Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Which one are you?

YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 2:10:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A reasonable person who understands that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and therefore that abortion is a meaningless political issue that is only used to lure Catholics into the Republican party?

or

An unreasonable person who believes that a president's, or any politician's position on abortion actually matters, despite the fact that the president cannot legislate or overturn the Supreme Court?
Tsar of DDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 2:19:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'd like to see honest candidates who just straight up tell people that their opinions don't matter on this issue, instead of all of them freely voicing their opinion on these policies they have no influence over.
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 2:44:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 2:10:32 PM, YYW wrote:
A reasonable person who understands that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and therefore that abortion is a meaningless political issue that is only used to lure Catholics into the Republican party?

or

An unreasonable person who believes that a president's, or any politician's position on abortion actually matters, despite the fact that the president cannot legislate or overturn the Supreme Court?

As stupid as the abortion debate is, one could make the same argument for mention of Citizens United, or any other contested ruling of the court. In legal terms the court has the final word, but in historical terms it absolutely doesn't. The decision could always be overturned by a new bench or if public opinion mobilizes in near consensus against it there could be an amendment process, or more realistically, brazen legislative defiance of the ruling.

SCOTUS does not so much defy the will of the public as it does push forward positions that already massive traction in many if not the majority of states. This is a self-preservative practice for a body that can't enforce it's own decisions.

So really no issue is over just because SCOTUS has delivered a ruling.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 2:48:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
^^^ the above applies mainly for big social issues like racial integration, abortion, and gay marriage, since the public can relatively easily form opinions on them. Not so much on complex issues regarding the economy, tax, state sovereignty etc. ... where the public is probably ambivalent or entirely ignorant of what's at issue.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 3:27:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 2:10:32 PM, YYW wrote:
A reasonable person who understands that Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, and therefore that abortion is a meaningless political issue that is only used to lure Catholics into the Republican party?

or

An unreasonable person who believes that a president's, or any politician's position on abortion actually matters, despite the fact that the president cannot legislate or overturn the Supreme Court?

Well, I sure agree that the president can't make law, or overturn a SCOTUS ruling. They CAN set national priorities etc. and have the best bully pulpit. What I would LIKE any candidate mention is, even though the country is roughly split (slight advantage to pro-choice) when asked about what the people WANT it starts to change. Support for overturning Row is LOW. 53%=Keep 29%=Overturn 18%=No opinion. Legal under any = 52% limited =28% outlaw=18%. Now, that is a much clearer understanding of the will of the people to KEEP a law as-is.
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 3:30:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Further... The republicans have been promising this chestnut for 40+ years, and all they accomplish is make the industry worse. Know how righties listening? REGULATION!

The way the pro-life causes have accomplished anything is through federal and state regulation designed (admittedly) to interfere with practices. Good old small government, right?
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 3:33:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
And thank YYW for posting this over the tragically flawed and irrelevant nomenclature thread.
YYW
Posts: 36,391
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 3:45:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 3:33:32 PM, TBR wrote:
And thank YYW for posting this over the tragically flawed and irrelevant nomenclature thread.

But of course.

There are really three ways to overturn the Supreme Court, listed in order of difficulty: (1) constitutional amendment, (2) explicit overrule, and (3) implicit overrule.

The latter two occur only with new judicial appointments.

So, to the extent that public outcry translates into a presidential candidate who wins and thereafter appoints someone who has certain political views which he writes into law (I feel like a judicial realist even writing this, and that's dirty), there you go... (at least to Ike's point).

With further regard to Ike's point, the main difference between abortion (the right to which stems from the right to medical privacy) and Citizens United (which really just struck down a congressional regulation), is that congress can pass new regulations which they likely will whenever Democrats regain control of the house and the senate. Those new regulations will change the electoral landscape, and that's just going to be that.

The irony is that Kennedy is at once the best and worst judge on the bench. He wrote Ogberfell, and Citizens United. But for the vast public support for the former, it would be in great jeopardy. The absence of public support for the latter, being what it is, means that other judges and justices are likely to make a mess of Citizens in the future, with the total intent of muddying the water.

The reason is because the nuances of campaign finance law are incredibly complex, and far more sophisticated than the niceties of medical privacy law. Granted, there is a fair argument to be made that the right to an abortion is little more than a judicial invention (if, however, you are a textualist and read the constitution as a ceiling rather than a floor... which is stupid, for many reasons, in the context of civil liberties... we can talk more about that later). But there is a more reasonable argument that due to the different constitutional principals involved, and the nature of how those principals play out in society; the former is materially distinct from the latter, even if both obviously implicate constitutional law issues.

So, the impact there is that it's fair and reasonable to expect mass outcry to have more of an effect on campaign finance reform (not a civil liberties issue) than abortion (a civil rights issue), because of the differences in their legal nature; not to mention the jurisprudential complexity of both.
Tsar of DDO
TBR
Posts: 9,991
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 4:05:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
A funny little note - There are NO cases that could come before the SCOTUS to overturn Row (anytime soon) but there are a slew of restrictions that COULD come up in the next several years. So, regardless of who you put on the bench, you will not get your pony - pro-lifers. What you will get is draconian laws that have made abortion a mess in some areas and have done NOTHING to lower the numbers of total procedures. Good work pro-life!
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2015 5:52:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/30/2015 2:44:55 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/30/2015 2:10:32 PM, YYW wrote:
As stupid as the abortion debate is, one could make the same argument for mention of Citizens United, or any other contested ruling of the court. In legal terms the court has the final word, but in historical terms it absolutely doesn't. The decision could always be overturned by a new bench or if public opinion mobilizes in near consensus against it there could be an amendment process, or more realistically, brazen legislative defiance of the ruling.

The difference being that the majority of Americans don't believe money has a place in political processes, and the only a small minority support outright banning abortion.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King