South Dakota Leads Charge to Overturn Roe v. Wade [Archive]

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 09:35 AM

I almost hope Roe v. Wade gets overturned (well, not really) just so all of those people that sat on their hands on election day can realize how important their decision not to vote was.

South Dakota passes abortion ban Wed Feb 22, 10:06 PM ET

South Dakota became the first U.S. state to pass a law banning abortion in virtually all cases, with the intention of forcing the Supreme Court to reconsider its 1973 decision legalizing the procedure.

The law, which would punish doctors who perform the operation with a five-year prison term and a $5,000 fine, awaits the signature of Republican Gov. Michael Rounds and people on both sides of the issue say he is unlikely to veto it.

"My understanding is we are the first state to truly defy Roe v. Wade," the 1973 high court ruling that granted a constitutional right to abortion, said Kate Looby of Planned Parenthood's South Dakota chapter.

State legislatures in Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee and Kentucky also have introduced similar measures this year, but South Dakota's legislative calendar means its law is likely to be enacted first.

"We hope (Rounds) recognizes this for what it is: a political tool and not about the health and safety of the women of South Dakota," Looby said.

"If he chooses to sign it, we will be filing a lawsuit in short order to block it," she said after attending the afternoon debate at the state capital in Pierre.

Proponents have said the law was designed for just such a court challenge.

The timing is right, supporters say, given the recent appointments of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the high court. The two conservatives could pave the way to a decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The high court said on Tuesday it will rule on whether the federal government can ban some abortion procedures, a case that could reveal whether the court reshaped by President George W. Bush will restrict abortion rights.

In 1992, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the right to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the last direct challenge to Roe v. Wade.

The South Dakota law concludes that life begins at conception based on medical advances over the past three decades.

Proposed amendments to the law to create exceptions to specifically protect the health of the mother, or in cases of rape or incest, were voted down. Also defeated was an amendment to put the proposal in the hands of voters.

The bill as written does make an exception if the fetus dies during a doctor's attempt to save the mother's life.

Planned Parenthood operates the sole clinic in South Dakota where roughly 800 abortions are performed each year by doctors from neighboring Minnesota, Looby said.

Two years ago, Rounds vetoed a similar bill, saying it would wipe out existing restrictions on abortion while it was fought in the courts. A rewritten bill lost narrowly in the state Senate.

Some legislators opposed to abortion rights questioned whether it was premature to challenge Roe v. Wade, and said litigation would prove expensive for the sparsely populated state. An anonymous donor has offered $1 million to the state to defray the costs of litigation.

Copyright © 2006 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments
Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback

RobinsontoDuncan

02-23-2006, 09:44 AM

Jesus christ, i never thought this day would come...and now i cant even move to canada becuase those fucking chrisitian nutters have taken it over too.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 09:58 AM

Those people are a fucking plague!

Phil E.Buster

02-23-2006, 09:58 AM

Damn I hate that cold weather but I've got work to do!!!

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 10:01 AM

Those people are a fucking plague!

Just be glad your parents didn't abort you.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 10:50 AM

Just be glad your parents didn't abort you.

wouldn't he be in heaven?

xrayzebra

02-23-2006, 10:54 AM

It's not going to be overturned. Would bet OG life on it. Alito and Roberts
both have said they respect past rulings made by the court. But doesn't
surprise me some Pols are making a run to try and get it overturned.

JoeChalupa

02-23-2006, 11:06 AM

101A

02-23-2006, 11:27 AM

The pols are trying to take back a right the Federal Government usurped from the states 30 + years ago. The struggle against federalism is about the oldest one this country has endured; before abortion, slavery, civil rights, union busting, monopoly busting and income tax has been the constant power-grab of the federal government over the "united" but seemingly still self-governing (ha-ha) states.

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh. Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.

RobinsontoDuncan

02-23-2006, 11:28 AM

yeah right, Roberts has already defauted to the Scalia-Thomas camp on all his rulings and the only ruling Altio made away from that trio was on religious grounds when he voted to stay an execution. (Although I cant complain about the ruling I think it's fucked up how he got to it)

Im just saying this is going to be the start of a major regression of womens rights in this country, and it's just too bad these fundies have so much goddamned power.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 03:29 PM

wouldn't he be in heaven?

I guess he lost his shot to get in....

Ooooooo ahhhhhh

Is that what you wanted me to respond? Or was your comment trying to elicit more controversy for the sake of nothing. Let's get something straight... it's not my job to judge other people's actions.... never has been, never will be. Only GOD is in a position to judge the person behind MaNuMaNiA's screename.

I, on the other hand, was simply annoyed by his contemptful comment.

Duff McCartney

02-23-2006, 03:34 PM

I don't know what's more disturbing...the fact that states are still trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade, or the fact that South Dakota is the one "leading" the charge..and people are actually following.

RobinsontoDuncan

02-23-2006, 03:34 PM

Fundies are damaging the world in every continent, not just this one. From Jihad extremeists to the BJP to the nutcakes that bomb abortion clinics and kill each other in Northern Ireland.

And the last time I checked, everytime there has been a major battle over individual rights between the federal and state governemnts.... it's been the states that have been on the wrong side.

Slavery
Segregation
Women's rights (not just reproductive)
Gay rights
the list goes on and on and on

Spurminator

02-23-2006, 03:34 PM

Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them.

Export the morality of not exporting morality?

Anyone else's head hurt?

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 03:47 PM

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 03:52 PM

but you people are a plauge hegamboa, a plauge on humanity

I don't recall the last time someone died after I talked to them... I do, however, recall many instances of people dropping their addictions to drugs, of people learning to truly love their wives, learning to truly love their children, learning to let go of hate, learning to be patient, and of others who simply learned to cope with lives' problems... after having talks with them...

Yeah, and I've still got plenty of years ahead of me (GOD willing) to do more for the people around me. My father does 10x more charitable work than I do, as does my sister. But it's not about false flattery.... as I've never had to mention or 'gloat' about this before. True Christianity is demonstrated by our imprint on the needy around us. Again, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is truly one. And yet you all feel compelled to label all of us a plague?? So be it. Just know that I 'infect' people with genuine concern, with genuine involvement in their lives and that they've been thankful for it. I would at least hope that if you are not part of the solution that you not interfere with those of us who are.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 03:54 PM

so, you don't know?

What? Whether or not babies go to heaven? I think so.... but.... you really don't want to hear what I have to say on the matter... so what's the point.

braeden0613

02-23-2006, 04:24 PM

I don't recall the last time someone died after I talked to them... I do, however, recall many instances of people dropping their addictions to drugs, of people learning to truly love their wives, learning to truly love their children, learning to let go of hate, learning to be patient, and of others who simply learned to cope with lives' problems... after having talks with them...

Yeah, and I've still got plenty of years ahead of me (GOD willing) to do more for the people around me. My father does 10x more charitable work than I do, as does my sister. But it's not about false flattery.... as I've never had to mention or 'gloat' about this before. True Christianity is demonstrated by our imprint on the needy around us. Again, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is truly one. And yet you all feel compelled to label all of us a plague?? So be it. Just know that I 'infect' people with genuine concern, with genuine involvement in their lives and that they've been thankful for it. I would at least hope that if you are not part of the solution that you not interfere with those of us who are.
Well said. Labeling Christians as the plauge is ridiculous and completely irresponsible. Look past those that supposedly 'represent' the Christan faith ( like Pat Robertson, Billy Graham) and you will find that most that call themselves Christian really just want the morals of the country protected.

Cant_Be_Faded

02-23-2006, 04:42 PM

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 04:57 PM

I guess he lost his shot to get in....

Ooooooo ahhhhhh

Is that what you wanted me to respond? Or was your comment trying to elicit more controversy for the sake of nothing. Let's get something straight... it's not my job to judge other people's actions.... never has been, never will be. Only GOD is in a position to judge the person behind MaNuMaNiA's screename.

I, on the other hand, was simply annoyed by his contemptful comment.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Good, I'm glad I'm annoying people like you. I take it that if you were annoyed, you are one of those people I referred to as the plague http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif, if so, how the hell can you state "it's not my job to judge other people's actions" if you are in favor of banning abortion. Who are you to judge what a woman does with her body?

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 04:58 PM

Just be glad your parents didn't abort you.
P.S. I am glad, but if they had, I wouldn't have known about it, so whats your point?

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 05:00 PM

xrayzebra

02-23-2006, 05:26 PM

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Good, I'm glad I'm annoying people like you. I take it that if you were annoyed, you are one of those people I referred to as the plague http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif, if so, how the hell can you state "it's not my job to judge other people's actions" if you are in favor of banning abortion. Who are you to judge what a woman does with her body?

Who is to judge if the baby lives or not. They had no choice on being
conceived. You are so wrong.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 05:42 PM

I don't think people can 'learn' to love

People saying christians are the plague are obviously referring to the Overzealous fanatic types in the mold of Kyle's Mom from south park.
The common practicing true christian is not a plague and I think that's understood already..

It's all in the definition.
There are those that think love is simply an emotion... one that grows or decreases like a 'roller-coaster' ride.

I believe love is a decision. What do think of the following definition of love?

"Love is patient, love is kind. It is not jealous, is does not boast, it is not arrogant, it is not rude, it does not seek its own interests, it is not quick-tempered, it does not brood over injury, it does not rejoice over wrongdoing but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails."

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 05:46 PM

http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif Good, I'm glad I'm annoying people like you. I take it that if you were annoyed, you are one of those people I referred to as the plague http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif, if so, how the hell can you state "it's not my job to judge other people's actions" if you are in favor of banning abortion. Who are you to judge what a woman does with her body?

Having comtempt for your beliefs does not mean I have contempt for you. I, am able to distinguish the two as separate concepts. You have shown otherwise.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 05:50 PM

:lmao :lmao :lmao

That was probably the most metrosexual post I've ever read.

There was a point to the question.... and ummm no. It had nothing to do with sexuality. I feel sorry for the people who can only associate the word Love with Sex...

I love my parents
I love my family
I love my friends.

If you are uncomfortable telling your 'loved' ones that you 'love them' you need to check yourself.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 05:55 PM

Having comtempt for your beliefs does not mean I have contempt for you. I, am able to distinguish the two as separate concepts. You have shown otherwise.

awww, you get a gold star.

xrayzebra

02-23-2006, 05:57 PM

awww, you get a gold star.

Why are you putting him down. I thought that was the concept of all
you Libs. Compassion. Well except for those that disagree.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:00 PM

Why are you putting him down. I thought that was the concept of all
you Libs. Compassion. Well except for those that disagree.

Xray, I may not like what you have to say, but sir, I will defend to my death your right to say it.

Oh...and I love you.

xrayzebra

02-23-2006, 06:02 PM

Xray, I may not like what you have to say, but sir, I will defend to my death your right to say it.

Oh...and I love you.

I love you too, but please, no kissing. People would talk.... :lol

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:03 PM

Why are you putting him down. I thought that was the concept of all
you Libs. Compassion. Well except for those that disagree.

If Oh, Gee! were ever really capable of 'putting me down' then I might just have to return the 'Gold star' favor.

All he ever does is attempt to point out the flaws in other people's arguments... Ironically, he never brings a legit 'take' or coherent argument to the picture himself. :hat

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 06:08 PM

If Oh, Gee! were ever really capable of 'putting me down' then I might just have to return the 'Gold star' favor.

All he ever does is attempt to point out the flaws in other people's arguments... Ironically, he never brings a legit 'take' or coherent argument to the picture himself. :hat

I guess you get to define what is legit. Very convenient, judgmental bastard.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:17 PM

Ironically, he never brings a legit 'take' or coherent argument to the picture himself. :hat

Hell, if there was a requirement that posters bring a coherent argument to the table, this forum would be practically empty.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:26 PM

I guess you get to define what is legit. Very convenient, judgmental bastard.

No... it's not that. It's simply you never really expose yourself to your own techniques... I can make a controversial post knowing it can get picked apart... But I'm comfortable with it... because I feel I can defend my position; bearing in mind of course that it is my opinion.

You just seem to spew dogmatic comments of your own and never really arguments. It's not personal. Forgive me if that last quote sounded a tad bit arrogant... I can't stay mad at Cheech.... it's that mad Mr. T. picture that I seem to associate Oh, Gee! with.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:36 PM

For Example (Oh, Gee!),

When was the last time you revealed anything about yourself that would be subject to scrutiny???? I've had many posts similar to the one below that not only reveal my beliefs, but also evidence to support them. After said posts... I'm left to 'hang on the branch.'

Many will post their position and constantly critique others (the government, 'Dubya', Cheney, blanket statements of Christians, Christian leaders) without really revealing or showing how to solve the problems. Humans are just down right complicated creatures; spoiled, greedy, insecure, judgmental, etc... And so our laws will never please everyone, that's what it really comes down to.

I don't recall the last time someone died after I talked to them... I do, however, recall many instances of people dropping their addictions to drugs, of people learning to truly love their wives, learning to truly love their children, learning to let go of hate, learning to be patient, and of others who simply learned to cope with lives' problems... after having talks with them...

Yeah, and I've still got plenty of years ahead of me (GOD willing) to do more for the people around me. My father does 10x more charitable work than I do, as does my sister. But it's not about false flattery.... as I've never had to mention or 'gloat' about this before. True Christianity is demonstrated by our imprint on the needy around us. Again, not everyone who calls themselves a Christian is truly one. And yet you all feel compelled to label all of us a plague?? So be it. Just know that I 'infect' people with genuine concern, with genuine involvement in their lives and that they've been thankful for it. I would at least hope that if you are not part of the solution that you not interfere with those of us who are.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:40 PM

do you know what Metrosexual means?

:lmao :makeout :lmao

Apparently not,

metrosexual (met.roh.SEK.shoo.ul) n. An urban male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.
—metrosexuality n.

But what does this definition have to do with what I was asking CBF?

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:41 PM

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:42 PM

Apparently not,

metrosexual (met.roh.SEK.shoo.ul) n. An urban male with a strong aesthetic sense who spends a great deal of time and money on his appearance and lifestyle.
—metrosexuality n.

But what does this definition have to do with what I was asking CBF?

Yeah, that's why I was like :wtf when he made the metrosexual comment.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 06:47 PM

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:48 PM

metrosexual = gay...but not homosexual

I think it has more to do with your appearance than anything else.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:49 PM

to discover the fullest connotation of the term metrosexual, i suggest google image searching the word.

http://images.google.com/images?q=metrosexual&hl=en

Exactly, appearance is the key.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:50 PM

This is an internet message board, guy. I try not to reveal personal info about me to total and completely anonymous strangers.

So you're not Black? Or are you Black and merely trying to deceive us?

smeagol

02-23-2006, 06:50 PM

Jesus christ, i never thought this day would come...and now i cant even move to canada becuase those fucking chrisitian nutters have taken it over too.
Why do you need to move to Canada if abortion is prohibited in this country?

Are you planning to impregnate a lot of women and are not prepare to live with the consequences?

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:53 PM

to discover the fullest connotation of the term metrosexual, i suggest google image searching the word.

http://images.google.com/images?q=metrosexual&hl=en

Uhhhh No.... you guessed wrong. I could care less about my facade... I am who I am and nothing else.

smeagol

02-23-2006, 06:53 PM

Those people are a fucking plague!
Plague? That's a bit harsh, don't you think?

I'm against abortion in general (only to be permitted in very rare instances) but I surely don't consider myself the Plague.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 06:53 PM

So you're not Black? Or are you Black and merely trying to deceive us?

I think you started that rumor.

smeagol

02-23-2006, 06:55 PM

I don't know what's more disturbing...the fact that states are still trying to overturn Roe vs. Wade, or the fact that South Dakota is the one "leading" the charge..and people are actually following.
More disturbing is the fact you ask for money and don't pay it back.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:55 PM

This is an internet message board, guy. I try not to reveal personal info about me to total and completely anonymous strangers.

Way to circumvent the point. What I meant is that you always seem to piggyback other peoples comments and don't expose your own arguments to someone else's scrutiny.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 06:56 PM

Way to circumvent the point. What I meant is that you always seem to piggyback other peoples comments and don't expose your own arguments to someone else's scrutiny.

I think you may have me confused with another poster.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 06:57 PM

I think you may have me confused with another poster.

Tim Reynolds? Sonix Blastor? Meatwad?

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:58 PM

I think you may have me confused with another poster.

Perhaps the Mr. T version. But no. You post in this fashion on just about every political thread I have read here.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 06:59 PM

Tim Reynolds? Sonix Blastor? Meatwad?

Mr. Peabody.

smeagol

02-23-2006, 06:59 PM

This is an internet message board, guy. I try not to reveal personal info about me to total and completely anonymous strangers.
Sure, 'cause revealing personal stuff on this board will get you into sooooo much trouble.

I agree with hegamboa, your modus operandi is to respond to post with one line phrases with not to much substance in them.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 07:01 PM

Mr. Peabody.

Yes? Are you going to now criticize my style of posting as well. You may point out my flaws, but please look in a mirror first. You see, hypocrisy is a two-way street, my friend.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:03 PM

Yes?

That you're on that list of one-liners too... But I guess that's what you would expect from "the Peabody" persona.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 07:03 PM

Sure, 'cause revealing personal stuff on this board will get you into sooooo much trouble.

I agree with hegamboa, your modus operandi is to respond to post with one line phrases with not to much substance in them.

In that case, you're both wrong. Is this a satisfactory answer for you, or do I need to post a three paragraph rebuttal? Is that what you're into, length of the post? Brevity is the soul of wit.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:04 PM

In that case, you're both wrong. Is this a satisfactory answer for you, or do I need to post a three paragraph rebuttal? Is that what you're into, length of the post? Brevity is the soul of wit.

Politcal, or current event topics... require much more than just wit. They do in fact require substance.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:06 PM

Yes? Are you going to now criticize my style of posting as well. You may point out my flaws, but please look in a mirror first. You see, hypocrisy is a two-way street, my friend.

Not ingenous at all. I'm simply stating you fit into that group. But like I said, it fits your persona.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 07:07 PM

That you're on that list of one-liners too... But I guess that's what you would expect from "the Peabody" persona.

I am often at work when I post and I don't have time to compose a treatise on my beliefs. I have made my beliefs and opinions known on these boards plenty of times. If you were not around for those instances, there is nothing I can do for you.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 07:08 PM

I am often at work when I post and I don't have time to compose a treatise on my beliefs. I have made my beliefs and opinions known on these boards plenty of times. If you were not around for those instances, there is nothing I can do for you.

Let me "piggy-back off this post" and say "Yeah, that goes double for me."

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:09 PM

I am often at work when I post and I don't have time to compose a treatise on my beliefs. I have made my beliefs and opinions known on these boards plenty of times. If you were not around for those instances, there is nothing I can do for you.

True. But you can distinguish the message from the messenger. Oh, Gee! and people like MaNuMaNiA make it personal ... of course now this sentence itself has become paradoxical.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:10 PM

Let me "piggy-back off this post" and say "Yeah, that goes double for me."

:rolleyes :rolleyes

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:14 PM

True. But you can distinguish the message from the messenger. Oh, Gee! and people like MaNuMaNiA make it personal ... of course now this sentence itself has become paradoxical.

And that's what it seems to take for you all to even address the original post... It's amazing how after that long post of mine few could come back with a counterpoint against that topic... It had to spin-off to some other topic before you all decided to come back and nit pick the posts.

Anyways, I'm out.

PEACE.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 07:15 PM

Not ingenous at all. I'm simply stating you fit into that group. But like I said, it fits your persona.

I see where I was wrong. You don't criticize or judge people, you simply state facts. Nifty trick.

smeagol

02-23-2006, 07:16 PM

In that case, you're both wrong. Is this a satisfactory answer for you, or do I need to post a three paragraph rebuttal? Is that what you're into, length of the post? Brevity is the soul of wit.
You contradict yourself.

First you say that we are wrong in pointing out your one-line type posts but then you say that brevity is the soul of wit.

Make up your mind.

Phenomanul

02-23-2006, 07:17 PM

I see where I was wrong. You don't criticize or judge people, you simply state facts. Nifty trick.

Ahhh... take it out of context why don't you... I was, addressing "the Peabody" persona not him....(the person typing behind Mr. Peabody)

Alright. Peace Cheech.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 07:19 PM

And that's what it seems to take for you all to even address the original post... It's amazing how after that long post of mine few could come back with a counterpoint against that topic... It had to spin-off to some other topic before you all decided to come back and nit pick the posts.

Anyways, I'm out.

PEACE.

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about anymore. You accuse me of not addressing the original post....I am the one who posted the original post. The thread was going fine until you turned it into your own personal crusade for all of us to reveal our lives to you.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 07:24 PM

Ahhh... take it out of context why don't you... I was, addressing "the Peabody" persona not him....(the person typing behind Mr. Peabody)

Alright. Peace Cheech.

Were you addressing the "manumania persona" when you fired your one-liner come back at him?

You get to attack others, but since you know you are only attacking the persona, it's OK. If anyone says anythnig about you, well hell, it must be personal, because you put so much of yourself out here for us to see. Is that it?

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 07:26 PM

You contradict yourself.

First you say that we are wrong in pointing out your one-line type posts but then you say that brevity is the soul of wit.

Make up your mind.

First, I think you're wrong when you say that my one-liners contain nothing of substance in them. I don't care that you pointed out the fact that I employ them.

Second, do you know what brevity means?

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 07:28 PM

Second, do you know what brevity means?

Do you?

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 07:29 PM

Do you?

**logs off**

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 07:37 PM

**logs off**

http://www.filmifunda.de/images/projects/Showdown-tot2.jpg

I have bested Oh, Gee!! in a showdown of wits.

http://www.konformist.com/skolnick/peabody.gif

**Peabody celebrates another victory**

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 07:48 PM

this thread sucks

SA210

02-23-2006, 08:40 PM

I'll piggyback for Oh, Gee!! and Peabody.

Their so-called one-liners have more substance and reality and straight up truth, than many people's rhetoric in here. I'll be happy to be categorized in their company.

Oh, Gee!!

02-23-2006, 08:55 PM

Back-up has arrived

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 09:21 PM

Back-up has arrived

:fro :hat :fro

smeagol

02-23-2006, 09:45 PM

I'll piggyback for Oh, Gee!! and Peabody.

Their so-called one-liners have more substance and realty and straight up truth, than many people's rhetoric in here. I'll be happy to be categorized in their company.

What do you mean by their so-called one-liners have more "straigh-up truth" than many people's rhetoric in here? (and don't come up with your "It's in the Bible" blanket statement 'cause OG and Mr P's POVs are usually not reflected in the Holy Scriptures).

Peter

02-23-2006, 09:45 PM

The best is when responses are made while ignoring the point a poster was trying to make and flaming on no other basis than the use of a specific term, for example:

The pols are trying to take back a right the Federal Government usurped from the states 30 + years ago. The struggle against federalism is about the oldest one this country has endured; before abortion, slavery, civil rights, union busting, monopoly busting and income tax has been the constant power-grab of the federal government over the "united" but seemingly still self-governing (ha-ha) states.

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh. Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.

ARE YOU FUCKING SERIOUS??? slavery?? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif You are indeed a jackass!!

I guess I should allow the Argentine some leeway, but this was rather egregious.

Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with 101A's point, but has the forum reached this level?

mookie2001

02-23-2006, 09:49 PM

has the forum reached this level?not quite the Lamarcus Bryant level, but close

like a Brian Boddicker Level 3

Peter

02-23-2006, 09:54 PM

not quite the Lamarcus Bryant level, but close

like a Brian Boddicker Level 3

Just not the mookie level of complete and utter stupidity.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 10:09 PM

The best is when responses are made while ignoring the point a poster was trying to make and flaming on no other basis than the use of a specific term First of all, I did not ignore his point, I understood what he was trying to say. I simply found the fact that he grouped tose 3 together to be preposterous. Furthermore, he mentions slavery like it was a bad thing that the government abolished it, that too I find preposterous.

I guess I should allow the Argentine some leeway, but this was rather egregious. What the fuck is your fixation with me being Argentinian?? Just because you get owned every day by one doesn't mean you have to resent us sweetheart. Seriously, what the hell does me being an Argentinian have anything to do with anything?? oh and by the way, you know where you can stick that leeway, don't you Marcus? thats right

Next time, adress ME and ONLY me, for I made those posts, and do it without mentioning race, age, nationality or the such.

Note: I'm not necessarily agreeing with 101A's point, but has the forum reached this level? If you don't agree with him, and I don't agree with him, then what the hell are you complaining about?? What are you? the forum police or something? Get a life, and stop obsessing about us Argentinians, its getting unnerving

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 10:11 PM

Just not the mookie level of complete and utter stupidity.
oh now, come on Peter, do we really need to stoop so low as to call someone stupid? I thought you were above that sort of thing, you know, you being the forum nanny and all. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif

Peter

02-23-2006, 10:13 PM

First of all, I did not ignore his point, I understood what he was trying to say. I simply found the fact that he grouped tose 3 together to be preposterous. Furthermore, he mentions slavery like it was a bad thing that the government abolished it, that too I find preposterous.

He only grouped those 3 because those have been significant consitutional and public policy issues over the course of US history. The issue of federalism does in fact predate those. That was his point.

What the fuck is your fixation with me being Argentinian?? Just because you get owned every day by one doesn't mean you have to resent us sweetheart. Seriously, what the hell does me being an Argentinian have anything to do with anything??

Perhaps you aren't as familiar with US history due to that.

Next time, adress ME and ONLY me, for I made those posts, and do it without mentioning race, age, nationality or the such.

Fine, your response was lame, shallow, and stupid.

If you don't agree with him, and I don't agree with him, then what the hell are you complaining about?? What are you? the forum police or something? Get a life, and stop obsessing about us Argentinians, its getting unnerving

Hey man, I'm just a participant here like you. As long as you want to call people names and run your mouth I have no problem illustrating your stupidity.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 10:15 PM

(and don't come up with your "It's in the Bible" blanket statement 'cause OG and Mr P's POVs are usually not reflected in the Holy Scriptures).

Oh, I disagree. I think my stance on many issues is in accordance with the New Testament. In fact, probably more so than some of the self-proclaimed "Christians" on this forum.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 10:16 PM

Fine, your response was lame, shallow, and stupid.
There you go pumpkin, now was that so hard? http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

mookie2001

02-23-2006, 10:17 PM

we all have dominant aggy avatars in our past we're hiding from...

Peter

02-23-2006, 10:19 PM

we all have dominant aggy avatars in our past we're hiding from...

Not really, but whatever you need to make yourself feel better via the internets.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 10:20 PM

He only grouped those 3 because those have been significant consitutional and public policy issues over the course of US history. The issue of federalism does in fact predate those. That was his point.
Indeed, and if I'm not mistaken, he views that fact as a BAD thing, whereas I believe its a VERY good thing. Furthermore, he says the following

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh.
and then he says this

Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.
Seriously, who's the hypocrite here http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smilol.gif

Peter

02-23-2006, 10:24 PM

We'll see if he agrees with that or if his disdain for the feds is relegated to the abortion issue. In any event, the response merited something other than "Slavery? Hahahha!".

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 10:26 PM

We'll see if he agrees with that or if his disdain for the feds is relegated to the abortion issue. In any event, the response merited something other than "Slavery? Hahahha!".
I suppose you're right, I just found that one a bit more over the top than the rest

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 10:33 PM

If the people of S. Dakota want to ban abortions, I DON"T CARE - same as the people of Bolivia or Bangladesh. Who gives you the right to export YOUR morality on them. Self-Righteous hypocrite.

I assume this post was directed at me, since I started the thread.

I think it's preposterous to put South Dakota in the same category and Bolivia or Bangladesh for obvious reasons. These foreign nations are not bound by Supreme Court precedent. In this situation, we have a state that has blatantly defied a ruling of the Supreme Court, in order to "test the waters." It's concerning because other states will follow suit.

Also, I am not trying to "export" my morality on anyone. If the people of South Dakota don't want to have abortions, they already have that right and they can exercise it as the law now exists. If anyone is trying to "export" their morality on others (as you say) it is those people who aren't satisfied with their right NOT to have an abortion and insist on restricting everybody else's rights as well.

Mr. Peabody

02-23-2006, 10:34 PM

I suppose you're right, I just found that one a bit more over the top than the rest

No, I found it "over the top" as well. I just got caught up in hegamboa's critiques of my posts.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-23-2006, 10:44 PM

SA210

02-24-2006, 12:09 AM

What do you mean by their so-called one-liners have more "straigh-up truth" than many people's rhetoric in here? (and don't come up with your "It's in the Bible" blanket statement 'cause OG and Mr P's POVs are usually not reflected in the Holy Scriptures).
Bible blanket statement? Don't act like You're so innocent. I wasn't speaking about you anyway. I agree with Peabody's response to this post. And I wasn't going to quote scripture. Don't insult me that way.

SA210

02-24-2006, 12:10 AM

Not really, but whatever you need to make yourself feel better via the internets.:lol Peter always gets his rear handed to him. He usually uses this line alot too.

gtownspur

02-24-2006, 12:49 AM

:lmao :lmao :lmao

That was probably the most metrosexual post I've ever read.

He qouted scripture...

you're just being a jackass.

Peter

02-24-2006, 12:57 AM

:lol Peter always gets his rear handed to him.

Nah, I don't

He usually uses this line alot too.

Nah, I don't.

gtownspur

02-24-2006, 12:59 AM

What would all the forum liberals do with out SA210 rimming them?

SA210

02-24-2006, 01:49 AM

What would all the forum liberals do with out SA210 rimming them?
What would the forum be like if gtown wouldn't bring something gay to the table every time?

Phenomanul

02-24-2006, 09:15 AM

I don't even know what the hell you are talking about anymore. You accuse me of not addressing the original post....I am the one who posted the original post. The thread was going fine until you turned it into your own personal crusade for all of us to reveal our lives to you.

Look, maybe I was wrong to single you out, but what I said in the post you just responded to still holds. It took 28 posts before you came back and said anything and then you didn't even address the original article. Granted, you didn't say anything highly inflamatory at that point just the typical "Peabody" semantical play on words and humorous quips. But I differ on your assessment that "the thread was going fine" cause at that point MaNuMaNiA had spewed his highly contemptful comment, " Christians are a f****** plague!!" His disdain was uncalled for, albeit he is entitled to his opinions. RobinsontoDuncan then signaled me out and said I was a plague... At that point I posted the longer post. Again, I don't go gloating about my charitable activities because if I did they would lose their significance, but....... you all have to understand I had to say something when people here insist on painting a picture of disdain, contempt and hatred towards all Christians. When I raised the question... "You all seem criticize continually, but what have you all done to fix our social problems" and what did I get... NADA. Oh yeah, I received CBF's comment that one can't learn to love. When I attempted to clarify on love's definition... I got accused of being metrosexual??? Anyways... MaNuMaNiA's comment was still uncalled for... and that's the only reason I came in to say anything considering that most of you are already decided on the 'Abortion issue'.... and that nothing I said was intended to change your stances.

Mr. Peabody

02-24-2006, 09:54 AM

When I attempted to clarify on Love's definition... I get accused of being metrosexual???

I took up for you when you were called a metrosexual. I explained that I didn't understand why he we calling you that and that he misunderstood the word.

I took me a while to come back and post because, as I stated previously, I post from work and so I can only post when I can free up some time.

101A

02-24-2006, 11:31 AM

I assume this post was directed at me, since I started the thread.

I think it's preposterous to put South Dakota in the same category and Bolivia or Bangladesh for obvious reasons. These foreign nations are not bound by Supreme Court precedent. In this situation, we have a state that has blatantly defied a ruling of the Supreme Court, in order to "test the waters." It's concerning because other states will follow suit.

Also, I am not trying to "export" my morality on anyone. If the people of South Dakota don't want to have abortions, they already have that right and they can exercise it as the law now exists. If anyone is trying to "export" their morality on others (as you say) it is those people who aren't satisfied with their right NOT to have an abortion and insist on restricting everybody else's rights as well.

Peter: thanks for defending my post while I was gone.

ManuMania: The slavery reference was SIMPLY temporal & off the top of my head, to put perspective on how long the battle over federalism has taken place in this country. This is something the founding fathers debated ad nauseum while drafting the constitution (and via the Federalist Papers) - there discussions on the other "issues" I cited were completely insignificant in comparison. I don't see how you possibly inferred that I was critisizing abolition in my post.

Peabody: The point being that beginning with Marshall, the Supreme Court became the most onerous (and effective) harbinger of Washington power lust imaginable. If you can't pass it through democratic means, a single person, the president, can stack the supreme court with his cronies, and they will pass what the legislature cannot with overreaching activism. Ever heard the term Imperial Judiciary? It's what happens when you have an impotent legilature; the more stagnant they get, the more of a power vacuum there is, the more power in held in the hands of nine LIFE APPOINTED, unaccountable individuals.

I bet you were in here griping about Florida in 2000, huh? Reap what you sow.

If the DULY ELECTED representatives of South Dakota want to pass a law that they see as beneficial to THEIR citizens, I feel they should be able to, unless it infringes on a right guaranteed by our constitution.

"Privacy" is not mentioned in the constitution, much less a "Right" to it, much less (obviously) the "right" to abort a fetus contained in that, IMO.

Rights in the constitution were dictated by the authors of the original, and the authors of the ammendments thereafter. Each of these people were elected by a given population and sent to speak on behalf of that population. Democracy. The Supreme Court is Not That.

Letting people have unchecked power is very scary.

Phenomanul

02-24-2006, 11:57 AM

I took up for you when you were called a metrosexual. I explained that I didn't understand why he we calling you that and that he misunderstood the word.

I took me a while to come back and post because, as I stated previously, I post from work and so I can only post when I can free up some time.

I noticed. I saw your wtf emoticon. :)

Spurminator

02-24-2006, 12:03 PM

^

To me, this is the argument the Pro Life segment needs to focus more of their efforts on, rather than trying to argue for a ban on abortions from a morality standpoint. I suppose it could be argued that allowing states to ban abortion procedures is similar to allowing states to ban gambling or prostitution.

You'd still have the issue of infringing a woman's rights, though, so I think the only way a state law like this would fly is if it does not punish a woman for finding other ways to terminate her pregnancy (hoping they choose safer means than coathangers).

Now, I don't think this is an ideal scenario by any means but it may ultimately be the compromise we all have to accept. Abortion clinics will close in some states and double in others... You'll see clinics at state borders next to porno shops and tent casinos. Along with the travel requirement, the cost of the procedure will increase, so abortions will be even less viable an option for the poor. Black markets for abortion will develop. More children will be orphaned, more still will be raised in bad situations.

Meanwhile Fundamentalists and Pro-Choice activists will continue to be dissatisfied and abortion will continue to be a wedge issue for elections and a hot topic for Internet message boards and talk radio.

101A

02-24-2006, 12:18 PM

^

You'd still have the issue of infringing a woman's rights, though, so I think the only way a state law like this would fly is if it does not punish a woman for finding other ways to terminate her pregnancy (hoping they choose safer means than coathangers).

Now, I don't think this is an ideal scenario by any means but it may ultimately be the compromise we all have to accept.

This is what the law WAS before Roe v. Wade - that is what that ruling did; found a "right" where there was none before - the supreme court put abortion on the same level as free-speach, jury trial and right to assemble - the unelected, life appointed members of the court removed the right the people of the various states had had for 185 years to rule themselves on this issue. They did so with a VERY questionable reading of the constitution. If the court were to behave this way on every issue, they would be omnipotent, able to find ANYTHING in the constitution to support any agenda or position that particular court, at that particular time, wanted.

Now ironically, since it has a large, dedicated, group dedicated to its preservation, it probably is a better protected right than some of those others actually, explicitly guaranteed by the bill of rights.

101A

02-24-2006, 12:22 PM

^

Abortion clinics will close in some states and double in others... You'll see clinics at state borders next to porno shops and tent casinos. Along with the travel requirement, the cost of the procedure will increase, so abortions will be even less viable an option for the poor. Black markets for abortion will develop. More children will be orphaned, more still will be raised in bad situations.

Meanwhile Fundamentalists and Pro-Choice activists will continue to be dissatisfied and abortion will continue to be a wedge issue for elections and a hot topic for Internet message boards and talk radio.

Making an assumption from this logic, you feel we should legalize drugs & prostitution?

Spurminator

02-24-2006, 12:33 PM

I wouldn't support a national law forcing states to legalize drugs and prostitution, but I do support states legalizing them.

Now, the difference in the comparison (which is why I was careful to say "similar") is that there aren't really any direct consequences resulting from NOT taking/selling drugs or NOT prostituting oneself/paying for a prostitute. Banning abortion forces women to either find another, less safe, means of terminating the pregnancy, or go through with the pregnancy until birth. So I think you're dealing with more of an individual rights issue.

FromWayDowntown

02-24-2006, 12:34 PM

Peabody: The point being that beginning with Marshall, the Supreme Court became the most onerous (and effective) harbinger of Washington power lust imaginable. If you can't pass it through democratic means, a single person, the president, can stack the supreme court with his cronies, and they will pass what the legislature cannot with overreaching activism. Ever heard the term Imperial Judiciary? It's what happens when you have an impotent legilature; the more stagnant they get, the more of a power vacuum there is, the more power in held in the hands of nine LIFE APPOINTED, unaccountable individuals.

I'm curious, then, what exactly the role of the United States Supreme Court should be. Please tell me -- for instance, should the Supreme Court be permitted, even, to pass on whether a law is Constitutional or not?

"Privacy" is not mentioned in the constitution, much less a "Right" to it, much less (obviously) the "right" to abort a fetus contained in that, IMO.

No, but there are a number of rights in the Constitution and its amendments that suggest strongly that the framers of the Bill of Rights recognized a generalized right to privacy. Because that right to privacy is so general -- and is embodied in so many different rights -- it is plausible to think that the Framers had no need to expressly provide for a right to privacy because it was implicit in the specific limitations on governmental power to interfere in the lives of individuals. That there isn't a specific provision setting out a specific right to privacy doesn't mean that right was never intended to be protected. After all, comprehensively defining every aspect of the right to privacy would be a virtually impossible task. It is certainly within the realm of possibility that the Framers concluded that certain specific concerns needed to be addressed specifically, but that future generations would be able to discern from the protections afforded to those rights that there is an overarching and difficult-to-define point at which government may not intrude upon the private lives of its citizenry.

Frankly, I don't even know that the question is open to debate, really.

Rights in the constitution were dictated by the authors of the original, and the authors of the ammendments thereafter. Each of these people were elected by a given population and sent to speak on behalf of that population. Democracy. The Supreme Court is Not That.

Then why even have a Supreme Court?

Letting people have unchecked power is very scary.

Which is exactly why the Supreme Court fills a necessary role in the tripartate check-and-balance system that the Constitution creates.

FromWayDowntown

02-24-2006, 12:39 PM

This is what the law WAS before Roe v. Wade - that is what that ruling did; found a "right" where there was none before - the supreme court put abortion on the same level as free-speach, jury trial and right to assemble - the unelected, life appointed members of the court removed the right the people of the various states had had for 185 years to rule themselves on this issue. They did so with a VERY questionable reading of the constitution. If the court were to behave this way on every issue, they would be omnipotent, able to find ANYTHING in the constitution to support any agenda or position that particular court, at that particular time, wanted.

That's not entirely true -- what the Court concluded in Roe was that the Constitution protects the right of individuals to make decisions concerning their bodies (following the decision that held it unconstitutional for a State to ban couples from using contraception -- Griswold v. Connecticut, and carried through today to the decision that hold it unconstitutional for a State to criminalize consentual sodomy between adults -- Lawrence v. Texas). Based on the existence of that right, the Court held that it would violate the United States Constitution for a state to prohibit all abortions. So, Roe doesn't create a "right to abortion;" it recognizes that a woman's choice to terminate her pregnancy is among the privacy rights that the Constitution protects, much for the same reason that the same right prohibits states from disallowing the use of contraception or from criminalizing sodomy.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-24-2006, 12:57 PM

Look, maybe I was wrong to single you out, but what I said in the post you just responded to still holds. It took 28 posts before you came back and said anything and then you didn't even address the original article. Granted, you didn't say anything highly inflamatory at that point just the typical "Peabody" semantical play on words and humorous quips. But I differ on your assessment that "the thread was going fine" cause at that point MaNuMaNiA had spewed his highly contemptful comment, " Christians are a f****** plague!!" His disdain was uncalled for, albeit he is entitled to his opinions. RobinsontoDuncan then signaled me out and said I was a plague... At that point I posted the longer post. Again, I don't go gloating about my charitable activities because if I did they would lose their significance, but....... you all have to understand I had to say something when people here insist on painting a picture of disdain, contempt and hatred towards all Christians. When I raised the question... "You all seem criticize continually, but what have you all done to fix our social problems" and what did I get... NADA. Oh yeah, I received CBF's comment that one can't learn to love. When I attempted to clarify on love's definition... I got accused of being metrosexual??? Anyways... MaNuMaNiA's comment was still uncalled for... and that's the only reason I came in to say anything considering that most of you are already decided on the 'Abortion issue'.... and that nothing I said was intended to change your stances. WAIT A SEC!! Who the fuck said Christians were a plague you dumbfuck, I said, and I quote "Those people are a fucking plague!" and I was referring to those wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now if you believe EVERY Christian wants to do so then that's your assumption not mine, but I was not referring to EVERY christian.

Learn to fucking read before you post!

Peter

02-24-2006, 01:25 PM

101A, do you view slavery as a federalism issue that was best left to the states? That would help clear up one item. Thanks in advance.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-24-2006, 01:33 PM

101A, do you view slavery as a federalism issue that was best left to the states? That would help clear up one item. Thanks in advance.
Good question

Phenomanul

02-24-2006, 02:36 PM

WAIT A SEC!! Who the fuck said Christians were a plague you dumbfuck, I said, and I quote "Those people are a fucking plague!" and I was referring to those wanting to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Now if you believe EVERY Christian wants to do so then that's your assumption not mine, but I was not referring to EVERY christian.

Learn to fucking read before you post!

You are the king of assumptions..... ohh and the king of unwarranted cursing insults. BTW you don't convince me.

Do whatever you want to do. I haven't told you or anybody to do otherwise.

Yonivore

02-24-2006, 03:28 PM

That's what I get for coming down with the flu...an abortion thread that's already devolved into personal insults. Damn!

MaNuMaNiAc

02-24-2006, 03:42 PM

You are the king of assumptions..... ohh and the king of cursing insults. BTW you don't convince me.

Do whatever you want to do. I haven't told you or anybody to do otherwise.
don't like to be insulted, then don't misquote me. Fact is, you set out to make me look like I hate all Christians, when in reality I was talking about the few ignorant ones that set out to impose their morals on the rest of America. Fact is you were WRONG.

by the way, what the hell does "You are the king of assumptions" supposed to mean? You were the one assuming I was referring to every Christian, not me, so how am I the king of assumptions? Please explain

xrayzebra

02-24-2006, 04:15 PM

^^What is wrong with morals?

MaNuMaNiAc

02-24-2006, 04:43 PM

^^What is wrong with morals?
well, well, aren't you the hypocrite. Whats wrong with morals? nothing is wrong with morals, as long as you don't impose them on other people! That is simply MORALLY wrong! get it??

