D
distracted
Guest
In Dred Scott, the supreme court used the judicial restraint “methodology” to make their decision… saying, basically, that the court could not go against what the original authors of the Constitution intended… They said [Taney…that], basically, changing times and attitudes were not an excuse to go against the Constitution.
Yet 100 yrs later, they went against this “logic”… and the court definitely violated the judicial restraint “logic” with Roe v Wade…
Alan Dershowitz (don’t agree w/ him on everything but…) makes this interesting point: "Contemporary judicial nomines [to the Supreme court] who glibly recite the… [formula of original intent] should read the [Dred Scott decision] and be asked whether they would have joined the majority decision in [that case] - and if not, why not? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of how honest “originalists” could have wiggled their way out of the majority conclusiion…
"or how they could [100 yrs later] have agreed with [the Court’s interpretion of the “equal protection clause” as forbidding… ‘separate but equal’ public school…
I bring this up because it seems that the S. Ct. can use virtually any excuse it wants to rule the way it desires… and so, i think that abortion will probably always be legal…
(If it is still legal after all this time… what hope is there??).
Do you know of any recent cases coming before the Supreme Court concerning abortion…? because it seems there should have been one by now (they need one to rule on so as to possibly lead to an over-turning of R v Wade)… :hypno:
uch:
Yet 100 yrs later, they went against this “logic”… and the court definitely violated the judicial restraint “logic” with Roe v Wade…
Alan Dershowitz (don’t agree w/ him on everything but…) makes this interesting point: "Contemporary judicial nomines [to the Supreme court] who glibly recite the… [formula of original intent] should read the [Dred Scott decision] and be asked whether they would have joined the majority decision in [that case] - and if not, why not? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of how honest “originalists” could have wiggled their way out of the majority conclusiion…
"or how they could [100 yrs later] have agreed with [the Court’s interpretion of the “equal protection clause” as forbidding… ‘separate but equal’ public school
I bring this up because it seems that the S. Ct. can use virtually any excuse it wants to rule the way it desires… and so, i think that abortion will probably always be legal…
(If it is still legal after all this time… what hope is there??).Do you know of any recent cases coming before the Supreme Court concerning abortion…? because it seems there should have been one by now (they need one to rule on so as to possibly lead to an over-turning of R v Wade)… :hypno:
uch: