- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Unless I’m understanding wrong, the RvW decision is Opposite of Legislating from the Bench
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:20 am
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:20 am
Reading the info on the case (I’ll admit I’m no lawyer) but it basically implies that the original decision tried to stretch some other laws and constitutional rights to attempt to cover abortion w/o specifically covering whether abortion should be legal.
The court basically said they should not have made those stretches and that the states should have the power to handle it themselves.
Am I wrong?
The court basically said they should not have made those stretches and that the states should have the power to handle it themselves.
Am I wrong?
12
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:21 am to STEVED00
No, you are not wrong.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:21 am to STEVED00
Correct
Its the opposite of federal overreach
It is the fed saying we wont do anything
Its the opposite of federal overreach
It is the fed saying we wont do anything
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:25 am to Cosmo
The left wants to tie everything to the courts Judicial Branch INSTEAD of the Legislative Branch where it belongs.
Why would anyone want to give 5 out of 9 unelected people essentially the ability to rule the land??
Why would anyone want to give 5 out of 9 unelected people essentially the ability to rule the land??
This post was edited on 6/25/22 at 10:49 am
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:27 am to STEVED00
quote:
Why would anyone want to give 9 unelected people essentially the ability to rule the land??
Really it's just 5, not 9.
And they like it because it's always an option when they can't get their way at the ballot box. A good chunk of the left would LOVE to be ruled by 5 Sotomayors, especially if it meant they were ruling you as well.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:28 am to STEVED00
quote:
The court basically said they should not have made those stretches and that the states should have the power to handle it themselves.
The bold part should be legislatures, either state or federal, should be the vehicles of those regulations.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:29 am to STEVED00
quote:
Why would anyone want to give 9 unelected people essentially the ability to rule the land??
Because it's a way to pass laws that would be unpopular and politically-damaging otherwise. That's how the Left-Progressives have used the courts since the 60s. However, they're finding out this strategy is not perpetual or guaranteed.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:39 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The bold part should be legislatures, either state or federal, should be the vehicles of those regulations.
Agreed
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:41 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Because it's a way to pass laws that would be unpopular and politically-damaging otherwise. That's how the Left-Progressives have used the courts since the 60s. However, they're finding out this strategy is not perpetual or guaranteed.
This is also true. If the Left would have compromised then I’m pretty sure they could have had their abortions as long as it was well into the pregnancy. That is what Europe did and it seemed to satisfy the vast majority.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:44 am to STEVED00
The left sky screams about 'democracy'
well here it is folks!
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:45 am to Cosmo
quote:
fed saying we won't do anything
So, basically...."no standing"?
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:48 am to STEVED00
You are correct. The left loves the courts when it goes their way but in this case the big mad.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:54 am to tigafan4life
quote:
You are correct. The left loves the courts when it goes their way but in this case the big mad.
It is also pretty ironic that the Left are arguing that NY should be able to legislate gun matters HOWEVER they are NOT alright with MS legislating abortion. The principle is the same, the State should have the right to do something. The SCOTUS did their job in NY case bc the Constitution specifically says there is a RIGHT to arm yourself. There is no constitutional right to abortion (and the original RvW decision did not say there was either).
Posted on 6/25/22 at 10:55 am to STEVED00
The original decision said, "you have a right to be a whore and not let the public see the evidence."
That court did not want to see the country flooded with trashy people's babies, so they created a way out, since congress wouldnt do it, bc our majority is still religious and believe human life is precious.
The US is huge, and it was founded in a manner to allow areas of the country to govern themselves based on the will of their majority. If oklahoma's citizens want x, they can do x. If Y lives in Oklahoma and doesn't like x, they can move to a state whose majority governs in a way they prefer.
That court did not want to see the country flooded with trashy people's babies, so they created a way out, since congress wouldnt do it, bc our majority is still religious and believe human life is precious.
The US is huge, and it was founded in a manner to allow areas of the country to govern themselves based on the will of their majority. If oklahoma's citizens want x, they can do x. If Y lives in Oklahoma and doesn't like x, they can move to a state whose majority governs in a way they prefer.
This post was edited on 6/25/22 at 10:56 am
Posted on 6/25/22 at 11:04 am to STEVED00
quote:
The court basically said they should not have made those stretches
I was in law school when RvW was decided. It was hilarious listening to our liberal constitution law prof try to explain the court's reasoning.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 11:10 am to STEVED00
Was it Constitutional was the question, no.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 11:18 am to STEVED00
You are correct and it has liberals scared shitless because much of the federal overreach and unconstitutional “rights” they’ve created out of thin air the last 100 years or so rest on the same precarious grounds and Roe v Wade did. They’ve lacked the political will/desire to do things the right way since the days of Roosevelt and all of it stands to be undone if cases of that nature make their way to thw SCOTUS any time soon.
Posted on 6/25/22 at 11:37 am to STEVED00
It's reversing maybe the most blatant example of judicial overreach in American history, the roe v Wade decision completely usurped the usual process of interplay between judicial and legislative functions on contentious issues and just went straight to making up shite with laughably stupid justifications. They knew it was a ludicrous and indefensible ruling, which is why vowing not to overturn that ruling was such a litmus test for years. Everyone knew that it couldn't hold up to the slightest scrutiny if the review was fine in good faith. The willingness to leave it standing demonstrates the kind of lack of principal that the left wants on the court. RBG herself spoke many times about how shitty of a decision it was, but also wouldn't touch it because she agreed with the outcome and had no real principles or integrity.
This post was edited on 6/25/22 at 11:38 am
Posted on 6/25/22 at 11:55 am to narddogg81
quote:
RBG herself spoke many times about how shitty of a decision it was, but also wouldn't touch it because she agreed with the outcome and had no real principles or integrity.
I recently read up on this and basically said this day would eventually come. It also speaks volumes of many of Reagan’s and Bush 1 and 2s picks that they didn’t want to touch it in order to “protect” the Legislative Branch from actually doing their job.
Page 1 of 2
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News