it won't be overturned ever

quote:

Originally posted by HardTranceProd it won't be overturned ever

I agree. It is too established and it has been on the books way too long.

Not a chance in hell.

I watched about 20 minutes of his confirmation hearing just then on Fox News and, based on what he said, I don't think he'd be likely to overturn Roe v Wade should an abortion case make it to the SCOTUS.

Off the top of my head, he essentially said:

• He supports the principle of stare decisis with regards to the precedent set by Roe v Wade.
  
• He does not believe that a disagreement with precendent is reason enough to overturn it.
  
• He believes that the right to privacy is guaranteed by ammendments I, III and IV of the US constitution and is supported by 80 years of supreme court precedent (the right to privacy was an essential factor in the Roe v Wade decision).
  
• He believes that Roe v Wade, as a legal precedent, is a "settled" matter.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I watched about 20 minutes of his confirmation hearing just then on I hope I'm right here, but his answers were logical and circumspect with regards to abortion and - so long as he meant what he said - I don't think the right to abortion is yet under any sort of threat.

and it shouldn't be if an individual wants to kill her child go ahead it isn't any concern for the politicians as to what some people do.

From Bloomberg:

quote:

Sept. 13 (Bloomberg) -- John Roberts, the nominee to be U.S. chief justice, told a Senate panel that the Constitution contains a right to privacy, disavowing comments he made as a government lawyer in the 1980s. ``The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways,'' Roberts, 50, said in answer to a question from Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court since 1965 has recognized a constitutional right to privacy that now guarantees access to abortion and contraceptives as well as the freedom to marry and procreate. Roberts's views on the subject had been in question, in part because of the language he used in a 1981 Justice Department memo, referring to the ``so-called `right to privacy.''' Roberts, beginning a full day of questioning from senators in Washington, said that memo was designed to reflect the views of Harvard Law School Dean Erwin Griswold, who had recently given a speech on the topic. He said the document didn't reflect his personal views. Roberts also suggested he would be slow to overturn such Supreme Court rulings as the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey abortion-rights decision, calling it a ``precedent of the court entitled to respect.'' ``It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,'' said Roberts, who would be the youngest U.S. chief justice in two centuries. ``Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and evenhandedness. It is not enough to think the prior decision was wrongly decided.''

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?...=top_world_news

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid and it shouldn't be if an individual wants to kill her child go ahead it isn't any concern for the politicians as to what some people do.

Nope, sorry. Absolutely no idea what you're saying.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade Nope, sorry. Absolutely no idea what you're saying.

Sorry sometimes I am not articulate. What I was saying is that abortion should remain legal. And that no politician should make a law against abortion. That is what I was saying....so are there some states where abortion is illegal?

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Sorry sometimes I am not articulate. What I was saying is that abortion should remain legal.

Fair enough, but I'll give you a tip. When you're articulating a pro-choice stance don't describe it as when "an individual wants to kill her child"...

quote:

And that no politician should make a law against abortion. That is what I was saying....so are there some states where abortion is illegal?

I'm pretty sure that one of the consequences of Roe v Wade is that the states aren't allowed to create legislation which would restrict a woman's access to have an abortion. What Dave was saying was that the majority of people in the majority of states (i.e. all but 10) are pro-choice.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I watched some of the confirmation hearing as well, and was surprised by some of his answers.

If he answered truthfully, this would signal maturation on his part of his own opinion on the issue.

He did not, as a young lawyer in the Reagan administration recognize a right to privacy for example, though he stated clearly that he would not seek to overturn Grizwold in his confirmation hearing.

One thing I think is certain, and that is that he will be confirmed.

It remains to be seen whether he will be a conservative justice in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas, or a justice like Kennedy or O'Connor.

Based on his testimony today, I would say he may be more in line with Justice Kennedy.

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Sep-14-2005 at 00:41

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid Sorry sometimes I am not articulate. What I was saying is that abortion should remain legal. And that no politician should make a law against abortion. That is what I was saying....so are there some states where abortion is illegal?

Before the Roe Vs. Wade decision was issued in 1973, abortion was criminalized in some states, and legal in others. For example it was legal in New York and California, but illegal in Texas except to save the life of the mother.
Roe nullified many states' abortion bans, and more or less set a certain legal standard for abortion rights. It was decided 7-2 along with its sister case, Doe Vs. Bolton.

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade I'm pretty sure that one of the consequences of Roe v Wade is that the states aren't allowed to create legislation which would restrict a woman's access to have an abortion.

This is mostly true.

Roe held that states could not pass legislation to ban abortions completely, but still left open some questions about the regulation of abortions.

A subsequent case, Planned Parenthood vs. Casey upheld the basic underpinnings of Roe, but allowed for some restrictions on the part of the states. It created a new "undue burden" test for which abortion restrictions would be scrutinized. The result is that women have to jump through more hoops in some states to get an abortion than in others.

quote:

What Dave was saying was that the majority of people in the majority of states (i.e. all but 10) are pro-choice.

I should probably clarify that this poll was simply about self-identification. It asked people if they self-identified as "pro choice" or "pro-life."

These terms are usually thought of as cut and dry, but someone’s "pro choice" or “pro life” might not be the same as another person's.[/quote]

___________________
http://www.discoboomer.com/forums/

Last edited by DaveSZ on Sep-14-2005 at 00:15

Dave, I could be wrong but it seems like you are looking for something wrong with Roberts simply because he is a conservative who is about to gain a lot of power. While I do not align myself with either side (coservative or liberal), I would say that I am genuinely excited about Roberts and the position he is filling. This is a man who will not use the Supreme Court as a way to speed a revolution in America, as was the decision in Affirmative Action. I have heard and read a number of his opinions on certain issues, and not on a single one could I find a major flaw in what he was saying (and believe me when I originally heard of him I was very weary, Bush has that affect on people I guess). So, before you start predicting the future I suggest y9ou actualy read up on the subject.

___________________
Lost Souls

I only caught a few minutes of the hearing today, but what I caught I have to admit that Roberts was pretty impressive.

Hell I'd do him.

I mean, err, uh, nevermind.

Regardless, Biden was a bit onto something about Roberts' evasiveness, and I do think it's appropriate to answer directly. History has taught us to be a bit cautious on the answers nominees give during these hearings. Enter Clarence Thomas:

quote:

SEN. LEAHY: . . .[Y]ou've expressed some very strong views, as you know better than all, on the Ninth Amendment, and you had an article that was reprinted in a CATO Institute book, an article -- the book was on the Reagan years, but you referred to Justice Goldberg's invention, using the Ninth Amendment in his concurring opinion in Griswold. And you said, and let me quote from you, you said, "Far from being a protection, the Ninth Amendment will likely become an additional weapon for the enemies of freedom." A pretty strong statement, but you would say, would you not, Judge, notwithstanding that strong statement, if a Ninth Amendment case came before you, you'd have an open mind? JUDGE THOMAS: Again, Senator, as I noted, my concern was that I didn't believe that -- it's such an open-ended provision as the Ninth Amendment. It was view that a judge would have to tether his or her view or his or her interpretation to something other than just their feeling that this right is okay or that right is okay. I believe the approach that Justice Harlan took in Poe v. Ullman and again reaffirmed in Griswold in determining the -- or assessing the right of privacy was an appropriate way to go. http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbi...73593&textreg=1

One year later, Thomas had this to say:

quote:

In construing the phrase "liberty" incorporated in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, we have recognized that its meaning extends beyond freedom from physical restraint. . . . [W]e have held that the term "liberty" includes a right to marry . . .; a right to procreate, . . .; and a right to use contraceptives, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972). But a reading of these opinions makes clear that they do not endorse any all-encompassing "right of privacy." In Roe v. Wade, the Court recognized a "guarantee of personal privacy" which "is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." 410 U.S., at 152 -153. We are now of the view that, in terming this right fundamental, the Court in Roe read the earlier opinions upon which it based its decision much too broadly. Unlike marriage, procreation, and contraception, abortion "involves the purposeful termination of a potential life." Harris v. McRae, 448 U.S. 297, 325 (1980). The abortion decision must therefore be recognized as sui generis, different in kind from the others that the Court has protected under the rubric of personal or family privacy and autonomy. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...l=505&invol=833

First Thomas agrees with Harlan on Griswald, then he disagrees. Pure and utter bullshit. If you believe in the right to privacy and the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, then you must abide by strict constructionist standards in accordance to the Constitution (or at the very least, stare decisis). As Justice Stewart opines in regards to Roe:

quote:

. . . Several decisions of this Court make clear that freedom of personal choice in matters of marriage and family life is one of the liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. . . As recently as last Term, in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438, 453 , we recognized "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child." That right necessarily includes the right of a woman to decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. . . . Clearly, therefore, the Court today is correct in holding that the right asserted by Jane Roe is embraced within the personal liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scrip...ol=410&page=113

Disclaimer: If you don't know already, this is one of the few issues I tend to sit "on the fence". I tend to see both sides of the argument, and haven't quite felt completely compelled to sway one way or the other. Nevertheless, I will hold one to a particular standard, especially if that standard was set by none other than themselves.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...