AOC Sounds the Alarm in Wake of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s Death: ‘November’s About Survival’

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Judges are human; they will have opinions, but I think that their job is to rule according to the criteria I listed above. (ETA: as Goresuch said during his nomination questioning)

I just happen to believe that a constructivist justice would have to rule in favor of not killing the unborn in the right case with the right arguments. An activist justice would rule in accordance with his own personal opinions.
 
Last edited:
Annie said:
I just happen to believe that a constructivist justice would have to rule in favor of not killing the unborn in the right case with the right arguments. An activist justice would rule in accordance with his own personal opinions.
Click to expand...
There is no Constitutional interpretation theory named “activist”. That’s a pejorative. And, interestingly, I’m not sure how you arrive at a textualist ruling against Roe.

I don’t know you, so I’m not trying to insult when I include this link on modes/theories of Constitutional interpretation. It’s from the Congressional Research Service.

 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
Jon, you do realize this is an opinion?
Click to expand...
I don’t consider it such. Should a judge interpret statutes about criminal law, changing its meaning to suit a political point of view?
Should contracts be “living And evolving”?
I think Walter E. Williams puts it very well here;

 
JonNC said:
That’s been the progressive approach for a century.
Click to expand...
And, yet, there seems to be a test for the next Justice to rule a specific way, based on their views. That isn’t activism? Don’t you see the irony?
 
We are talking about States making this decision.

And anyway, it’s a whole lot more, it’s funding Planned Parenthood, it’s funding abortion overseas, it’s all kinds of things. Having laws like China and North Dakota versus France and Germany who, in the case of France, do not allow abortions after 12 weeks, with Germany, the woman has to talk to a counselor and there is a waiting period.

Our laws seem barbaric in comparison, we couldn’t even get a bill stopping abortions after 20 weeks.

So, definitely, it all goes beyond Roe V. Wade, reversing would just return it to the states. What do I care if Oklahoma has it severely or totally restricted?

And plenty of scholars say, no, Roe V. Wade is not constitutional. This won’t be settled easy.

Breaking, I am hearing Ted Cruz is saying, they have the votes for a SCOTUS nominee to be confirmed.

Take away all the partisanship going on, in the history of this country, this is a rather exciting time.
 
Last edited:
I do not see anything out of the ordinary with AOC and the Democrats over Supreme Court nomination. This is what politicians do. What I do not like is the inflammatory language used by them. In this case, AOC says it is about survival. Why? Who will die? What will this court pick have to do with me getting food in the table? That is fear mongering. However that is what Politicians DO.
 
Victoria33 said:
One may criticize the source but I’ve heard others say this is so as well.
Click to expand...
Once again, I believe abortion is wrong.

This is arguing that after the quickening, or the baby starts moving, that abortion should be a crime. How does that bring you to all abortions are illegal? I mean, these are are same people who thought a Black person were worth 3/5 of a person.
JonNC said:
Sure. They were specific about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Click to expand...
For whom? Not enslaved people. Not women.
 
Last edited:
Declaration of Independence but, “all men are created equal”. Anway, it’s all history that can be researched.

Things were different back then and I’m talking about other things as well in the justice system. This is not the place to expound on it.
 
PaulinVA said:
For whom? Not enslaved people. Not women.
Click to expand...
If one looks at the way the constitution was set up, the ability to fix those problems Are snd were in place.
Certainly going backward on the right to life, as Roe does, would be unacceptable on women or blacks.
 
Last edited:
PaulinVA said:
And, interestingly, I’m not sure how you arrive at a textualist ruling against Roe.
Click to expand...
I’m confused as to how one is arrived at in favour of Roe. Clearly, the framers did not have in mind to permit parents to kill their offspring prior to birth. That could have been simply stated.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
I’m confused as to how one is arrived at in favour of Roe. Clearly, the framers did not have in mind to permit parents to kill their offspring prior to birth.
Click to expand...
Not sure why you say that. They didn’t let women vote and thought Blacks were only 3/5 of a person.

But, someone posted on one of the many active threads here about the Court that the founders considered it a crime to kill/abort a child after the “quickening”, which is around five months.

Not sure how that fits in.
 
Rau said:
Because to grant such a right (to kill one’s offspring) can be expressed unambiguously so simply. Look at the contrivances required in the Roe decision.
Click to expand...
I was referring to this statement:
Rau said:
Clearly, the framers did not have in mind to permit parents to kill their offspring prior to birth.
Click to expand...
Apparently they believed it was ok until the woman felt the baby move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top