The Conservative Principle

[El OchoCinco]

Thank God judges are given the power to INTERPRET the Constitution because Congress fucks it up all the time. So can the SC.

Because the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson interpreted the 14th amendment to support the bullshit "separate but equal doctrine" in 1896.

Took almost 60 years before the court realized their interpretation was flawed in Brown v. Board of Ed

This is not judges changing the Constitution, it is interpreting the meaning of the words and what the Supreme Court was designed to do. If we waited for States to amend the Constitution to specifically say you should not discriminate it would never happen.

Plenty of SC decisions in this same vain where judges where called upon to interpret the law. As Articel III states: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution...

 

[El OchoCinco]

As Chief Justice Marshall noted in McCulloch v. Maryland, a constitution that attempted to detail every aspect of its own application "would partake of the prolixity of a legal code, and could scarcely be embraced by the human mind. . . . Its nature, therefore, requires that only its great outlines should be marked, its important objects designated, and the minor ingredients which compose those objects be deduced from the nature of the objects themselves."

 

[El OchoCinco]

Chief Justice Marshall expressed the challenge which the Supreme Court faces in maintaining free government by noting: "We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding . . . intended to endure for ages to come, and consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs."

 

[Buy1Sell2]

This is how you get legal abortion to be put in The Constitution.----by having activist judges make changes to The Constitution themselves without going through The States.----The Founders never intended for The Scotus to have this kind of lawless ability.----Rather they intended for changes to The Constitution to be exceedingly difficult----

 

[El OchoCinco]

Please cite the Founder's intents because sitting in your mom's basement you seem to have all this inside knowledge and expertise. If I had to choose between you and people like Chief Justice Marshall and other great legal scholars and the role of the SCOTUS, I don't think your short yellow bus riding days qualify you.

You think "Activist judges", like those that decided Brown v Board of Education changed the Constitution. I know you wish we were back in the days of Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson but that is not going to happen.

Were those activist judges? Answer the question.

That is why your argument sounds mentally challenged. They interpreted the 14th amendment to apply to the case at hand which is what judges do, they did not AMEND or CHANGE the constitution. Article 3 gives them the power to decide Brown v. Board of Education and all the other cases.

Roe v. Wade is a case based on Due Process and Right to Privacy. The SC did not amend the Constitution, it interpreted the amendments with respect to this issue. None of you make any legal argument on basis of Due Process/Right to Privacy, you just whine about activist judges and religion.

Try and make a legal argument (you cannot based on many other posts).

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Thank God judges are given the power to INTERPRET the Constitution because Congress fucks it up all the time. So can the SC.

Because the Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson interpreted the 14th amendment to support the bullshit "separate but equal doctrine" in 1896.

In the first sentence you thank god that judges have the power to interpret the constitution.

Then in the second sentence you cite Plessy, confirming that the court if totally capable of making idiotic and disastrous decisions that boggle the human mind.Not exactly the most persuasive way for you to make your point.

You can argue that it proves or demonstrates that when the Court makes a disastrous decision that it has the power to self-correct at a later point. Fine, that is exactly the same point that is being made by those who oppose Roe v. Wade.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

Roe v. Wade is a case based on Due Process and Right to Privacy. .

There is no "right to privacy" explicitly stated in the Constitution. It is just a bullshit construction by activist judges. You can perhaps construct a right to privacy from the fourth amendment in regard to search and seizures, for home and personal intrusions. But to extrapolate that to a right to abortion, is activist bullshit.

 

[El OchoCinco]

In the first sentence you thank god that judges have the power to interpret the constitution.

Then in the second sentence you cite Plessy, confirming that the court if totally capable of making idiotic and disastrous decisions that boggle the human mind.Not exactly the most persuasive way for you to make your point.

You can argue that it proves or demonstrates that when the Court makes a disastrous decision that it has the power to self-correct at a later point. Fine, that is exactly the same point that is being made by those who oppose Roe v. Wade.

I don't argue in favor or against Roe v. Wade, just the point or claim that the judge amended the constitution or changed it because that is not what happened. Claiming activist judges changed the constitution is just political hyperbole and I think serves no purpose. Roe v. Wade is about due process and right to privacy

But to get to your other point, to say there is no right to privacy in the Constitution goes against 200 years of precedent and legislative intent behind the 4th amendment and also several other areas of limiting government intervention. This has been supported by both conservative and liberal judges going back many years. Right to privacy puts limits on what the government can regulate and control in your personal life balanced versus competing interests.

Due Process clause is not specific and the intent is for Congress to define it and let it be developed through jurisprudence. The Constitution is not a code of laws, so to claim "Hey it is not mentioned in there, so it is not a right or is covered" ignores common sense a bit and what many founders have stated.

 

[Buy1Sell2]

Yes that's right. Women should have a right to privacy when committing murder. ---abortion is a state issue, not a federal one----------activist judges amended The Constitution to allow murder.

 

[TreeFrogTrader]

I don't argue in favor or against Roe v. Wade, just the point or claim that the judge amended the constitution or changed it because that is not what happened. Claiming activist judges changed the constitution is just political hyperbole and I think serves no purpose. Roe v. Wade is about due process and right to privacy

But to get to your other point, to say there is no right to privacy in the Constitution goes against 200 years of precedent and legislative intent behind the 4th amendment and also several other areas of limiting government intervention. This has been supported by both conservative and liberal judges going back many years. Right to privacy puts limits on what the government can regulate and control in your personal life balanced versus competing interests.

Due Process clause is not specific and the intent is for Congress to define it and let it be developed through jurisprudence. The Constitution is not a code of laws, so to claim "Hey it is not mentioned in there, so it is not a right or is covered" ignores common sense a bit and what many founders have stated.

Roe v. Wade was decided 46 years ago. The various legal points on each side have been regurgitated ad nasuam, so I dont have much energy for re-runs.

In the end, it is the composition of the court that prevails as much or more than the strength of the legal arguments since there is arguably merit on both sides. Cases that reach the Supreme Court tend to be like that, eh?

In addition, it is not a binary all or none issue, ie. where Roe is either settled law or subject to be overturned. Even some who accept that or believe that it is settled law do not necessarily believe that all the various add-ons or restrictions in various states are fundamental rights beyond the scope of state action.

You can argue that all of the various constructed arguments around the fourth amendment search and seizure can somehow be cobbled into the right to abortion, and in fact that has been done. At the same time, no one in their right frigging mind would believe that the Framers thought the fourth amendment covers the right to abortion. As Justice Cardozo said, paraphrase, "you can expand any principle beyond the extremities of its logic." So is there is that.

As I have said, it is probably, more important at this point that Ruthie takes her Noni Juice than to try to advance lib arguments. There has already been some change in the court (although both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are moderates not conservatives) and if Ruthie leaves that will create another change, depending on which party is in power at the time.

I dont see Roe being flat out overturned, but neither do I see the states being left without any power to set limits against some of the crazier developments, infanticide being one of them. Last I knew, I baby born alive was a U.S citizen under the constitution, regardless of what the mother wanted and may need to have guardian appointed to protect.