"Overturning Roe is a Radical, Not Conservative Choice" (Page 4): Ok... But.... I have to ask, if Ginsberg was in favor of legalized a******n and she felt that Roe was properly decided...

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

But you stated that her comments support your opinion that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. They don’t — you misspoke. Don’t be a weenie; just admit it.

Ok... But....

I have to ask, if Ginsberg was in favor of legalized a******n and she felt that Roe was properly decided then why would she criticize it at all? IMO she knew that it was based in weak legal reasoning and would face legitimate challenges.

Triple G

Blurryeyed wrote:

Ok... But....

I have to ask, if Ginsberg was in favor of legalized a******n and she felt that Roe was properly decided then why would she criticize it at all? IMO she knew that it was based in weak legal reasoning and would face legitimate challenges.

Argument is over; you lost. She’s not around to ask. Have you ever done a debriefing after a project to define what worked well and what didn’t? Same thing, here, I believe. Just because some things didn’t go as you’d have liked doesn’t mean the outcome was flawed.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

Argument is over; you lost. She’s not around to ask. Have you ever done a debriefing after a project to define what worked well and what didn’t? Same thing, here, I believe. Just because some things didn’t go as you’d have liked doesn’t mean the outcome was flawed.

Argument is over but I don't agree with your conclusion, you have your opinion and I have mine, and yes, I have done debriefings.

JohnFrim Loc: Somewhere in the Great White North.

Blurryeyed wrote:

Argument is over but I don't agree with your conclusion, you have your opinion and I have mine, and yes, I have done debriefings.

So let me have the last word (yeah... right!) on this. Or at least get it back to what for me is the crux of the debate.

Blurry's main point is that SCOTUS had no business giving the federal government authority over something that was NOT in The Constitution and therefore falls to the State legislatures to decide.

The a******n issue oversight (flaw) in The Constitution aside, give me a single logical reason why an issue that affects ALL Americans EQUALLY across all States should VARY BETWEEN States. There simply is NOTHING about a******n that is geographic dependent.

And given that the same a******n laws should apply to ALL Americans across the nation, Federal legislation is the only thing that makes sense. (Well, OK, you could be "constitutional" by having all States pass exactly the same law.)

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

JohnFrim wrote:

So let me have the last word (yeah... right!) on t... (show quote)

I am not sure how federal legislation would fair in the courts, I think that it is a challenging question. In Roe, the court imposed itself as a legislative body and that was wrong in my opinion, I personally don't think that congress has the authority to pass federal legislation on a******n, but I am not well enough educated in constitutional law to say that with any authority.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

But you stated that her comments support your opinion that Roe v Wade is unconstitutional. They don’t — you misspoke. Don’t be a weenie; just admit it.

Trip, I am not going to agree with you, you can view me as a weenie if you so wish....

"ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."

Incomplete justification, those are RGB's words not mine.

Triple G

Blurryeyed wrote:

Trip, I am not going to agree with you, you can view me as a weenie if you so wish....

"ventured too far in the change it ordered and presented an incomplete justification for its action."

Incomplete justification, those are RGB's words not mine.

Still not "unconstitutional" until SCOTUS says so. Neither you nor RBG have (had) final say on that.

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.

As indicated earlier, RGB did believe there was a constitutional argument for a******n.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

anotherview wrote:

The State of California had a law allowing a civil union of two homosexuals of the same g****r. But the homosexuals wanted "marriage." The Court gave it to this special class. Never mind that two homosexuals of the same g****r cannot mate and produce fertile offspring as in a true marriage.

A fetus is not a human being. Insisting otherwise ignores human biology.

So any couple who doesn't have offspring doesn't have a true marriage? Should women past menopause be denied marriage?

I do agree with you that a fetus is not a human being, but it seems rather out of place in your post.

thom w Loc: San Jose, CA

Laramie wrote:

Well, if we are considering reversing earlier SC decisions. I can think of one that needs reconsidering: Citizens United v Federal E******n Commission. Dark money needs to go away.

I don't think we can look to the current court for that.

Blurryeyed Loc: NC Mountains.

Triple G wrote:

Still not "unconstitutional" until SCOTU... (show quote)

I agree with both, she would have found a way to make it constitutional on a liberal court, RGB like many liberal justices believes in the living constitutional, conservative justices are a bit split on the issue of a living constitution, several republican appointed justices have bteeen disappointing to conservatives.

Yes, even if every fiber of my body screams that something is unconstitutional if the SCOTUS says it is then under our current system it is.

Triple G

Blurryeyed wrote:

I agree with both, she would have found a way to make it constitutional on a liberal court, RGB like many liberal justices believes in the living constitutional, conservative justices are a bit split on the issue of a living constitution, several republican appointed justices have bteeen disappointing to conservatives.

Yes, even if every fiber of my body screams that something is unconstitutional if the SCOTUS says it is then under our current system it is.

For awhile yet anyway.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The framers of the Constitution had recognized that new rights might be developed in years to come and they wanted to be able to protect those rights.

I am mostly an originalist, but do rely on this provision to allow for additions/amendments to accommodate cultural and technological developments.

anotherview Loc: California

Your post suggests you lack familiarity with the science of biology.

Racmanaz wrote:

You can repeat the same BIG LIE that the unborn child is not a human being, your statement still remains untrue.