If the only thing RBG does between now and her eventual retirement and death is to stay there long enough to effectively prevent another Supreme Court vote on Abortion in my lifetime it'll be worth every other bad thing she's ever done, not because I like her (I absolutely don't), but because what's even worse than the RBGs of the world are religious zealots inserting themselves and laws they support into the lives of others - at the expense of individual liberty - particularly upon the millions those who don't share their beliefs.

Ardent atheists and those who are vehemently opposed to social conservatism (especially religious flavors), such as myself, only exist in a political sense because of the unrelenting efforts by those who seek to impose their will on others for religious reasons, such as in this case. All the talk of States Rights is largely a distraction and lip service, though certainly a fine idea if applied evenly and consistently, which it isn't and won't be anytime soon (see gay marriage, cannabis laws, etc). I wish I could sit back and not be active in such things, but the chellim1s of the world necessitate otherwise.

Which is doubly frustrating because the bulk of our beliefs are otherwise aligned, and because I am bored by and tired of this perpetual area of disagreement, and because we all ought to focus on other issues that are even more important, but I'll no more let a Catholic-led faction essentially take over aspects of our lives and bodies than I'll stand for some Islamic wacko inflicting their version of morality upon the rest of us either.

It's the socially conservative factions in America that drive crucial members of the Right and Middle toward the Left, more than all other factors. You're ruining it for everyone with your zealotry and unrelenting pursuit of your religious beliefs over personal liberty. The Pences, Sessions, chellims, etc, of the world must be constrained lest we lose our freedoms.

Ugh.

There is, of course, no personal animosity between myself and chellim, certainly none on my part, our battle - such that it is - is one of policy. I do and have enjoyed a great many of his posts and the conversations we've had. Hell, I wasn't even thinking of this crap at all until I read the last few pages of this thread and was reminded of how much the broader battle is very much ongoing in the minds of he and those who feel similar.

Thanks for the reminder, I guess.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
In my opinion, it was wrong for the Court to take the decision away from the States and their duly elected representatives.

The funny part is, the commies don't realize that even if Roe was overturned, it wouldn't make abortion illegal everywhere. Some states would certainly make it illegal while others wouldn't.

We live in a different world than that of the early 70s and before. Now, if a gal wants to head over to Washington, she hops in her car and in an hour or two she's there. Fifty-plus years ago, that wasn't quite so easy.

Roe v. Wade is a completely unnecessary and unconstitutional ruling IMO and I'll go to my grave a happy man when it is overturned.

quote:

Thanks for the reminder, I guess.

You're welcome, I guess.

quote:

The Pences, Sessions, chellims, etc, of the world must be constrained lest we lose our freedoms.
Ugh.

Well, I think the Pelosis, Reids, Schumers, Obamas, and all of the other commies are far more dangerous to our freedoms than those who recognize and support the founding fathers vision of strong States and a limited national government.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
In my opinion, it was wrong for the Court to take the decision away from the States and their duly elected representatives.

I stand by my belief in federalism. I think this was a better country before everything was nationalized ie. before the Federal Reserve Act, the 16th and 17th Amendments, all of which occurred in 1913 and enabled a large, intrusive national government. In 1813 the federal government was less than 4% of GDP. A hundred years later, in 1913, it was about the same. The three 'progressive' acts above allowed the federal government to grow and impose itself on the people.

I think most government is better when government is closest to the people and the decisions are made locally, by the people who choose to live with those decisions rather than by our distant overlords in Oz.

I believe in federalism even for policy decisions with which I personally disagree. That includes abortion (which would probably remain legal in most places) but it's not just about abortion. For example, I think people in Colorado should have legal pot if that's what they want. Of course, it's still illegal (if not prosecuted) nationally.

I think we would all be better off recognizing diversity between the States rather than trying to impose our will nationally.

^^^ I agree in principle, but you can never forget the whole thing about "laboratories of democracy". The US government is supposed to look to states and other democratic countries in order to get a broader idea of what works. Even if you limit the degree to which the Feds can impose a decision on the states, people will keep right on arguing that the Feds should adopt one state's policy or another, or that Federalizing an imposition on liberty is a good idea for the sake of uniform interpretation and application of the laws.

No matter what, I think this is one of those things will always be present. To me, that's not always bad - it's another thing that's supposed to generate some of the tensions (between citizens and government as well as between various levels of government) that fuel the development of our understanding of what the appropriate role and form of government should be.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If the only thing RBG does between now and her eventual retirement and death is to stay there long enough to effectively prevent another Supreme Court vote on Abortion in my lifetime it'll be worth every other bad thing she's ever done, not because I like her (I absolutely don't), but because what's even worse than the RBGs of the world are religious zealots inserting themselves and laws they support into the lives of others - at the expense of individual liberty - particularly upon the millions those who don't share their beliefs.

The biggest problem here is that Roe was a badly written decision - the "first trimester" thing was already pretty close to being superceded by the medical state of the art at the time the decision was written. It's an easy enough target that we should actively expect it to be challenged at first opportunity.

Unfortunately, the only solution is a better thought out and written decision. To get there, though, the issue has to be reopened before the Supreme Court, which means.....jumpball!

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
Ardent atheists and those who are vehemently opposed to social conservatism (especially religious flavors), such as myself, only exist in a political sense because of the unrelenting efforts by those who seek to impose their will on others for religious reasons, such as in this case. All the talk of States Rights is largely a distraction and lip service, though certainly a fine idea if applied evenly and consistently, which it isn't and won't be anytime soon (see gay marriage, cannabis laws, etc). I wish I could sit back and not be active in such things, but the chellim1s of the world necessitate otherwise.

Your approach is somewhat confusing. Kavanaugh is an originalist. He has a principled approach to what a judge is supposed to do.

Your statement that " I'll no more let a Catholic-led faction essentially take over aspects of our lives and bodies than I'll stand for some Islamic wacko inflicting their version of morality upon the rest of us either " seems to miss the point of what judges are supposed to do. You seem to be focused on the result you want rather than the process a judge uses to rule on cases.

You seem to have adopted the errant approach chosen by the Democrats at the hearing.

You wrote: " If the only thing RBG does between now and her eventual retirement and death is to stay there long enough to effectively prevent another Supreme Court vote on Abortion in my lifetime it'll be worth every other bad thing she's ever done, not because I like her (I absolutely don't), but because what's even worse than the RBGs of the world are religious zealots inserting themselves and laws they support into the lives of others - at the expense of individual liberty - particularly upon the millions those who don't share their beliefs ."

So, you would want to leave Ginsburg on the Court with her legislating from the bench approach rather than replace her with one who would use judicial restraint? That is a very odd position for anyone seeking to preserve/restore freedom and personal liberty.

The issue is not what a judge personally believes about a policy, it should be about what the Constitution and statutes say regardless of one's personal preference for a given issue before the court.

The Court is not a super-legislature. That's what this is all about but you seem to be missing the main point of why Kavanaugh and other appointments are important.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation and foreign commerce. ... The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives and liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement and prosperity of the State.”

― James Madison

Side note, there are agnostics and atheists who are also against abortion. It isn’t purely a “religious” issue...

The Supreme Court of the United States has been reinvigorating the Tenth Amendment - something that portends more action in the States.

Bascially, the Tenth notes that those powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government under the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

At one point in the 1930s or so, the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitution in such an odd way that it concluded that the Tenth Amendment was mere “surplusage..” I can’t remember the name of the case off the top of my head just now.

One of the rules of construing enactments or statutes is to avoid making any part of it surplusage because, presumably, every bit is supposed to have a purpose and meaning. It is a hint that you may be interpreting the text incorrectly if you find something to be surplusage.

Step forward to 2018 and the Supreme Court recently reinvigorated the Tenth, at least in part.

As one writer noted in May of 2018,
“'For a while, it seemed as if the Tenth Amendment had been reduced to a dead letter. But then in 1992, the Supreme Court restored one of the core meanings of the Tenth Amendment. In the case of New York v. United States, the Court recognized that the federal government could not compel the States to enact laws desired by Congress. Justice O’Connor (who was always of a defender of States’ rights) wrote that Congress may not “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”

In 1997, this “anticommandeering” principle was reaffirmed and extended to prohibit Congress from commandeering the administrative powers of State officers in Printz v. United States. With this week’s decision, the Court has once again expanded the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. Not only is Congress forbidden from compelling the States to pass laws, it is also cannot prohibit States from enacting laws.

As Justice Alito explained, “conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.” Applying the doctrine to the sports betting provisions of the PAPSA, Alito reasoned: “It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.”

The fact that two of the four liberal Justices joined the opinion is a very positive sign. It indicates that this aspect of state sovereignty protected by the Constitution is well-established precedent now. It is not something that is likely to disappear if the balance on the Court swings leftward under a future Democratic president'” Link

For different reasons, it appears that there is a strong majority in favor of passing power back to the States - power that had been wrongly ceded to the federal government.

quote:

Originally posted by 46and2:
If the only thing RBG does between now and her eventual retirement and death is to stay there long enough to effectively prevent another Supreme Court vote on Abortion in my lifetime it'll be worth every other bad thing she's ever done, not because I like her (I absolutely don't), but because what's even worse than the RBGs of the world are religious zealots inserting themselves and laws they support into the lives of others - at the expense of individual liberty - particularly upon the millions those who don't share their beliefs.

That's a long-ass sentence.

If you find yourself on the side of RBG, you might want to put a bit more thought into your positions.

quote:

You're ruining it for everyone with your zealotry and unrelenting pursuit of your religious beliefs over personal liberty.

Do you really think that religious zealotry is the only reason that people find abortion abhorrent?

quote:

Originally posted by Tubetone:
The Supreme Court of the United States has been reinvigorating the Tenth Amendment - something that portends more action in the States.

Bascially, the Tenth notes that those powers that are not specifically delegated to the federal government under the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.

At one point in the 1930s or so, the Supreme Court had interpreted the Constitution in such an odd way that it concluded that the Tenth Amendment was mere “surplusage..” I can’t remember the name of the case off the top of my head just now.

One of the rules of construing enactments or statutes is to avoid making any part of it surplusage because, presumably, every bit is supposed to have a purpose and meaning. It is a hint that you may be interpreting the text incorrectly if you find something to be surplusage.

Step forward to 2018 and the Supreme Court recently reinvigorated the Tenth, at least in part.

As one writer noted in May of 2018,
“'For a while, it seemed as if the Tenth Amendment had been reduced to a dead letter. But then in 1992, the Supreme Court restored one of the core meanings of the Tenth Amendment. In the case of New York v. United States, the Court recognized that the federal government could not compel the States to enact laws desired by Congress. Justice O’Connor (who was always of a defender of States’ rights) wrote that Congress may not “commandee[r] the legislative processes of the States by directly compelling them to enact and enforce a federal regulatory program.”

In 1997, this “anticommandeering” principle was reaffirmed and extended to prohibit Congress from commandeering the administrative powers of State officers in Printz v. United States. With this week’s decision, the Court has once again expanded the anticommandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment. Not only is Congress forbidden from compelling the States to pass laws, it is also cannot prohibit States from enacting laws.

As Justice Alito explained, “conspicuously absent from the list of powers given to Congress is the power to issue direct orders to the governments of the States. The anticommandeering doctrine simply represents the recognition of this limit on congressional authority.” Applying the doctrine to the sports betting provisions of the PAPSA, Alito reasoned: “It is as if federal officers were installed in state legislative chambers and were armed with the authority to stop legislators from voting on any offending proposals. A more direct affront to state sovereignty is not easy to imagine.”

The fact that two of the four liberal Justices joined the opinion is a very positive sign. It indicates that this aspect of state sovereignty protected by the Constitution is well-established precedent now. It is not something that is likely to disappear if the balance on the Court swings leftward under a future Democratic president'” Link

For different reasons, it appears that there is a strong majority in favor of passing power back to the States - power that had been wrongly ceded to the federal government.

Congress may not order a state directly as described, but it seldom does that. It makes the states an offer they can’t refuse, like issue drivers license that meet these standards or your citizens don’t fly, or meet these standards on roads, or no money, or no schools, etc.

Granted, though it seems to me that breathing life into something that had been interpreted into a dead letter is a step in the right direction.

Adding Kavanaugh to a court correcting its approach to federalism seems a step to what we were designed to be.

Federalism is messy but so is separation of powers.

I am encouraged by the Court asking serious questions about the intent of the Tenth Amendment.

Fleshed out, I think it leads to letting the people of the states legislate for their own health, safety, welfare and morals on a decentralized basis.

Letting that happen seems just what a judge like Kavanaugh would find appealing, being a textualist and all.

Putting strings on funds may lead to rebalancing power between the states and the federal government where Congress makes laws outside of its core functions.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:
The biggest problem here is that Roe was a badly written decision....

Oh I'll go a bit further than that. Roe was horrible jurisprudence and likely the biggest failure of the high court. It absolutely should be overturned because it was a garbage decision given there is 'zero' constitutional authority to support it. Justice Kennedy's wet dream decision for gay marriage by trying to wrap it in the 14th amendment is another decision that should be set aside given its also a bastardization of non-existent constitutional authority.

And for the benefit of 46and2, this isn't a personal liberties issue. Not at this point. Its an issue of bad jurisprudence on the part of the SCOTUS. And you talk of being tired of people like chellim (and me) belaboring this issue, I too am sick of people telling me that women should be able to abort a child right up until labor sets in. First, these woman should be able to insure when or if they get pregnant. We do have that ability today. And even if they're so damn irresponsible they do get pregnant, it takes them almost nine months to decide they don't want to be pregnant? If any of the pro-choice folks arguments focused on anything having to do with common sense or responsible behavior, we as a group might be able to get to mutually acceptable solution. But as long as there can be 'zero' limitations on the irresponsibility of 'some' woman, there will always be a battle over the issue. And this coming from a person who isn't terribly religious, and has only limited interest in this topic.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Well what's even worse, sir, is that the Progressive Left, #Godless-Alt-Left, is in favor of "After-Birth Abortion". Yeah...wrap your brain stem around that one...JSMH.

https://www.washingtonpost.com...m_term=.b4229fad63d1

“We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk,” the article reads. “We propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion,’ rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasise that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus (on which ‘abortions’ in the traditional sense are performed) rather than to that of a child.”

Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva might be book smart, but they truly have no clue. When the work reached a wider audience, it understandably caused outrage and, unfortunately, death threats. Cue the irony.

I can think of a few "adults" who would have benefitted from an "after-birth abortion" but that's another issue....

flashguy

"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Some seem to be hopelessly lost on the true meaning of these words.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:
I can think of a few "adults" who would have benefitted from an "after-birth abortion" but that's another issue....

flashguy

Well maybe if we could have it up to age 18 or even 21 it would make parenting a bit easier.

Way to go Ted Cruz! Very straightforward and to the point.

I didn't really much like Ted Cruz until now. Please go back and watch synthplayer's vid. It's outstanding.

GOD SAVE PRESIDENT TRUMP. Where would we be now without him?

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:
"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Some seem to be hopelessly lost on the true meaning of these words.

Alan,

It's hard to understand what you mean. The Declaration of Independence explained why the colonies must break away from a King to form a wholly separate representative republic.

What is the true meaning to you in the context of Kavanaugh's confirmation and the posts around your post?

Here's the original context of your phrase that seems to you to have a uniform, obvious, true meaning:

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness .

— That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.