Lindsey Graham Says He Backs Trump in ‘Any Effort to Move Forward’ on RBG Vacancy

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
continued…

The Declaration of Independence closes with words less known — but no less aspirational — than those found in its opening: “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” Today, a growing number of Americans no longer espouse a “firm reliance” on “divine Providence.” And words like “Fortunes” and “Honor” may also be on the path to obsolescence.

Our lack of agreement about Providence, Fortunes, and Honor — to say nothing of Equality, Liberty, and Happiness — raises significant challenges for how we identify and prioritize our common interests and shared goals. Yet even though we may harbor deep disagreements over some of the fundamental language in the Declaration, so did the founding generation and so have most Americans throughout our country’s history.
 
I’m against abortion as much as anyone.

But the legal language is important. Roe v. Wade was based on an implied right to privacy for which there were previous decisions that set the precedent for this to happen. Griswold v Connecticut to name one of these; there are a few others that set the path that allowed for the Roe decision.

Today, assaults on our personal privacy are at an all-time high. Hence we need to be wary of a Supreme Court that could reverse the expansion of our privacy rights.

If Roe v. Wade is to be reversed, the legal reasoning used to do it is vitally important. It needs to be framed not as overturning the right to privacy on which the original decision was written, but as an exercise of our due process right to life and liberty under the 5th and 14th Amendments. That is the thread that a future Supreme Court needs to follow to do this correctly.

The danger of overturning our right to privacy is that this can open the door to more government interference in our lives. The government can, for instance, use the loss of privacy to compel the administration of vaccines to everyone without exception. After all, the Supreme Court has never overturned Buck v. Bell (1927) in which they ruled that a state statute that permitted the compulsory sterilization of the “unfit” for the “health and protection of the state” was not a violation of the 14th Amendment Due Process clause. If the Supreme Court now reverses our privacy rights, the precedent set by Buck v. Bell could very well be used to enforce mandatory vaccinations “for the health and protection of the state”.

In other words, the legal weeds are a tad more convoluted than they’ve been made out to be.

This isn’t an argument to not reverse Roe v. Wade. Rather, this is an argument for reversing it for the right reasons.

Hopefully anyone that Trump sends to the Senate understands what is at stake here.
 
Last edited:
Cathoholic said:
(name removed by moderator). You’re right.
Catholic would be wonderful!

One thing’s for sure. We DON’T need the religion of secular humanism.

Nor the morals of MOB RULE.
Click to expand...
What about freedom of religion and the best person for the job? Conservatives are highly inconsistent about applying these principles.

Admit it-- despite all the talk to the contrary, what you want is an activist judge who supports your views.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Nothing in the law is NOT based on a moral foundation that the lawmakers (or in some cases the founders) have.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Zoning and land use regulations have some basic moral foundation? I think not. Many people seem to ignore the pluralism in the US which must be observed. E pluribus unum. Many laws are designed for the optimal use of scarce resources.

We do not have tyranny of the majority in the US particularly as to our minority religions like Catholicism. The most naked recent discrimination as to religion was the ill-founded laws which prevented ‘sharia law’ from being imposed in the US. The imposition of such law was never an issue. What if states voted to make sure that canon law never became the prevailing law in a state?

All the conservative folks calling for the seating of a justice now are making various, defensive explanations for a process which I believe they know is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
What if states voted to make sure that canon law never became the prevailing law in a state?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure what Canon laws would apply to me in my daily (lay) life?
Nepperhan said:
All the conservative folks calling for the seating of a justice now are making various, defensive explanations for a process which I believe they know is wrong.
Click to expand...
How is the process wrong? And hypothetically, what do you think the democrats would do in a similar situation?
 
MikeInVA said:
I’m not sure what Canon laws would apply to me in my daily (lay) life?
Click to expand...
Easter duty and the Legion of Decency.
MikeInVA said:
How is the process wrong? And hypothetically, what do you think the democrats would do in a similar situation?
Click to expand...
Its wrong do to the recent stalling for 14 of Obama’s ability to name a justice. Years along people are going to mark this as one of the major issues causing the chronic, overweening and wasteful partisanship in the federal government.

How would Democrats act in a similar situation? Well, we have the example of LBJ. He said we must let the next president do it.
 
Last edited:
Ted Kennedy politicized SCOTUS. nominations with Robert Bork He was a very qualified candidate yet he was rejected outright by the Dems.
 
Last edited:
Jeanne_S said:
Ted Kennedy politicized SCOTUS. nominations with Robert Bork He was a very qualified candidate yet he was rejected outright by the Dems.
Click to expand...
Actually, no. Conservatives changed the paradigm with their actions as to the Fortas nomination. And Bork was more than a little off.
 
Nepperhan said:
Admit it-- despite all the talk to the contrary, what you want is an activist judge who supports your views.
Click to expand...
how do you define the guarantee by Biden to pick a pro-abortion judge? why single out one side?
Nepperhan said:
The most naked recent discrimination as to religion was the ill-founded laws which prevented ‘sharia law’ from being imposed in the US
Click to expand...
sharia law deals with more than religious issues.
Nepperhan said:
How would Democrats act in a similar situation?
Click to expand...
we know exactly what would happen, they would do the same thing trump is doing if they controlled both the presidency and senate. it was there standpoint until it came back to bite them, now both sides flipped.
 
upant said:
we know exactly what would happen, they would do the same thing trump is doing if they controlled both the presidency and senate.
Click to expand...
Easily said but disproven by history. You are mistaken.
 
Zzyzx_Road said:
But the legal language is important. Roe v. Wade was based on an implied right to privacy for which there were previous decisions that set the precedent for this to happen. Griswold v Connecticut to name one of these; there are a few others that set the path that allowed for the Roe decision.
Click to expand...
It was also based on Due Process.
Zzyzx_Road said:
If the Supreme Court now reverses our privacy rights, the precedent set by Buck v. Bell could very well be used to enforce mandatory vaccinations “for the health and protection of the state”.
Click to expand...
Which could just be the tip of the iceberg.
Zzyzx_Road said:
Hopefully anyone that Trump sends to the Senate understands what is at stake here.
Click to expand...
She may not understand what is at stake.

 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Admit it-- despite all the talk to the contrary, what you want is an activist judge who supports your views.
Click to expand...
No.
Wanting a judge that respects the law is not wanting an ‘activist’ judge.
It is the activist judge that rules based upon an ideology and not law. And that is what the proponents of the Roe decision have been for quite some time.
 
MikeInVA said:
I’m not sure what Canon laws would apply to me in my daily (lay) life?
Click to expand...
Anglo Saxon jurisprudence has two sources; the customary law of the Saxons who were promised by William the Conquerer to be governed by the laws in existence when King Edward was “both alive and dead”, (the basis for stare decisis) and Canon law.
 
vz71 said:
Wanting a judge that respects the law is not wanting an ‘activist’ judge.
It is the activist judge that rules based upon an ideology and not law. And that is what the proponents of the Roe decision have been for quite some time.
Click to expand...
Roe is settled precedent which has been tested by subsequent decisions. Overturning that case is activism, nothing else.
vz71 said:
So you think Mass attendance on Easter and a decent movie rating system is a bad thing?
Click to expand...
They are a bad things to be imposed on non-Catholics.
 
Last edited:
Nepperhan said:
Roe is settled precedent which has been tested by subsequent decisions. Overturning that case is activism, nothing else.
Click to expand...
nonsense, it is bad law, to begin with, no matter how many decisions tested it. it legalizes murder, how can people not see this? the baby is a separate entity and not subject to the mother’s privacy.
 
Nepperhan said:
Roe is settled precedent which has been tested by subsequent decisions. Overturning that case is activism, nothing else.
Click to expand...
It was bad law at the outset and no amount of time going by will make it good.

Judicial activism is keeping it.
Morality, science, the constitution, and natural law all show the decision to be ill advised.

It would be those judges that overturn it that will be keeping with the constitutional observation of the right to life.
 
Last edited:
JonNC said:
If it is about consistency, Trump should nominate.
Click to expand...
I agree Trump should nominate. If he wins the election and the Senate stays Republican, they should vote after the election.

If they lose, lame duck, they need to decide if it’s politically worth it to have a vote.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top