Political Roundtable Part XIV

[payitforward]

I think everyone that participates in this thread knows I'm a conservative. ...

... when you call yourself "a conservative," what do you mean?

Conservative to me means one who conserves/preserves habits and institutions that over time have proven to work well.

Who doesn't want to conserve things "that over time have proven to work well?" I want do do that! But I don't think anyone would call me "a conservative." I'd say everyone wants to do that!

Would you accept a radical saying "Radical to me means one who wants to get rid of habits and institutions that over time have proven to work poorly" ?? You okay with that?

Come to think of it (!), if you would accept that, I'm afraid I'd have to call you a radical rather than a conservative!!

In fact, haven't you proposed some of the most radical ideas of anyone on this Board, Popper? Hmmm? How about...

Spoiler:

Lets split the US into two different countries -- one made up of the "blue" states & the other of the "red" states.

Seems pretty radical to me!! Seems to me, as well, that it's a move pretty far from "conserves/preserves habits and institutions that over time have proven to work well."

You revolutionary, you!!

[popper]

... if the contract (constitution) between the people and the federal government is living (meaning it can be altered by the whim of nine unelected judges without the peoples’ blessing) then it’s not worth the paper it’s written on. You would never enter into a contract knowing that the terms and conditions could be changed at a later date without your permission. There is a process for changing our constitution and it has happened 27 times so far in our history.

But, the Constitution is not a "contract... between the people and the federal government," Popper. A contract is an agreement between two or more already existing entities. The Constitution writes down the terms on which the people established a federal government.

I suppose you could think of it as a contract among all the people, but I don't think I've ever read anything from a legal scholar or US historian that so describes it.

Or maybe you could think of it as a contract among the states (i.e. the former colonies). But I don't think so. & again have never read anything wanting to view it that way. (& if it were, wouldn't you then require a new state to sign the contract upon coming into existence -- didn't happen.)

As well, of course, a contract always contains a reference to terms that would render it void & usually also mentions conditions that would allow a signatory to be released from the contract. Not the Constitution. There's no way for a state to leave the union.

There are factions within our country that want certain changes to the constitution but those changes are not supported by a sufficient number of voters/politicians/states. Therefore they want to appoint judges that endorse the living constitution idea so that they can enact changes without the necessary permission from the people....

Why don't we use the word "people" rather than "factions" for a minute? There are people in the US who want all kinds of things to happen. Some, e.g., want to restrict the right of poor people, especially poor black people, to vote. They pass local laws, which Appellate courts (&, ultimately, the SC if necessary) strike down.

Those people don't want the SC to rule the way it does. They want it to rule in a different direction. In which case, naturally, they want justices appointed to the SC who they think will rule the way they want.

Of course, it's possible there are people who want... I don't know, lets say "illegal immigrants" to vote. If the SC were somehow to be faced with this issue (ok, that's inconceivable -- but bear with me), it would obviously rule against a local law somewhere that allowed it to happen.

"Those people don't (or, in this case, would not) want the SC to rule the way it does (the way it would). They (would) want it to rule in a different direction. In which case, naturally, they (would) want justices appointed to the SC who they think will (i.e. would) rule the way they want."

Popper, the whole point of the court system is to deal with competing interests & desires. & every single SC Justice "endorses the living constitution idea" -- if by that you mean they try to figure out how to rule on subjects that it would have been utterly inconceivable for the framers to think about.

Do you want the courts not to rule about airspace? That above your house or the rest of it (e.g. used by commercial airlines)? We do need law about that -- & it's law that climbs inevitably to questions of constitutionality that "original intention" can say nothing about! We can't go to an original intention. Note that this doesn't mean we can't ask "what would Madison & Monroe have thought about 'X' had they been forced to understand it & think about its legal ramifications?" In fact, that's what it means to talk about a living document. It's also all it means.

Airspace, however complex, is nothing compared to what we face now & what's coming.

