Aren't murder laws decided by each state?Originally Posted by Krgrecw
Aren't murder laws decided by each state?
Let's face it there is a lot of policy that offends one group or another's ethical or religious sensibilities. Murder has a moral meaning. But also a legal meaning. And different states are going to come down in different places on the legal meaning.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
I think you claiming this is hypocritical to "small governance" is a stupid point that this move is proving to do exactly that
Jaw (05-03-2022)
Personal feelings aside, it isn't listed in the Constitution as being part of the federal government's purview. That should have always made it a state decision. I wish almost everything else was decided in the same way, it would make our country's cultural differences much less divisive.
This may sound crazy, but maybe everything outside of the military, international relations, and interstate commerce should be decided the same way.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
The FBI sent 15 agents to investigate a garage door pull that wasn't big enough to hang a child. I wonder how many will be sent to investigate a security breach of the Supreme Court.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
I’m not dipping my toes into the abortion debate for the reasons I’ve stated previously, but I’m dying laughing at the idea that the news here is that a SCOTUS decision was leaked.
It’ll be an investigation for sure. I don’t though see how in a world where drafts of executive actions and bills are leaked all the time that it’s this much of a scandal that SCOTUS was impacted in the same way.
EAs are at the sole discretion of the President. On the rare occasions that they're leaked against his will, it shouldn't be hard for him to determine who did it. I don't like the leaking of bills, or the leaking of confidential information that has become so prevalent by the Adam Schiffs of the world. So I'm all for those being investigated as crimes, but they're pretty standard.
This is a first for the Supreme Court, and it looks a lot like an effort to drum up enough dissent to influence the ruling before it's official. You know and understand why that's troubling.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
I disagree, unless you take the very, very broad view of interstate commerce that I would assume you don’t. My concern with limiting it to this extent is that it can very much be a slippery slope when it comes to the protection of equal rights. I once again understand that abortion is a unique case, but there are some very similar topics where leaving it to the states can lead to some very bad outcomes for people who live in certain states. For instance, I don’t think it would be too much of a stretch to see certain states ban Muslims if given the opportunity, or overturn something as basic as interracial marriage, let alone gay marriage. I also see it as a near certainty that some states would ban guns almost immediately if given the opportunity.
Obviously this is all hypothetical and I don’t think any of these worst case scenarios are in play at all, but it’s why I’d have some concerns with limiting the power of the federal government to that extent.
I guess I’m looking at it from the actual action rather than the intent. You’re very likely right about the reason this was put out into the world, but frankly so are many other leaks. I simply don’t see SCOTUS as a special entity that deserves greater data security considerations than the rest of the government. It doesn’t mean I’m advocating for leaks, I’m just acknowledging that it’s pretty commonplace across the board, and am not overly riled up about SCOTUS being lumped in.
Edited to clarify: I agree it’s bad. It’s a criminal act, and it shouldn’t be done. I just disagree with the particular fervor due to the fact that it’s happening somewhere it usually doesn’t. Investigate the crime, arrest the person responsible if you can and we move on.
Last edited by mqt; 05-03-2022 at 11:49 AM.
Interesting article from a few years ago:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/h...rible-decision
Today, President Obama sang the praises of Roe v. Wade. On one level, that's not surprising -- he's the most pro-choice President ever. But Obama is also a Harvard Law School alumnus, and he used to teach Constitutional law, and so you would think he would see Roe for the embarassing bit of ideologically motivated junk it is.
Lest you think I'm just showing my bias, below is a collection of pro-choice scholars and journalists slamming the decision:
Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.
“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
“The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).
Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”
North Carolina Law Review, 1985
Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
….
“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”
“The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002
“[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”
“Liberals, Don’t Make Her an Icon” Washington Post July 10, 2003.
William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.
“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”
“Unbecoming Justice Blackmun,” Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.
John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School
Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
….
“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”
“The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).
Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post
Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”
“Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.
Richard Cohen— Washington Post
“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”
….
“As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.
“If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
….
Roe “is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”
….
“Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”
“Support Choice, Not Roe” Washington Post, October 19, 2005.
Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School
Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.”
Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.
Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations
“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.”
“The Supreme Court 1995 Term: FOREWORD: LEAVING THINGS UNDECIDED,” 110 Harvard Law Review 6, 20 (1996).
“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”
Quoted in: Brian McGuire, “Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing,” New York Sun November 15, 2005
Jeffrey Rosen — Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic
“In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.
….
“Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it.”
“Worst Choice” The New Republic February 24, 2003
Michael Kinsley
“Against all odds (and, I’m afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court.
….
“…a freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami.”
“Bad Choice” The New Republic, June 13, 1994.
“Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….
“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway.”
“The Right’s Kind of Activism,” Washington Post, November 14, 2004.
Kermit Roosevelt — University of Pennsylvania Law School
“It is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.
“This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited to the protection of the 14th Amendment.
….
“By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values.”
“Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’,” Washington Post, January 22, 2003.
Archibald Cox — JFK's Solicitor General, Harvard Law School
“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution”
The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, pp. 113-114 (1976)
Last edited by Jaw; 05-03-2022 at 03:14 PM.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
A nsacpi level bump that is actually interesting.
And a reminder of how far left the left has sprinted to
It will be great to finally get these baby slaughterers on the record of how far they are willing to go to protect this ritual. The great majority of Americans are not nearly as supportive of the extremes that far leftist politicians are
I can’t believe people are using the hashtag #roeoverturned when #roeverturned is right there.
This is strong work.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
It definitely changes how the question is framed.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
Tristan Snell
@TristanSnell
·
May 3
Who still wants to know who paid
Brett Kavanaugh’s $92,000 country club balance,
$200,000 in credit card debt, and $1,200,000 mortgage,
buying themselves a Supreme Court justice
— and the 5th vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
RT IF YOU AGREE!!!
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
acesfull86 (05-04-2022)
People actually have 200k in credit card balance. Damn
Lol. Classic
Ivermectin Man
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote