| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"MrPepper11" |
| Date: |
19 Jul 2005 07:00:39 PM |
| Object: |
John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan,
deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan &
Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(appointed 2003).
His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who
could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't
been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much
ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer
for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice
is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including
abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.
Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a
12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C.,
Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is
very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the
Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest.
(Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that
Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation
affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta,
2001).
For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort-in the wake of the 1980
Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden-to make it easier for
minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted
under the Voting Rights Act.
Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public
high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The
Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)
Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take
down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its
habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the
developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated
under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's
power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion,
Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider
alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent
with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on
public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's
actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this
argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)
Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched
the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a
crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search
legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was
in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those
terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)
Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued
that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the
government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact
punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court
ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia,
2004)
Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics
receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust
v. Sullivan, 1991)
Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by
Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for
deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant
statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)
In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just
compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in
the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms
of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory,
but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property
interests than Supreme Court law at the time.
.
|
|
| User: "Michelle Malkin" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
21 Jul 2005 03:27:38 AM |
|
|
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote in message
news:1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
Age: 50
Graduated from: Harvard Law School.
He clerked for: Judge Henry Friendly, Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
He used to be: associate counsel to the president for Ronald Reagan,
deputy solicitor general for George H.W. Bush, partner at Hogan &
Hartson.
He's now: a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
(appointed 2003).
His confirmation battle: Roberts has been floated as a nominee who
could win widespread support in the Senate. Not so likely. He hasn't
been on the bench long enough for his judicial opinions to provide much
ammunition for liberal opposition groups. But his record as a lawyer
for the Reagan and first Bush administrations and in private practice
is down-the-line conservative on key contested fronts, including
abortion, separation of church and state, and environmental protection.
Civil Rights and Liberties
For a unanimous panel, denied the weak civil rights claims of a
12-year-old girl who was arrested and handcuffed in a Washington, D.C.,
Metro station for eating a French fry. Roberts noted that "no one is
very happy about the events that led to this litigation" and that the
Metro authority had changed the policy that led to her arrest.
(Hedgepeth v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 2004).
In private practice, wrote a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that
Congress had failed to justify a Department of Transportation
affirmative action program. (Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Mineta,
2001).
For Reagan, opposed a congressional effort-in the wake of the 1980
Supreme Court decision Mobile v. Bolden-to make it easier for
minorities to successfully argue that their votes had been diluted
under the Voting Rights Act.
Separation of Church and State
For Bush I, co-authored a friend-of-the-court brief arguing that public
high-school graduation programs could include religious ceremonies. The
Supreme Court disagreed by a vote of 5-4. (Lee v. Weisman, 1992)
Environmental Protection and Property Rights
Voted for rehearing in a case about whether a developer had to take
down a fence so that the arroyo toad could move freely through its
habitat. Roberts argued that the panel was wrong to rule against the
developer because the regulations on behalf of the toad, promulgated
under the Endangered Species Act, overstepped the federal government's
power to regulate interstate commerce. At the end of his opinion,
Roberts suggested that rehearing would allow the court to "consider
alternative grounds" for protecting the toad that are "more consistent
with Supreme Court precedent." (Rancho Viejo v. Nortion, 2003)
For Bush I, argued that environmental groups concerned about mining on
public lands had not proved enough about the impact of the government's
actions to give them standing to sue. The Supreme Court adopted this
argument. (Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 1990)
Criminal Law
Joined a unanimous opinion ruling that a police officer who searched
the trunk of a car without saying that he was looking for evidence of a
crime (the standard for constitutionality) still conducted the search
legally, because there was a reasonable basis to think contraband was
in the trunk, regardless of whether the officer was thinking in those
terms. (U.S. v. Brown, 2004)
Habeas Corpus
Joined a unanimous opinion denying the claim of a prisoner who argued
that by tightening parole rules in the middle of his sentence, the
government subjected him to an unconstitutional after-the-fact
punishment. The panel reversed its decision after a Supreme Court
ruling directly contradicted it. (Fletcher v. District of Columbia,
2004)
Abortion
For Bush I, successfully helped argue that doctors and clinics
receiving federal funds may not talk to patients about abortion. (Rust
v. Sullivan, 1991)
Judicial Philosophy
Concurring in a decision allowing President Bush to halt suits by
Americans against Iraq as the country rebuilds, Roberts called for
deference to the executive and for a literal reading of the relevant
statute. (Acree v. Republic of Iraq, 2004)
In an article written as a law student, argued that the phrase "just
compensation" in the Fifth Amendment, which limits the government in
the taking of private property, should be "informed by changing norms
of justice." This sounds like a nod to liberal constitutional theory,
but Rogers' alternative interpretation was more protective of property
interests than Supreme Court law at the time.
Is he a Dominionist?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
19 Jul 2005 07:42:14 PM |
|
|
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
19 Jul 2005 07:55:25 PM |
|
|
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our rights
to choose an abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "kw" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
19 Jul 2005 08:22:11 PM |
|
|
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 07:50:22 PM |
|
|
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all
day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 08:17:50 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all
day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 08:39:47 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all
day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after Amendment
2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered under
this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from the
States their right to regulate abortion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 09:01:07 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all
day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after Amendment
2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered under
this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from the
States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 09:14:28 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will
be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all
day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered under
this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from the
States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek abortions,
but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts, in violation of
their Constitutional obligations. I would have no problem with, and in fact
support, a Constitutional Amendment granting women the right to obtain an
abortion. But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS)
has no legal authority to regulate the procedure.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 09:35:23 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will
be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do all
day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered under
this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from the
States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek abortions,
but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts, in violation of
their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
I would have no problem with, and in fact
support, a Constitutional Amendment granting women the right to obtain an
abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their own
state?
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS)
has no legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 09:43:50 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will
be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do
all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from the
States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts,
in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their own
state?
Yes, I would be supportive of taking this power away from the states, by the
only Constitutionally-approved means.
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has no
legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
Of course they have. By ruling that a woman must be allowed to seek an
abortion they have violated their own authority.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 09:51:17 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article <1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade will
be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do
all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away our
rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from the
States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts,
in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their own
state?
Yes, I would be supportive of taking this power away from the states, by the
only Constitutionally-approved means.
Why? The states can't do it themselves?
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has no
legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
Of course they have. By ruling that a woman must be allowed to seek an
abortion they have violated their own authority.
And you can cite this, right?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:00:25 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do
all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts,
in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states. But
don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was about.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their own
state?
Yes, I would be supportive of taking this power away from the states, by
the only Constitutionally-approved means.
Why? The states can't do it themselves?
I believe that a woman *should* have the right to obtain an abortion.
However, our founding fathers did not see fit to enumerate it as a right, so
it is not present in our Constitution. I would like to see it added.
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has no
legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
Of course they have. By ruling that a woman must be allowed to seek an
abortion they have violated their own authority.
And you can cite this, right?
You already did, when you quoted the 10th Amendment.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:09:21 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do
all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts,
in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
Oops, I missed these. Sorry, but no. It simply invalidated a Texas law
that was found to be unconstitutional.
Roe v Wade has as much power as a SCOTUS ruling on a state that bans
free speech. The state may pass the law, but the SCOTUS will invalidate it.
But
don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was about.
The decision by the SCOTUS was to the constitutionality of Texas'
anti-abortion law.
The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority
voting to strike down the Texas law (Justice Byron White and Justice
William J. Rehnquist dissented). State laws outlawing abortion were set
aside by the Court, permitting abortions during the first three months
of pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to
safeguard the woman's health.
It simply invalidated the unconstitutional Texas law (wherein the 14th
Amendment was violated.)
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
Because it violated the 14th Amendment.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:17:13 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:BlEDe.11370$JJ.2359@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices
do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the
courts, in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
Oops, I missed these. Sorry, but no. It simply invalidated a Texas law
that was found to be unconstitutional.
Roe v Wade has as much power as a SCOTUS ruling on a state that bans free
speech. The state may pass the law, but the SCOTUS will invalidate it.
That's just sophistry. Of course a state can pass all the illegal laws they
want, but the court removed their authority to enforce such laws.
But don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was
about.
The decision by the SCOTUS was to the constitutionality of Texas'
anti-abortion law.
The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority
voting to strike down the Texas law (Justice Byron White and Justice
William J. Rehnquist dissented). State laws outlawing abortion were set
aside by the Court, permitting abortions during the first three months of
pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to
safeguard the woman's health.
It simply invalidated the unconstitutional Texas law (wherein the 14th
Amendment was violated.)
Their ruling invalidated *all* laws that denied a woman the right to seek an
abortion.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
Because it violated the 14th Amendment.
Yes, that was the basis of their ruling (along with the 5th, IIRC, where
they "discoverd" a general "right to privacy" that somehow had gone unseen
for the previous 200 years of our history). I have contended that they got
it wrong, and that the TX statute did not violate the 5th or the 14th.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:52:49 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:BlEDe.11370$JJ.2359@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices
do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the
courts, in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
Oops, I missed these. Sorry, but no. It simply invalidated a Texas law
that was found to be unconstitutional.
Roe v Wade has as much power as a SCOTUS ruling on a state that bans free
speech. The state may pass the law, but the SCOTUS will invalidate it.
That's just sophistry. Of course a state can pass all the illegal laws they
want, but the court removed their authority to enforce such laws.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS didn't do that. It was the Constitution that does
that.
But don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was
about.
The decision by the SCOTUS was to the constitutionality of Texas'
anti-abortion law.
