Christian democratic

[Jeremy Taylor]

What difference does that really make? [rhetorical]

Aren't we discussing the merits of Roe? It doesn't matter that similarly bad decisions have been based on it or upheld it. Indeed, the most important subsequent case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the majority admitted Roe was a bad decision but they claimed (somewhat ironically given the fact many of them don't much care about precedents in many vases) it had to be upheld as it was now precedent.

.

"Separation of Powers" and "Checks & Balances"-- that's what we use and that ain't likely to change. It's not always smooth, not always to our personal satisfaction, but that's what we do.

The power of judicial review wasn't an important part of the Founder's constitution. It was only under Marshall that it became important with the rise of what became known as the legalistic constitution. This constitution was one that was supposed to be based strongly on the text of the written constitution and to be applied as law. If SCOTUS can remake the constitution at will according to their ideological views, then this kind of constitution cannot function. There is no reason you would vest such power in an unelected court. Such a court actually undermines checks and balances because it can remake the basic law and constitution of the United States as it wishes and cannot be overruled, except for the very cumbersome method of constitutional amendment (if that, because it is the court who is to enforce the amendment). That is vast and unaccountable power. Giving the court the power of judicial review only makes sense if it checks itself, by showing restraint and adhering to the words and meaning of the constitution.

 

[metis]

Aren't we discussing the merits of Roe? It doesn't matter that similarly bad decisions have been based on it or upheld it. Indeed, the most important subsequent case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the majority admitted Roe was a bad decision but they claimed (somewhat ironically given the fact many of them don't much care about precedents in many vases) it had to be upheld as it was now precedent.

.


The power of judicial review wasn't an important part of the Founder's constitution. It was only under Marshall that it became important with the rise of what became known as the legalistic constitution. This constitution was one that was supposed to be based strongly on the text of the written constitution and to be applied as law. If SCOTUS can remake the constitution at will according to their ideological views, then this kind of constitution cannot function. There is no reason you would vest such power in an unelected court. Such a court actually undermines checks and balances because it can remake the basic law and constitution of the United States as it wishes and cannot be overruled, except for the very cumbersome method of constitutional amendment (if that, because it is the court who is to enforce the amendment). That is vast and unaccountable power. Giving the court the power of judicial review only makes sense if it checks itself, by showing restraint and adhering to the words and meaning of the constitution.

Your opinions, which I obviously don't agree with.

shalom

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Your opinions, which I obviously don't agree with.

shalom

This is not an argument.

Why, if the constitution is just wax to be remodelled any which way, would you vest that power in an unelected judiciary? It doesn't make much sense. Doesn't that make a mockery of the amendment process? You have an amendment process that requires a supermajority, but you have vested unlimited power in a judiciary to not read the constitution legally and to rewrite it at a whim.

 

[metis]

This is not an argument.

Why, if the constitution is just wax to be remodelled any which way, would you vest that power in an unelected judiciary? It doesn't make much sense. Doesn't that make a mockery of the amendment process? You have an amendment process that requires a supermajority, but you have vested unlimited power in a judiciary to not read the constitution legally and to rewrite it at a whim.

The federal judiciary is elected, just that the terms are not limited. This is the system we have had for roughly 200 years now, and that clock ain't gonna to be turned back.

Also, there's an element of hypocrisy that can be found on both sides of the aisle, namely that it's an "activist court" [said with a snarl] if a decision is rendered that I don't like, but it's really a good court if I do like the decision rendered. The right has constantly snarled at an "activist" SCOTUS, but for some reason that stopped when they got the majority. Hypocrisy much?

Roe v Wade was a controversial decision, no doubt, but it was the only logical decision to make when all things are considered, imo. I hate abortion, but I'm simply not willing to tell a woman what she must do with that which is in her own body. A woman has constitutional rights under the law, but a fetus/unborn baby doesn't. A woman who's middle income or more can go to another state or country and get an abortion, but a lower-income woman probably can't. And I don't want coat hangers used for anything other than hanging up clothes. The "good old days" weren't very good in this area, and I'm old enough to remember those days.

And polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not want to roll back the clock on this, so no matter how you want to look at this, the results pretty much are the same.

If you don't accept abortion, then don't have one. If you want to try and dictate what someone else must do with their bodies, I won't join you on that.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

The federal judiciary is elected, just that the terms are not limited.

This is equivocation. You are equivocating. When I said elected I was clearly referring to the usual democratic sense, not to indirect election to lifetime positions. This creates a great separation between the people and the judges. It doesn't make much sense to vest the power to change the constitution at whim in such a body.

This is the system we have had for roughly 200 years now, and that clock ain't gonna to be turned back.

This is false so far as the claim it is the system you have had for 200 years goes. The original constitution did not envisage much of a role for judicial review. The system of judicial review arose in the early nineteenth century. Until the 1920s or 30s it was based on what has been called a legalistic view of the constitution. This view saw the court's job to faithfully uphold the clear meaning of the constitution and apply it in a strictly legal sense. The view that the court could make law according to the personal view of the judges arose only with the post-New Deal Court and especially with the Warren and Burger Courts. There has been great strain on judicial review since the rise of this new view. Just look at the deeply political fights over nominations. The new view of judicial review has completely undermined the old rationale for it - to faithfully uphold the constitution and to apply its provisions in a manner continuous with laws.

Can you answer a simple question: Why is SCOTUS a better body than the legislature to change the constitution at whim? Where does this power and legitimacy come from?

Also, there's an element of hypocrisy that can be found on both sides of the aisle, namely that it's an "activist court" [said with a snarl] if a decision is rendered that I don't like, but it's really a good court if I do like the decision rendered. The right has constantly snarled at an "activist" SCOTUS, but for some reason that stopped when they got the majority. Hypocrisy much?

This is just fallacious. It is no refutation of my specific points to refer to some vague behaviour by some vague body you call the right.

Roe v Wade was a controversial decision, no doubt, but it was the only logical decision to make when all things are considered, imo. I hate abortion, but I'm simply not willing to tell a woman what she must do with that which is in her own body. A woman has constitutional rights under the law, but a fetus/unborn baby doesn't. A woman who's middle income or more can go to another state or country and get an abortion, but a lower-income woman probably can't. And I don't want coat hangers used for anything other than hanging up clothes. The "good old days" weren't very good in this area, and I'm old enough to remember those days.

And polls indicate that a majority of Americans do not want to roll back the clock on this, so no matter how you want to look at this, the results pretty much are the same.

If you don't accept abortion, then don't have one. If you want to try and dictate what someone else must do with their bodies, I won't join you on that.

Apart from the fact your logic is vague pro-choice talking points, it is not in any sense, even the most informal, legal reasoning. The point of a court decision is not just to do what you feel is right regardless of legal rules and precedents.

 

[metis]

This is equivocation. You are equivocating. When I said elected I was clearly referring to the usual democratic sense, not to indirect election to lifetime positions. This creates a great separation between the people and the judges. It doesn't make much sense to vest the power to change the constitution at whim in such a body.



This is false so far as the claim it is the system you have had for 200 years goes. The original constitution did not envisage much of a role for judicial review. The system of judicial review arose in the early nineteenth century. Until the 1920s or 30s it was based on what has been called a legalistic view of the constitution. This view saw the court's job to faithfully uphold the clear meaning of the constitution and apply it in a strictly legal sense. The view that the court could make law according to the personal view of the judges arose only with the post-New Deal Court and especially with the Warren and Burger Courts. There has been great strain on judicial review since the rise of this new view. Just look at the deeply political fights over nominations. The new view of judicial review has completely undermined the old rationale for it - to faithfully uphold the constitution and to apply its provisions in a manner continuous with laws.

Can you answer a simple question: Why is SCOTUS a better body than the legislature to change the constitution at whim? Where does this power and legitimacy come from?

This is just fallacious. It is no refutation of my specific points to refer to some vague behaviour by some vague body you call the right.


Apart from the fact your logic is vague pro-choice talking points, it is not in any sense, even the most informal, legal reasoning. The point of a court decision is not just to do what you feel is right regardless of legal rules and precedents.

Marbury v Madison was decided upon in 1803, so my "200 years" is right and you simply are ignoring the history of the court as part of your "agenda".

Anyhow, speaking of which, you really just have this "agenda" that you're pushing, and I'm really not interested in discussing it. I taught politic science for 25 years, and you are just so terribly wrong or slanted on many items above, but that's not at all unusual with those that come here to push their brand of snake oil.

Therefore, I'm moving on...

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Marbury v Madison was decided upon in 1803, so my "200 years" is right and you simply are ignoring the history of the court as part of your "agenda".

Marbury set out the rationale for the legalistic constitution, in which the court tries to adhere to the clear and accepted meaning of the text. This is quite contrary to views that see the constitution as mere inspiration for the free creativity of judges.

I noticed you didn't answer my simple question, or give any clear rationale why, if the constitution is to be remade at whim, SCOTUS is the best body for it.

Anyhow, speaking of which, you really just have this "agenda" that you're pushing, and I'm really not interested in discussing it. I taught politic science for 25 years, and you are just so terribly wrong or slanted on many items above, but that's not at all unusual with those that come here to push their brand of snake oil.

Therefore, I'm moving on...

I teach political science myself.

 

[David1967]

I consider myself an American Christian my politics fluctuates but I believe in complete separation of Religion and Government and that Christ expects his disciples to teach and practice his teachings not enforce them.

Bingo!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

When it comes to the issue of abortion I believe it is the woman's right. If a woman is rapid or a young teenage girl is rapid they should have the right to decided to keep it or not. Yet so many people would rather give baby more rights then the mother. As a fellow human being even before I became a born again I could not stand behind the idea of forcing someone to do something they would not want to do. But if people like Trump win we can kiss our daily rights goodbye.

I believe Trump, like most, does make that exception among others like health risks, does he not?

Other than those, equal rights are most important for the innocent, who cannot defend themselves, especially in matters of life and death. What human life is more innocent, defenseless, and threatened than an unborn child, who's mother simply considers it's life inconvenient?

 

[BenTheBeliever]

I believe Trump, like most, does make that exception among others like health risks, does he not?

Other than those, equal rights are most important for the innocent, who cannot defend themselves, especially in matters of life and death. What human life is more innocent, defenseless, and threatened than an unborn child, who's mother simply considers it's life inconvenient?

If a person is raped would make them go through the pregnancy? Would you be willing to pay for their doctor bills or their counseling? Cause by forcing them to go through with it you are making them a victim again.