I believe her

[DCHawk1]

And...proof.

[ousdahl]

Roe created a constitutional right -- on par with free speech, free press, freedom of religion, etc. -- to abortion.

Whatever you think about the practice of abortion, this is a distortion of the Court's function, a distortion of the the very notion of basic civil liberties, and the distorter of our politics for four-and-a-half decades.

at first I was like, okay that seems fair maybe you have a point.

but at second glance...

SCOTUS didn't create a constitutional right to abortion. They interpreted the 14th amendment in a way that concluded a right to privacy extends to a women's decision to have an abortion.

and despite being settled law for four-and-a-half decades, the hope of eroding that right to privacy is still high on the list of GOP battle cries.

OK.

The Supreme Court's interpretation created a de facto constitutional right that has, over time (and by the Court's own admission in Planned Parnethood v. Casey) become the foundational right of the current political era and the Court's measure of its own legitimacy.

OK!

cuz for a minute there it sounded like you were suggesting that scotus gave itself the power to write constitutional amendments, lol.

the issue then isn’t scotus politicizing itself, but rather conservatives who politicized scotus cuz they didn’t like the way it interpreted the constitution.

Are there examples of libtards doing this too? What case/s do they refuse to let go?

[DCHawk1]

Citizens United and Heller, just to name two off the top o' my pointy head.

[ousdahl]

If only.

If Cankles came out and said, never mind all my shady baggage, cuz if you vote for me I’ll stack the Supreme Court to overturn citizens united, she may have even had my vote!

[DCHawk1]

ummm...wut?

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ ... ted-225658

[ousdahl]

that’s a constitutional amendment, written by legislators. Not stacking scotus to do one’s political bidding.

But I concede, your make a point. Still had no interest in voting for cankles lol

[DCHawk1]

that’s a constitutional amendment, written by legislators. Not stacking scotus to do one’s political bidding.

But I concede, your make a point. Still had no interest in voting for cankles lol

Clinton's approach is hardly representative of the D approach here. She had an unique connection to the case anyway and had to approach it uniquely.

[ousdahl]

doesn’t that illustrate a fundamental difference between demonrats and Republicans?

Libs thought, who cares if she’s giving lip service to an issue I care about, I see through it and still think she’s a crook so I’m gonna vote for someone else, or not vote.

Cons thought, who cares if I think he’s a crook and shady about business and dealing with countless sexual harassment accusations and racist too, I’m gonna hold my nose and vote for him anyway, because scotus!

[Deleted User 75]

Uh, Merrick Garland was considered to be a pretty moderate nominee.

The Dems arent trying to "win". They are trying to keep the Supreme Court from having an unfit member for the next 25 years. Move past your trivial "right now" mind. This has impacts that will be felt for generations. It is beyond important.

My trivial right now mind.

LOL

Part of all of our minds concerns itself with trial "right now" things. I just meant you have to avoid using that part of your brain to evaluate this and instead use the part of your brain that addresses more long term, conceptual thought.

I worded that poorly, my bad. I wish I didnt have to do this site over my phone; it's easier to get my thoughts from brain to forum using a keyboard.

All good. I wasn't offended at all.

And thinking more long term is why I think we should find someone better than Kavanaugh. There's already more drama surrounding him than I can tolerate from something like a supreme court justice... that job carries more weight and different considerations than almost any other job would. Which is why even if the allegations are untrue they've still done enough damage to the process that I'd like to choose someone different.

[Deleted User 89]

at first I was like, okay that seems fair maybe you have a point.

but at second glance...

SCOTUS didn't create a constitutional right to abortion. They interpreted the 14th amendment in a way that concluded a right to privacy extends to a women's decision to have an abortion.

and despite being settled law for four-and-a-half decades, the hope of eroding that right to privacy is still high on the list of GOP battle cries.

OK.

The Supreme Court's interpretation created a de facto constitutional right that has, over time (and by the Court's own admission in Planned Parnethood v. Casey) become the foundational right of the current political era and the Court's measure of its own legitimacy.

And? We should all have the fundamental right to be our own medical advocate and to choose the medical course that works best for us. The law should have no more right to force a woman to carry a child to term any more than they should be able to force someone to stay on life support.

Both scenarios are intensely private and difficult and both result in the end of a life. Neither should involve the government at all.

pott (post of the thread)

[Deleted User 75]

Government shouldn't be involved in something like abortion. Totally agree.

Hell, as inept as our government is, they should be involved in as little as possible.

[ousdahl]

Inept gummint, ugh.

Politicians who campaign on cries of inept gummint then just obstruct and get nothing done to prove how inept gummint is, bigger ugh.

[DCHawk1]

The problem with big government is big government.

[Shirley]

[seahawk]

Wasn't Kavanaugh involved in trying to keep Terry Schiavo's family from making decisions about the end of her life?

Having dealt with such issues fairly recently, Kavanaugh's willingness to politicize a family's tragedy--he is scum.

[twocoach]

Yes, Kavanaugh is reportedly the one who woke Ptesident Bush to have him sign off on congressional intervention to have Schiavo's feeding tube put back in.

[chiknbut]

Speaks volumes that this was such an insignificant issue during his under-vetting.

[Leawood]

Actually, it was not Terry Schiavo's "family" who wanted to remove her feeding tube. It was her then-husband that wanted to do that because he wanted to get married to his girlfriend. Terry Schiavo's parents wanted her to be kept alive. All around, it was tragic. There is no cause to rehash it again.

[DCHawk1]

Yes, Kavanaugh is reportedly the one who woke Ptesident Bush to have him sign off on congressional intervention to have Schiavo's feeding tube put back in.

Reelijus fanatic.

[DCHawk1]

Actually, it was not Terry Schiavo's "family" who wanted to remove her feeding tube. It was her then-husband that wanted to do that because he wanted to get married to his girlfriend. Terry Schiavo's parents wanted her to be kept alive. All around, it was tragic. There is no cause to rehash it again.

It's part of the canon law. It must be atoned for.