The Supreme Court broke new ground yesterday in upholding federal restrictions on abortion, with President Bush's two appointees joining a court majority that said Congress was exercising its license to "promote respect for life, including the life of the unborn."[...]
The majority opinion, she [Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg] told a stone-silent courtroom, "cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a right declared again and again by this court -- and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women's lives."
[...]
Activists on both sides of the issue predicted that the decision will encourage antiabortion state legislatures to pass laws not only adding new restrictions but looking to challenge Roe itself. (emphasis provided)
To me, it's a sad day for women. Your thoughts?
The four judges I mentioned seem almost programmed.
Nor do I like judges who are 100% "liberal" (whatever that means). I guess William O. Douglas was someone I'd put in that category. I liked the outcome of many of his decisions, and sometimes he wrote very interesting decisions, and I liked what I knew of his personal stances (he was pro-environment when not a lot of people were paying attention). But I think he marginalized himself by being so outcome oriented.
If I were on trial, I'd want a judge like Souter deciding my fate. I think he listens, thinks, and searches for truth.
or Delegate Bob Marshall
http://www.richmonds...
given the environment and chance!
Good thing these old guys are "protecting" us, isn't it?
Caution: shameless plug: I blogged it here.
I've seen a few men react this way just talking about Hillary.
It would be worth it to have Hillary (or a Nancy Pelosi) be President just to see the panic among the codgers. (Well, for other reasons, too.)
Of course some men from the younger generation are like this.
My personal belief -- a lot of this male fear behavior stems from fear in the bedroom, or is at least consistent with it.
If the justices are saying the legislature passed a valid law, then I don't have a big problem with the decision. The place to decide issues such as this is at the ballot box, not at the combined Ivy League Law Alumni Society and Alzheimer's Denial Committee that is also known as the Supreme Court of the United States.
Roberts and Scalia went to Harvard, Clarence Thomas and Alito to Yale.
I do think those law schools are overrated (I'm not kidding).
However, the whole purpose of an independent judiciary was to ensure that the Constitution was sacrosanct. Otherwise, legislatures could pass laws that said things like -- put all people of this type in jail (pick a nationality or religion or what have you); or, it's okay to burn down x and y denominations of churches; or, people who say things we don't like get put away; and other heinous ideas.
The judiciary in our federal system is a co-equal branch. That's our system. The Supremes' opinions by and large stand the test of time, and they are a bulwark against the popular fancy taking over. They're supposed to stand up to unconstitutional use of power -- they did to FDR and many other presidents.
If you do not have a constitution that is enforced by a judiciary, then you have no rule of law, but just a series of whims based on nothing. Dictatorship would be right around the corner -- "Hey, we'll disenfranchise all voters who are from X Party. Then we'll be legislators for life."
The Patriot Act is just one well-known example of a law that is poorly written, politically motivated, and passed under circumstances that do not allow careful consideration. Moreover, it provides a perfect example of the majority using law to run roughshod over a minority. Do you want legislators passing laws to forcibly take away rights of a minority? Isn't that exactly why we need limits, and courts willing to enforce them?
I remember reading of a lethal disease in some males of Scandinavian descent, in about 17% of this population. It can be cured with tissue donations from a white male with similar DNA. No "pro-life" groups are talking about getting these white men to donate so much as a single cell to save a life. Certainly no one is talking about laws to make this happen. Also, no one is talking about requiring blood donations under any circumstances, even though it is a minor intrusion over a few minutes and certainly saves lives. If we weren't talking about women here, well, we wouldn't even be talking.
What does it mean? It means that if it had not been for the incorporation doctrine, your First Amendment rights, for example, would only apply against federal prosecution. Or your right to a trial by jury.
This incorporation effort started in about 1925 and picked up steam through the 1960s. Many of these Supreme Courts were filled with what now would be regarded as crusty old conservatives. There are still people who bitch about the doctrine. But it was the right thing to do legally and morally.
And it was the Supreme Court that made sure our essential liberties were not lost in a legal loophole. Because you just know that certain states have a rather regressive tendency and would be only too happy to curtail the rights of some of its citizens.
There's a summary (sort of choppily written) in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia....
Making medical decisions? yes.
Do I want legislators passing laws abased on political posturing. no.
Do you have any citations for your last paragraph?
I feel very comfortable in having the legislature making laws on the issues I've mentioned. Americans can throw the bums out if they don't like the laws. That's the best way to handle it. If I were a judge, I would simply concur with any decision by the legislature made on these issues.