Think about drones in the air above you. Can they take your picture? No framer would have understood the phrase "take your picture," Popper. Can they "share" it? There was no use of the word "share" along those lines back then: "share" meant "divide in parts." Can they publish it on the Internet -- whooooaaaa!! I'm not taking on the task of explaining the Internet (nor "publish" as we mean the word today) to Thomas Jefferson!! & who is "they?" Who owns those drones? Does it matter? Can it be established clearly? Etc.

Over the next 20 years, we'll have another 20 billion devices connected to the Internet. You want all that to be the wild West? Or will we need the realm of law to encompass that world somehow?

You get me? The "life" of the Constitution has just begun -- or at least so we must all hope!

I thought it was a given that when the constitution does not provide legal definition/guidance on a particular issue then of course the courts would have to use their best judgement to adjudicate competing interests (assuming it's in the wheelhouse of their authority). That's not what I'm talking about though. The point I was trying to make, but evidently didn't, is that there are a significant numbers of people in this country who would endorse the limitation of say, political speech (by an individual or media group) if it furthered their interest. I'm talking about fundamental constitutional rights that would be altered or eliminated if we are not careful in choosing our SC.

I hate to use this as an example but it's the first thing that pops into my mind. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. If I'm not mistaken, prior to Roe vs Wade the individual states regulated the act however they saw fit. The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself. If the federal govt. determined that they needed to get involved with the issue then congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws if necessary. Instead a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air.

The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection. What a slippery slope that is.

[popper]

... when you call yourself "a conservative," what do you mean?

Conservative to me means one who conserves/preserves habits and institutions that over time have proven to work well.

Who doesn't want to conserve things "that over time have proven to work well?" I want do do that! But I don't think anyone would call me "a conservative." I'd say everyone wants to do that!

Would you accept a radical saying "Radical to me means one who wants to get rid of habits and institutions that over time have proven to work poorly" ?? You okay with that?

Come to think of it (!), if you would accept that, I'm afraid I'd have to call you a radical rather than a conservative!!

In fact, haven't you proposed some of the most radical ideas of anyone on this Board, Popper? Hmmm? How about...

Spoiler:

Lets split the US into two different countries -- one made up of the "blue" states & the other of the "red" states.

Seems pretty radical to me!! Seems to me, as well, that it's a move pretty far from "conserves/preserves habits and institutions that over time have proven to work well."

You revolutionary, you!!

Maybe I'm a radical conservative then Everyone doesn't want to conserve habits and institutions that work well PIF. There are millions of Americans for example that want to do away with the electoral college. If you think about it, you can come up with many other things that have worked well in the past that people want to eliminate. Think about Indu's family health insurance. It worked very well for him in the past and then it was canceled and replaced with a much more expensive plan that doesn't work well.

[payitforward]

I thought it was a given that when the constitution does not provide legal definition/guidance on a particular issue then of course the courts would have to use their best judgement to adjudicate competing interests (assuming it's in the wheelhouse of their authority).

No way! *All* decisions refer back to the law. & the law refers back to the most basic of laws: the Constitution. The courts are not in any other business, nor do judges "use their best judgement."

...there are a significant numbers of people in this country who would endorse the limitation of say, political speech (by an individual or media group) if it furthered their interest. I'm talking about fundamental constitutional rights that would be altered or eliminated if we are not careful in choosing our SC.

As I pointed out, what is covered under "freedom of speech" has been a moving target, & much more (not less) is covered now than was a century ago.

Nor can a justice eliminate a right! Or alter one. Justices can and do (I mean always do, Popper) interpret rights (and more) differently at different times. The changes go in all directions over time. But all of those changes are subject to further change by the same means that changed them in the first place.

I hate to use this as an example but it's the first thing that pops into my mind. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. If I'm not mistaken, prior to Roe vs Wade the individual states regulated the act however they saw fit. The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself. If the federal govt. determined that they needed to get involved with the issue then congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws if necessary. Instead a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air.

The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection. What a slippery slope that is.

Well, that is completely wrong. Right down the line. Congratulations.

1. "The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself." Good God, man. How many examples do you need of matters the SC judges on, matters it MUST judge on, where there's no specific "constitutional authority in the document." We couldn't have a rule of law at all if that didn't happen.

