Jump to content

Reason why voters need to consider potential Supreme Court appointees...


Recommended Posts

when casting their ballot for President of the United States in November.

 

Based on Hearsay's recommendation, I checked out the 9 Inside the secret world of the Supreme Court by Jeffrey Tobin.

 

GREAT, GREAT Book. One of the best I have read recently. Covered basically the Supreme Court major decisions over the past 25 years.

 

And the first few chapters covering abortion was extremely interesting to me.

 

It seems that at one point, this country was on the verge of having Roe v Wade overturned. (Despite the numerous claims of many on here that it will never be overturned. And this shows the path of getting this horrible stain off of our country.)

 

Here is some of the points from the book...

 

2 kinds of cases for the Supreme Court, abortion cases and all other cases. Abortion was and remains the central legal issue before the court.

 

In the early 90's, the SC took up the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern PA v. Gov Robert P Casey. Before it got to the Supreme Court, an appeals court upheld the law with Samuel Alito serving as the 3rd judge on a 3-judge team. (Same Alito that is now serving on the SC as an appointee of Bush, Jr.)

 

This case as presented to the SC, would give THIS SC a chance to overturn R v W. David Souter though wanted the tone of the question from the lawyer changed so that they could rule on specifics of the case and NOT overturning R v W.

 

After the lawyers presented their case and at the SC's conference, 7 justices (REhnquist, White, O'Conner, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, and Thomas) wanted to uphold most of the PA restrictions on abortion. Only Stevens and Blackmun wanted to strike them down.

 

Rehnquist, White, Scalia and Thomas wanted to overrule R v Wade.

O'Conner, Kennedy and Souter were not ready to go that far but did want to uphold some of the PA restrictions.

Rehnquist took the assignment of writing the opinion that would allow states almost a free hand in regulating abortion. R v Wade would in a practical manner be overturned.

 

Then Souter went to O'Conner's office and they with Kennedy began backroom dealings to go their own route with a decision that would include Blackmun and Stevens and keep R v W as the law of the land.

 

O'Conner's view of the law in SC decision is said in the book to go with whatever the public is wanting and she seemed to think it was wanting to keep R v W. Rather than what the law might say, she would go with public opinion.

 

Unaware of what was going on behind the scenes, the chief justice continued to draft what he expected based on the conference meetings to be a majority opinion. A month after the argument, he circulated a memo that stated, "The Court was mistaken in Roe when it classified a woman's decision to terminate her pregnancy as a fundamental right."

 

The troika (Souter, OConner, Kennedy) as they are referred to in the book presented their secret collaboration. Tobin says Rehnquist took it with equanimity. (Not sure what that is) but Scalia did not. He is an orginalists that takes what the Founding Fathers meant as literal.

 

Where some of the others prefer to view the Constitution through their eyes and what they think the Constitution should mean and not the Founding Fathers. This is referred to in the book as a "living Constitution." The troika believed in a living Constitution.

 

It seems that this country was so very close to getting rid of R v W, if one of two things were to happen, 1) one vote different. ONE PERSON'S vote would have been the difference; 2) The secret meeting would have been revealed and the Chief Justice of one of the others could have held sway over O'Conner as Souter and Kennedy had over her.

 

 

 

So, in essence, SC appointees and how they determine our society for the next 10-25-50-100 years might be the MOST IMPORTANT aspect when making our decision in November.

 

One candidate may put more money in our pockets for a short term, but which candidate is going to appoint SC justices that are going to define our culture for the next century?

 

If Reagan and Bush I were a little more conscience in making their SC appointee, R v W would already be overturned.

 

With Bush II's appointees, (Roberts for Rehnquist is a wash, but Alito (upheld Casey decision while OConner overturned it) is an improvement over OConner) we could see a R v W overturn at some point and time in our near future.

 

But electing a President who will appoint justices that are prochoice will only result in this country continuing to kill 3500 or more unborn babies EVERY SINGLE DAY.

 

I hardly ever do this in a debate on abortion but I will bring in Scripture at this point.

 

It says that at the end of times, we all will be judged for our actions. I told my parents once when that time comes, I don't think God will care one iota that I supported a political candidate that put more money in my pocket, who was going to lower gas prices for me, who was going to tax the wealthy.

 

But I do think God may have some concern if I am supporting a candidate who thinks it is acceptable in this country to kill unborn children.

 

If there is a God and he has told us that before we were even IN THE WOMB, he knew us, than it makes sense that he would be outraged by the US thinking it is acceptable to kill unborn children, regardless on whether we think they are babies or a glob of tissues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 89
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I am glad that someone read my recommendation.

 

Toobin is a bit to the left but I think he was dead-on with the description of the backdoor deal in Casey. Casey is still an important decision, one that Roberts referred to repeatedly in his confirmation hearings as providing the process for reviewing and overturning stare decisis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am glad that someone read my recommendation.