101A

02-24-2006, 04:45 PM

101A, do you view slavery as a federalism issue that was best left to the states? That would help clear up one item. Thanks in advance.

Any reasonable reading of the constitution would show that the founders, in fact, made freedom for ALL MEN a right granted by our creator. Slavery was illegal from the outset; the 14th ammendment was redundant - but, unfortunately, necessary. Only items not dealt with in the constitution were left to the states; thus, anti-slavery was not, in principal, a power grab by the federal government - it was enforcing the rules every state agreed to abide by when it joined the union.

101A

02-24-2006, 04:53 PM

I'm curious, then, what exactly the role of the United States Supreme Court should be. Please tell me -- for instance, should the Supreme Court be permitted, even, to pass on whether a law is Constitutional or not?

...

Then why even have a Supreme Court?

As a student of the constitution you obviously know that judicial review is a result of M Vs. M, it is NOT spelled out in the constitution; it is not, however, open for debate - as much of a constructionist as I might be, Marshall's grab was thoughtfull and complete, and (200 years later) hardly worth debating - and as our country has evolved, an absolute necessity.

Why have a Supreme Court?

As the top court in the land.

To decide cases between and accross the states.

As interpreter, arbiter and last voice of the constitution is a matter of tradition, precedent and defacto law; it is as death and taxes now; still doesn't mean it was written that way.

xrayzebra

02-24-2006, 05:18 PM

well, well, aren't you the hypocrite. Whats wrong with morals? nothing is wrong with morals, as long as you don't impose them on other people! That is simply MORALLY wrong! get it??

I fail to see what is hypocritical about asking about morals. Without
morals you have no civilization. And where do most moral standards
originate. Certainly not from an someone who has none.

FromWayDowntown

02-24-2006, 05:20 PM

As a student of the constitution you obviously know that judicial review is a result of M Vs. M, it is NOT spelled out in the constitution; it is not, however, open for debate - as much of a constructionist as I might be, Marshall's grab was thoughtfull and complete, and (200 years later) hardly worth debating - and as our country has evolved, an absolute necessity.

Of course judicial review is not spelled out in the Constitution, but if the Supreme Court didn't undertake what we call judicial review, there would be, in essence, no check on Congressional power -- and certainly no check on the combined power of an aligned Congress and President. That couldn't possibly be what the Framers of the Constitution intended. Without judicial review as articulated in Marbury, Congress could pass a law that expressly infringes upon one of your constitutional rights and if the President approved it, the law would essentially trump the Constitution. How on Earth could that remotely have been what the Framers intended?

Why have a Supreme Court?

As the top court in the land.

To decide cases between and accross the states.

So, the Supreme Court should, under your strict interpretation of the Constitution, limit itself to diversity disputes sounding in tort and contract and decide the handful of disputes between states that arise in any given year. For the sake of advancing this argument, I'll also presume that you'd agree that the Supreme Court would have jursidiction to decide disputes that happen to arise under federal laws -- taking today's climate, things like: section 1983 claims and Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (Of course, without judicial review, we likely wouldn't have legislation like section 1983 and Title VII, so there would be little need to bother with those sorts of claims.)

And, I guess you'd say, absent the abhorrence that is Marbury, that if an individual wished to challenge the constitutionality of a law, his remedy would arise in the context of pushing for particular candidates in an ensuing election and hope that by the election of those candidates the law he believes to be unconstitutional will be repealed? And that if he couldn't muster enough support to make that happen, or if his candidate won but couldn't succeed in repealing the law, that would really be too bad for him? That, in essence, the constitutional rights of any person are subject entirely to the whim of the political majority?

As interpreter, arbiter and last voice of the constitution is a matter of tradition, precedent and defacto law; it is as death and taxes now; still doesn't mean it was written that way.

I really don't understand what you're arguing about then. Is your point that you think it would be grand for a Supreme Court justice or for Congress to challenge the validity of judicial review as a constitutional concept in an effort to divest the Court of that power?

Frankly, I think it's a blessing to our society that Marshall saw fit to articulate the concept of judicial review.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-24-2006, 05:22 PM

I fail to see what is hypocritical about asking about morals. Without
morals you have no civilization. And where do most moral standards
originate. Certainly not from an someone who has none.
How can you lecture about morality when you openly advocate imposing yours onto others?? That is being a hypocrite!

xrayzebra

02-24-2006, 05:26 PM

^^yeah, I standing here with a gun imposing my morals. Get real. But I do have
an opinion and will express it. So there.

101A

02-24-2006, 05:26 PM

I'm not necessarily arguing, I was answering your question. You asked what the Supreme Court was for; I answered (succinctly) simply what the constitution says on the matter. I actually said in my statement that review is a necessary check and I can't imagine our govt. w/o it. I honestly don't know what the framers intended on the subject (been too long since con-law).

I was rushed to get my son to cello lesson; didn't have time to re-read what I posted; didn't mean to come accross (excessively) radical.

MaNuMaNiAc

02-24-2006, 05:28 PM

^^yeah, I standing here with a gun imposing my morals. Get real. But I do have
an opinion and will express it. So there. http://spurstalk.com/forums/images/smilies/smirolleyes.gif you clearly don't get what I'm saying

101A

02-24-2006, 05:29 PM

Frankly, I think it's a blessing to our society that Marshall saw fit to articulate the concept of judicial review.

I agree; otherwise DeToqueville would have been prophetic sooner. The potential tyranny of the judiciary we live under now, pales compared to the tyranny of the majority we certainly would be inflicted with had Marbury not occurred.

sickdsm

04-08-2006, 03:51 PM

well, well, aren't you the hypocrite. Whats wrong with morals? nothing is wrong with morals, as long as you don't impose them on other people! That is simply MORALLY wrong! get it??

Then wouldn't it be MORALLY wrong to impose laws that say a woman can shed the responsibilty of a baby but the father in many, MANY times is faced with the woman's decision of having a baby and him being in the poorhouse or jail for the next 18 years or him left with the guilt of an abortion when he didn't want it?

So basically your a hypocrite for calling someone else a hypocrite?

I'm pro life but i'll trade that for equal rights.

Let me dick all the girls i want and choose if they have an abortion, would that be fair?

If its going to be abortion's in MY state, it better well be a joint thing, with the man having as much of a right to choose, upbringing, and custody as the woman.

And if its about a womans's body, why isn't everyone protesting for legalized prostitution? That truly is about a woman and only her body.