2. "congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws" (on this subject). Sigh. No, Popper. Laws passed by Congress are subject to adjudication by the SC as to their Constitutionality. Hence, if abortion were to be considered unconstitutional before such a law, then the law would be unconstitutional. If it were considered constitutional, otoh, then you wouldn't need that law. I ask you to think that through slowly, please, because it's kinda critical.

3. "a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air." Again, this was NOT one of "the prerogatives of the people and their representatives." Nor did the court "create new law out of thin air" or out of anything else. They interpreted individual rights, as described in the Constitution, to cover a woman's right to control her body.

4. "The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection." Total BS, Popper. Utterly & completely false. Have you even read Roe v. Wade? You haven't, have you?

The Court is not in a position to define "life." Nor am I. Nor are you. Nor when "human life" "begins." & once again, you aren't in a position to do that one either. Nor am I. What you think about that subject, what I think about it, what a SC justice thinks about it, these are all utterly irrelevant & were irrelevant in Roe v. Wade.

If you have a stance to take on the question, then I assume you'd rather have SC justices who rule the way you want. That just puts you in that group you were talking about of people who want justices appointed based on their own personal politics. Confirms that you are a radical not a conservative.

If the Supreme Court, legal thinking, Constitutional interpretation, or any related subjects are of interest to you, man, then why not go out & read about them? Real books I mean, not political tracts of any persuasion. There are plenty of books aimed at the general reader.

This 30-page publication covers 20 landmark decisions in the history of the court & costs a buck: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Decisions-Summarized-Explained-ebook/dp/B008WRJ4GY

This one I don't know, but I've read other volumes in the "Very Short Introduction" series & they've been outstanding: https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Supreme-Court-Short-Introduction/dp/0199754543

This is a highly regarded book by Scalia: https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691004005 that argues a point you are likely to agree with, but includes lengthy responses from other scholars & Scalia's answer to them.

& this by a very different SC justice: https://www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-Interpreting-Democratic-Constitution/dp/0307274942

Are you a Star Wars fan? This book is marvelous -- & about 3-5 pages actually talk about SC decision-making (the author's area of expertise; re: star wars, he's just a rabid fan): https://www.amazon.com/World-According-Star-Wars-ebook/dp/B018E2KI2K.

did you like Scalia? Do you like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Are you aware they were best friends?

[popper]

I thought it was a given that when the constitution does not provide legal definition/guidance on a particular issue then of course the courts would have to use their best judgement to adjudicate competing interests (assuming it's in the wheelhouse of their authority).

No way! *All* decisions refer back to the law. & the law refers back to the most basic of laws: the Constitution. The courts are not in any other business, nor do judges "use their best judgement."

...there are a significant numbers of people in this country who would endorse the limitation of say, political speech (by an individual or media group) if it furthered their interest. I'm talking about fundamental constitutional rights that would be altered or eliminated if we are not careful in choosing our SC.

As I pointed out, what is covered under "freedom of speech" has been a moving target, & much more (not less) is covered now than was a century ago.

Nor can a justice eliminate a right! Or alter one. Justices can and do (I mean always do, Popper) interpret rights (and more) differently at different times. The changes go in all directions over time. But all of those changes are subject to further change by the same means that changed them in the first place.

I hate to use this as an example but it's the first thing that pops into my mind. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. If I'm not mistaken, prior to Roe vs Wade the individual states regulated the act however they saw fit. The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself. If the federal govt. determined that they needed to get involved with the issue then congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws if necessary. Instead a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air.

The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection. What a slippery slope that is.

Well, that is completely wrong. Right down the line. Congratulations.

1. "The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself." Good God, man. How many examples do you need of matters the SC judges on, matters it MUST judge on, where there's no specific "constitutional authority in the document." We couldn't have a rule of law at all if that didn't happen.

2. "congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws" (on this subject). Sigh. No, Popper. Laws passed by Congress are subject to adjudication by the SC as to their Constitutionality. Hence, if abortion were to be considered unconstitutional before such a law, then the law would be unconstitutional. If it were considered constitutional, otoh, then you wouldn't need that law. I ask you to think that through slowly, please, because it's kinda critical.

