john roberts

[Socrates]

[quote name='kateri05' date='Aug 7 2005, 01:08 AM']exactly.  and NOWHERE in the constitution is there a right to privacy NOR a right to take the life of unborn children.  luckily he is a man who INTERPRETS law and doesn't make up his own to push his own agenda
[right][snapback]675703[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

AMEN.

[Michael D.]

by "NOWHERE" you must have ment the 4th amendment. Because im almost certain that it says a thing or two about the right to privacy.

[quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 8 2005, 08:22 PM']by "NOWHERE" you must have ment the 4th amendment. Because im almost certain that it says a thing or two about the right to privacy.
[right][snapback]677671[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Oh, that's a VERY logical argument.

The government can't make unreasonable searches of people's property, THEREFORE, killing babies is an absolute right (so long as its kept private).



Most idiotic and irrational argument I've ever heard!

[Michael D.]

what she said was right to privacy nor killing babies.

i was only talking about the right to privacy.

[son_of_angels]

I disagree with a few of you. The judge should not be a machine who merely applies the law to a specific situation. As someone who sets and interprets PRECEDENT he is bound to render an opinion on the correct interpretation and application of the law, taking into account not only the words contained therein but also the source, purpose, and authority of the law.

A justice who is Catholic (or at least Christian) is bound to observe that the Constitution exists as a corollary from a higher moral authority, and thus in setting and deciding precedent not only renders an opinion on the Constitution but on that higher moral authority, namely God. To that end, the Supreme Court position truly should be considered a "throne" to which someone is elevated, as they render opinions (in so far as secular government is able) not only on the law but on the Law, imprinted by God as Natural Moral Law on the very fabric of nature.

So much for legislating from the bench. We should, instead view our duty, the Senate's duty, and the President's duty towards the appointment of Justices as the unique Judges of our People as being a sacred duty like that of our vote.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Michael D.' date='Aug 9 2005, 02:25 AM']what she said was right to privacy nor killing babies.

i was only talking about the right to privacy.
[right][snapback]678047[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Yes, but the "right to pricavy" is nowhere defined as an absolute right.
I was referring in my post to the argument which was used to declare state laws against abortion "unconstitutional." (And which some are now trying to apply to "gay marriage" legislation.)

Because the 4th ammendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures (a perfectly just and reasonable law completely unrelated to abortion), it is argued that this implies an absolute "right to privacy" and then it is argued that anti-abortion laws violate this "constitutional right."

It's an absurd argument - by this logic, the constitution can mean whatever anyone wants it to mean. Simply come up with an unstated "implied principle," and then use this "principle" to argue for whatever you want.
This is follwoing neither the letter nor the intent of the constitution, but merely one's own agenda.

[JP2Iloveyou]

One other thing related to precedent...there was once a precedent set in a case called Plessy vs. Ferguson and another set in Dred Scot vs. Sanford. Dred Scot legalized slavery, which was overridden by President Lincoln's executive order to free the slaves. This was later made national law by amending the Constitution. Plessy established the "separate but equal" clause and was eventually overturned by Brown vs. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas. This case was argued by none other than Thurgood Marshall, the man who would later become the first African-American to sit on the Supreme Court.

In other words, presendents are not set in stone. The Court realizes that it can and does make mistakes. They also realize that these mistakes must be corrected.

The problem with abortion though, is that Roe vs. Wade did not really legalize abortion. It only made it a guaranteed "right" in the United States. Many states already had laws on the books legalizing abortion. Someday, when Roe is overturned, unfortunatelly many pro-lifers will quit fighting, thinking the fight is over. It is anything but. If Roe is overturned, abortion will still be legal in the U.S. until every state outlaws it, or until we have a Constitutional Amendment, guaranteeing the right to life.

[Winchester]

n excellent driver

really really good. excellent driver. yeah, definitely.



He's a politician.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Winchester' date='Aug 11 2005, 01:49 AM']n excellent driver

really really good. excellent driver. yeah, definitely.
He's a politician.
[right][snapback]681528[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Kmart smells of elderberries.

[Aloysius]

if Abraham Lincoln could use an executive order to free the slaves, could there be an executive order to make abortion illegal? probably not, but why not?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Aug 13 2005, 01:45 PM']if Abraham Lincoln could use an executive order to free the slaves, could there be an executive order to make abortion illegal?  probably not, but why not?
[right][snapback]684173[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Because today's politicians are rather spineless (and the states are not currently at war with one another, so making such a proclamation would be more politically problematic). Personally, I think Lincoln made the Emancipation Proclamation not so much from noble goals towards the slaves than as a strategic measure to further weaken the Confederate States in the time of war.

However, it is clear that a president would have no less constitutional power to outlaw abortion than Lincoln did to free the slaves.

[dspen2005]

it seems a bit comical to here opponents of roberts stress that if "he can follow the law" then there would be no problem. They preface that phrase -- "follow the law" -- by stating that the law is Roe v Wade. If we follow this paradigm, then alot more justices should not have been confirmed, insofar as we are speaking about Civil Rights -- Dredd Scott was the Law, Plessy v. Ferguson was the law.... But now, since everyone agrees that those rulings were tragic, there is no call for any sort of change in our society; and there were no calls for impeachment.....

funny, how libs are -- completely hypocritical.

[White Knight]

I heard the Democrats out there will most likely not block John Roberts during the Confirmation Hearing. But they'd love to interview him, hmm wonder why.