Mickey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 I am so sick and tired of that red herring which I have long argued is a meaningless catch phrase that is simply shorthand, an appealing little "jingle" used more as propaganda than any serious statement of legal philosophy. Not everyone has the time to immerse themselves in the nuance and extensive history of consitutional law. That makes it pretty easy to kick out that kind of tripe and have it sound pretty reasonable and attractive to people who have barely enough time to get the kids to school let alone ponder the impact of Schmeeemow vs. Obscuro. I certainly don't want to enter into a debate about abortion itself, the positons of the most frequent posters here are pretty well entrenched so there would be little gained in such a debate. Instead, I would like to hear what people have to say about this "legislating from the bench" glop. As dismissive of it as I am, I recognize and respect that some may see it as not only legit but actually right on target. I am willing to be convinced that I am wrong on this as long as you can manage to state your position without personal insults or regurgitating whatever you read at Conservomatic.com or www.Libs-r-us. To start it off, this idea of "legislating from the bench" is pretty closely tied with the idea of original intent, ie, a court that goes too far beyond what is in the Constitution by reading too much into it, has gone beyond the original intent of the founders and in so doing, is "legislating from the bench". I think that is a pretty accurate statement of the objection by so many on the right that Judges are re-writing the constituiton by expanding it beyond any reasonable interpretation of it. How does that concern jell with the anti-abortion arguement based on the idea that the unborn have rights, that the unborn are persons and that terminating a pregnancy is therefore murder? I am not aware of any proof at all that the Constitution extended rights to the unborn or that the framers ever meant its protections to extend to the unborn, that the unborn were persons. You may disagree that such proof exists and if so, please link to that proof but before you do, tell us what your position would be assuming in fact that there were no such proof as well as your position assuming there is proof that the unborn were covered by the constitution as part of the original intent of the framers. You see, if your position is the same either way then there really is no need to challenge your position on the proof or lack of proof regarding the unborn and original intent. If your position would in fact change, then it might be worth exporing the arguments or proofs that the framers intended the rights embodied in the constitution to extend to the unborn. That seems to be at the core of many anti-aboriton arguments, that the fetus is a person. My sense is that a strict originalist however, would have to stretch pretty far to find a concern about the rights of the unborn on the part of the framers. My belief is that most anti-abortion opponents are against it because they feel in their heart and their bones that it is simply as wrong as wrong could be and it really doesn't matter to them what the law has to say about it. If the law says its legal, the law is wrong and should be changed and if, in fact, an accurate interpretation of the law leads to the conclusion that it should be illegal then fine, lets correct the decisional law that holds to the contrary. If that is the case then really, the whole legislating from the bench thing is meaningless in the context of abortion. Its opponents are against it regardless. Pro-choicers don't use the "legislating from the bench" thing as a justification for their position so that is why I am not bothering to look at their use of the phrase. Occasionally I do hear it from the left but more as an argument they accept solely to turn it around on the pro-lifers since they put so much store in it. This is obviously as controversial a hot-button issue as there is so if we could try to be as respectful of eachother's opinons as possible here we might be able to have a reasonable discussion. If you want to call someone a baby killer or a womb czar, start your own thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich in Ohio Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 wow is it possible for me to get those 3 minutes back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerjamhead Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Mick - there is no way in hell that I can get into a conversation with you in legalese, so I won't even waste your time while simultaneously embarrasing myself. My question to you however is that if there is no such entity as 'legislating from the bench', then how do you explain the behaviors of our lawmakers? They seem to be pretty worked up right now and it's much to do with abortion. A few examples: Statement Of Senator Barbara Boxer On The Nomination Of Judge John G. Roberts July 19, 2005 Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today issued the following statement regarding the President’s nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to replace Justice Sandra Day O’Connor on the United States Supreme Court: "Without prejudging the nominee, I do believe Judge Roberts’ record raises questions about his commitment to the right to privacy, protection of the environment, and other important issues. "With so many rights of the American people hanging in the balance, this Supreme Court nomination deserves a thorough and in-depth evaluation. "Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s replacement could take one of two paths: Judge Roberts could go down the same independent, non-ideological road as Justice O’Connor, or he could join with the right-wing block on the Court which has consistently expressed the belief that a woman’s right to choose isn’t guaranteed, nor