I'm Touring The United States! Starting in June, I'm conducting private events in 23 American cities. Click here for full details.

Post Reply 
Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
Author Message
Hypno Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,388
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #26
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
ms224, you are confusing two different things.

As for abortion, what is likely to happen is some states will add restrictions on abortions. For example, parental notice, or you have to be 18. These limitations have been held to purchase a firearm, which is a fundamental right in the Bill of Rights, so its hard to imagine the current court not upholding these limits on invisible rights.
10-08-2018 06:36 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Hypno's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel
kosko Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,795
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 146
Post: #27
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
^^^ so privacy and invisible rights are not the same and not viewed the same in the Constitution? The issue was that the court originally conflated the two during the ruling of RvW? What is superceded? Aside from declared rights?

Also, why hasn't this been taken up as an official amendment? Wouldn't a line about the freedom over your (adult ) self be enough to encompass abortion (devil's advocate)? Or is it purely just on States having an interest to the protection of its citizens?

That is a lot I am putting out there for discussion but I'd like to keep the debate and conversation going in this thread.
(This post was last modified: 10-08-2018 08:39 AM by kosko.)
10-08-2018 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like kosko's post:
Handsome Creepy Eel, spokepoker
Hypno Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,388
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #28
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
If a right is fundamental, the government has a high burden to justify infringing that right. It need s a compelling interest. If it's not a fundamental right then the government has a very low standard, it needs to show merely a rational basis.

Griswold and Roe basically day that abortion, contraception are fundamental rights even though not enumeratd in the Constitution.

As far as amending the Constitution that is possible but requires approval by 38 states. So very difficult
10-08-2018 09:06 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Hypno's post:
Kid Twist, Handsome Creepy Eel, kosko, Enigma
Cr33pin Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 7,520
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 184
Post: #29
Rainbow RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much



Bruising cervix since 96
#TeamBeard
09-06-2019 02:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 4 users Like Cr33pin's post:
RoastBeefCurtains4Me, Renzy, BBinger, spokepoker
budoslavic Offline
Crow
*****
Gold Member

Posts: 5,015
Joined: Aug 2015
Reputation: 28
Post: #30
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much

09-17-2019 06:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 2 users Like budoslavic's post:
spokepoker, Renzy
Hypno Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,388
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #31
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
(10-08-2018 08:38 AM)kosko Wrote:  ^^^ so privacy and invisible rights are not the same and not viewed the same in the Constitution? The issue was that the court originally conflated the two during the ruling of RvW? What is superceded? Aside from declared rights?

This question deserves a better response.

Under Constitutional law, there are two basic questions. First, did the government have the power to enact the law, and second, is there a limit on that power. Limits on that power are what we call rights. A right is a limit on government power. That is why when one says you have a right to free speech, its only a check on government power; you can't go running your mouth at work without repurcussions.

Now, not all rights are the same. If a right is considered a fundamental right, the court will apply strict scrutiny to a law. In contrast, if its not a fundamental right, then the government only need to have a rational basis for passing the law that impairs your rights. The two tests are very different standards - one is very hard to pass and the other is very easy, so the whole game is whether something is a fundamental right.

Traditionally fundamental rights were limited to those rights in the Bill of Rights and amendments like the 14th Amendment (due process). Griswold and Roe changed all that. The court said that there are rights implied in the overlap (quoting the court . . . in the penubras (shadows) and emanations (light)) between the First Amendment (free speech, religion, right to assemble and petition the government) and the Fifth Amendment (freedom from self incrimination). So 5 or 6 justices equated the right to condoms and abortions with the right to free speech, religion, and to bear arms.

There was an interesting opportunity to reverse this in the early 90s. Pro Life protesters were outside an abortion clinic. The abortionists sued and the pro lifers defended citing their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court said they were interfering with womens ability to have an abortion, and equated or held higher an implied fundamental right (abortion) with express fundamental rights (First Amendment). Kennedy, a Republican appointee, was the swing vote. A wolf in sheeps clothing.

Today we have Roberts, who is another kennedy, but also Kavanaugh. When RBG passes, Trump may have a third conservative appointee.

The point is that the left's agenda was built on sand (equating implied rights with fundamental rights) and the left knows it. That is why they threw everything at Kavanaugh and continue to do so. And if there is another vacancy before the election, its going to make the Kavanaugh hearing look tame in comparison.
09-18-2019 04:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 3 users Like Hypno's post:
spokepoker, kosko, Enigma
Barron Offline
Ostrich
****
Gold Member

Posts: 1,792
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation: 46
Post: #32
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
When a woman has an abortion, two abominations take place:

The ending of a human life
The maiming of a women's soul

The first happens all the time.
The second is never talked about and is far more destructive to society (which is why it's ignored).

Women know they're committing an irreversibly evil act when they have an abortion, I guess the only way for many of them to live with themselves is to drag other women down by encouraging and celebrating it.