 

Toobin is a bit to the left but I think he was dead-on with the description of the backdoor deal in Casey. Casey is still an important decision, one that Roberts referred to repeatedly in his confirmation hearings as providing the process for reviewing and overturning stare decisis.

 

I liked how Tobin made the point that Souter rails on stare decisis on the cases he thinks should be upheld but overlooks that point on cases that he feels should be overturned.

 

Spent time in Bardstown while the kids were swimming to finish it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I liked how Tobin made the point that Souter rails on stare decisis on the cases he thinks should be upheld but overlooks that point on cases that he feels should be overturned.

 

Spent time in Bardstown while the kids were swimming to finish it.

 

Hope you had a good time. Wish I could have been there to treat you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hope you had a good time. Wish I could have been there to treat you.

 

Great time.

Met Jim Shue, which was good meeting my former nemesis.:lol:

He hooked us up with Stephen Foster tickets.

My daughter played well and improved her score by 23 strokes from last season.

We had a great family time.

Hopefully, you are not out of town when we go back next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer Roe V. Wade stay the way it is. Either that or the old coat hanger will make an appearance back in the household.

 

Allow women safe, and private abortions.

 

Ofcourse my avatar screams my stance.

 

How about responsibility making a way back to this society? And quit taking their baby's life when becoming pregnant is an inconvenience to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would prefer Roe V. Wade stay the way it is. Either that or the old coat hanger will make an appearance back in the household.

 

Allow women safe, and private abortions.

 

Ofcourse my avatar screams my stance.

 

How about responsibility making a way back to this society? And quit taking their baby's life when becoming pregnant is an inconvenience to them.

 

LBBC, your desire for responsibility to make a comeback is laudable but its a waste of breath and to be honest has nothing to do with this issue. I'm sure you would agree that if EVERY person in the US was responsible morally and sexually (however you define that) except for one, while we could call ourselves "responsible" as a whole we still have that one we need to deal with. So, the one we label "irresponsible" now wants to abort the child. She does this after Roe is overturned. She's irresponsible anyway so she goes ahead and does it.

 

What do we do with her? Has she committed a crime? At what level is this crime? What's a fair punishment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LBBC, your desire for responsibility to make a comeback is laudable but its a waste of breath and to be honest has nothing to do with this issue. I'm sure you would agree that if EVERY person in the US was responsible morally and sexually (however you define that) except for one, while we could call ourselves "responsible" as a whole we still have that one we need to deal with. So, the one we label "irresponsible" now wants to abort the child. She does this after Roe is overturned. She's irresponsible anyway so she goes ahead and does it.

 

What do we do with her? Has she committed a crime? At what level is this crime? What's a fair punishment?

 

Yes.

Homicide.

Jail time.

 

If you use the old she-was-socially-irresonsible-we-shouldn't-punish-her argument, then you should also not incarcerate drug addicts or DUI-homicides. The argument is the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LBBC, your desire for responsibility to make a comeback is laudable but its a waste of breath and to be honest has nothing to do with this issue. I'm sure you would agree that if EVERY person in the US was responsible morally and sexually (however you define that) except for one, while we could call ourselves "responsible" as a whole we still have that one we need to deal with. So, the one we label "irresponsible" now wants to abort the child. She does this after Roe is overturned. She's irresponsible anyway so she goes ahead and does it.

 

What do we do with her? Has she committed a crime? At what level is this crime? What's a fair punishment?

 

As a male, if I commit a purposeful action that leads to the death of an unborn child, I am charged with murder of that unborn child.

 

If the most innocent of innocent cannot be protected in this country, we are not the country we claim to be.

 

I have a real problem where this mindset can lead.

 

A family gets testing and don't like that their child will be born with a mental disorder, so they simply abort them.

A family has 3 boys and wants a girl and they find out the unborn child is a boy, so they continue with abortions till they get a girl.

A person simply does not want to be a parent, so they continue to kill unborn children as a method of birth control.

Wife gets mad at her husband for something and to punish him, she aborts their unborn child.

 

And our society would look at these situations and say this is acceptable in our country.

 

Wow! I am not sure we are the proud and great country that we claim to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think back to the line in For a Few Good Men. After they were declared guilty of conduct unbecoming, the one white guy demanded to know what they did wrong. The other guy said it was their job to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And that they did not do that.

 

We don't either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think back to the line in For a Few Good Men. After they were declared guilty of conduct unbecoming, the one white guy demanded to know what they did wrong. The other guy said it was their job to protect those who cannot protect themselves. And that they did not do that.

 

We don't either.

 

I don't put a collection of cells that rely on a parasitic relationship with a host to survive, on the same level as a functioning human being. Once the fetus leaves the womb and is born, then It gets the rights.

 

Why not put a limit on abortions, so that some of the scenarios listed above could be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not everyone wants to live in the same Christian/Pro-life world that you live in LBBC. I like my world free, with women free to do with their body as they wish.

 

So women should be able to do drugs as they please???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.