Jump to content
An Old School Catholic Message Board

Palin Told To Give Up Candidacy


Nihil Obstat

Recommended Posts

dairygirl4u2c

[quote name='rkwright' post='1668220' date='Oct 2 2008, 01:14 AM']There was no constitutional right to an abortion. It was created in Roe v. Wade. Roe was a terrible decision from a legal point of view, even one of the original justices from Roe (O'Conner) later said it was a terrible legal decision, but that it would be bad for the public to change course now (PP v. Casey).

And personally, history only goes so far when reading the constitution. History says blacks aren't people either. There are rights and wrongs; just because something says 1776 next to it doesn't make it right.[/quote]

you're just making assertions.

the only place this debate lies is in history.
(maybe a science debate, but)

liberty was the basis for roe. just like it's the basis for a ton of rights. eg raising your kids etc. the only way we'd know whether to saying it's a fundamental right is by looking at hitory.

even the justices thought so, that's why they looked at it so much. (whether rightly or wrongly depends on arguing history)

without history, you have no basis in saying whether it's constitutional or not.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1668237' date='Oct 2 2008, 01:28 AM']you're just making assertions.

the only place this debate lies is in history.
(maybe a science debate, but)

liberty was the basis for roe. just like it's the basis for a ton of rights. eg raising your kids etc. the only way we'd know whether to saying it's a fundamental right is by looking at hitory.

even the justices thought so, that's why they looked at it so much. (whether rightly or wrongly depends on arguing history)

without history, you have no basis in saying whether it's constitutional or not.[/quote]

Except that the line of thought Roe was based on was also used to justify child labor and reject minimum wage in the 20's. Thats liberty at its finest; the liberty to exploit others under the idea of freedom of contract or freedom of choice. And to be clear its not some random idea of liberty, its substantive due process liberty that comes out of the 14th amdt.

The justices in Roe were hardly originalist thinkers.

Its funny that the justices that rely the heaviest on History (Scalia, Thomas) both constantly ask where the right to privacy is in the constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dominicansoul

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1668202' date='Oct 1 2008, 11:26 PM']Obama has many times voted against protecting the liberty of infants and voted for the infant holocaust aka 'abortion'. As well as given other support to that most wicked of crimes against humanity. Analogy does not fail.[/quote]

In Hassan's world...all logical explanations fail. Haven't you read most of his posts on the Phorum???

Hitler ONLY ORDERED the murders? What does that mean??? So I guess Hassan IS SAYING that Hitler is not guilty of murdering millions of jews???

I guess Clinton was never guilty of millions of partial-birth abortions either...and if Obama wins, he won't be guilty either, since he'll just be passing laws giving women the right to slaughter their own children...he's only protecting their rights! He's not guilty! He's not a baby killer!

Sorry, but I beg to differ!

Palin is only getting heat BECAUSE of her PRO-LIFE views. It's why the media and stinkin' liberals attacked her so viciously in the first place. Now, sadly, just because of a couple of lousy interviews, some conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon...

...I don't think the woman is an IDIOT. I think she has great potential and can become a great VP. Given the chance, she may do more for the vice-presidency than any other in our history...

After 8 years with what some consider a "bumbling idiot" as PREZ, I don't see what the big fuss is over this VP candidate??? Doesn't anybody remember Dan Quayle???

I don't know, but my gut instinct tells me she'll be fine...I believe in her...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madame Vengier

[quote name='dominicansoul' post='1668316' date='Oct 2 2008, 08:27 AM']In Hassan's world...all logical explanations fail. Haven't you read most of his posts on the Phorum???

Hitler ONLY ORDERED the murders? What does that mean??? So I guess Hassan IS SAYING that Hitler is not guilty of murdering millions of jews???

I guess Clinton was never guilty of millions of partial-birth abortions either...and if Obama wins, he won't be guilty either, since he'll just be passing laws giving women the right to slaughter their own children...he's only protecting their rights! He's not guilty! He's not a baby killer!

Sorry, but I beg to differ!

Palin is only getting heat BECAUSE of her PRO-LIFE views. It's why the media and stinkin' liberals attacked her so viciously in the first place. Now, sadly, just because of a couple of lousy interviews, some conservatives have jumped on the bandwagon...

