South Dakota Leads Charge to Overturn Roe v. Wade

[Mr. Peabody]

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]

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 cons ution (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 cons ution.

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

Rights in the cons ution 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]

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]

^

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 pros ution.

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]

^

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 cons ution. If the court were to behave this way on every issue, they would be omnipotent, able to find ANYTHING in the cons ution 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]

^

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 & pros ution?

[Spurminator]

I wouldn't support a national law forcing states to legalize drugs and pros ution, 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 pros uting oneself/paying for a pros ute. 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]

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 Cons utional or not?

"Privacy" is not mentioned in the cons ution, 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 Cons ution 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 cons ution 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 Cons ution creates.

[FromWayDowntown]

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 cons ution. If the court were to behave this way on every issue, they would be omnipotent, able to find ANYTHING in the cons ution 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 Cons ution protects the right of individuals to make decisions concerning their bodies (following the decision that held it uncons utional for a State to ban couples from using contraception -- Griswold v. Connecticut, and carried through today to the decision that hold it uncons utional 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 Cons ution 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 Cons ution protects, much for the same reason that the same right prohibits states from disallowing the use of contraception or from criminalizing sodomy.

[MaNuMaNiAc]

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 en led 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 said Christians were a plague you dumb , I said, and I quote "Those people are a ing 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 ing read before you post!

[Peter]

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]

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]

WAIT A SEC!! Who the said Christians were a plague you dumb , I said, and I quote "Those people are a ing 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 ing 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]

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

[MaNuMaNiAc]

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 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]

^^What is wrong with morals?

[MaNuMaNiAc]

^^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]

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 cons ution 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 cons ution 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]

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 Cons utional or not?



...



Then why even have a Supreme Court?

As a student of the cons ution you obviously know that judicial review is a result of M Vs. M, it is NOT spelled out in the cons ution; 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 cons ution 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]

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]

As a student of the cons ution you obviously know that judicial review is a result of M Vs. M, it is NOT spelled out in the cons ution; 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 Cons ution, 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 Cons ution intended. Without judicial review as articulated in Marbury, Congress could pass a law that expressly infringes upon one of your cons utional rights and if the President approved it, the law would essentially trump the Cons ution. 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 Cons ution, 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 le VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. (Of course, without judicial review, we likely wouldn't have legislation like section 1983 and le 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 cons utionality 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 uncons utional 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 cons utional rights of any person are subject entirely to the whim of the political majority?

As interpreter, arbiter and last voice of the cons ution 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 cons utional 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]

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]

^^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]

I'm not necessarily arguing, I was answering your question. You asked what the Supreme Court was for; I answered (succinctly) simply what the cons ution 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]

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

you clearly don't get what I'm saying