The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority
voting to strike down the Texas law (Justice Byron White and Justice
William J. Rehnquist dissented). State laws outlawing abortion were set
aside by the Court, permitting abortions during the first three months of
pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to
safeguard the woman's health.
It simply invalidated the unconstitutional Texas law (wherein the 14th
Amendment was violated.)
Their ruling invalidated *all* laws that denied a woman the right to seek an
abortion.
Since those laws were in violation of the 14th Amendment, you're
shooting the messenger.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
Because it violated the 14th Amendment.
Yes, that was the basis of their ruling (along with the 5th, IIRC, where
they "discoverd" a general "right to privacy" that somehow had gone unseen
for the previous 200 years of our history). I have contended that they got
it wrong, and that the TX statute did not violate the 5th or the 14th.
And the states have a right to bring up a constitutional amendment
stating as such. However, since the states have passed their own laws
now regarding abortion, your gripe against the SCOTUS is misplaced.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 11:14:30 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:l_EDe.7976$k_.4495@trnddc07...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:BlEDe.11370$JJ.2359@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v
Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices
do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take
away our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be
covered under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed
from the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the
courts, in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
Oops, I missed these. Sorry, but no. It simply invalidated a Texas law
that was found to be unconstitutional.
Roe v Wade has as much power as a SCOTUS ruling on a state that bans free
speech. The state may pass the law, but the SCOTUS will invalidate it.
That's just sophistry. Of course a state can pass all the illegal laws
they want, but the court removed their authority to enforce such laws.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS didn't do that. It was the Constitution that does
that.
But don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade
was about.
The decision by the SCOTUS was to the constitutionality of Texas'
anti-abortion law.
The Court issued its opinion on January 22, 1973, with a 7-2 majority
voting to strike down the Texas law (Justice Byron White and Justice
William J. Rehnquist dissented). State laws outlawing abortion were set
aside by the Court, permitting abortions during the first three months of
pregnancy and setting standards for regulations after that time to
safeguard the woman's health.
It simply invalidated the unconstitutional Texas law (wherein the 14th
Amendment was violated.)
Their ruling invalidated *all* laws that denied a woman the right to seek
an abortion.
Since those laws were in violation of the 14th Amendment, you're shooting
the messenger.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
Because it violated the 14th Amendment.
Yes, that was the basis of their ruling (along with the 5th, IIRC, where
they "discoverd" a general "right to privacy" that somehow had gone
unseen for the previous 200 years of our history). I have contended that
they got it wrong, and that the TX statute did not violate the 5th or the
14th.
And the states have a right to bring up a constitutional amendment stating
as such. However, since the states have passed their own laws now
regarding abortion, your gripe against the SCOTUS is misplaced.
That's just plain stupid. The requirements to pass an amendment are much
greater than what is needed for a state to pass a law. The SCOTUS ruling
has denied the states their right to pass (and enforce, if you need that to
be stated to keep from quibbling) laws making abortion illegal in their
jurisdiction, without surmounting the much greater challenge of first
amending the Constitution.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:02:41 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices do
all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the courts,
in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states. But
don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was about.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their own
state?
Yes, I would be supportive of taking this power away from the states, by
the only Constitutionally-approved means.
Why? The states can't do it themselves?
I believe that a woman *should* have the right to obtain an abortion.
And she already can, as evidenced by the laws of the states.
However, our founding fathers did not see fit to enumerate it as a right, so
it is not present in our Constitution. I would like to see it added.
There is no need.
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has no
legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
Of course they have. By ruling that a woman must be allowed to seek an
abortion they have violated their own authority.
And you can cite this, right?
You already did, when you quoted the 10th Amendment.
Sorry, but the 10th Amendment was not written by the SCOTUS. Care to try
again?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:07:23 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:lfEDe.11369$JJ.916@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices
do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the
courts, in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
But don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was
about.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their
own state?
Yes, I would be supportive of taking this power away from the states, by
the only Constitutionally-approved means.
Why? The states can't do it themselves?
I believe that a woman *should* have the right to obtain an abortion.
And she already can, as evidenced by the laws of the states.
Only because the states may not create laws that deny a woman the right to
seek an abortion, due to Roe v Wade. If Roe v Wade were decided
differently, then states would be able to make the procedure illegal within
their jurisdictions.
However, our founding fathers did not see fit to enumerate it as a right,
so it is not present in our Constitution. I would like to see it added.
There is no need.
There is no need only because the matter was decided ILEGALLY!
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has no
legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
Of course they have. By ruling that a woman must be allowed to seek an
abortion they have violated their own authority.
And you can cite this, right?
You already did, when you quoted the 10th Amendment.
Sorry, but the 10th Amendment was not written by the SCOTUS. Care to try
again?
Are you really THAT stupid, or are you just fucking with me? I told you
that the court violated their authority. Specifically, the SCOTUS violated
the 10th Amendment!
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:24:04 PM |
|
|
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:lfEDe.11369$JJ.916@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v Wade
will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices
do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take away
our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution,
nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be covered
under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed from
the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the
courts, in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
But don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade was
about.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their
own state?
Yes, I would be supportive of taking this power away from the states, by
the only Constitutionally-approved means.
Why? The states can't do it themselves?
I believe that a woman *should* have the right to obtain an abortion.
And she already can, as evidenced by the laws of the states.
Only because the states may not create laws that deny a woman the right to
seek an abortion, due to Roe v Wade.
Incorrect. Due to the 14th Amendment. Lay the blame where blame ought
to lie: With the US Congress and the States. Remember, the 14th
Amendment was proposed by the Congress, and passed by the legislatures
of at least 3/4 of the states. The SCOTUS and Roe v Wade had nothing to
do with it.
If Roe v Wade were decided
differently, then states would be able to make the procedure illegal within
their jurisdictions.
And that illegality would be against the 14th Amendment.
However, our founding fathers did not see fit to enumerate it as a right,
so it is not present in our Constitution. I would like to see it added.
There is no need.
There is no need only because the matter was decided ILEGALLY!
Nope. The states already have laws stating that abortion is legal. If
it was made illegal (as in "banning free speech",) that would be
unconstitutional.
Y'see, the SCOTUS never makes any laws, only enforces the
constitutionality of already created laws.
But as it stands, the Federal Government (including the SCOTUS) has no
legal authority to regulate the procedure.
Indeed. And they haven't.
Of course they have. By ruling that a woman must be allowed to seek an
abortion they have violated their own authority.
And you can cite this, right?
You already did, when you quoted the 10th Amendment.
Sorry, but the 10th Amendment was not written by the SCOTUS. Care to try
again?
Are you really THAT stupid, or are you just fucking with me?
Neither.
I told you
that the court violated their authority.
When? When they enforced the 14th?
Specifically, the SCOTUS violated
the 10th Amendment!
Um, no. The SCOTUS did not violate the 10th. The SCOTUS may declare
certain laws created by the state legislatures as unconstitutional, but
may not create any laws.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fester" |
|
| Title: Re: John Roberts for Supreme Court? |
20 Jul 2005 10:30:22 PM |
|
|
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:ozEDe.11377$JJ.4073@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:lfEDe.11369$JJ.916@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:F4EDe.11365$JJ.8821@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:LRDDe.11358$JJ.5149@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:DlDDe.11336$JJ.11321@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"DanielSan" <daniel-san@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:2JCDe.11315$JJ.11038@trnddc09...
Fester wrote:
"kw" <libs@scum.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1d47633da35806eb9897a5@news.charter.net...
In article <1ihDe.22178$3j2.621064@twister.southeast.rr.com>,
not@home.com says...
"*nemo*" <nemo0037@earthlink.dieSPAM.net> wrote in message
news:nemo0037-EBAF9A.20415119072005@news1.west.earthlink.net...
In article
<1121817639.391249.152000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
"MrPepper11" <MrPepper11@go.com> wrote:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2121270/?nav=ais
John Roberts for Supreme Court?
I bet the Right Wing is ready to celebrate tonight. Roe v
Wade will be
shot down by the end of the year.
Yeah, that's what it's all about. That's what SCOTUS justices
do all day.
They just sit around waiting to decide if it's time to take
away our rights
to choose an abortion.
The right to murder children is not found in the Constitution.
Nor does the Constitution grant rights to zygotes, embryos or
fetuses.
But the 10th Amendment (remember, there are more than the first 2
amendments in the constitution; many righties stop reading after
Amendment 2) say:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the
Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people.
This, remember, is "States' Rights," and abortion should be
covered under this amendment.
I agree. Therefore, Roe v Wade was a bad decision. It removed
from the States their right to regulate abortion.
If that was what Roe v Wade was about. Pity that it wasn't, right?
A great pity. Not because I don't want women to be able to seek
abortions, but because I resent the acquisition of power by the
courts, in violation of their Constitutional obligations.
Thankfully, they haven't.
It sounded to me as though you just agreed that the court did.
Then take the wax out of your ears. The claim was made that Roe v Wade
regulated abortion. I said that that wasn't what Roe v Wade was about.
It did, by requiring that women be allowed to obtain one in all states.
But don't be so enigmatic. Please, oh please tell me what Roe v Wade
was about.
It is the congresspeople of each state that wrote abortion into the law
books, not the SCOTUS.
The power of the states to disallow abortion was removed by the SCOTUS.
I would have no problem with, and in fact support, a Constitutional
Amendment granting women the right to obtain an abortion.
Ah, so you want to take away the States' right to pass laws on their
own state?
Yes, | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