Anyway, none of this matters. Kavanaugh and RvW represent an existential field of battle which this war for man's soul is being fought. Whether we win or lose, the outcome will determine the fate of man's soul for generations to come.

two scoops
two genders
two terms
09-18-2019 04:55 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
kosko Offline
Peacock
******
Gold Member

Posts: 6,795
Joined: Sep 2011
Reputation: 146
Post: #33
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
(09-18-2019 04:41 AM)Hypno Wrote:  
(10-08-2018 08:38 AM)kosko Wrote:  ^^^ so privacy and invisible rights are not the same and not viewed the same in the Constitution? The issue was that the court originally conflated the two during the ruling of RvW? What is superceded? Aside from declared rights?

This question deserves a better response.

Under Constitutional law, there are two basic questions. First, did the government have the power to enact the law, and second, is there a limit on that power. Limits on that power are what we call rights. A right is a limit on government power. That is why when one says you have a right to free speech, its only a check on government power; you can't go running your mouth at work without repurcussions.

Now, not all rights are the same. If a right is considered a fundamental right, the court will apply strict scrutiny to a law. In contrast, if its not a fundamental right, then the government only need to have a rational basis for passing the law that impairs your rights. The two tests are very different standards - one is very hard to pass and the other is very easy, so the whole game is whether something is a fundamental right.

Traditionally fundamental rights were limited to those rights in the Bill of Rights and amendments like the 14th Amendment (due process). Griswold and Roe changed all that. The court said that there are rights implied in the overlap (quoting the court . . . in the penubras (shadows) and emanations (light)) between the First Amendment (free speech, religion, right to assemble and petition the government) and the Fifth Amendment (freedom from self incrimination). So 5 or 6 justices equated the right to condoms and abortions with the right to free speech, religion, and to bear arms.

There was an interesting opportunity to reverse this in the early 90s. Pro Life protesters were outside an abortion clinic. The abortionists sued and the pro lifers defended citing their First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court said they were interfering with womens ability to have an abortion, and equated or held higher an implied fundamental right (abortion) with express fundamental rights (First Amendment). Kennedy, a Republican appointee, was the swing vote. A wolf in sheeps clothing.

Today we have Roberts, who is another kennedy, but also Kavanaugh. When RBG passes, Trump may have a third conservative appointee.

The point is that the left's agenda was built on sand (equating implied rights with fundamental rights) and the left knows it. That is why they threw everything at Kavanaugh and continue to do so. And if there is another vacancy before the election, its going to make the Kavanaugh hearing look tame in comparison.

This was great! Thanks!

Your explanation provides a great foundation to argue or critical asesse any "legal experts" who claim the abortion debate as settled law because as you have stated it is indeed far from settled as it was ruled incorrectly from the start. It would be interesting to hear further how and why the Courts became delisional in the misinterpretation of Fundamental Rights v. Non Fundamental Rights.

It would then appear there is no easy way out. The SCOTUS acting as spineless hacks have set up an unnecessary (figurative) bloodbath because thier flimsy ruling will eventually have to be readresssd as the ruling shouldn't be held as precedent. It has become a wrench in the legal structure of the United States that has large impacts for cases that have followed and will follow.

If and when RvW is repealed would the natural next step be for individual States to craft laws or would the Federal Government push for an Amendment?

It would appear that the left would have to do the difficult work of going through the channels to properly put forward a workable Amendment that the proper radio of States would accept. In 2019 you would think this is doable or do they honestly believe it would fail?

My view is that lawmakers have become spineless and lazy. The difficult task of having the discussion about abortion would then have to introduce the topics of liberty and life which are held as high Fundamental Rights. This also must explain about why so much noise and choas surrounds the Government when it attempts to define 'what life is' during the stem cell regulations debate of recent past. In my opinion, once life is created that human has its own destiny to pursue liberty and that shouldn't be blocked. The blocking of this should constitute a criminal act.

Women attempt to play the game that thier rights superceded the baby when the in reality both have equal standings (they should unless I in correct in my assessment).
09-18-2019 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes kosko's post:
spokepoker
Hypno Offline
Hummingbird
*****

Posts: 3,388
Joined: Dec 2016
Reputation: 33
Post: #34
RE: Roe v. Wade and why Kavanaugh matters so much
Roe involved a Texas law that made it a crime for a doctor to perform an abortion. His prosecution was suspended because of his Constitutional challenge. ((technically the pregnant woman sued but that’s a tangent).

Roe just made it unconstitutional to enforce those laws. Some of them are still on the books and more could be added. Each state would be different.
09-18-2019 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[-] The following 1 user Likes Hypno's post:
BBinger
Post Reply 


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  Dwyane Wade is as BETA dweeb as they make 'em rhino 105 45,876 04-11-2019 08:46 AM
Last Post: JayMillz
  Why Is Brandon Wade Betabuxing Some 4/10 Markcrist 27 3,862 02-10-2019 04:01 AM
Last Post: Kona
  "Why Beauty Matters" by Roger Scruton Aurini 15 10,592 01-22-2019 06:39 AM
Last Post: 66Scorpio

Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

Contact Us | RooshV.com | Return to Top | Return to Content | Mobile Version | RSS Syndication