11 Aug 11
Say you had the ability to effectively reverse both of the decisions of the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. FEC. Would you do so? Note: I mean this to be an all-or-nothing hypothetical; you either accept the status quo, or you reverse the decisions (and subsequent political implications) for both cases.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaA clever problem. I have to put some thought into it, but my initial inclination is to go with preserving Roe v. Wade because it is such a fundamental issue of privacy and personal liberty should trump collective political interests. Ultimately, Citizens United is only effective because people are sometimes too lazy to dig for the truth and let themselves be influenced by cheap shots in advertising. I don't think women should have to give up basic autonomy of their bodies so that the public can protect itself from its own collective stupidity and laziness.
Say you had the ability to effectively reverse both of the decisions of the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. FEC. Would you do so? Note: I mean this to be an all-or-nothing hypothetical; you either accept the status quo, or you reverse the decisions (and subsequent political implications) for both cases.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by KunsooIf the right to abortion were so obvious and fundamental, the states would presumably come to it on their own. Presumably, you assume that they will do so regarding gay marriage eventually. Why the Supreme Court should decide an issue like abortion for the entire country when there are so obviously competing compelling interests at play is beyond me.
A clever problem. I have to put some thought into it, but my initial inclination is to go with preserving Roe v. Wade because it is such a fundamental issue of privacy and personal liberty should trump collective political interests. Ultimately, Citizens United is only effective because people are sometimes too lazy to dig for the truth and let themselves b ...[text shortened]... ir bodies so that the public can protect itself from its own collective stupidity and laziness.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76So you would... reverse them both?
If the right to abortion were so obvious and fundamental, the states would presumably come to it on their own. Presumably, you assume that they will do so regarding gay marriage eventually. Why the Supreme Court should decide an issue like abortion for the entire country when there are so obviously competing compelling interests at play is beyond me.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76There was a time when I could have said the same thing about slavery, integration, or any number of issues universally accepted as obvious and fundamental.
If the right to abortion were so obvious and fundamental, the states would presumably come to it on their own. Presumably, you assume that they will do so regarding gay marriage eventually. Why the Supreme Court should decide an issue like abortion for the entire country when there are so obviously competing compelling interests at play is beyond me.
11 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I'm sure it is.
If the right to abortion were so obvious and fundamental, the states would presumably come to it on their own. Presumably, you assume that they will do so regarding gay marriage eventually. Why the Supreme Court should decide an issue like abortion for the entire country when there are so obviously competing compelling interests at play is beyond me.
HINT: It's their job.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperRoe is arguably the worst decision ever made by SCOTUS, not because of what it allowed, or reformed, but the manner in which it was done. It passed a Constitutional amendment by the votes of 9 justices, when nothing in the Constitution could be logically construed to legalize abortion.
There was a time when I could have said the same thing about slavery, integration, or any number of issues universally accepted as obvious and fundamental.
The difference between slavery and integration is that they represented real moral issues which most could agree on. Abortion on demand is still 4 decades later the most devisive issue in the nation.
There have been some major mistakes in implementing change in these two areas as well, not related to the morality of the changes. Slavery was immoral when the founders permitted it in the Constitution. Most of western civilization hadn't reached that conclusion yet, so it was permitted. If Lincoln saw fit to fight over the secession of the Confederacy, it was not first and foremost to free the slaves. Moreover, while integration may be the desirable norm, forcing it on anyone, either southern States, or northern city public schools, raised serious issues of personal liberty, and serious doubts as to the good results. Most of the cities that enjoyed forced bussing are more segregated today, than they were in the '70s.
The question is legitimately raised: Is the government's proper role to tell people where they should live, to whom a seller must sell his property, who a private owner of a business must serve? Is it better that individuals deny liberties to certain individuals, or that government deny liberties to other groups?
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by normbenignRoe was a fine decision based on Natural Law principles which were at the core of the Founder's philosophy. The idea that the Constitution is at war with such principles is absurd; the 14th Amendment was meant to end the States' asserted power to ignore basic liberty rights.
Roe is arguably the worst decision ever made by SCOTUS, not because of what it allowed, or reformed, but the manner in which it was done. It passed a Constitutional amendment by the votes of 9 justices, when nothing in the Constitution could be logically construed to legalize abortion.
The difference between slavery and integration is that they repres ...[text shortened]... als deny liberties to certain individuals, or that government deny liberties to other groups?
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI would overturn Roe. Citizens United v. FEC was a correct decision. Roe was incoherently reasoned.
Say you had the ability to effectively reverse both of the decisions of the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. FEC. Would you do so? Note: I mean this to be an all-or-nothing hypothetical; you either accept the status quo, or you reverse the decisions (and subsequent political implications) for both cases.
The idea that "privacy" allows a woman to get an abortion, but someone can't grow marijuana in his own house based on the claim of "privacy" is absurd. The right to privacy does not imply the right to do anything that can be done privately. Drugs are still illegal, even if police have no probably cause that would enable them to search and find your crops.
11 Aug 11
2 edits
Originally posted by techsouthYou completely missed the point of my exercise. (Half credit for at least attempting to answer the question, though.)
I would overturn Roe. Citizens United v. FEC was a correct decision. Roe was incoherently reasoned.
The idea that "privacy" allows a woman to get an abortion, but someone can't grow marijuana in his own house based on the claim of "privacy" is absurd. The right to privacy does not imply the right to do anything that can be done privately. Drugs are ...[text shortened]... even if police have no probably cause that would enable them to search and find your crops.
Conservatives will typically express dissatisfaction with the decision in Roe v. Wade, and liberals will typically express dissatisfaction with the decision in Citizens United v. FEC--that much is obvious. The more interesting question is: are you so dissatisfied with decision A that you'd be willing to reverse decision B in order to reverse decision A in the first place?
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaI would overturn both for the sake of overturning the latter. Roe v Wade has become the bellwether for the largest group of idiots to walk the planet in the name of freedom--- as it pertains to both sides. Likewise for gun control, but I'm sure someone on the debate team here is likely to bring that issue up at some point in the future, right?
Say you had the ability to effectively reverse both of the decisions of the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. FEC. Would you do so? Note: I mean this to be an all-or-nothing hypothetical; you either accept the status quo, or you reverse the decisions (and subsequent political implications) for both cases.
More prudent minds can fashion better reasoning and application than Roe v Wade and address the salient topic without creating a grotesque-ture of the entire realm of privacy. The whole thing begs for a re-do, so let them get to it.
That being said, CU v FEC ought to be burned out of the books on the basis of the question: what makes a voter? A corporation is a faceless entity whose by-laws are written on get-out-of-jail-free cards. Why should we allow corporations and special interests groups free reign of what is supposed to be a citizen-run country?
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by sh76They didn't really come to civil rights on their own. Hell, they didn't even come to abolishing slavery on their own.
If the right to abortion were so obvious and fundamental, the states would presumably come to it on their own. Presumably, you assume that they will do so regarding gay marriage eventually. Why the Supreme Court should decide an issue like abortion for the entire country when there are so obviously competing compelling interests at play is beyond me.
- Joined
- 03 Feb 07
- Moves
- 199255
11 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by normbenignExcept maybe the 9th and 14th Amendments, but conservatives like to ignore both.
Roe is arguably the worst decision ever made by SCOTUS, not because of what it allowed, or reformed, but the manner in which it was done. It passed a Constitutional amendment by the votes of 9 justices, when nothing in the Constitution could be logically construed to legalize abortion.
11 Aug 11
Originally posted by wittywonkaCould you please explain both cases? I mean, we're not all Americans you know..
Say you had the ability to effectively reverse both of the decisions of the Supreme Court cases Roe v. Wade and Citizens United v. FEC. Would you do so? Note: I mean this to be an all-or-nothing hypothetical; you either accept the status quo, or you reverse the decisions (and subsequent political implications) for both cases.