'Murica! (6 Viewers)


Feb 9, 2013
26,735

It doesnt cause abortions, isnt gay, and it doesnt require a condom.

God approved
Lots of heretical sects tried this out during the Middle Ages... or so the catholics claimed before having them burned at the stake.

- - - Updated - - -

Why you gotta bring the thread iq down with your summons


Roe vs wade, regardless of where you stand politically, was unconstitutional
:oops:
 

icemaη

Rab's Husband - The Regista
Moderator
Aug 27, 2008
30,184
Because the ruling has no constitutional basis, it is not a philosophical discussion about what ought to be, rather is this right covered in the constitution? And it's not, the court simply has no right to outlaw or legalize abortion.
That'd make any and all abortion laws illegal? Or the states have rights to enact what they seem fit and only a federal law is unconstitutional?
 

Enron

Tickle Me
Moderator
Oct 11, 2005
68,751
Why you gotta bring the thread iq down with your summons


Roe vs wade, regardless of where you stand politically, was unconstitutional
That'd make any and all abortion laws illegal? Or the states have rights to enact what they seem fit and only a federal law is unconstitutional?
Only if the SCOTUS ruled that abortion was illegal, immoral, etc. But that would be equally unconstitutional. They would most likely rule that the fundamentals of Roe were no longer protected under the 14th amendment.

At that point states would have to decide how they want to address the issue. Many states already have abortion laws, mostly dealing with late term abortion.

Alabama and Georgia will have a tough time in the court system though. Their laws are too rigid, too easy too attack even without invoking Roe v Wade.
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
35,560
Why you gotta bring the thread iq down with your summons


Roe vs wade, regardless of where you stand politically, was unconstitutional
That's not strictly true, because they base it on the right to privacy.

I think the real discussion is how broad do you allow justices to interpret certain texts. In the US I'd say most courts are quite conservative in this regard. In Europe, and especially within EU law, there is much more judicial activism.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
 
Apr 14, 2005
59,172
That's not strictly true, because they base it on the right to privacy.

I think the real discussion is how broad do you allow justices to interpret certain texts. In the US I'd say most courts are quite conservative in this regard. In Europe, and especially within EU law, there is much more judicial activism.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn ONEPLUS A6003 met Tapatalk
Where is the right to privacy in the constitution?
 

AndreaCristiano

Yeshuˈa ha Mashiach
Jun 9, 2011
16,837
It’s the Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment specifically. Which interestingly enough is applied to several landmark decisions. I think even Brown draws from it.
Well ok in that situation I could see the way it could apply but I still think at best it's a reinterpretation of how to apply it to said laws especially roe v Wade
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 3)