Political Phriday: Abortion Debate After Court Decision - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to General Talk

Political Phriday: Abortion Debate After Court Decision

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Postby BritSox » Tue Apr 24, 2007 8:49 am

Big Pimpin wrote:
mikhayl wrote:The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.


I happen to think the original ruling in Roe v. Wade was a scar on the Supreme Court, so if this is the first step to overruling that, all the better.


What he said.

mikhayl wrote:In the interest of obejctivity, I'm trying not to think of this as a content issue but rather as a means issue. The Supreme Court did not adequately justify their decision in a manner that reconciles it with the prior 40 years of Roe related cases.

It's fine if the Court wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but based on the purpose and function of the Supreme Court (a perfectly independent arbitrator), they need to do it the right way.


I'm also trying to think of it as a means issue. And the '40 years of Roe related cases' are all fruit of the poisonous tree of judicial legislation started with Roe. I mean, a woman has a constitutional right to privacy, but only for two trimesters? It was a nakedly political ruling, which is why attempts to overturn is are good jurisprudence.

Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law.


This decision itself is blatant liberal politicking. 'The court ruled on Roe vs Wade, and because that was a ruling on an important topic, to reverse it would damage the reputation of the court.' Nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of Roe, in fact, suggesting that even if Roe is wrong, it should be stuck to anyway for the sake of the court's prestige. Well, the court reversed previous terrible decisions (see Dred Scott vs Sanford) and the world didn't end. Allowing such a horrible ruling to go on being the precedent by which the whole issue is determined undermines the court completely.

And yes, the Supreme Court was my favorite topic in college, and I studied it in considerable depth.
Image
BritSox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicMock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5223
Joined: 5 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: You don't care, do you? No... because you're unconscious.

Postby StlSluggers » Tue Apr 24, 2007 9:15 am

mikhayl wrote:...the Supreme Court (a perfectly independent arbitrator)...

Is it? I mean, if you're appointed by a person and then ratified by 100 more people, are you really independent, or do you fit the mold of the popular majority?

I think I'd just as soon see the Court absolve itself of this mess, otherwise, you're going to see each new majority trying to get a new justice in place that can turn the tide of the abortion debate.
StlSluggers
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicCafe WriterMock(ing) DrafterWeb Supporter
Posts: 14716
Joined: 24 May 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Parking in the gov't bldg @ 7th and Pine. It's only $3.00 on game day!

Postby mikhayl » Tue Apr 24, 2007 11:10 am

BritSox wrote:
Big Pimpin wrote:
mikhayl wrote:The ruling is political and a scar on the Supreme Court.


I happen to think the original ruling in Roe v. Wade was a scar on the Supreme Court, so if this is the first step to overruling that, all the better.


What he said.

mikhayl wrote:In the interest of obejctivity, I'm trying not to think of this as a content issue but rather as a means issue. The Supreme Court did not adequately justify their decision in a manner that reconciles it with the prior 40 years of Roe related cases.

It's fine if the Court wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, but based on the purpose and function of the Supreme Court (a perfectly independent arbitrator), they need to do it the right way.


I'm also trying to think of it as a means issue. And the '40 years of Roe related cases' are all fruit of the poisonous tree of judicial legislation started with Roe. I mean, a woman has a constitutional right to privacy, but only for two trimesters? It was a nakedly political ruling, which is why attempts to overturn is are good jurisprudence.

Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the Nation's commitment to the rule of law.


This decision itself is blatant liberal politicking. 'The court ruled on Roe vs Wade, and because that was a ruling on an important topic, to reverse it would damage the reputation of the court.' Nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of Roe, in fact, suggesting that even if Roe is wrong, it should be stuck to anyway for the sake of the court's prestige. Well, the court reversed previous terrible decisions (see Dred Scott vs Sanford) and the world didn't end. Allowing such a horrible ruling to go on being the precedent by which the whole issue is determined undermines the court completely.

And yes, the Supreme Court was my favorite topic in college, and I studied it in considerable depth.


I'm not disagreeing with you on any of your points. I think we stand on opposite sides of the issue, but we recognize the workings of the judiciary.

My point is that if the Supreme Court wants to chip away at Roe v. Wade, or even overturn it, they can. They have the power to and they could put together an argument to do it. What I'm saying, is that if they are going to pursue such a course, their rullings had better be brilliantly argued.

Majority Opinion

The opinion they actually published doesn't even come close to the standard I would find acceptable. In fact it's crap; it's one of the worst opinions I've ever read.
Let's go O's. Let's go Mets.
mikhayl
Minor League Mentor
Minor League Mentor

User avatar

Posts: 839
Joined: 9 May 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Previous

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: assiquate and 4 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Thursday, Oct. 2
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Detroit at Baltimore
(5:37 pm)
Kansas City at LA Angels
(9:07 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact