|
|
#11
11-07-2005, 05:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] I support keeping abortion legal, but Roe v Wade was a terrible decision. -It completely trampled states' rights, and is a terrible case of legislating from the bench. The judicial branch is to enforce the laws, not make them. If there is a need for a national standard for abortion laws, that is for congress to decided, not any court. - As another poster mentioned, the court somehow extracted an imagianary "right to privacy" out of the 4th ammendment. [/ QUOTE ] It was the Griswold decision that created the "Right to Privacy" namely in that case the use of Birth Control within the confines of the home between MARRIED adults. Roe just extended the right to privacy to abortion. The other reasoning that they used was that control of reproductive rights is essential for equal protection under the law. Men do not by nature have to be shackled with the pregnancy process and therefore a situation is created that provides an unequal burden to women and therefore a violation of the equal protection clause. This is one of the more weak argument of Roe. I have a bit of crisis of concience with the whole "Right to Privacy" bit. I do believe, like Chief Justice Roberts, that there is a "general" right to privacy that is outlined in the 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments. But where are the boundries? I think that the Framers of the Constitution had this general right to privacy in mind. But, do I think that the State can impose which form of intimacy we choose to participate in or whether or not we can use birth control? I have a tough time accepting this. So I think the solution is a new amendment that will outline this right to privacy that will make Lawence v Texas and Griswold mute. But, it will never happen... -Gryph [/ QUOTE ] Then I correct myself. The Griswold decision is crap. 
|
|
#12
11-07-2005, 05:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] Yea! They're trying to tell me I have a right to privacy? What a terrible thing! Truely, if there could ever be a worse form of judicial activism, I could not imagine it. [/ QUOTE ] This is my point. Your judicial philosophy is results oriented. If the decision reuslts in a "better" result, it is good. If it disagrees with what you like, it is bad. Judges are not appointed to give personal opinions. They are there to interpret the law. If someone passes a crappy law, overturn it through the legislatures. If someone passes a law that violates the Constitution, use the courts.
|
|
#13
11-07-2005, 07:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
Judges are there to both interpret and create law. Suggesting otherwise ignores the common-law system that we have in our country.
|
|
#14
11-07-2005, 07:22 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Judges are there to both interpret and create law. Suggesting otherwise ignores the common-law system that we have in our country. [/ QUOTE ] True but irrelevant. No one (except possibly you) is claiming that the Supreme Court can overturn state and federal laws based on the common law.
|
|
#15
11-07-2005, 07:40 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
Of course not, but the chorus of morons who believe that a judge's job is only to interpret laws grows louder and louder every day.
|
|
#16
11-07-2005, 08:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] Yea! They're trying to tell me I have a right to privacy? What a terrible thing! Truely, if there could ever be a worse form of judicial activism, I could not imagine it. [/ QUOTE ] This is my point. Your judicial philosophy is results oriented. If the decision reuslts in a "better" result, it is good. If it disagrees with what you like, it is bad. Judges are not appointed to give personal opinions. They are there to interpret the law. If someone passes a crappy law, overturn it through the legislatures. If someone passes a law that violates the Constitution, use the courts. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, but I just thought it was funny that even a made-up right to privacy in itself would be somehow the worst in potential judicial activism. So anyways, hypothetically if no such right actually existed, I'm just wondering does a potential right to privacy itself "disagree with what you like?" Don't say it's irrelevent, just answer.
|
|
#17
11-07-2005, 08:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Of course not, but the chorus of morons who believe that a judge's job is only to interpret laws grows louder and louder every day. [/ QUOTE ] Maybe if I call anyone who disagrees with me a moron, I will be right!
|
|
#18
11-07-2005, 08:52 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Inventing an imaginary "right to privacy" in the Constitution IS judicial activism at its worst. [/ QUOTE ] Yea! They're trying to tell me I have a right to privacy? What a terrible thing! Truely, if there could ever be a worse form of judicial activism, I could not imagine it. [/ QUOTE ] This is my point. Your judicial philosophy is results oriented. If the decision reuslts in a "better" result, it is good. If it disagrees with what you like, it is bad. Judges are not appointed to give personal opinions. They are there to interpret the law. If someone passes a crappy law, overturn it through the legislatures. If someone passes a law that violates the Constitution, use the courts. [/ QUOTE ] Sure, but I just thought it was funny that even a made-up right to privacy in itself would be somehow the worst in potential judicial activism. So anyways, hypothetically if no such right actually existed, I'm just wondering does a potential right to privacy itself "disagree with what you like?" Don't say it's irrelevent, just answer. [/ QUOTE ] I believe the government should have very few functions, one of which is protecting the life and property of its citizens. People should be free to do as they please as long as it does not intrude on the life or property of another. This is pretty much what the Constituion says (along with a few other enumerated powers), until the judges have decided that absolutely everything falls under Interstate Commerce.
|
|
#19
11-07-2005, 09:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Of course not, but the chorus of morons who believe that a judge's job is only to interpret laws grows louder and louder every day. [/ QUOTE ] By morons you mean people who are simply sick of being stripped of their right to elect Congressman to their state senates and houses who will make their law and rather are subject to the will of a federal court regarding matters not even present in the constitution.
|
|
#20
11-07-2005, 09:29 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Roe v. Wade Question
[ QUOTE ]
Of course not, but the chorus of morons who believe that a judge's job is only to interpret laws grows louder and louder every day. [ QUOTE ] Maybe if I call anyone who disagrees with me a moron, I will be right! [/ QUOTE ] [/ QUOTE ] Only those who ignore the reality that we have a common-law system inherited from the Brits which is, in large part, judge-made law. If you choose to ignore that or claim, contrary to 200+ years of jurisprudence, that a judge is to only interpret (as opposed to create) law then I have no problem calling you a moron. A judge's job SHOULD be more than interpreting laws --- including creating laws: My opinion; disagree - not necessarily a moron. A judge's job IS more than interpreting laws --- including creating law: Fact; disagree - probably a moron.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