is the federal government’s ability to protect workers, the environment, and a family-friendly workplace. "I look forward to the in-depth hearings by the Judiciary Committee and a further evaluation of this nominee." John Kerry's front page at senate.gov (I didn't know he had a spanish site until today. That's thinking ahead...) - “Americans deserve a Supreme Court that is fair, independent, ethical and served by justices committed to our constitutional freedoms rather than an ideological agenda. Justice O'Connor refused to use her position as a means to advance a political agenda. In replacing her, we must be confident Judge Roberts will do the same. “We know Judge Roberts is no Sandra Day O’Connor, and the White House has sent a clear signal. There are serious questions that must be answered involving Judge Roberts’ judicial philosophy as demonstrated over his short time on the appellate court. The Senate must learn whether he has clear consistent principles upholding Constitutional standards like civil rights, the right to privacy and Roe v. Wade. “The American people expect the Senate to fulfill its duty to conduct a thorough, independent review of any nominee, and I intend to do exactly that. I hope Judge Roberts and the White House are forthcoming about his qualifications, background and constitutional philosophy so the Senate can act with all the facts. There’s too much at stake to do anything less.” WASHINGTON, DC] – U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) today made the following statement regarding President Bush’s nomination of John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court: “The next Supreme Court justice will make decisions that will affect the lives of millions of Americans for years to come. Even if a Supreme Court nominee is honest and professionally competent, that person must also be committed to protecting the rights and liberties that are at the core of our democracy.” “The President had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts' name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process.” “Now the Judiciary Committee will begin its work. For my part, I will look for one thing -- will this nominee strive to protect the rights of all Americans or will he be a judicial activist with an ideological agenda rather than an independent judge with an open mind.” There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this will be the centerpiece issue during this confirmation. I haven't had time to read JGR's opinion where he stated that he felt Roe Vs. Wade was decided wrongly, but maybe that would be a better topic to discuss rather than our forefathers' intentions for the unborn. I mean crap, they didn't even anticipate the extension of these rights to blacks... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Ah, abortion. Perhaps the most pressing problem we face and the single biggest reason our society is failing. Go politicians and the lemmings who buy their crap! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Mick - there is no way in hell that I can get into a conversation with you in legalese, so I won't even waste your time while simultaneously embarrasing myself. My question to you however is that if there is no such entity as 'legislating from the bench', then how do you explain the behaviors of our lawmakers? They seem to be pretty worked up right now and it's much to do with abortion. A few examples: There is no doubt in anyone's mind that this will be the centerpiece issue during this confirmation. I haven't had time to read JGR's opinion where he stated that he felt Roe Vs. Wade was decided wrongly, but maybe that would be a better topic to discuss rather than our forefathers' intentions for the unborn. I mean crap, they didn't even anticipate the extension of these rights to blacks... 387133[/snapback] Its because Boxer is a Democrat and Roberts is a Republican. JGR has also stated after the original statement that he would respect the Roe v Wade precedent and that he considers it part of our law. Ah, abortion. Perhaps the most pressing problem we face and the single biggest reason our society is failing. Go politicians and the lemmings who buy their crap! 387138[/snapback] Of course its not a huge problem, but it is a problem, and if a decision was changed it would effect millions of lives. You don't think a problem that effects millions is worth talking about? Oh yeah, you live in Alaska. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Ah, abortion. Perhaps the most pressing problem we face and the single biggest reason our society is failing. Go politicians and the lemmings who buy their crap! 387138[/snapback] I have a headache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Ah, abortion. Perhaps the most pressing problem we face and the single biggest reason our society is failing. Go politicians and the lemmings who buy their crap! 387138[/snapback] To AlQ we look like Nero with a fiddle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Its because Boxer is a Democrat and Roberts is a Republican. JGR has also stated after the original statement that he would respect the Roe v Wade precedent and that he considers it part of our law. Of course its not a huge problem, but it is a problem, and if a decision was changed it would effect millions of lives. You don't think a problem that effects millions is worth talking about? Oh yeah, you live in Alaska. 387151[/snapback] If they outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen. Whoopie. There are ALOT more pressing problems facing our society than Mary Jane Rotten Crotch and Freddie Joe Mouth Breather not being savvy enough to use the plethora of birth control choices available. But let's waste valuable coin and time worrying about such things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 FWIW, my opinion on abortion is that it should be kept legal only under these 2 circumstances: 1. The abortion takes place within the 1st trimester window - as determined by a doctor. 2. The abortion - also to be determined by a doctor - is necessary to save the woman's life. Does that seem fair to everyone? I don't frequent the PPP board that much, so I wouldn't know what everyone's individual opinions on this subject are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Does that seem fair to everyone? I don't frequent the PPP board that much, so I wouldn't know what everyone's individual opinions on this subject are. 387198[/snapback] All over the map. And frankly...it's an issue that's never going to be fair to everyone as long as the determination of when life begins remains entierly subjective. That's the biggest problem I have with the whole issue: it basically boils down to a bunch of people saying "I have the right to tell you what to do, because my definition of life is more valid." Yeah, sure, whatever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 My belief is that the founders believed and intended that the unborn is indeed a person, and has full rights. As long as it is a white sperm, and not an egg. An egg has no rights. A black sperm is only three-quarters of a person, and therefore, for some reason, has no rights. If you're a black egg, you're fukked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 So the Supreeme Court legislated abortions 30 years ago But now we don't want them to legislate. I see, as long as they are legislating to have things the way you want it is okay. But when it doesn't meet your goals and opinions it's not okay. Got it. Everyone knows my opinion on abortion, so I don't need to repeat it. But if the they overrule the previous legislated action from the bench I will be happy. I don't belive the constitution or an amendment gave the right to anybody to kill another person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoachChuckDickerson Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 FWIW, my opinion on abortion is that it should be kept legal only under these 2 circumstances: 1. The abortion takes place within the 1st trimester window - as determined by a doctor. 2. The abortion - also to be determined by a doctor - is necessary to save the woman's life. Does that seem fair to everyone? I don't frequent the PPP board that much, so I wouldn't know what everyone's individual opinions on this subject are. 387198[/snapback] Is this a 1 & 2, or 1 or 2 situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 If they outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen. Whoopie. There are ALOT more pressing problems facing our society than Mary Jane Rotten Crotch and Freddie Joe Mouth Breather not being savvy enough to use the plethora of birth control choices available. But let's waste valuable coin and time worrying about such things. 387179[/snapback] Amen...oops....I mean... I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 If they outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen. Whoopie. There are ALOT more pressing problems facing our society than Mary Jane Rotten Crotch and Freddie Joe Mouth Breather not being savvy enough to use the plethora of birth control choices available. But let's waste valuable coin and time worrying about such things. 387179[/snapback] But it's imperative that everyone agrees exactly as we do, we're just looking out for them, otherwise they have no chance to go to Heaven. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finknottle Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 My belief is that the founders believed and intended that the unborn is indeed a person, and has full rights. As long as it is a white sperm, and not an egg. An egg has no rights. A black sperm is only three-quarters of a person, and therefore, for some reason, has no rights. If you're a black egg, you're fukked. 387215[/snapback] I've never understood this obsession with what some dead guys thought or intended. Suppose they were here to share their thoughts - would people defer? Of course not - so why should we act as if their intentions have any currency as long as they are dead? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 If they outlaw abortion, it will continue to happen. Whoopie. There are ALOT more pressing problems facing our society than Mary Jane Rotten Crotch and Freddie Joe Mouth Breather not being savvy enough to use the plethora of birth control choices available. But let's waste valuable coin and time worrying about such things. 387179[/snapback] So do you favor "wast[ing] valuable coin" paying for the procedures? If it's money you're worried about, it would be cheaper to outlaw abortion -- from the government's standpoint -- not getting into the insurance angle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 So do you favor "wast[ing] valuable coin" paying for the procedures? Not public money - but I think the federal government should be downsized to about 10% of what it currently is. Obey the Constitution and all that. If it's money you're worried about, it would be cheaper to outlaw abortion -- from the government's standpoint -- not getting into the insurance angle 387332[/snapback] You mean like it's cheaper to outlaw drugs? Sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Not public money - but I think the federal government should be downsized to about 10% of what it currently is. Obey the Constitution and all that.You mean like it's cheaper to outlaw drugs? Sure. 387334[/snapback] I'm glad you know everything ... if I need to formulate my opinion or find out all the facts, I'll be sure to stop by ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Typical TBD Guy Posted July 21, 2005 Share Posted July 21, 2005 Is this a 1 & 2, or 1 or 2 situation? 387254[/snapback] It's a 1 OR 2 situation, i.e. an abortion should be allowed if it meets either of these two conditions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts