Gorsuch It Is

[Jaw]

I cringe when I hear "what about rape and incest!"... for one, it's statistically irrelevant, and two, that doesn't change the fact that it is a living, breathing human human fetus.

This is probably my biggest problem with the typical modern day Republican politician. "Unborn life is precious, it's a baby not a fetus.....unless it was conceived in a horrible way." If you believe the life is precious, what does the manner of conception have to do with anything? It's just a PC cop-out effort at trying to be more populist.

[57Brave]

I think most are missing the boat on the hearing Gorsuch faces.
The fate of Roe v Wade is a foregone conclusion

His and Trumps test will be the Emolument Clause.
My reading tells me this will be front and center

[chop2chip]

This is probably my biggest problem with the typical modern day Republican politician. "Unborn life is precious, it's a baby not a fetus.....unless it was conceived in a horrible way." If you believe the life is precious, what does the manner of conception have to do with anything? It's just a PC cop-out effort at trying to be more populist.

I've long thought that as well.

[sturg33]

This is probably my biggest problem with the typical modern day Republican politician. "Unborn life is precious, it's a baby not a fetus.....unless it was conceived in a horrible way." If you believe the life is precious, what does the manner of conception have to do with anything? It's just a PC cop-out effort at trying to be more populist.

Yes... it's hypocritical for pro-life advocates to concedes on this point.

[cajunrevenge]

I dont believe in forcing pregnancy on people. Rape is a case where that happens. Willlingly having unprotected sex and gettimg pregnant is not against your will. You made the choice when you had unprotected sex. Atleast thats the feminist position on mens choice.


Its morally wrong to stop a heartbeat on purpose unless that person wishes to die. That includes cases of babies born from rape and incest. They dont have to raise it. Dont critisize pro-life people for being willing to compromise. I think most of us would be content to have abortions reduced by 95%.



If you want to critisize pro-life people go after the ones that advocate for war.

[sturg33]

I dont believe in forcing pregnancy on people. Rape is a case where that happens. Willlingly having unprotected sex and gettimg pregnant is not against your will. You made the choice when you had unprotected sex. Atleast thats the feminist position on mens choice.


Its morally wrong to stop a heartbeat on purpose unless that person wishes to die. That includes cases of babies born from rape and incest. They dont have to raise it. Dont critisize pro-life people for being willing to compromise. I think most of us would be content to have abortions reduced by 95%.



If you want to critisize pro-life people go after the ones that advocate for war.

Yes - I would take the compromise over nothing... but it's still an inconsistent and hypocritical belief to most pro of the pro life position. If your position is "abortion is wrong because it is killing a human being" ... then how that human being came to be is irrelevant.

[cajunrevenge]

Most only take that position because it is used to demonize the pro-life movement. Every debate ended up with these rape case scenarios so pro-lifers said "**** it you can have your rape abortions" to gain broader support for their side.

[Metaphysicist]

IIRC, the SCOTUS has always had an odd number of seats to eliminate ties.

This is not true. It started at 6 and went as high as 10 before we eventually settled on 9.

To me Roe v Wade is very simple. 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.

I don't see how that makes the issue simpler. The fundamental issue is specifically about that "the States/the people" dynamic. Just because certain categories of powers are delegated to the states, that doesn't mean those powers are infinite. And just because certain rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean don't have them.

Interestingly enough, Ginsburg probably feels the same about this now. She's said several times how she thinks the court made a huge blunder in deciding Roe v. Wade. She believes that had the national discussion continued, you'd have seen a growth in the view that abortion should be legal. But the court shocking use of power cut the discussion off and cemented the camps where they were. Instead of advancing abortion rights it set off an all out war. The court deciding in your favor isn't always a good thing.

I think this is an misleading summary of Ginsburg's position (though maybe I am reading you wrong). She certainly believes the judgment in Roe v. Wade (that the law was unconstitutional) was decided correctly, but she wishes the the court had taken a more tactical approach, merely striking down individual laws over time, rather than making one big target when they took the further step and invalidated all the laws in Roe.

[Jaw]

I don't see how that makes the issue simpler. The fundamental issue is specifically about that "the States/the people" dynamic. Just because certain categories of powers are delegated to the states, that doesn't mean those powers are infinite. And just because certain rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean don't have them.

I guess it's all in how you look at the Constitution and it's amendments. I see it as the tenth amendment exists just to remind us that the federal government is supposed to be limited. This isn't one of those long, drawn out legalese essays. It's a simple, one sentence rule, "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."

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution or any of the amendments, so I don't know how it is possible to read that sentence and then think that the federal government, or it's court system, has any say on the matter of abortion.

If you disagree then I would be interested in hearing where you feel that the power to rule on abortion is delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, by the Constitution.

[striker42]

This is not true. It started at 6 and went as high as 10 before we eventually settled on 9.



I don't see how that makes the issue simpler. The fundamental issue is specifically about that "the States/the people" dynamic. Just because certain categories of powers are delegated to the states, that doesn't mean those powers are infinite. And just because certain rights are not explicitly listed in the Bill of Rights, that doesn't mean don't have them.



I think this is an misleading summary of Ginsburg's position (though maybe I am reading you wrong). She certainly believes the judgment in Roe v. Wade (that the law was unconstitutional) was decided correctly, but she wishes the the court had taken a more tactical approach, merely striking down individual laws over time, rather than making one big target when they took the further step and invalidated all the laws in Roe.

Interesting stuff on the number of justices. I need to read up more on the early days of the Supreme Court. Looking back it looks like it was originally set at 5 in 1801 before it was raised to 7 and then 9. It was raised to 10 once but that didn't last long. It's been 9 since 1869. I wonder what the Dems would do if the Republicans threatened to raise the number of justices to 15 or something. That would be crazy.

Also, I think you're right about Ginsburg's position. She definitely agrees with the judgement of Roe v. Wade but wishes it had been decided differently for prudential reasons. As you said, she believes a slower, steadier march that kept up with changing sentiments would have resulted in more advancement of abortion rights.

[striker42]

I tend to be an originalist in my views on the Constitution. It was a contract between sovereign entities and I don't like the idea that the changing of meanings of words can change the nature of the agreement. Words are ephemeral. They shift over time. However the ideas of power and rights that lie at the heart of the Constitution do not change. Add to that the fact that we have a mechanism to change the Constitution to meet the changing needs of society (amendment process) and I feel that trying to warp the original agreement with new interpretations of words isn't right.

That being said, I have absolutely no problem with a constitutional right to privacy. I think that you having the right to be left alone from unreasonable government intervention in yourself, your property, and your affairs is one of the cornerstone ideas the Constitution was based on. You absolutely see the respect for this in the Constitution/Bill of Rights.

That being said, applying the right to privacy to ensure a right to an abortion is flawed logic. As I was saying before, this doesn't get to the root of the issue. The key question is what is the legal status of a fetus. Is a fetus a legal person with all the rights and privileges of any other legal person? If the answer is no, then applying the right to privacy makes sense. If the fetus has no legal rights then the mother's right to be left alone from government interference in her affairs prevents prohibiting an abortion. However, if the fetus is a legal person then the right to privacy is not so easily applied. Your right to privacy does not extend to cover the intentional taking of the right to life of another legal person. You can't murder someone in your basement and claim a right to privacy.

So all the argument over privacy rights is largely irrelevant to me. It's a secondary step. One you can only take after deciding the first question. There is little guidance in the Constitution for determining if a human fetus is legal person or not.

[Jaw]

Which would seem to indicate it should be decided state by state, no?

[57Brave]

no, because the issue materially crosses state borders

[striker42]

Which would seem to indicate it should be decided state by state, no?

This is a question. There's an argument that the question should be left to state legislatures. If a state wishes to extend protection to fetuses within their borders then there's an argument that they should have the power to offer protection by statute. They do have police powers which gives them the ability to regulate the health, safety, welfare, and morals of the state. There's also a good argument that only the protection of the US Constitution being extended to fetuses would grant them priority over the mother's privacy and liberty interests and that would be a question for the US Supreme Court to decide.

no, because the issue materially crosses state borders

I don't think this is much of an issue. Where the state lines thing really comes in is in cases dealing with the interstate commerce clause. Simply put, a state cannot pass a statute that opposes a statute passed by the US Congress relating to interstate commerce. This power has grown far beyond traditional ideas of instate commerce though. However, preventing abortions from being performed in your state probably doesn't violate the commerce clause. I should be able to say that it definitely doesn't but you can never say anything definite about the commerce clause. That thing has become a monster.

[57Brave]

Carl Quintanilla Verified account
‏@carlquintanilla

Pool report says Ivanka Trump greets CEO's in State dining room, along with VP, Bannon, Priebus, Cohn, et al ..

[thethe]

Carl Quintanilla Verified account
‏@carlquintanilla

Pool report says Ivanka Trump greets CEO's in State dining room, along with VP, Bannon, Priebus, Cohn, et al ..

Let the future first female president get as much experience as possible.

[Oklahomahawk]

Let the future first female president get as much experience as possible.

It certainly could happen, huh?

[mqt]

Let the future first female president get as much experience as possible.

Gillibrand 2020

[cajunrevenge]

Might be the first female president but not the first with no balls.

[The Chosen One]

I think Nikki Haley has a better chance than Ivanka. It's why she sucked up her pride against Trump to be UN Ambassador. So she can get some "foreign policy experience".