...I don't think the woman is an IDIOT. I think she has great potential and can become a great VP. Given the chance, she may do more for the vice-presidency than any other in our history...

After 8 years with what some consider a "bumbling idiot" as PREZ, I don't see what the big fuss is over this VP candidate??? Doesn't anybody remember Dan Quayle???

I don't know, but my gut instinct tells me she'll be fine...I believe in her...[/quote]

I'm not crazy about Palin but it infuriates me that every single tiny thing she says or does--including what pumps she chooses to wear and how much makeup she has on--is called into question and vile and disgusting accusations and criticisms are leveled at her--all while the absolute nuttery of Obama bin Biden goes unnoticed and unchecked. The main reason is that the Republicans don't come even CLOSE to the types of hate and vile tactics the Democrats stoop to. If they did, the whole world would know the truth about Snooty and Snarky.

If anyone wants an eyeful of the truth about the disgusting (and often violent) behavior of the left, just read Michelle Malkin's book, 'Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild'. It's a few years old, but the Dems are up to the same old tricks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

[quote name='rkwright' post='1668303' date='Oct 2 2008, 07:48 AM']Except that the line of thought Roe was based on was also used to justify child labor and reject minimum wage in the 20's. Thats liberty at its finest; the liberty to exploit others under the idea of freedom of contract or freedom of choice. And to be clear its not some random idea of liberty, its substantive due process liberty that comes out of the 14th amdt.

The justices in Roe were hardly originalist thinkers.

Its funny that the justices that rely the heaviest on History (Scalia, Thomas) both constantly ask where the right to privacy is in the constitution.[/quote]

roe did, or at least hte concurrences, i'm not sure, look at history. they didn't think it conclusive, but it was indeed looked at.
scalia thomas etc, their main point is history.
there's mroe to the historical debate than scalia and co think, but the point is they all looked at it.
i still don't see your point about history is irrelevant.

granted, if history's not clear, then it's a judgment call. if it's a judgment call, who are you to say that the original idea, or even the ight idea, is that it's wrong?

but anyways, my point is that that whole decision reeks with historical arguments. as it should.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

"we feel it desirable briefly to survey, in several aspects, the history of abortion, for such insight as that history may afford us"

they looked at how it was common in greek culture, granted it's barbareous. they looked at it at the time of the US founding, how it was okay pre quickening. (i've heard they had prequickening stores on the main street sometimes)
some states were puritanical and had it all banned. it doens't mean it's puritanical to think that, but it is a puritanical state. (makes you wonder what the basis is for a lot of this, banning everyone's sex life. not talking about abortion. lotta pride there huh, puritans are who these people look to)
how pre US had laws that came and went in the same states, it was very volitile.

how a lot of laws have rape and incest etc exceptions.

"It is thus apparent that at common law, at the time of the adoption of our Constitution, and throughout the major portion of the 19th century, abortion was viewed with less disfavor than under most American statutes currently in effect. Phrasing it another way, a woman enjoyed a substantially broader right to terminate a pregnancy than she does in most States today. At least with respect to the early stage of pregnancy, and very possibly without such a limitation, the opportunity to make this choice was present in this country well into the 19th century. Even later, the law continued for some time to treat less punitively an abortion procured in early pregnancy. "

whether privacy should extend to abortion is debatable. but like child rearing, it's arguably implied at least privacy itself is, just funameanlly and histoircally, as roe said.
"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution."

even the dissent recognized privacy, just not with abortion
"I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case."
so all this "privacy isn't in the constitution" stuff, is bunk, imho.

but anyway, my point is all over that opinion.

[url="http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/"]http://www.tourolaw.edu/Patch/Roe/[/url]

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the Roe stuff (we can move to a new topic if necessary)...

History is irrelevant because its wrong. Thats the simplest way to put it. I don't care if 100% of the people in 1776 thought abortion was ok or that a fetus isn't a constitutional person; they're wrong.

History, and the founding fathers, were wrong on many things. The treatment of blacks is a great example. Just because history shows that black's were not persons does not mean they actually aren't. So, in this context (abortion) history is irrelevant.

Why has Roe been upheld? Lets read what the Supreme Court said about Roe in '92 in PP v. Casey...

[quote](i) 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**2799 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. Pp. 2814-2816.[/quote]

The court is worried about losing credibility. Thats it, plain and simple. They won't stand up and do the right thing like Brown v. Board; instead they walk away from the issue.

Here is Rehnquist's (White, Scalia, and Thomas joining) take on the plurality opinion and stare decisis...
[quote]The joint opinion of Justices O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, and SOUTER cannot bring itself to say that Roe was correct as an original matter, but the authors are of the view that “the immediate question is not the soundness of Roe's resolution of the issue, but the precedential force that must be accorded to its holding.” Ante, at 2817. Instead of claiming that Roe *954 was correct as a matter of original constitutional interpretation, the opinion therefore contains an elaborate discussion of stare decisis. This discussion of the principle of stare decisis appears to be almost entirely dicta, because the joint opinion does not apply that principle in dealing with Roe. Roe decided that a woman had a fundamental right to an abortion. The joint opinion rejects that view. Roe decided that abortion regulations were to be subjected to “strict scrutiny” and could be justified only in the light of “compelling state interests.” The joint opinion rejects that view. Ante, at 2817-2818; see Roe v. Wade, supra, 410 U.S., at 162-164, 93 S.Ct., at 731-732. Roe analyzed abortion regulation under a rigid trimester framework, a framework which has guided this Court's decisionmaking for 19 years. The joint opinion rejects that framework. Ante, at 2818.[/quote]

One more...
[quote]In the end, having failed to put forth any evidence to prove any true reliance, the joint opinion's argument is based solely on generalized assertions about the national psyche, on a belief that the people of this country have grown accustomed to the Roe decision over the last 19 years and have “ordered their thinking and living around” it. Ante, at 2809. As an initial matter, one might inquire how the joint opinion can view the “central holding” of Roe as so deeply rooted in our constitutional culture, when it so casually uproots and disposes of that same decision's trimester framework. Furthermore, at various points in the past, the same could have been said about this Court's erroneous decisions that the Constitution allowed “separate but equal” treatment of minorities, see Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537, 16 S.Ct. 1138, 41 L.Ed. 256 (1896), or that “liberty” under the Due Process Clause protected “freedom of contract,” see Adkins v. Children's Hospital of District of Columbia, 261 U.S. 525, 43 S.Ct. 394, 67 L.Ed. 785 (1923); Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 25 S.Ct. 539, 49 L.Ed. 937 (1905). The “separate but equal” doctrine lasted 58 years after Plessy, and Lochner's protection of contractual freedom lasted 32 years. However, the simple fact that a generation or more had grown used to these major decisions did not prevent the Court from correcting its errors in those cases, nor should it prevent us from correctly interpreting the Constitution here. See Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 74 S.Ct. 686, 98 L.Ed. 873 (1954) (rejecting the “separate but equal” doctrine); West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703 (1937) (overruling Adkins v. Children's Hospital, supra, in upholding Washington's minimum wage law).[/quote]

Scalia's blistering dissent (I heard he drove around georgetown yelling at Kennedy for his opinion on this case...)
[quote]I cannot agree with, indeed I am appalled by, the Court's suggestion that the decision whether to stand by an erroneous constitutional decision must be strongly influenced- against overruling, no less-by the substantial and continuing public opposition the decision has generated. The Court's judgment that any other course would “subvert the Court's legitimacy” must be another consequence of reading the error-filled history book that described the deeply divided country brought together by Roe. In my history-book, the Court was covered with dishonor and deprived of legitimacy by Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 15 L.Ed. 691 (1857), an erroneous (and widely opposed) opinion that it did not abandon, rather than by West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379, 57 S.Ct. 578, 81 L.Ed. 703 (1937), which produced the famous “switch in time” from the Court's erroneous (and widely opposed) constitutional opposition to the social measures of the New Deal. (Both Dred Scott and one line of the cases resisting the New Deal rested upon the concept of “substantive due process” that the Court praises and employs today. Indeed, Dred Scott was “very possibly the first application of substantive due process in the Supreme Court, the original precedent for Lochner v. New York and Roe v. Wade.” D. Currie, The Constitution in the Supreme Court 271 (1985) (footnotes omitted).)

But whether it would “subvert the Court's legitimacy” or not, the notion that we would decide a case differently from the way we otherwise would have in order to show that we can stand firm against public disapproval is frightening. It is a bad enough idea, even in the head of someone like me, who believes that the text of the Constitution, and our traditions, say what they say and there is no fiddling with them. But when it is in the mind of a Court that believes the Constitution*999 has an evolving meaning, see **2884 ante, at 2805; that the Ninth Amendment's reference to “othe [r]” rights is not a disclaimer, but a charter for action, ibid.; and that the function of this Court is to “speak before all others for [the people's] constitutional ideals” unrestrained by meaningful text or tradition-then the notion that the Court must adhere to a decision for as long as the decision faces “great opposition” and the Court is “under fire” acquires a character of almost czarist arrogance. We are offended by these marchers who descend upon us, every year on the anniversary of Roe, to protest our saying that the Constitution requires what our society has never thought the Constitution requires. These people who refuse to be “tested by following” must be taught a lesson. We have no Cossacks, but at least we can stubbornly refuse to abandon an erroneous opinion that we might otherwise change-to show how little they intimidate us..[/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last thing... the latest big decision that came out has been Gonzales v. Carhart in 2007 (upholding partial birth abortion ban).

Just like to post Thomas's complete concurrence...
[quote]Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice SCALIA joins, concurring.
I join the Court's opinion because it accurately applies current jurisprudence, including Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 112 S.Ct. 2791, 120 L.Ed.2d 674 (1992). I write separately to reiterate my view that the Court's abortion jurisprudence, including Casey and Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, 93 S.Ct. 705, 35 L.Ed.2d 147 (1973), has no basis in the Constitution. See Casey, supra, at 979, 112 S.Ct. 2791 (SCALIA, J., *1640 concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part); Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S. 914, 980-983, 120 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). I also note that whether the Act constitutes a permissible exercise of Congress' power under the Commerce Clause is not before the Court. The parties did not raise or brief that issue; it is outside the question presented; and the lower courts did not address it. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 727, n. 2, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005) (THOMAS, J., concurring).[/quote]

Amazing...thats the whole thing... abortion has no basis in the Constitution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1668023' date='Oct 1 2008, 09:30 PM']There is absolutely no verifiable proof that human beings come from apes or that if we do descend from apes that this is the end of the story.[/quote]

I had no idea that people still existed that believe evolution= "humans evolved from apes." :lol_roll: Evolution doesn't say this. It says that they have a common ancestor. It makes perfect sense that humans and different "monkey types" are so closely related. We learn a lot of important things, scientifically, through being able to study on animals so amazingly similar to us. I would say that is no accident and that it could all very well fall into God's plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1668210' date='Oct 1 2008, 11:46 PM']Apparently there is also no verifiable proof that you have any background in science whatsoever. That whole rant was overly simplistic. It's clear you have very little understanding of what 1) evolution actually is, and 2) basic scientific principles.

By the way, eye color is determined by a polymorphic gene - meaning a combination of many different genes. And why are they different? Mutations to those genes cause different parts to be displayed, leading to different colors.

By the way, do you know one of the leading ways evolution occurs? Genetic mutations. So yes, eye color has everything to do with evolution.[/quote]

You said it much better than I did. :lol_roll:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

well, i'm not adament that history is the end all be all. but i do think it must be looked at for how comprehensive it is. scalia as even you cited mentioned history. he always bases his opposition to gay rights from anti sodomy laws and abortion on history.
half if not most of the time history is inconclusive. but it must be looked at.

my understanding is that you have to enforce as a catholic what the law is. if the law is clearly abortino is okay, then you're suppose to enforce it. if the history were clear, you'd have to enforce it. not that it is. but it'd have to be looked at.

otherwise you're just opening it all up to whatever the jduges think. i thought we're suppose to worship strict constructionists? or more specifically, oppose legislating from the bench?

on racism though, they changed after the civil rights amendments, thirteen and fourteen. they had a basis for that change. they don't for abortion.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1668716' date='Oct 2 2008, 07:25 PM']well, i'm not adament that history is the end all be all. but i do think it must be looked at for how comprehensive it is. scalia as even you cited mentioned history. he always bases his opposition to gay rights from anti sodomy laws and abortion on history.
half if not most of the time history is inconclusive. but it must be looked at.

my understanding is that you have to enforce as a catholic what the law is. if the law is clearly abortino is okay, then you're suppose to enforce it. if the history were clear, you'd have to enforce it. not that it is. but it'd have to be looked at.

otherwise you're just opening it all up to whatever the jduges think. i thought we're suppose to worship strict constructionists? or more specifically, oppose legislating from the bench?

on racism though, they changed after the civil rights amendments, thirteen and fourteen. they had a basis for that change. they don't for abortion.[/quote]

I don't mind legislating from the bench when its right. If we sit here and let the constitution be so static that it never changes we assume that it was 100% right when it was written. If we let judges wildly legislate we incur problems.

Its a catch 22. The best solution is to uphold the principals of the constitution up till the point the principals themselves are wrong, which they may be. Easier than said done of course... its tricky I admit.

I don't believe in enforcing the law because its the law. The law is not above right and wrong. Thats the fundamental issue here; there are right and wrong things, and there are legal and illegal actions. We as Catholics have a duty to stick to the truth and righteousness, not legal things.

On racism, the 13th and 14th came out shortly after the civil war. Civil Rights movement starts almost 100 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1667093' date='Sep 30 2008, 04:56 PM']every right protected by teh constittution doesn't have to be explicitly stated. there's many rights people would be surprised to know don't exist in it. except maybe by vague references like liberty etc.
even the const says it's not an exhuasitve source, and the bill of rights was more an after thought... a "including but not limited to" situation.
not that one can do a power grab. you have ot respect the tenth amendment relegation to the states too etc.

the real issue is whether it was historically allowed or not, and the histoircal thought etc.

i'm not sure about the history of anything goes full term legal banning. there were banning in all states, i just don't know how much, basicaly.[/quote]
If vague "unstated principles" are used to legislate what is "constitutional" there is no point in having a Constitution at all.
Judges pulling unstated "constitutional principles" out of their own rear-ends to justify ruling according to their own whims has been one of the great steps to tyranny in this century.
It boils down to judges ruling whatever they want, with no regard for the Constitution whatever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

dairygirl4u2c

raising your kids is an implied constitutional right. there's a ton more. it doesn't have to be stated. as far as that point goes.

pulling stuff out of rear ends is my point. they're legislating from the bench. legislating something that wasn't understood to be the case at the const time. i know this is table turning from what's normally said, the normal abortion rhetoric, but it's true.

i guess while they're legislating from the bench, at least htey're not contraditing anything that's super explicit.

(thought liberty is an explicit word, as many rights are based on. and the bill of rights was an after thought, an "including but not limited to" happenstance. and the const says "there's more rights than these". though the tenth amendment must be looked at granted. balanced.)

if someone thinks abortion is a constitutional right, who's to stop them? consistency says it's legit.

at least rk acknowledges that it's inconsistent, what he's saying, but that it's the right thing to do anyway.

Edited by dairygirl4u2c
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly... I don't really think the justices care so much about consistency, the constitution or any of it. They have their opinions, their minds are made up; its only after they've made up their minds they find some backing in the constitution or case law.

A few examples... Recently there was a drug case (Raich v. Ashcroft). The thing turned on commerce clause which the conservatives have constantly been reading very close and limiting. Here a lady raised weed in her backyard, for her own medical use, in CA. Never bought or sold it. She rejected the DEA's (federal government) jurisdiction over her (congress can only pass laws that regulate interstate commerce). 10 times out of 10 Scalia would have said theres no interstate commerce here, leave it to the states. But No! its a drug case, and out of no where he says the federal government should get involved.

Roe is one of my favorites of judges making up whatever they want. The line of cases on privacy goes back to the early 20th cent. All these courts said we should have independent liberty and privacy to enter into whatever contract you want to. If you're 14 and want to work for $1.00 a day, thats your choice; whose the federal government to tell you no. All this gets overturned in the 30's (switch in time). But then! mysteriously it shows up again - privacy back in the constitution in Loving v. Virginia.

Anyone read Marybury v. Madison in a government class? That classic piece of constitutional law? Did anyone notice how the writer (I'm blanking on the justice's name, Marshall maybe?) deliberately used selective quotes of the constitution, editing out lines that didn't really fit his idea?

How about all the cases regarding the rights of terrorists? We applied UN and EU law in those cases, because there wasn't anything in our constitution to give the terrorists the rights those judges wanted to give them.

My point is this; Most judges don't approach a problem saying 'I wonder what the law says about X'. Instead they say 'The answer is Y. Now lets find some law to support my position.' (at least on the big issues...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...