Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Brookswood said:
Gender is fluid so I am going to identify as a female while I answer this. :)

I think most men feel the same as most women. In the first trimester there should be few if any restrictions. Later in the second it gets a murkier and I am not certain how it should be handled. In the third trimester when the baby is viable outside the womb, there has to be a really good reason (such as the life of the mother is in danger).

Since 95% of abortions take place in the first trimester, that tells me most of us probably are not that far from some form of civilized agreement.

Of course, I could be wrong. Even about gender being fluid.
Click to expand...
Pro-lifers act like almost all abortions occur in the third trimester. Therein lies the problem. When we can't even agree on what constitutes reality, there is literally no chance of a "civilized agreement."
 

oldman said:
This is a question that raises other questions. Supposedly, Justice Alito wrote the decision that was leaked to the world. I have wondered this question before. When a case comes before the court, do the Justices apply the Constitution to reach their ruling or do they apply their own personal opinion? How do we know? If all 9 Justices apply the Constitution to the question, why don’t all 9 Justices reach the same decision? Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..
Click to expand...
The SC has decided well over 20,000 cases since 1789! That in and of itself makes research difficult and conflicting. If it is not clearly settled case law, new cases present new challenges. Let us take the 4th AM as an example, no "UNreasonable" searches or seizures. What is Unreasonable? It is impossible for every Jurist to reach the same legal conclusion.
 
It's possible that the president may save Roe. He is going to try to push a bill through congress after codifying abortions to again make abortions legal. In other words, he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger, which he has previously done.

Meanwhile, ANTIFA is offering a reward for anyone that approaches a USSC justice in public and harasses them.
 

Been There said:
It's possible that the president may save Roe. He is going to try to push a bill through congress after codifying abortions to again make abortions legal. In other words, he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger, which he has previously done.

Meanwhile, ANTIFA is offering a reward for anyone that approaches a USSC justice in public and harasses them.
Click to expand...
Proof please. Besides your fevered imagination. What kind of reward? A date with Jane Fonda?
 
Been There said:
It's possible that the president may save Roe. He is going to try to push a bill through congress after codifying abortions to again make abortions legal. In other words, he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger, which he has previously done.
Click to expand...
Will not hold up legally by court challenges, even if Congress does so.
 
ohioboy said:
The SC has decided well over 20,000 cases since 1789! That in and of itself makes research difficult and conflicting. If it is not clearly settled case law, new cases present new challenges. Let us take the 4th AM as an example, no "UNreasonable" searches or seizures. What is Unreasonable? It is impossible for every Jurist to reach the same legal conclusion.
Click to expand...
Not to argue the point or even to disagree, but why hasn’t the word “Unreasonable” been interpreted? I believe that it may have been. The word has already been defined by the dictionary. Interpretation and definition are both pretty much the same. Doesn’t the members of the court debate the issues among themselves before coming to their individual opinions?

This is why I believe that the members of the court use their own discretion or opinion when coming to making a decision.
 
Been There said:
he is going to attempt to again bypass the USSC decision. It's kind of like giving the USSC the middle finger
Click to expand...
No, I don't think so. I believe that is how our process is supposed to work. Laws are passed by Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only interprets. If there is disagreement with the SC interpretation legislation is the proper remedy.
ohioboy said:
Will not hold up legally by court challenges, even if Congress does so.
Click to expand...
Why is that? Does Congress not have the power to legalize abortion?
 
Alligatorob said:
No, I don't think so. I believe that is how our process is supposed to work. Laws are passed by Congress, not the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court only interprets. If there is disagreement with the SC interpretation legislation is the proper remedy.

Why is that? Does Congress not have the power to legalize abortion?
Click to expand...
Sorry but the 10 th amendment and scotus say no, they can not.
 
I just looked to see what issues are most important in the 2020 mid-terms. I think the turnout will break the record.

Public thought about midterm elections increases between the summer and fall of election years, swelling by seven to 27 percentage points in Gallup's election-year polls since 1998. If that pattern holds, Americans' attention to the midterm elections this fall could exceed the previous high of 55% measured in October 2010.

2022.JPG
 
Last edited:
oldman said:
Not to argue the point or even to disagree, but why hasn’t the word “Unreasonable” been interpreted? I believe that it may have been. The word has already been defined by the dictionary. Interpretation and definition are both pretty much the same. Doesn’t the members of the court debate the issues among themselves before coming to their individual opinions?

This is why I believe that the members of the court use their own discretion or opinion when coming to making a decision.
Click to expand...
"Reasonable" can not be defined as a universal legal application. While dictionary definitions as references are used by the courts at times under the Rules of Construction, true, that is only one among the many others in decision making. The word is too broad. The same with the right to "Due Process" which Roe was based on.
 
ohioboy said:
"Reasonable" can not be defined as a universal legal application. While dictionary definitions as references are used by the courts at times under the Rules of Construction, true, that is only one among the many others in decision making. The word is too broad. The same with the right to "Due Process" which Roe was based on.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you, just wondering- based on numerous posts of yours, do you have some kind of legal background? you do seem to have a lot of info.
 
JaniceM said:
I'm not arguing or disagreeing with you, just wondering- based on numerous posts of yours, do you have some kind of legal background? you do seem to have a lot of info.
Click to expand...
The only legal background I have is a two year College course in Criminal Justice. That intrigued me enough to simply study the laws in general off and on. While I know a little more than the average Joe on the street, I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!
 
ohioboy said:
The only legal background I have is a two year College course in Criminal Justice. That intrigued me enough to simply study the laws in general off and on. While I know a little more than the average Joe on the street, I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!
Click to expand...

" I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!"

Yeah you "always wecome" debate ... until it challenges your opinion .... then you like some others go to snide remarks..

As you did in post #52 , in the Jayland Walker thread.
 
Legal opinion wanted here

In economics, they call it the law of unintended consequences.
An event ultimately produces an outcome, sometimes negative, that was not expected.

That’s what is happening to Brandy Bottone of Plano, a mother who is 34 weeks into her pregnancy.

On June 29 she was driving on U.S. Highway 75 South and headed to the Interstate 635 West interchange. But she had to slam on the brakes because ... well, I’ll let her tell the story:

“I was driving to pick up my son. I knew I couldn’t be a minute late, so I took the HOV [high-occupancy vehicle] lane. As I exited the HOV, there was a checkpoint at the end of the exit. I slammed on my brakes, and I was pulled over by police.

“An officer peeked in and asked, ‘Is there anybody else in the car?’
“I said, ‘Well, yes.’
“He asked, ‘Where?’

“I pointed to my stomach and said, ‘My baby girl is right here. She is a person.’
“He said, ‘Oh, no. It’s got to be two people outside of the body.’

“One officer kind of brushed me off when I mentioned this is a living child, according to everything that’s going on with the overturning of Roe v. Wade. ‘So I don’t know why you’re not seeing that,’ ITop said.

“He was like, ‘I don’t want to deal with this.’ He said, ‘Ma’am, it means two persons outside of the body.’

“He waved me on to the next cop who gave me a citation and said, ‘If you fight it, it will most likely get dropped.’

"But they still gave me a ticket. So my $215 ticket was written to cause inconvenience?
This has my blood boiling. How could this be fair? According to the new law, this is a life."
Click to expand...
Pregnant woman says her fetus should count as a passenger in HOV lanes. She got a ticket (dallasnews.com)
 
rgp said:
" I always welcome debate or technical correction, that is how I learn too!"

Yeah you "always wecome" debate ... until it challenges your opinion .... then you like some others go to snide remarks..

As you did in post #52 , in the Jayland Walker thread.
Click to expand...
Gee, you are too sharp for my mind!
 
ohioboy said:
"Reasonable" can not be defined as a universal legal application. While dictionary definitions as references are used by the courts at times under the Rules of Construction, true, that is only one among the many others in decision making. The word is too broad. The same with the right to "Due Process" which Roe was based on.
Click to expand...
Well, that's certainly interesting. It would seem to me as a non legal educated individual that if there is already a definition of what a word is that it would be used universally (meaning by all courts in the world) and skip the "everyone to his own opinion" of what a word is meant to state or mean. How do we know that the Founders didn't use the dictionary for their definitions? We have nine (9) Justices sitting in the Supreme Court, so each of them is allowed to have their own opinion of what a word was suppose to mean that was written by the Founders. Reading any amendment in the Constitution would allow any attorney to argue his case stating what he felt the writers meant. It's no wonder that there are so many lawsuits and appeals when attorneys and judges alike are allowed to use their own interpretation of what the Founders meant when they wrote the Constitution.

I guess this may be one of the reasons for the founding of the Supreme Court, so that they would have the last and final word. But, wait, even when the USSC does pass down a ruling as in Roe v Wade, years later, the court then revisits the ruling and does a "do-over." Now that's what I call job security.

And, while we are on the subject, how come some states are permitted to have a death penalty and others aren't. I would imagine the USSC may have also thrown that back to the states to decide for themselves if they wanted to have a death penalty or not.
 
oldman said:
And, while we are on the subject, how come some states are permitted to have a death penalty and others aren't. I would imagine the USSC may have also thrown that back to the states to decide for themselves if they wanted to have a death penalty or not.
Click to expand...

Correct. The DP in and of itself does not violate the 8th Amendment, one time it did though, therefore it rests with the individual States as a Sovereign issue. Some have it, some do not.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top