Supreme Justice

[Grundy]

Cheif Justice Renquist (http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/10/25/rehnquist/index.html) is being treated for cancer and is 80. These guys are like the Pope and just hang on until Death comes knocking..or a Democrat is elected.

So this election is not really about the war. The important result from this election is about who gets to configure the Supreme Court for the next 40 years. If Bushie wins then the Christian Conservatives will own all 3 branches of Gov't and will be totally unstoppable. The faithless are doomed to hear the same old empty moral platitudes for generations to come.

Just in time for the Apocalypse.

[Cavan]

I don't believe that Judges are party affiliated... Judges interrupt the law and the Constitution...

A Great Judge will put his personal feelings aside and rule based on the Law of the Land and the Constitution..

I believe both candidates would nominate a Judge that does not pass a "test"...

[Post]

Do you really think the threat of having Roe vs Wade being overturned would be equal regardless of which political party held the office of the President? Judges are absolutely party affiliated. Maybe not by the word "Democrat" or "Republican" over their head, but their beliefs.

[Murrie]

Roe vs Wade should be overturned. its an abomination unto the constitution and a idiotic intrusion by the government into the rights of the state, as well as into the lives of us peons.

Abortion should be discussed by and only between a doctor and a woman, and the choice made based on that discussion.

Take heart though my liberial friends, abortion will never be completely illegal again even if someone pays attention to the constitution and overturns roe vs wade...

[Cavan]

Hopefully Booms chimes in here...

The duty of a Judge is to set asaid personal beliefs and go by his or her understanding and belief of the law...

[Boom]

Take heart though my liberial friends, abortion will never be completely illegal again!!!

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would stop a state from making abortion completely illegal? Nothing.

Abortion should be discussed by and only between a doctor and a woman, and the choice made based on that discussion.
If that is what you think, then how can you think Roe v. Wade is an abomination? Roe v. Wade upholds a woman's right to make the decision based upon a discussion with her doctor. Without Roe v. Wade the government could make that decision. It appears that you don't think the government should have any say in that decision, correct? Then you support Roe v. Wade. Roe v. Wade simply says the government can't make that decision for you, the woman has the right to make that decision.

Seems to me that you support Roe v. Wade.

[Murrie]

If Roe v. Wade is overturned, what would stop a state from making abortion completely illegal? Nothing.

and hence you answer your second question...


Support Abortion? Yes

Roe Vs Wade? No I do not. It oversteps by a large degree the powers granted to the federal government. It should be a states choice, in the same way that the federal government has no business laying any law regarding marriages.

[Boom]

I'm still confused. On the one hand you seem to be saying that the decision to have an abortion should be between a woman and her doctor with no government interference, but on the other hand you seem to be saying that states should have the right to ban abortions.

[Post]

"It should be a states choice, in the same way that the federal government has no business laying any law regarding marriages."

And I disagree. I feel that, provided the fetus isn't too far along, no government has a right to stop someone from having an abortion.

And regardless of that, I hope we can see my original point that the Supreme Court is indeed political, as this debate is proving.

[Boom]

Actually, I think I understand now. Are you saying that states should have the right to ban abortions, but if they do so it would be a bad decision? If that is your stance, that actually makes perfect sense to me. Not sure if I agree with it, but it is a logical position.

[Swifty_Johnson]

You want the federal goverment to get involved in abortion, admend the constitution, until then it's a states right to regulate.

Swifty

[Anomolee]

Hi, I have a hot avatar...QQ about politics

[Roscoes_C&W]

Jenna Jameson isn't hot, she's a porn star, she's a skank, she's a dumb bitch who chose to sell her pussy in needs to make money, no different than a hcrack whore on the streets. A hot avatar would be a woman of class, a woman who is real, a woman who has had less than 3427682736487 penises inserted in multiple holes on her body in hopes to make a quick buck. Jenna Jameson chose the easy way in life to make money, as oppose to the hard way. I truly beautiful woman would use her beauty in order to become famous, not be a whore. Any skank can be a porn star, not all can be a beautiful model. Having a picture of Jenna Jameson posing in a model pose is so goddamn stupid I can't even comprehend it. Don't get me wrong, I love my porn, I masterbate to it daily, but theres no way I'm going to put a porn star up on a pedistool and say she is beautiful, she's just a pussy that I watch penis' get inserted into and I stroke myself to it.

[Anomolee]

LOL, QQ over an avatar....you win at the internet.

[Roscoes_C&W]

You brought up the debate buddy, I wasn't seeking to intervene on your avatar until you pointed it out for me. You're goddamn straight I won at the internet.

[Anomolee]

Roflcopter

[Tammarion]

At which point did state government cease to be 'government'? For a country that elects everyone down to dogcatcher, the US seems to be concentrating more and more power into the federal level, leaving the rest as drones who really have to get off the reservation to have any decision-making ability at all.

[Cavan]

You elect Dog Catcher's in Canada.... :O

[Swifty_Johnson]

Crap, when did I miss the vote on dog catcher?

Swifty

[Roscoes_C&W]

We got this bleeding heart liberal dog catcher who got elected into office last election. Let me tell you, this guy uses persuasive talk and dog bisquets when catching dogs instead of the long stick with the loop on the end of it. Last 4 years he's caught 3 dogs and let 300 of them run free, 20 of which proceeded to bite childrens hands off, and do you know what his response was to these incidents?? "THE DOG HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WHO ARE WE TO SAY THAT A DOG CANNOT BITE CHILDRENS HANDS OFF?" THis is the type of shit you get when you elect a friggin tree huggin hippie as the official dog catcher. For crying out loud, we gotta get this son of a bitch out of office.

[Tammarion]

Heh heh thats like the commercials I'm seeing on TV now - peeps breaking out hammer and tongs for District Attorney.

[Murrie]

Sorry if I wasnt clear before, I dont care for the abortion debate period. Abortion should be a medical option in my opinion.

Regarding the Roe Vs Wade debate, and the discussion of a possible ammendment. I am opposed to it. No where in the constitution is the federal government granted (outside of the FDA approval processes, and even thats not in the constitution) the ability to legislate this type of issue.

It is the same as the mariage thing, it is a right of the state to handle this type of regulation on a per state basis. Both are examples of the federal government far overstepping its bounds.

Does this mean some states will attempt to ban abortion? probably, though I doubt very much that many would enact total bans. But that is how it should be.

Tammerion hits my opposion completely on the head:
At which point did state government cease to be 'government'? For a country that elects everyone down to dogcatcher, the US seems to be concentrating more and more power into the federal level, leaving the rest as drones who really have to get off the reservation to have any decision-making ability at all.

The FEDs overstep their constitutionally legal bounds more and more often, and are considered by many many people to be the solution to all of lifes problems, when in reality the country was set up to give the federal government a very very very very very very very very very very very... ... very limited role in our daily lives.

Somewheres around the New Deal people started to think more of the Fed as their government instead of their State. This gets into many and various problems with the function of the government today, everyone looks to the Feds for answers when they should be looking to the local and state level.

[Post]

"You want the federal goverment to get involved in abortion..."

They already are.

[Lego]

the ability to legislate this type of issue.


they didnt legislate. the supreme court decided the state legislation in effect went against the constitution, which is something that is very much in their power to do. i'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you think congress passed a law which made it illegal for states to make laws against abortion, which i would agree is wrong, but thats not what happened. a woman brought a case against texas saying it violated her consititutional rights (the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments specifically, according to her) that she was being told she couldn't have an abortion, and the court agreed thus making that law and all similar laws in all states unconstitutional and thus illegal.

[Murrie]

Your not putting any words in my mouth, I understand that there was not a congressional law passed down, that does not change my opinion that the federal government (ei the supreme court, which legislated from the bench) over stepped its bounds.

And in fact could probably use roe vs wade to demonstrate at least 2 or 3 different oversteps, from the legislation from the bench (which is even worse IMHO than if congress had passed some type of abortion law), to the basic disregarding of states rights over matters such as this.

It is only one example, very hotly contested example, but one none the less of the diminishing power of the state and the increasing rule of the feds over our daily lives.

[Post]

We do agree, though, that there are times that if a state makes a law that is unconstitutional (let's say they start making slavery legal again), then the federal government should step in and strike down that law, correct?

If that's the case, then this is a difference in opinion, not if the federal government has that power, but rather, if abortion is an inalienable right or not.

[Murrie]

basically hep, yes.

Both your examples are cases where the goverment is taking away something (ie a freedom) for no good reason. There is a bit of a difference, IE, slavery is against the "all men created equal" parts of the constitution, which make outlawing slavery based on the constitution easy. Seeing as with abortion the main sticking point seems to revolve around when a fetus turns into a baby (or "man") its less easy.

[Murrie]

I in fact would state that slavery could be legal, and constitutional. As long as it was not based on any descriminatory practices. IE a state could make slavery legal as long as it was not based on rase religion or gender.
(just an offhand thought, havnt really thought it through)

[Post]

The issue with abortion, though, is that it's a question of right of the mother to abort vs the right of the fetus to live. Both methods have one side feeling that rights are being taken away, and in those cases, I see it perfectly fine for the federal government to step in. Yes, I agree that it's a tough, heated issue on whether abortion is ok or not (in general, I believe we all agree that a partial birth abortion upon a whim is not ok, and the morning after pill is ok); in either case, though, I feel this has enough weight and importance to be elevated to the federal government for a decision.

[Post]

"IE a state could make slavery legal as long as it was not based on rase religion or gender."

I disagree. I believe that freedom is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away without action of victim. But that's neither here nor there; my point is that there is valid times where the federal government needs to step in where the state government has already made a decision.

[Aarimus]

Three points here:

1. Abortion is murder IMO.

2. Anom's avatar is hot.

3. That dog catcher needs to be strung up by his balls and have a dog bite his hand off.

nuff said.

[Grundy]

Most of you are focused on specific issues but I think those are not the main point. If a judge is selected in good faith you really cannot tell which side of an issue they would fall upon since it matters not if they are conservative / liberal but rather if they are a strict constructionist or not.

I thought the more important issue would be the implication that we will have become a One Party country. Couple this with the gerrymandering of districts (http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36~417~2489700,00.html)across the US that is happening so that Republican party has a monopoly.

Their goal is to eliminate the checks and balances and ultimately destroy the Democratic Party.

[Murrie]

I feel this has enough weight and importance to be elevated to the federal government for a decision.

which is all the more reason that the feds shoould not be involved. The more important the decision the closer to you politically it should be.

I disagree. I believe that freedom is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away without action of victim.

well there already is plenty of ways to end up with every little freedom. Get thrown in jail and your not very free... Random removal of rights would be a definate violation of the constitution, but think that in general a case could be made for slavery for criminals. Not that I would support, it was just a random though I had while thinking about states rights, that the states should in theory have the right to decide.

[Murrie]

which is all the more reason that the feds shoould not be involved. The more important the decision the closer to you politically it should be.

actually another moments thoughts would bring at least a bit closer to agreeing with you given our much more highly mobile lives.
I guess abortion isnt the best of examples of the goverment overstepping the states rights, but i do believe that it was an unconstitutional ruling, whether I agree with it or not.

[Murrie]

I thought the more important issue would be the implication that we will have become a One Party country. Couple this with the gerrymandering of districts across the US that is happening so that Republican party has a monopoly.

Their goal is to eliminate the checks and balances and ultimately destroy the Democratic Party.

its just the swing, the roles where reversed for decades, with the jerrymandering for the democrats. Its not that they want to destroy the democrats, just their chances of getting elected.

We had about 2 decades of near solid democratic control of things and we made it out alright. edit (before 94 all the republicans had was ronny for several decades)

[Andolinni]

chief justice reinquest or whatever.... well i did some studying on the guy about 5 years ago and found that his decisions to be mostly non partisan and has set a presidence on more than one issue. Justices are sworn in for life, so it's up to them when they quit. And as for the pope hanging on till he's old and frail or dead... well lemme tie that into another comment about the appocolypse. some say that the next pope will oversee the apocolypse, maybe the pope has read of the last days and believes he is the last real pope, in that case if religion was your only thought in life and you believed that next pope was going to be a false pope and oversee the destruction of the world, would you just "bow out"? hrmm, long live the pope i say.

[Allison]

One thing about the Supreme Court. A lifelong appointment has a way of eliminating partisanship. Once a Justice is appointed, he/she is accountable to no one, so their decisions usually become all about the law. Let's not forget that the Roe v. Wade decision was made by a conservatively stacked court that was expected to rule the other way.

My only concern is that a religious zealot will be appointed ... because that's the one personality type that I believe would be more inclined to ignore the law in favor of his own personal beliefs. But, I'm still hopeful that no matter who is appointed, he'll be fair and just, because of the reasons I already stated.

[Noleader]

As long as the dems hold on to their current senate seats no one will get appointed that is to far right.

[Swifty_Johnson]

AMENDMENT XIII
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.

Note: A portion of Article IV, section 2, of the Constitution was superseded by the 13th amendment.

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

No state can enact slavery, it goes directly aginst the Constitution.

Swifty

[Tammarion]

From amendments on slavery to amendments on gay marriage & flag burning. How'd that happen? :(

[Murrie]

that backs me up swifty. specifically says that there are conditions under which slavery could be legal

except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,

[Swifty_Johnson]

Yes, for a crime that the person has been convicted of. Which is an intresting questions, are inmates at prisions actally slaves?

Swifty

[Murrie]

that would be funny.

"sir you have been found guilty of grand theft auto. Your sentence is 5 years as a <30mph test dummy"

"maam, youve been caught shoplifting lipstick from Macy's, your sentence is 9 months as a makeup test subject."

[Post]

"which is all the more reason that the feds shoould not be involved. The more important the decision the closer to you politically it should be."

I disagree. While things specific to your location should be decided upon your location, the all-encompassing issues, such as a person's right to live, election laws, etc, should be upheld by the nation. Else, why even have the Constitution? Its very existence is showing that, yeah, the state can make its own rules, as long as it doesn't violate the rules of the Constitution.

That's when it should be elevated to the federal government - when it moves from a local problem to a problem that violates the Constitution.

[Murrie]

where is the right to an abortion listed in the constitution? Where is the violation of someones rights?

And election laws are a state responsibility, just as so many other things should be.

The constitution defines the responsibilitys and limits government. Thats its why we have a constitution, to limit the governments control and power, and to define exactly what powers the various levels of government have over your life. The smallest least intrusive part of the government is suppose to be the federal level except in times of war. The Abortion judicial legislation is just one example of the far over reaching control of the federal government.

[Post]

The woman stated stopping abortion violated "the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments specifically, according to her" (thanks Lego). And regardless if you feel it does or doesn't violate those amendments, the point holds true that, because the violation of those amendments was the accusation, means that it should have elevated to the federal government to decide.

"And election laws are a state responsibility, just as so many other things should be."

I'm not talking about methods of voting, I'm talking about the right to vote. For example, a state cannot take away your right to vote because you have bad credit.

"Thats its why we have a constitution, to limit the governments control and power, and to define exactly what powers the various levels of government have over your life."

And that's what the decision on Roe vs Wade did - it limited the government's control and power. It just did it to the state.

[Post]

" The Abortion judicial legislation is just one example of the far over reaching control of the federal government."

It is only overreaching if you feel that abortion isn't a right granted by the Constitution. Which, even most agree with that - what they disagree upon, is when the fetus is to be considered a being with its own rights. If it was something like the right for someone to be allowed to remove a rib or get some surgery done that did not involve a fetus, would you agree that it's protected by the Constitution?

[Cavan]

I believe a Supreme Court Justice needs 2/3 support from the Senate to be appointed to the Supreme Court... THUS... no Zealot Justice will enter the Supreme Court... without approval from Republican and Democrat Senate members..

[Murrie]

f it was something like the right for someone to be allowed to remove a rib or get some surgery done that did not involve a fetus, would you agree that it's protected by the Constitution?

You should be free to make whatever choices you want. specifically dumb ones such as removal of a rib, if you can find a doctor to do it.

Is rib removal a constitutional right? Something so basic to human existence that it is considered a fundamental to a freeman's existence? Nope.

I do not believe that the Government has any right to control what you can and cannot due to your body, outside of some regulations on safety, but that doesnt mean that what you choose to do to your body is somehow constitutionally protected.


Your projecting alot into the constitution that just isnt there. Trying to say something that is a choice such as having a rib removed, or an eyebrow pierced, or an abortion is something so fundamental to human existence that it is a guaranteed right.

While I expect and demand that the government not interfere with the medical practice of abortion outside of regulating safety, i do not believe that it is a constitutional right


edit - holy spelling errors batman!

[Post]

"I do not believe that the Government has any right to control what you can and cannot due to your body, outside of some regulations on safety, but that doesnt mean that what you choose to do to your body is somehow constitutionally protected."

And I do believe it's Constitutionally protected. Stopping someone from removing a rib without warranted reason is depriving someone of life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness (the 5th Amendment), to which is guaranteed by the Constitution, and the 14th Amendment specifically states that a state cannot use their localized laws to impede on the 5th Amendment.

"Trying to say something that is a choice such as having a rib removed, or an eyebrow pierced, or an abortion is something so fundamental to human existence that it is a guaranteed right."

That's exactly what the Constitution is for, though - to guarantee the rights that are considered fundamental for human existence.

[Murrie]

the 5th has nothing to do with this hep. It deals with and specially limits the governments ability to lock you up or try you without cause:


Amendment 5 - Trial and Punishment, Compensation for Takings
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It protects you from being rounded up and jailed for no good reason. It does not protect your right to have your rib removed, or your eybrow pierced or your decission to have an abortion.

That's exactly what the Constitution is for, though - to guarantee the rights that are considered fundamental for human existence.

no. those rights are guaranteed simply by existing. The constitution limits the governments ability to step on those rights. And I dont see where rib removal or abortion is fundamental for human existance.

[Lego]

But the constitution doesn't just protect your most fundamental rights, it protects things such as "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property" (14th amendment) were liberty is an extremely vague term that has been interpretted to cover a broad range of things including the right to have an abortion (from my very quick reading of the majority opinion of the case).

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent"

Of course im no lawyer, and much of the text refers to previous cases i am not familiar with, but all three opinions can be found here (http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Roe/#rop)

[Grundy]

I am a lawyer. The term "liberty" here is cleary defined as "one's ability to wear frilly underthings".

[Post]

"It does not protect your right to have your rib removed, or your eybrow pierced or your decission to have an abortion."

It does - it protects you from being "rounded up and jailed" for it. It states that life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness are protected from being charged for a crime upon those things unless there's good reason to do so.

"no. those rights are guaranteed simply by existing."

No they're not. Those rights are taken away by other countries where people exist. Just existing does not guarantee you those rights.

"And I dont see where rib removal or abortion is fundamental for human existance."

You're not only guaranteed existence in the Constitution, you're guaranteed life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. While not being jailed simply because of your skin color isn't fundamental for human existence, it is guaranteed by the Constitution.

[Tammarion]

Doesn't that mean the 5th amendment then protects you from getting jailed for breaking any law the judge(s) disagree with?

I'm pretty sure Murrie's view of the 'natural' rights start with the guy being the only person in the world. He pretty much can do anything. But then you start putting in more people, and then laws need to be put into place keeping things running smoothly.

[Post]

"Doesn't that mean the 5th amendment then protects you from getting jailed for breaking any law the judge(s) disagree with?"

No. In cases where it's violating someone else's right to life, liberty, and persuit of happiness, it's not allowed. Hence where the abortion issue really comes about - it's debated when the fetus should be considered a being with the right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

[Murrie]

If you want to argue that the constitution protects you from having the government interfere with your discussions and desisions in the Doctors office, i will agree with your assesment. Singling Abortion out as a protected procedure is what stops me from agreeing with the constitutionality of it, and would point to the rulings regarding whether assisted suicide is protected by the Constitution as a clear opposite ruling regarding a very similar medical proceedure.

Anyway id does not appear that I am going to be able to be convincing in my arguments that the Federal government has no constitutional power to govern over a medical procedure, nor convince that simply being something that the government should have no say so in, does not convey the status of "a right" to it. So I will bow out agreeing to disagree.

oh - i did misspeak:

those rights are guaranteed simply by existing. The constitution limits the governments ability to step on those rights.
I intended tthat to mean is that the rights are rights simply for existing and the constitution gaurantees that the government cannot step on those rights. The way i wrote it definately does not make sense...

[Cavan]

"Starts to stir the Pot...."

So if you can't claim a child until it's born on your taxes... doesn't that basically mean that it's not a child until it's born??

I mean I can't claim my unborn baby on my taxes....