The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

Sea Ray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
4,627
Likes
5,757
Then work to amend the constitution, otherwise it falls within the purview of the state.
That is debatable. There are opinions on each side. Talk of "codifying" Roe is talk of Congress passing a federal law. However our SCOTUS could throw that out too saying it's a states' rights thing.

My point is that IMO we should have one law that covers this one way or another nationwide. It's too chaotic otherwise. Kinda like gay marriage. You should not have a country where you're married in one state but not in another
 

hog88

Your ray of sunshine
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
91,908
Likes
107,333
That is debatable. There are opinions on each side. Talk of "codifying" Roe is talk of Congress passing a federal law. However our SCOTUS could throw that out too saying it's a states' rights thing.

My point is that IMO we should have one law that covers this one way or another nationwide. It's too chaotic otherwise. Kinda like gay marriage. You should not have a country where you're married in one state but not in another
I'll ask again, what else do you think needs to be covered by 1 federal law nationwide?
 

Sea Ray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
4,627
Likes
5,757
Then it was never a right. And no such right existed in the Constitution. Roe was decided by extreme mental gymnastics applying the due process clause. It’s stupid and wrong.
I agree that right never existed in the Constitution but disagree that Congress can't legislate rights. They've done so many time with civil rights acts
 

Sea Ray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
4,627
Likes
5,757
I'll ask again, what else do you think needs to be covered by 1 federal law nationwide?
I answered: the right of gay marriage (if granted) should be done federally. Personally I'm not a fan of that legislation but if it's going to be legal then it should not be done on a state by state basis
 

hog88

Your ray of sunshine
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Messages
91,908
Likes
107,333
I agree that right never existed in the Constitution but disagree that Congress can't legislate rights. They've done so many time with civil rights acts
If you really dig into civil rights legislation congress isn't granting anyone "rights" they're mainly taking away rights, the right to free association being the biggest one.
 

NorthDallas40

Displaced Hillbilly
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
46,267
Likes
62,619
I agree that right never existed in the Constitution but disagree that Congress can't legislate rights. They've done so many time with civil rights acts
You’re basically putting weight on a form of I right I don’t think exists in practice. I don’t believe the government grants a right. They can only grant privileges.

If instead you are referring to legislation limiting the government’s ability to screw with the citizens then we can talk. But that’s a limitation on government not the government being some magnanimous overlord.
 
Likes: AM64

RockyTop85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,018
Likes
5,338
No she did not. Not as currently written.
Are you stoned?

Ginsburg had a case challenging an Air Force policy that discharged women who wouldn’t undergo an abortion where she was advocating that it was a fundamental right of the woman to control her own reproductive and procreative decisions and that it was a violation of the equal protection clause and due process clause.

She applied for cert the same term Roe was heard. SCOTUS took the case and the Air Force dropped the policy. The case became moot and was dismissed.

She/her group filed an amicus brief in Roe arguing the same theory.

She absolutely believed it was a constitutional issue.
The criticism of Roe by Ginsburg and others like her has generally been about how it was tethered to the constitution, not that it was.
 

NorthDallas40

Displaced Hillbilly
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
46,267
Likes
62,619
Are you stoned?

Ginsburg had a case challenging an Air Force policy that discharged women who wouldn’t undergo an abortion where she was advocating that it was a fundamental right of the woman to control her own reproductive and procreative decisions and that it was a violation of the equal protection clause and due process clause.

She applied for cert the same term Roe was heard. SCOTUS took the case and the Air Force dropped the policy. The case became moot and was dismissed.

She/her group filed an amicus brief in Roe arguing the same theory.

She absolutely believed it was a constitutional issue.
The criticism of Roe by Ginsburg and others like her has generally been about how it was tethered to the constitution, not that it was.
Look down one post. Yes Struck vs Dept of Defense.
 

Sudden Impact

Who we are is what We do with what We have!
Joined
Jan 7, 2007
Messages
10,222
Likes
3,654
That is debatable. There are opinions on each side. Talk of "codifying" Roe is talk of Congress passing a federal law. However our SCOTUS could throw that out too saying it's a states' rights thing.

My point is that IMO we should have one law that covers this one way or another nationwide. It's too chaotic otherwise. Kinda like gay marriage. You should not have a country where you're married in one state but not in another
That was not the point. It was not about the ability to Marry in one state vs another. It was about whether or not the Marriage was recognized as a Couple for benefits. IRS, Health, the list goes on and on.

Roe vs Wade is completely different and should be at the State Level. The only Downfall to those States is the burden and Taxpayers' dollars spent that will ensue with this decision.
 

RockyTop85

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2011
Messages
11,018
Likes
5,338
Look down one post. Yes Struck vs Dept of Defense.
Your “down one post” doesn’t mean she didn’t think it was a constitutional issue. She wanted incremental change like Roberts wanted in the opposite direction and she didn’t agree with the way it was tethered to the constitution (which is exactly what @ClearwaterVol is trying to tell you).
 

davethevol

Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful......
Joined
Nov 2, 2009
Messages
15,208
Likes
16,216
I’m really beginning to think that Donald Trump’s presidency was a form of Divine Intervention. No other president would have had the guts to do what he did with his Supreme Court picks, and what are the odds of having the chance to do what he did? I’d like to shake his hand and thank him.
 

NorthDallas40

Displaced Hillbilly
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
46,267
Likes
62,619
Your “down one post” doesn’t mean she didn’t think it was a constitutional issue. She wanted incremental change like Roberts now wanted in the opposite direction.
Yep she says that in the same interview I referenced. And I would modify your statement to she wanted to see constitutional protections. None exist today.
 

TRUEFANVol

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2022
Messages
538
Likes
160
I’m really beginning to think that Donald Trump’s presidency was a form of Divine Intervention. No other president would have had the guts to do what he did with his Supreme Court picks, and what are the odds of having the chance to do what he did? I’d like to shake his hand and thank him.
A pathological liar and con man as Divine Intervention.......😆
 

Sea Ray

Well-Known Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2013
Messages
4,627
Likes
5,757
That was not the point. It was not about the ability to Marry in one state vs another. It was about whether or not the Marriage was recognized as a Couple for benefits. IRS, Health, the list goes on and on.

Roe vs Wade is completely different and should be at the State Level. The only Downfall to those States is the burden and Taxpayers' dollars spent that will ensue with this decision.
That's exactly why is should be a federal law

IMO abortion is a right for someone, either the mother or the kid. You're free to disagree
 

NorthDallas40

Displaced Hillbilly
Joined
Oct 3, 2014
Messages
46,267
Likes
62,619
Link to an interview where she says women’s reproductive and procreative rights are not a constitutional issue?
I’m not saying she said they aren’t. I’m about to see a Dr and we’re both talking about the same interview so feel free to link it.

Final edit then into office. Her views were never debated by SCOTUS either.
 

VN Store




Top