. Constitution was ratified? Don't waste your time.
We? Half the people don't believe that. So how can you say "we" like you're speaking for everyone?
Not without a case before it. Could they declare that AR-15's are dangerous and therefore illegal? Out of the blue? Like tomorrow? Even with a case before it, how can the U.S. Supreme Court declare that life begins at conception? They have no powers of fact finding. Those powers reside with the legislature. This was why the Miller court remanded the case back to the district court -- they did not have the power to declare as fact whether of not the shotgun was useful to a militia. You just can't wait to give total power to the courts, can you? A judicial oligarchy seems to be your preferred form of government. Provided, of course, the judges vote your way. As soon as they don't, I expect to hear you screaming for a representative republic where elected representatives write the laws.
It’s easy to get a case.
If you don't know that you plus two is four I don't give a s*** what you f****** think comprende dumbass
Well, for starters, you'd have to find a state with a law that banned abortion because it was murder. There is one. Iowa recently passed a law that bans most abortions once a fetal heartbeat is detected (about 6 weeks). That was challenged in Distict Court by Planned Parenthood and the ACLU. Litigation could take years. Assuming the District Court finds the law constitutional, I'm sure Planned Parenthood and the ACLU would appeal their ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court. Add a few more years. If the Iowa Supreme Court found the law constitutional, it could then be appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court -- assuming the U.S. Supreme Court wished to hear it. Add a few more years. And if the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case and agreed, then most abortions would be banned once a fetal heartbeat is detected. That's best case. Now, imagine if A K A Stone wrote the law. Life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. No exceptions. Getting that law passed by some state legislature would be almost impossible. Then you'd have to get all those state and federal judges to agree with you, all the way up the ladder.
No, you wouldn't have to do that at all. What you would have to do is take any abortion case, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to review its logic in Roe de novo. The Supreme Court is not bound by past precedents of the Supreme Court. It follows them out of the principle of stare decisis et non quieta movetur, but it always has the option of reviewing what it has done in the past and reversing on the grounds that it deems constitutional. It takes the rule of 5. 5 justices could take the abortion case and use it as the vehicle to review Roe. Nobody can stop them from reviewing Roe itself on any abortion case, irrespective of the topic. They could then determine that the Constitution requires due process before anybody is deprived of life - which it does - and then take judicial notice of the biological fact that life begins at conception, and simply apply the Constitution to the fact, and ban abortion outright as a matter of the Constitution. Don't pretend that they are barred from doing precisely that, if they want to. They are not, and they could. Nobody could sanction them if they did it. Like Roe when it was originally decided on the "shadow of the penumbra", or the gay rights decision, the Supreme Court can decide that the Constitution itself requires thus and so, and make whatever unique assertion that the Rule of 5 will sustain. They won't do it because the justices on the court don't believe in the argument. But if there were five who DID - say, chosen by a litmus test of loyalty standard by a President with a fixed view during a time that illness or some other factor fells several justices - if there were 5 on the court who thought that way, Roe could be overturned with a full-out ban as the result of ANY case that reviewed ANY aspect of abortion rights that have arisen under the Roe jurisprudence. What is likely to happen is that Roe will never be overturned. But if, perchance, a pro-life President gets the chance to appoint enough anti-Roe jurists as to comprise a majority of the court, Roe could be overturned. If it were, it is most likely the subject would be sent back to the states, rather than abortion bnnned outright as a human rights matter. But the Supreme Court COULD ban abortion outright on a due process argument.
This is why it's easier to change the law by judicial fiat, which comes from the top, goes down the ladder, and is not subject to Congressional reversal.
What do you mean, "take any abortion case"? I don't understand what you're saying.
Huh? Look, give me an example of what you're talking about so I can understand. Any case of "judicial fiat" in any area.
