What do you think would result from a repeal of Roe v Wade?

**Rat Faced** · 08-01-2005, 07:14 PM

Game, Set and Match to vidcc

**vidcc** · 08-02-2005, 01:05 AM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then by what process do we decide what law, if any, we are to abide by?

With roe v wade the dispute is what has priority. the dispute is which has priority ..state self determination or personal liberties as a US citizen under the US constitution. (simplified and assuming no dispute that the US constitution applies as ruled) You feel that the states in this case should preside. That is your interpretation but not the interpretation the justices made. (are they not Americans?)
So there is the crux...two people can read different meaning into the same sentence. So we need an independent supreme court to rule when disputes arise. I would say not just independent but balance to represent all Americans, not favour one side. We should not have a conservative court or a liberal court but something in between. This does not mean that I object to an extreme right winger or left winger on the court but if we have one we have to have an opposite to balance it out...then the remaining centrist can prevent the stalemate.

So in summation it is quite correct to say you want justices that will strictly interpret the constitution, but they may strictly interpret it in a way you don't agree with.

Originally Posted by j2k4

If the solons in which you place so much trust decide that any old Joe with a plan to make money which would also (by the way) result in an increase in tax revenue (no means-testing there; did you notice?) benefit by a drastic expansion of the principle of eminent domain, in turn enabling that person or entity to divest you of your domicile and the land upon which it rests for "fair market value"...oh, wait-they just did that, didn't they?

Would you feel better to have had some input on that one, vid?

I thought we already addressed this one. But aside from that, are you suggesting that I should change my mind on the Roe issue because I disagree with this one?

Originally Posted by me

I said I disagreed with it . I always thought it should be purely for things like roads or dams where there was no real alternative. But apparently the wording of the law was not specific and a case was made.

Have you heard someone is trying to build a hotel on a judges land using eminent domain?

So what needs to happen is our lawmakers should quickly address the issue to make it clear what limits apply when it comes to "public benefit". A vote winner I think you will agree and something that would pass with overwhelming support......
But I feel you are using this case to make me feel the way you feel about Roe. I'm afraid even though I abhor the ruling I don't. Or perhaps you are trying to make me agree that we have justices making things up.

Originally Posted by j2k4

You concede once again that your understanding of this country and it's constitution is marginal-this country was meant to be what "We The People" make it, NOT the nine justices.

I concede nothing

So what do you suggest? Short of abolishing the supreme court (I doubt you could agree to that "constitutionally") the only way the constitution is going to be ruled strictly to your own interpretation is to have only judges like yourself. Would that be representative of "We The People" ?

Edit:

Originally Posted by above

With roe v wade the dispute is what has priority. Individual states or the constitution of the USA (take dispute out as to if the constitution applies) You feel that the states in this case should preside. That is your interpretation but not the interpretation the justices made. (are they not Americans?)

Reading this makes no sense and isn't what I meant to say...the dispute is which has priority ..state self determination or personal liberties as a US citizen under the US constitution. (simplified)

**Busyman** · 08-02-2005, 01:41 AM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Then by what process do we decide what law, if any, we are to abide by?

If the solons in which you place so much trust decide that any old Joe with a plan to make money which would also (by the way) result in an increase in tax revenue (no means-testing there; did you notice?) benefit by a drastic expansion of the principle of eminent domain, in turn enabling that person or entity to divest you of your domicile and the land upon which it rests for "fair market value"...oh, wait-they just did that, didn't they?

Would you feel better to have had some input on that one, vid?

You concede once again that your understanding of this country and it's constitution is marginal-this country was meant to be what "We The People" make it, NOT the nine justices.

Your checkmate is forfeit.

Actually that particular checkmate was quite valid. However, in regards to the Supreme Court ruling (eminent domain), they were flat-out wrong and actually went against the Constitution. The ruling made essentially made the public/private use debate moot..since anything that may return higher (even $5) tax revenue can get a pass. ((off-topic)thus, as I have many time pointed out, making more haves and have nots thus leading to the world ending in shit

)

Two different arguments though.

You are arguing an up or down vote by the majority of the people versus a court saying what is or wrong.

Majority of people (who include the courts) are idiots.

If your entire state wanted outlaw wearing red, it doesn't mean in all cases your state should be able to enforce it as law.

Then again, we come back to the "majority of idiots" argument........

**vidcc** · 08-02-2005, 03:18 AM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Vid:

I believe a constructionist will always make the best, least-biased candidate because his/her imperative is to hew as closely to the word of the document, rather than to consider his/her first duty to bend, flex, expand or otherwise mutilate their meaning in order to "grow" fundamental rights.

Bullshit works well for nourishing plant life; it has no place in the judicial process.

Like I said different people view that word in different ways....not always the same way you do.
Given that the document isn't just one part there will always be disputes over not just the word but also which part has priority.

**Busyman** · 08-02-2005, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by j2k4

Originally Posted by Busyman

Actually that particular checkmate was quite valid. However, in regards to the Supreme Court ruling (eminent domain), they were flat-out wrong and actually went against the Constitution.

Ah.

Most of you don't normally seem to think it is even possible for the Supreme Court to exceed it's purview or be wrong.

My overriding point (and I thank you for enabling me to clarify) has always been that the Court is activist.

I think that going "against" the Constitution qualifies; do you think otherwise?

Vid:

I believe a constructionist will always make the best, least-biased candidate because his/her imperative is to hew as closely to the word of the document, rather than to consider his/her first duty to bend, flex, expand or otherwise mutilate their meaning in order to "grow" fundamental rights.

Bullshit works well for nourishing plant life; it has no place in the judicial process.

Checkmate on those points. However, I don't think anyone was necessarily refuting them.

The court is activist. The court is human and will be even if a constructionist takes a vacancy.

The very valid point of yours comes in when referring to the Constitution. All decisions by the court should be based on this (and I think have been)....but in the eminent domain ruling, for instance, it was using the Constitution for it's ruling.

I didn't know private reaallly meant public.

Can't you feel those extra tax dollars helping you?....Can ya feel it? HUH? hUH?

**Busyman** · 08-02-2005, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by vidcc

Originally Posted by j2k4

Vid:

I believe a constructionist will always make the best, least-biased candidate because his/her imperative is to hew as closely to the word of the document, rather than to consider his/her first duty to bend, flex, expand or otherwise mutilate their meaning in order to "grow" fundamental rights.

Bullshit works well for nourishing plant life; it has no place in the judicial process.

Like I said different people view that word in different ways....not always the same way you do.
Given that the document isn't just one part there will always be disputes over not just the word but also which part has priority.

I want my Constitution non-denominational please.