Jump to content

DRAGONMOUNT

A WHEEL OF TIME COMMUNITY
Nolder

Kavenough

Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, CUBAREY said:

Alabama, Georgia, etc would prohibit abortions of Fetus after a heartbeat is detected.

https://www.livescience.com/44899-stages-of-pregnancy.html

6 weeks it's still an Embryo. It doesn't become a Fetus until 8 weeks, Hence the laws not being based on Science or Facts but emotion and religion. :wink:

 

4 hours ago, Nolder said:

6 – Does it make it a felony for women, or just the abortion provider?

Just the provider.

There is definitely confusion and misinformation (on both sides) going around.
There's also a significant amount of anti-choice laws being enacted in various states with different penalties for different people with different levels of severity, which can get pretty hard to keep straight which state does what, and then you combine it with misinformation on both sides and that leads to a "what the hell is happening? What's even true anymore?"

 

But as I said.

On 5/15/2019 at 2:58 PM, SinisterDeath said:

The coming months are sure going to be interesting.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes a lot of misinformation. I myself was confused about something until I read the article I  linked.

 

Re: fetus vs embryo

Does it really matter what you call it in the context of the conversation around abortion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Nolder said:

Yes a lot of misinformation. I myself was confused about something until I read the article I  linked.

 

Re: fetus vs embryo

Does it really matter what you call it in the context of the conversation around abortion?

It does when the legal language uses the word scientific word Fetus, when science states it's an embryo.

If they had referred to it as a less scientific word like baby, it leaves itself with less room for attack on technicalities.

It's like a Liberal calling an AR-15 a Machine Gun.

No. Just No.

Edited by SinisterDeath

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but if we were literally talking about a ban on all guns it wouldn't matter if you called something a machine gun, assault weapon, an assault rifle or a one eyed purple people killer. You want it banned regardless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nolder said:

Yeah but if we were literally talking about a ban on all guns it wouldn't matter if you called something a machine gun, assault weapon, an assault rifle or a one eyed purple people killer. You want it banned regardless.

In this regard, we have a Ban on Machine Guns. Assault Weapons and Rifles are still legal.

If we replace Abortions with Guns.

Conservatives want to ban all Guns. (All Abortions)

While Liberals want to keep only Machine guns Illegal in most cases. (Only non-medically required Late Term abortions are illegal.)

 

As an aside. Did your fact check site mention anything about states that would punish people for getting abortions in other states?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, SinisterDeath said:

In this regard, we have a Ban on Machine Guns. Assault Weapons and Rifles are still legal.

If we replace Abortions with Guns.

Conservatives want to ban all Guns. (All Abortions)

While Liberals want to keep only Machine guns Illegal in most cases. (Only non-medically required Late Term abortions are illegal.)

 

As an aside. Did your fact check site mention anything about states that would punish people for getting abortions in other states?

Yes it did.

 

Quote

4 – Would Alabama women be arrested under this law if they procured an abortion in another state?

No. As written, the law makes the activities of abortion physician illegal. The state of Alabama would not have jurisdiction of what takes places in other states.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Nolder said:

Yes it did.

Thanks. 

Are you aware of any site that has compiled a list (with sources) of what each state is actually doing in plain-English as well as the exact wording used in legalese? 

Side Note: Apparently Legalese isn't actually slang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2019 at 8:55 PM, SinisterDeath said:

In this regard, we have a Ban on Machine Guns. Assault Weapons and Rifles are still legal.

If we replace Abortions with Guns.

Conservatives want to ban all Guns. (All Abortions)

While Liberals want to keep only Machine guns Illegal in most cases. (Only non-medically required Late Term abortions are illegal.)

 

As an aside. Did your fact check site mention anything about states that would punish people for getting abortions in other states?

Nope if you change Guns for abortion, the Conserv atives want to ban all Guns and the Liberals want to make all firearms including nuclear weapons legal for individuals t0 use.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2019 at 8:43 AM, SinisterDeath said:

Thanks. 

Are you aware of any site that has compiled a list (with sources) of what each state is actually doing in plain-English as well as the exact wording used in legalese? 

Side Note: Apparently Legalese isn't actually slang.

https://www.axios.com/abortion-restriction-states-passed-laws-8326c9aa-6631-4bd1-b02b-c6ba6cd0a335.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/26/2019 at 3:34 PM, CUBAREY said:

Nope if you change Guns for abortion, the Conserv atives want to ban all Guns and the Liberals want to make all firearms including nuclear weapons legal for individuals t0 use.

 

Seems like a mischaracterization of the stance common to many Americans (a majority by most polls) that Roe v. Wade should stand as is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me like when you're up against both stare decisis and public opinion it might be prudent to slow your roll.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WWWwombat said:

 

Seems like a mischaracterization of the stance common to many Americans (a majority by most polls) that Roe v. Wade should stand as is.

The same polls also would limit abortion rights far beyond wish the pro-abortion lobby would have it. Further, Pubc opinion in Alabama is far different from that in New York.  overturning Roe v. Wade would only allow those differences in public opinion to be actuated. Further the legal concept opf stre decisis is a rather complicated one (and does not mean that a ruling cannot be overturned otherwise Brown v. Board of Education and the Civil Rights cases would not have been possible).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, and originalists are less likely to care about precedent, but it seems to me that this Chief Justice cares a lot about legacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 1:09 AM, WWWwombat said:

True, and originalists are less likely to care about precedent, but it seems to me that this Chief Justice cares a lot about legacy.

?

 

First he is one of nine votes. Second he is clearly on the conservative side of things. His only major defection was in the Obamacare case which his vote has most accurately been described as akin to "A Switch in Time" vote that headed off a major confrontation between the three branches of government.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/30/2019 at 1:09 AM, WWWwombat said:

True, and originalists are less likely to care about precedent, but it seems to me that this Chief Justice cares a lot about legacy.

Also you are wrong both factually and philosophically about Originalists caring less about precedent.  In ctuality orginalists tend to take precedent much more seriously then "progressive" Justices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/2/2019 at 10:22 PM, CUBAREY said:

Also you are wrong both factually and philosophically about Originalists caring less about precedent.  In ctuality orginalists tend to take precedent much more seriously then "progressive" Justices.

 

"Stare decisis is not part of my originalist philosophy; it is a pragmatic exception to it." -Antonin Scalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

The quote you cited is out of context and purposely used by his critics to wrongly argue for his disregard for the doctrine. 

 

A More accurate view of his and other Originalists  view of the doctrine  can be discerned from the following Essay http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NDL502-Barrett.pdf

 

Before addressing the tension between originalism and stare decisis, it is important to emphasize that precedent itself is not only consistent with, but critical to, originalism. Most discussions of originalism’s relationship to precedent focus on prior Supreme Court opinions. Yet one cannot paint a complete picture of Justice Scalia’s attitude toward precedent without addressing his treatment of nonjudicial precedent. In an important sense, originalism can be understood as a quintessentially precedent-based theory, albeit one that does not look primarily to judicial decisions as its guide. recanted this statement insofar as it indicated his willingness to hold laws unconstitutional simply because they were unpalatable. See MARCIA COYLE, THE ROBERTS COURT: THE STRUGGLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION 165 (2013) (reporting a 2011 interview in which Justice Scalia “recanted” being a “faint-hearted” originalist and asserted that, contrary to his 1989 statement, he would uphold a state law imposing a punishment like “notching of ears” because “it’s a stupid idea but it’s not unconstitutional”).

 

He never recanted it, however, insofar as it reflected his pragmatic approach to stare decisis. 2 ANTONIN SCALIA, A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION: FEDERAL COURTS AND THE LAW 140 (Amy Gutmann ed., 1997). \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\92-5\NDL502.txt unknown Seq: 3 5-JUL-17 15:26 2017] originalism and stare decisis 1923 Originalists maintain that the decisions of prior generations, cast in ratified text, are controlling until lawfully changed. The contours of those decisions are typically discerned by historical sources. For example, the meaning of the original Constitution may be gleaned from sources like the Constitutional Convention, the ratification debates, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, actions of the early Congresses and Presidents, and early opinions of the federal courts. Originalism thus places a premium on precedent, and to the extent that originalists reject the possibility of deviating from historicallysettled meaning, one could say that their view of precedent is particularly strong, not weak as their critics often contend. Moreover, Justice Scalia framed some of his most vociferous disagreements with Supreme Court precedent as a defense of a competing form of precedent: the history and traditions of the American people. For example, he characterized the standards of scrutiny as “essential” to determining whether laws violated the Equal Protection Clause but insisted that these standards “cannot supersede—and indeed ought to be crafted so as to reflect— those constant and unbroken national traditions that embody the people’s understanding of ambiguous constitutional texts.”3 When it came to the Free Speech Clause, the Justice said that he would “take my guidance as to what the Constitution forbids, with regard to a text as indeterminate as the First Amendment’s preservation of ‘the freedom of speech,’ and where the core offense of suppressing particular political ideas is not at issue, from the long accepted practices of the American people.”4 Dissenting from the Court’s holding that the Establishment Clause prohibits prayer at commencement ceremonies, Justice Scalia argued that “the Court . . . lays waste a tradition that is as old as public school graduation ceremonies themselves, and that is a component of an even more longstanding American tradition of nonsectarian prayer to God at public celebrations generally.”5 And while Justice Scalia would not have interpreted the Due Process Clause to have a substantive component, he did not insist upon cleaning the slate altogether. Instead, he argued that any substantive content should be determined by history and tradition rather than by modern attitudes.6 It was what many conceived of as wrong-headed and excessive devotion to this form of precedent—a devotion that made change difficult—that marked the fault line between Justice Scalia and those who take an evolutionary approach to constitutional interpretation. 3 United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515, 568 (1996) (Scalia, J., dissenting); see also id. at 568–69 (arguing that when a practice is not contradicted by constitutional text and is supported by “a long tradition of open, widespread, and unchallenged use that dates back to the beginning of the Republic, we have no proper basis for striking it down” (quoting Rutan v. Republican Party of Ill., 497 U.S. 62, 95 (1990) (Scalia, J., dissenting))). 4 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 517 (1996) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). 5 Lee v. Weisman, 505 U.S. 577, 631–32 (1992) (Scalia, J., dissenting). 6 See infra notes 63–69 and accompanying text. \\jciprod01\productn\N\NDL\92-5\NDL502.txt unknown Seq: 4 5-JUL-17 15:26 1924 notre dame law review [vol. 92:5 Thus originalism does not breed contempt for precedent—quite the opposite.

 

 

 

That said, originalism prioritizes what we might think of as the original precedent: the contemporaneously expressed understanding of ratified text. When new interpretations deviate from the old, and those deviations become entrenched, this comparatively new precedent and a commitment to the old can be in real tension.7 Originalism rests on two basic claims.8 First, the meaning of constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification.9 Second, the original meaning of the text controls because “it and it alone is law.”10 Nonoriginalists consider the text’s historical meaning to be a relevant factor in interpreting the Constitution, but other factors, like value-based judgments, might overcome it. Originalists, by contrast, treat the original meaning as a relatively hard constraint. Justice Scalia and his contemporaries did not pull originalism from thin air in the 1980s. On the contrary, Keith Whittington explains that [a]s a method of constitutional interpretation in the United States, originalism has a long history. It has been prominently advocated from the very first debates over constitutional meaning. At various points in American history, originalism was not a terribly self-conscious theory of constitutional interpretation, in part because it was largely unchallenged as an important component of any viable approach to understanding constitutional meaning. Originalism, in its modern, self-conscious form, emerged only after traditional approaches had been challenged and, to some degree, displaced.11"

http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/NDL502-Barrett.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Stay Connected

    Facebook Twitter Instagram Mail RSS
  • DRM FREE EBOOKS Store | Info
×
×
  • Create New...