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.
PaulinVA said:
Court that the founders considered it a crime to kill/abort a child after the “quickening”, which is around five months.
Click to expand...
PaulinVA said:
Apparently they believed it was ok until the woman felt the baby move.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about the FFs, but throughout Catholic history, abortion has been unequivocally condemned.

The issue of quickening has, in my reading, always come up in connection with what to charge someone else who causes a miscarriage. It could not be definitely known at that time that a woman was pregnant until the time of quickening, since other factors can cause a cessation of menses, so if someone did something which caused something which seemed like a miscarriage, they would not be charged with it unless it was known for sure that the woman so injured had been pregnant.
 
Sounds as though you could not spot anything on that topic either. That’s my point. It ain’t there.
 
Regular_Atheist . . .
Aren’t you a strong advocate of doing the same but with “conservative ideology”?
Click to expand...
Who are you talking to and what do you mean? (What “the same” are you talking about?? You didn’t put any quotes up so “the same” is too nebulous to consider answering.)
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Sounds as though you could not spot anything on that topic either. That’s my point. It ain’t there.
Click to expand...
I didn’t look, but, whatever.

So, if the Constitution is silent on that point, whatever is a textualist to do?
 
PaulinVA said:
There are multiple ways to interpret the Constitution. There is no objective Truth as to the “right” way. There are just opinions.
Click to expand...
Which is why I find it fascinating there isn’t much talk from Americans using the legislative branch where the representatives of voters debate and vote on which interpretation to use. It just seems like everyone in America wants to get their version of a dictatorship into power.
It’s very elitist in the “land of the free” to have 9 unelected individuals deciding on important issues that affect so many. Yes, tyranny of the majority and so on if the legislative branch has more power. But at least ordinary people get some say in the decision making process.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
Which is why I find it fascinating there isn’t much talk from Americans using the legislative branch where the representatives of voters debate and vote on which interpretation to use. It just seems like everyone in America wants to get their version of a dictatorship into power.
It’s very elitist in the “land of the free” to have 9 unelected individuals deciding on important issues that affect so many. Yes, tyranny of the majority and so on if the legislative branch has more power. But at least ordinary people get some say in the decision making process.
Click to expand...
I don’t have a problem with a bench of top legal minds resolving complicated legal and constitutional matters.

But when matters come to light where there is real uncertainty as to whether the Constitution even addresses the matter, and this needs to be resolved, it would be desirable for the people to directly resolve the matter via a referendum to agree (or not) an amendment. I realize that is not the American system and while amendments are possible they are difficult to handle.
 
Not all Blacks were slaves. Not all slaves were Blacks. The 3/5 clause was not about race.
 
Rau said:
I don’t have a problem with a bench of top legal minds resolving complicated legal and constitutional matters.
Click to expand...
Complicated matters should be handled by experts but there is a problem because judges don’t represent voters.
If only there was a branch of government that represents voters and let these representatives debate and negotiate. Oh, that’s the legislative branch.
Rau said:
But when matters come to light where there is real uncertainty as to whether the Constitution even addresses the matter, and this needs to be resolved, it would be desirable for the people to directly resolve the matter via a referendum to agree (or not) an amendment. I realize that is not the American system and while amendments are possible they are difficult to handle.
Click to expand...
Referendums aren’t required to amend constitutions in a number of countries too (like in my country :canada:). Referendum or not, at least people get to debate the interpretations where courts don’t legislate. Nine* unelected people imposing their own interpretations with no consultations with the public onto an entire country looks like authoritarianism.

*It might be 11 if some get their way. Why stop at that? Why not 435 SCOTUS judges? At least that seems more honest about what the American Supreme Court is: a completely unelected parallel legislature more powerful than the actual legislature.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
Nine* unelected people imposing their own interpretations with no consultations with the public onto an entire country looks like authoritarianism.
Click to expand...
Courts do this all the time. We don’t bat an eyelid most of the time because they deliver reasoned interpretations or applications of law that don’t stretch credulity.
ATraveller said:
Complicated matters should be handled by experts but there is a problem because judges don’t represent voters.
Click to expand...
When judges stick to their knitting, their job is to apply the law (or the Constitution) not to represent anybody. Judges may stray (some call it activism) when the law is inadequately clear. That’s when legislator’s need to legislate or the people (or whatever process applies) need to fix their Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Rau said:
Courts do this all the time. We don’t bat an eyelid most of the time because they deliver reasoned interpretations or applications of law that don’t stretch credulity.
Click to expand...
They also happen to be narrow decisions that don’t alter an entire nation to the point culture wars are fuelled by them.
Rau said:
When judges stick to their knitting, their job is to apply the law (or the Constitution) not to represent anybody. Judges may stray (some call it activism) when the law is inadequately clear. That’s when legislator’s need to legislate or the people (or whatever process applies) need to fix their Constitution.
Click to expand...
And judges shouldn’t be representing voters. I’m not arguing for elected judges. Far from it. Not every position should be elected. However, these judges impose their own interpretations on subjective and vague lines onto everyone else. And their rulings are pretty much permanent because even adding a mere clarification to their Constitution is nearly impossible. That’s problematic. This is why the elections have little to do with the president or congress but the supreme court.
There is something very perverse about lawsuits fundamentally changing a nation (for better or worse) rather than through the legislature.
 
Last edited:
ATraveller said:
There is something very perverse about lawsuits fundamentally changing a nation (for better or worse) rather than through the legislature.
Click to expand...
Yes, which is why we need judges who will stick to interpreting the law rather than creating it.
It’s generally acknowledged that Roe v Wade was bad law, since they said we don’t know when life begins, so we’ll allow abortion anyway. Once society figures that out, they can change the law.

We’ve known when life begins for decades, but nothing has changed.
 
This is a new one. Slaves were overwhelming of African heritage. “Slavery wasn’t about race” is not one I have heard before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top