R
rlg94086
Guest
:yawn:
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, EmperorNapoleon,
You made several mistakes in just two sentences…
As was previously mentioned he had not decided a case before he heard it. Now, if you know of one - please back up your statement.
Brillance is in the eye of the beholder. This Supreme was addressing principles - like democracy - and that taking issues away from democratic decisions is not only unconstitutional, it has nothing to do with how or why our country was established.
Finally, no judge is answerable to the Bar Association for decisions they have honestly made on a point of law. Every judge is to know the law to begin with - that would be one of those pesky principles - and then they are to judge the case without not only without evil, but not even the appearance of evil.
Would your comment be an example of an agnostic statement? My understanding of agnosticism is that nothing can be known for certain. Is this accurate.? If so, then things like principles of how an issue is addressed, and that judicial deceisions must be based on known principles, essentially have no real value because they can not be known. I’d appreciate your insights into this.
God bless
You made several mistakes in just two sentences…
As was previously mentioned he had not decided a case before he heard it. Now, if you know of one - please back up your statement.
Brillance is in the eye of the beholder. This Supreme was addressing principles - like democracy - and that taking issues away from democratic decisions is not only unconstitutional, it has nothing to do with how or why our country was established.
Finally, no judge is answerable to the Bar Association for decisions they have honestly made on a point of law. Every judge is to know the law to begin with - that would be one of those pesky principles - and then they are to judge the case without not only without evil, but not even the appearance of evil.
Would your comment be an example of an agnostic statement? My understanding of agnosticism is that nothing can be known for certain. Is this accurate.? If so, then things like principles of how an issue is addressed, and that judicial deceisions must be based on known principles, essentially have no real value because they can not be known. I’d appreciate your insights into this.
God bless
E
Ender
Guest
You really should give a little more thought to your argument before you condemn someone for improper behavior. I think even you might admit that a judge could surely publicly discuss opinions he has already rendered on cases that have come before him. Since Scalia has been involved in numerous death penalty cases - and has written numerous opinions about them - he is surely justified in publicly commenting on that class of jurisprudence and the opinions he wrote that are public documents.The mandatory imposition of death — without sentencing discretion — for a crime which States have traditionally punished with death cannot possibly violate the Eighth Amendment, because it will not be “cruel” (neither absolutely nor for the particular crime) and it will not be “unusual” (Walton v. Arizona, 1990 - concurring opinion)
Disliking Scalia is no justification for slandering him.
Ender
T
Trader
Guest
Yes, I did. If you sing in a cathedral chior for 28 years, you get to meet a lot of people. Last week we sang for 11 bishops and Cardinal George.
I was really lucky that I did not meet Justice Scalia as a defendant appealing a death sentence.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
So what I see him say is, Roe V Wade was right when he says that there is nothing in the Constitution which would put restrictions on Abortion.
He’s not saying the state or voters should decide, because if abortion were banned in a state, it would end up back before the Supreme Court and by Scalia’s assessment, would be found unconstitutional.
The Constitution defines what the Government can not do to us.
Jim
He’s not saying the state or voters should decide, because if abortion were banned in a state, it would end up back before the Supreme Court and by Scalia’s assessment, would be found unconstitutional.
The Constitution defines what the Government can not do to us.
Jim
T
Trader
Guest
You must have read his statement backward and upside down. He is saying that there is nothing in the Constitution that says the federal government can ban states from passing laws against abortion. Murder is a state crime. The federal government cannot forbid states from passing laws against murder. Roe v Wade invented new law that was found nowhere in the Constitution.
B
BroomWagon
Guest
Good post. Almost all Constitutional Scholars, even unbiased leftists often see Roe v Wade as not being in the Constitution.
Besides we fought a Civil War based somewhat on the nonbinding Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal” and guess what, Martin Luther King used the Declaration of Independence, Abraham Lincoln used the Declaration of Independence. I guess Massachusetts must not use it.
This goes back to to the legislation Rand Paul wants to pass per the personhood bill, Rand Paul, Ron’s son of course, says if he can get it passed, 14th amendment protections from the Constitution kick in.
It is heinous or blind that people would think Roe v. Wade is constitutional, they are saying the unborn have no rights. Unbelievable, Wow, just wow.
B
BroomWagon
Guest
So you are saying things like Partial Birth Abortion that Ted Kennedy and Russ Fiengold were proponents of are constitutionally okay? Wow, just wow!
M
mary_bobo
Guest
Bingo!!
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Trader,
This is the part I find most difficult. The Declaration of Indepedence (1776) states up front “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. The Constitution went into effect in 1789 - or 13 years before there was a Constitution our Founding Fathers declared that there was a Right to life.
Those who voted for Roe totally voided out not only democratic principles but the lives of millions of future Americans! Roe should be overturned because it was not only poorly decided but has consistently been upheld causing more death. But, I think there is precedent for the Federal Governement actually protecting unborn life (quite different from what our current President believes) - and this would be based on the Declaration of Independence. Terminating the lives of unborn citizens simply because they are inconvenient - in the most ghastly manner imaginabel - torn apart in their mother’s wombs - should not be a state right - unless the state can prove this unborn citizen is guilty of a capital crime. Inconvienience does not qualify.
I think Scalia is wrong on this issue.
God bless
This is the part I find most difficult. The Declaration of Indepedence (1776) states up front “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. The Constitution went into effect in 1789 - or 13 years before there was a Constitution our Founding Fathers declared that there was a Right to life.
Those who voted for Roe totally voided out not only democratic principles but the lives of millions of future Americans! Roe should be overturned because it was not only poorly decided but has consistently been upheld causing more death. But, I think there is precedent for the Federal Governement actually protecting unborn life (quite different from what our current President believes) - and this would be based on the Declaration of Independence. Terminating the lives of unborn citizens simply because they are inconvenient - in the most ghastly manner imaginabel - torn apart in their mother’s wombs - should not be a state right - unless the state can prove this unborn citizen is guilty of a capital crime. Inconvienience does not qualify.
I think Scalia is wrong on this issue.
God bless
D
Dawnia
Guest
Exactly! He is very, very outspoken against Roe v Wade. In his discent in Lawrence…he took the court to task over the “right to privacy” & Roe v Wade. He believes it is a made up right.
E
Ender
Guest
Not exactly. He is making no statement at all on what should be done; he is commenting on what the Constitution in fact did, which was to leave these decisions to the states. You can’t infer anything about what he personally feels should have been done. I think this point is regularly lost by people who want him to forbid abortion because it is (unarguably) a great evil. He is not ruling on whether it is evil but on what the Constitution does or does not permit. Regardless of whether it is evil, if the Constitution allows it he must rule that it is allowed. He doesn’t get to replace what is in the Constitution with what he thinks should have been in it.
Ender
R
rlg94086
Guest
Well stated.
D
Dawnia
Guest
From an interview Scalia did just last month.
reuters.com/article/2012/09/18/us-usa-court-scalia-idUSBRE88H06X20120918
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
B
BroomWagon
Guest
It would seem implied.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
He says there’s nothing in the Constitution about abortion.
Therefore, under the protection of the US Constitution, which all Americans live by, can not prohibit women from obtaining abortions if that’s what they desire.
The state can not pass laws that are unconstitutional. If the Constitution doesn’t give the state the power to do it, they don’t have it, even at the state level.
This is the way I’m understanding Scalia’s words and it’s not my support for abortion by any means.
Jim
R
rlg94086
Guest
Your error is bolded above. The Constitution neither bans nor permits abortion. Banning abortion is not unconstitutional and allowing abortion is not unconstitutional. That is what Scalia is saying. The states are free to legislate the issue. Ditto on the death penalty.
Now, if the Constitution were amended, that would be a different matter.
T
Trader
Guest
I am, by the grace of God, not a lawyer. I am not competent to argue law with a Supreme Court Justice. I was just trying to understand and explain what Justice Scalia said.
As to whether states should protect human beings from conception to natural death, all Catholics and others of good will with connected brain cells should be able to agree that there is a natural right to life that comes from the Creator. No government should act in ways that are contrary to natural law. Roe v Wade forbade states to prohibit something that is gravely evil. It was morally wrong and, many scholars think, legally wrong under our Constitution. I am confident that you, I, and Mr Scalia understand that abortion is intrinsicly evil.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
The Constitution Limits the power of government.
Therefore, if the Constitution doesn’t give the government the power to ban abortions, then they can’t.
Scalia says the Federal Government can not ban it, because abortion isn’t mentioned in the Constitution.
It’s the opinion of people in this thread, this means that the states can ban it, which they did.
However, if Roe V Wade were to be overturned, it would go back to the states. And the first state to ban abortion, would once again be challenged and it would be brought back to the SCOTUS and because the government has not been given the power to ban abortion, the state law would probably be overturned once again.
Again, it will all come back to the right of privacy.
Now, an amendment to define a fetus as a human being with protection under the Constitution, then abortion can and should be banned.
But don’t hold your breath waiting for such a Constitutional Amendment on this point.
Jim
- Status