What I mean is that the Supreme Court can choose to grant certiorari to any of a number of cases that are appealed to them every year that touch on the subject of abortion, abortion restrictions, and the law of abortion that has grown out of the Roe v. Wade opinion. Roe itself, and its progeny, are a cardinal example of the sort of thing I of which I have been speaking. In 1973 abortion was outlawed by most state law, permitted by some. The Roe v. Wade case was appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supremes did not have to grant cert. They grant cert to very few cases each year. They chose to grant cert. So the issue of an abortion law of a state, and its enforcement, came before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court issued a sweeping opinion that created a right of privacy in reproductive matters out of the "shadow" of the various amendments. Those who oppose Roe rightly look at the 4th Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution, and see no plenary federal right to abortion on demand in there. They see no reference to abortion at all. They see the 9th and 10th Amendments pointing right to the States as the deciders of this sort of law. But the Justices of the Supreme Court saw a right to abortion on demand, within certain parameters, in the shadow of the Fourth Amendment. And just like that, there was a constitutional right to abortion on demand in the first trimester that swept aside all contrary federal, state and local laws. That having been established, the efforts to overturn that decision began. In 1986, the Reagan-era Supreme Court took up the matter of Roe and its results again, by granting certiorari in another abortion case, Casey. The court used Casey to further expand the constitutional right to abortion on demand, widened the law. The whole constitutional law of abortion came out of the Supreme Court. It's entirely judge made. It's not really in the written constitution. It exists, rather, according to the judges, in the shadows cast by certain amendments to the Constitution. And that is sufficient to overwhelm the 9th and 10th Amendments, all state power, and even federal Congressional power on the matter. Abortion is a Constitutional right because the Supreme Court has said it is so. Every year new abortion cases are appealed to the court, but the justices do not grant cert. If they were to decide to take a new abortion case (it takes four to agree to grant cert) then a case that derives from the Roe and Casey precedents would be there. The specific issue in the case may be the legality, under Roe and Casey, of something or some other thing. But once they have it in court, the Supremes can always go down from the specific branch to the very root of the judge-made law in Casey and Roe, and cut the root, overturning Roe itself. And there is nothing - nothing - in our law that requires them to simply overturn Roe and return things to the status quo ante Roe. They don't have to decide that Roe was wrongly decided on the 4th Amendment penumbra. They could do something different, and say that the problem with Roe is not the 4th or 8th or 10th amendments. Rather, the problem lies in the due process clause. Babies are being deprived of life without due process, and that cannot stand, thus, abortion is unconstitutional. Period. The exception for life of the mother could then be carved out by the court on self-defense or other grounds. Essentially, the court can say whatever it wants to, as long as 5 justices agree. Then - per Marbury as you cited it up the thread - that IS the Constitution...until it is amended or the Court changes its mind again. Homosexual marriage is now the law of the land because the Supreme Court did something very similar in that arena: they granted cert on a case, and then used that as the vehicle to legislate a plenary law on the matter, closing off the democratic process because "Constitution". Usually, people who write about this process by which the court makes law do so with contempt and scorn, if they are conservatives, and say it is illegitimate. Or they write with praise and support, if they are liberals (as long as the decisions are liberal). I am doing neither here. I offer no opinion on whether the Supreme Court's legislation of social law from the bench is a good thing or a bad thing. I merely note, very firmly, that it IS a thing, and that the most troubling of all of the issues facing the nation, from the Indian Resettlements to Slavery to Jim Crow, to desegregation, to abortion, to sodomy to gay marriage have all been determined - the law of the land has been set - as a matter of the Constitution by the Supreme Court, and not be the Congress or state legislatures. They had laws, but in the end it was the Rule of 5 that established the law that we HAVE. This is so. That I observe it is so does not make me an advocate for or an enemy of said system. To look directly at it and call it what it is is objective realism, and the ability to do so is the mark of a mature, non-political mind. There are many ways to change the abortion laws. The easiest is to change the composition of the Supreme Court, since that's where the federal abortion law came from in the first place.
I seem to recall you making some very strong arguments about why the court (conservative or liberal) would not do this. I can look up the posts in this very thread if you'd like. "Essentially, the court can say whatever it wants to, as long as 5 justices agree." True. But that's not the point. The problem is getting the case in front of them. And I don't think they're interested in rehashing some plain old "abortion is murder" case. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt. Perhaps a case where some guy assaults a pregnant woman, she lives but the baby dies, and he's charged with murder. Due process demands the law treat everyone equally. (Unless your name is Hillary).
Look, we are talking about two related things in the same thread. I have been saying two distinct things. One is a discussion of the legal STRUCTURE of the system - what the Supreme Court CAN do, what it has the POWER to do. The Supreme Court CAN, and DOES make law - all of the most important and controversial laws in our recent history: Abortion, Gay Marriage, the forced desegregation of every facet of the economy: this is the legacy of the Supreme Court's lawmaking power. One strand of what I wrote was making the firm and clear point that the Supreme Court DOES make law in America, that in fact the most important and controversial laws of all were made by the Supreme Court, not by Congress or state legislatures. That was one point. The other point was that we live in a world of political and demographic realities, that the democratic process itself simply will not produce legislation that is opposed by the bulk of the population, not on such a hot-button topic, and that the judges will not be changing their own personal minds on the issues any time soon. My point was that the fixed nature of human opinion means that nothing can happen quickly on the matter of abortion. It's not that the Supreme Court CAN'T outlaw all abortion with a wave of its hand. It can, and it would be easy to do if it wanted to. But the Supreme Court is composed of men and women whose decisions reflect their individual opinions of things, and those individual men and women are no more malleable in their thoughts on a subject like this than you or I are. So the Court COULD, but THIS court never, ever will, not ever, because of the people on it. I said that if the composition of the Court were changed, it COULD legislate something new through a judicial opinion. And I said that, given that the power of the judges is based on their power to legislate with their opinions, that they would not overturn Roe for any other reason than if a pro-life majority were put on the Court. No pro- choice judges are going to overrule Roe on the principle that it was decided wrong, because they like the result. That was what I was saying. There is not a contradiction here. There's the structure, and then there's the politics. They're different. They're discussed in the same thread, but what I've said in each case is focused on the particular subject being discussed.
This court as currently configured isn't. But put Kennedy's replacement up there, and you will have the replacement, plus Gorsuch, plus Alito, plus Roberts himself who have never ruled on an abortion case. Thomas would always vote to overturn if he had the chance. So with a new set of faces, you might have a new court that IS willing to hear an abortion case with an "abortion is murder" mindset.
Their decision is referred to as case law which is the court's interpretation of legislative law. They don't make law. They're not allowed to. "It's not that the Supreme Court CAN'T outlaw all abortion with a wave of its hand. It can …" I agree. But there is a process. And that process, even if it happens, can take years. At the end of that process, yes, they can wave their hands.
It's a distinction without a difference. Do you have to obey it? Yes. Will the men with the guns and badges obey it and enforce it on you? Yes. Will the courts enforce it on you? Yes. Then it's law. Regulations issued by government agencies and Executive Orders are enforced on people no differently than statutes passed by Congress. It's all law. The semantic difference between "case law", "regulation", "ordinance" and "statute" are distinctions without a difference when one is at the receiving, obeying end of it: it's all "law". The question, then, when discussing such things, is whether one is going to be a legal realist, as I am, and call compulsory rules by what they functionally are: law, or be an academic formalist, as you seem to be, insisting that it's not "law" unless it comes from a legislature and is signed by a chief executive. I am a realist, not a formalist. That is the way I think and express myself. It really comes to bear in law, religion and politics. What I am getting at is that the Supreme Court has the power to impose rules upon society that govern what the people in society can or cannot do, and that these rules have exactly the same power and are enforced with exactly the same rigor, as statutes passed by legislatures and signed by executives. I could go through a marionette's dance of distinctions to jump through a formalist's hoops and use words the way he insists they must be use. But I won't do that, because it establishes the formalist view as master - an authority I will not grant it, because I think it's angels-on-the-head-of -a-pin scholasticism. Abortion rights are law. This law of abortion was imposed on the USA by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court set its parameters, and established that no legislature, including Congress, has any real power to alter that law, because the Constitution stands above Congress, and the Supreme Court has successfully arrogated to itself the final authority to decide what the Constitution is. Because the Supreme Court is the supreme authority on the supreme law of the land, the Supreme Court is, in fact, the supreme legislator, although out of some deference to formalism I don't go so far as to say that overtly, except to make a point and be provocative. Quarreling with me about how I use words is a waste of time. I'm never going to concede control of the language, and formalists do not have, and since Lochner was overruled never have had, the power to set the terms of the language. Legal realists actually rule the American world, so if you would understand how things are, not how they perhaps ought to be, you would do really well to try to understand what I am saying and not fight with me so much over the language. I'm not really an ally of a great deal of what the law IS, but that it IS law is factually true, regardless of what civics class says it OUGHT to be called. Abortion law is LAW. It's not opinion. It's enforced by police and courts, and legislative attempts to modify it have been repeatedly erased by the courts, because the Supreme Court is ultimately supreme over Congress and the President, because the Constitution is supreme, and the Supreme Court has the final authority to say what the Constitution is...under the current system of deference. A President could, of course, simply deny that the Supreme Court has such authority, issue orders that directly countermade Supreme Court decisions, overrule the Supreme Court's decisions by actions, and if law enforcement obeyed the President, and Congress did not impeach the President, then the actual LAW would be imposed by the President by fiat. The law would be pretty bad, but it would be the law by any realistic measure.
I agree with you here. PROCESS is the key to the whole system. Process is really the supreme law of the land. Process tends to enforce itself because of habit. Process is the reason why all liberty ULTIMATELY reposes in the rules of evidence.
Of course, if the majority were CRUSHINGLY pro-choice the court might not prevail even then.
#13. To: misterwhite (#11)
#14. To: A K A Stone (#13)
The Constitution demands Equal justice under the law . They're human beings whose rights are being violated.
#15. To: misterwhite (#14)
#16. To: misterwhite (#14)
#17. To: A K A Stone (#10)
(Edited)
Pulling fables out of your ass as usual huh lizardboy.
#18. To: misterwhite (#12)
CRUSHINGLY pro-choice? Then the U.S. Supreme Court might feel safe in overturning Roe v Wade and returning the decision to the states.
#19. To: misterwhite (#14)
(Edited)
They're human beings, when? At conception?
#20. To: Vicomte13 (#18)
The Supreme Court would not overturn its precedent under such circumstances.
#21. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
We need the Supreme Court to impose the rule as a constitutional interpretation,
#22. To: misterwhite (#21)
#23. To: Vicomte13 (#19)
And of course, therefore, we must vastly increase our spending on orphanages and child welfare, because there will be a whole lot more poor children, in our country if we abolish abortion.
#24. To: Vicomte13 (#22)
all Supreme Court-made law.
#25. To: misterwhite (#24)
#26. To: misterwhite (#20)
Under those circumstances, of course they would. They'd know it would have no effect.
#27. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
Roe was correctly decided according to the bulk of the justices
#28. To: misterwhite (#27)
#29. To: misterwhite (#14)
They're human beings, when? At conception? Heartbeat detected? First trimester?
#30. To: Vicomte13 (#26)
They would not reverse their precedent
#31. To: A K A Stone (#29)
You don't need Congress saying when life begins. We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
#32. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
gets to be a semantic game and a game of legal history. I can see that the principle here is very, very important to you. I suppose we could go back to the beginning of our legal system and come forward, and I would show you how our law was originally all judge made, and how statutes gradually filled in the interstices, or changed some aspect of the Common Law (which is mostly judge made, not legislature made).
#33. To: A K A Stone (#32)
#34. To: A K A Stone (#30)
It isn’t the current court’s precedent.
#35. To: Vicomte13 (#25)
and I would show you how our law was originally all judge made
#36. To: A K A Stone (#29)
We already know for a scientific fact it begins at conception.
#37. To: Vicomte13 (#31)
And the Supreme Court could so declare
#38. To: misterwhite (#37)
#39. To: misterwhite (#36)
#40. To: Vicomte13, A K A Stone (#38)
It’s easy to get a case
#41. To: misterwhite (#40)
Well, for starters, you'd have to find a state with a law that banned abortion because it was murder. There is one.
#42. To: misterwhite (#40)
Now, imagine if A K A Stone wrote the law. Life begins at conception. Abortion is murder. No exceptions. Getting that law passed by some state legislature would be almost impossible. Then you'd have to get all those state and federal judges to agree with you, all the way up the ladder.
#43. To: Vicomte13 (#41)
What you would have to do is take any abortion case, which opens the door for the Supreme Court to review its logic in Roe de novo.
#44. To: Vicomte13 (#42)
This is why it's easier to change the law by judicial fiat,
#45. To: misterwhite (#43)
What do you mean, "take any abortion case"? I don't understand what you're saying.
#46. To: Vicomte13 (#45)
If they were to decide to take a new abortion case
#47. To: misterwhite (#46)
I seem to recall you making some very strong arguments about why the court (conservative or liberal) would not do this. I can look up the posts in this very thread if you'd like.
#48. To: misterwhite (#46)
And I don't think they're interested in rehashing some plain old "abortion is murder" case. Been there. Done that. Got the t-shirt.
#49. To: Vicomte13 (#47)
The Supreme Court CAN, and DOES make law
#50. To: misterwhite (#49)
(Edited)
Their decision is referred to as case law which is the court's interpretation of legislative law. They don't make law. They're not allowed to.
#51. To: misterwhite (#49)
I agree. But there is a process. And that process, even if it happens, can take years. At the end of that process, yes, they can wave their hands.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]