3. "a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air." Again, this was NOT one of "the prerogatives of the people and their representatives." Nor did the court "create new law out of thin air" or out of anything else. They interpreted individual rights, as described in the Constitution, to cover a woman's right to control her body.

4. "The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection." Total BS, Popper. Utterly & completely false. Have you even read Roe v. Wade? You haven't, have you?

The Court is not in a position to define "life." Nor am I. Nor are you. Nor when "human life" "begins." & once again, you aren't in a position to do that one either. Nor am I. What you think about that subject, what I think about it, what a SC justice thinks about it, these are all utterly irrelevant & were irrelevant in Roe v. Wade.

If you have a stance to take on the question, then I assume you'd rather have SC justices who rule the way you want. That just puts you in that group you were talking about of people who want justices appointed based on their own personal politics. Confirms that you are a radical not a conservative.

If the Supreme Court, legal thinking, Constitutional interpretation, or any related subjects are of interest to you, man, then why not go out & read about them? Real books I mean, not political tracts of any persuasion. There are plenty of books aimed at the general reader.

This 30-page publication covers 20 landmark decisions in the history of the court & costs a buck: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Decisions-Summarized-Explained-ebook/dp/B008WRJ4GY

This one I don't know, but I've read other volumes in the "Very Short Introduction" series & they've been outstanding: https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Supreme-Court-Short-Introduction/dp/0199754543

This is a highly regarded book by Scalia: https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691004005 that argues a point you are likely to agree with, but includes lengthy responses from other scholars & Scalia's answer to them.

& this by a very different SC justice: https://www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-Interpreting-Democratic-Constitution/dp/0307274942

Are you a Star Wars fan? This book is marvelous -- & about 3-5 pages actually talk about SC decision-making (the author's area of expertise; re: star wars, he's just a rabid fan): https://www.amazon.com/World-According-Star-Wars-ebook/dp/B018E2KI2K.

did you like Scalia? Do you like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Are you aware they were best friends?

When you say “judges don’t use their best judgement” -- Laws often contain ambiguities in there definitions and guidance. When that occurs justices will use their best judgment to try to understand the intent, etc in order to render a decision. Is this not the case? Why is that controversial?

When you say justices cannot alter or eliminate a right but can only interpret it --- The end result of their interpretation can certainly alter or eliminate a right. Of course subsequent courts can override the prior decision with their new interpretation.

You say I’m wrong that the SC decided it knew the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection –--- Isn’t the result of their decision that constitutional rights do not extend to life inside the womb but only begin when life exits the womb? If so, then they certainly did determine the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection. If I’m wrong on this let me know.

You say the SC judges on many matters where the subject of the matter cannot be found in the constitution.---- At least I think that’s what you’re saying. If so, please provide a few examples. Don’t most decisions reference the origin of the courts authority in a particular matter and don’t some of those references lead to a related or relevant constitutional clause, paragraph, etc.?

You say the SC did not create new law out of thin air but instead interpreted human rights, as described in the constitution, to cover a woman’s right to control her body. ----- Didn’t the SC interpretation of human rights prohibit states, among other things, from outlawing abortion? If so, their interpretation becomes the law doesn’t it? So post Roe v Wade if a state prohibits abortion that would be against the law. A law that didn't exist before Roe v Wade.

Why the commentary on defining life, or when life begins? I didn't address those issues in my post. And, my position on abortion is immaterial to the conversation. I do believe though that it’s a personal matter best left to the individual or state.

It's been years since I read Roe v Wade. I'm happy to be corrected on any of the above if I'm mistaken.

edit -

Little-Known Facts about Roe v. Wade

by ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS January 23, 2017

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary.

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary. Yesterday marked the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and made unconstitutional most state efforts to regulate abortion practices. The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford……

...Some of our current slate of expansive abortion rights comes also from two other Supreme Court cases: Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). While Roe permitted late-term abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother, Doe defined a mother’s health expansively, as determined by “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient.” Under this logic, doctors are able to justify abortion in practically any instance, as any woman who might experience emotional strain or mental discomfort as the result of the pregnancy would be legally entitled to the termination of it....

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444135/roe-v-wade-abortion-constitutional-right-supreme-court-wrote-fiction

[dckingsfan]

Social Security has been proven to work well, which means it decreased poverty of our elderly and provided health and life insurance to those who couldn't normally afford a private plan.

Two in five elderly Americans would be poor without Social Security (as opposed to 1 out 5...our current rate). The program lifts 14.5 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Makes sense to "conserve" that, huh?

Let me ask you this question in a different way. If it is a great program (and you will get no disagreement from me), would you ever stretch the program until it is unsustainable? Is that progressive or conservative?

[popper]

I thought it was a given that when the constitution does not provide legal definition/guidance on a particular issue then of course the courts would have to use their best judgement to adjudicate competing interests (assuming it's in the wheelhouse of their authority).

No way! *All* decisions refer back to the law. & the law refers back to the most basic of laws: the Constitution. The courts are not in any other business, nor do judges "use their best judgement."

...there are a significant numbers of people in this country who would endorse the limitation of say, political speech (by an individual or media group) if it furthered their interest. I'm talking about fundamental constitutional rights that would be altered or eliminated if we are not careful in choosing our SC.

As I pointed out, what is covered under "freedom of speech" has been a moving target, & much more (not less) is covered now than was a century ago.

Nor can a justice eliminate a right! Or alter one. Justices can and do (I mean always do, Popper) interpret rights (and more) differently at different times. The changes go in all directions over time. But all of those changes are subject to further change by the same means that changed them in the first place.

I hate to use this as an example but it's the first thing that pops into my mind. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. If I'm not mistaken, prior to Roe vs Wade the individual states regulated the act however they saw fit. The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself. If the federal govt. determined that they needed to get involved with the issue then congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws if necessary. Instead a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air.

The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection. What a slippery slope that is.

Well, that is completely wrong. Right down the line. Congratulations.

1. "The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself." Good God, man. How many examples do you need of matters the SC judges on, matters it MUST judge on, where there's no specific "constitutional authority in the document." We couldn't have a rule of law at all if that didn't happen.

2. "congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws" (on this subject). Sigh. No, Popper. Laws passed by Congress are subject to adjudication by the SC as to their Constitutionality. Hence, if abortion were to be considered unconstitutional before such a law, then the law would be unconstitutional. If it were considered constitutional, otoh, then you wouldn't need that law. I ask you to think that through slowly, please, because it's kinda critical.

3. "a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air." Again, this was NOT one of "the prerogatives of the people and their representatives." Nor did the court "create new law out of thin air" or out of anything else. They interpreted individual rights, as described in the Constitution, to cover a woman's right to control her body.

4. "The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection." Total BS, Popper. Utterly & completely false. Have you even read Roe v. Wade? You haven't, have you?

The Court is not in a position to define "life." Nor am I. Nor are you. Nor when "human life" "begins." & once again, you aren't in a position to do that one either. Nor am I. What you think about that subject, what I think about it, what a SC justice thinks about it, these are all utterly irrelevant & were irrelevant in Roe v. Wade.

If you have a stance to take on the question, then I assume you'd rather have SC justices who rule the way you want. That just puts you in that group you were talking about of people who want justices appointed based on their own personal politics. Confirms that you are a radical not a conservative.

If the Supreme Court, legal thinking, Constitutional interpretation, or any related subjects are of interest to you, man, then why not go out & read about them? Real books I mean, not political tracts of any persuasion. There are plenty of books aimed at the general reader.

This 30-page publication covers 20 landmark decisions in the history of the court & costs a buck: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Decisions-Summarized-Explained-ebook/dp/B008WRJ4GY

This one I don't know, but I've read other volumes in the "Very Short Introduction" series & they've been outstanding: https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Supreme-Court-Short-Introduction/dp/0199754543

This is a highly regarded book by Scalia: https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691004005 that argues a point you are likely to agree with, but includes lengthy responses from other scholars & Scalia's answer to them.

& this by a very different SC justice: https://www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-Interpreting-Democratic-Constitution/dp/0307274942

Are you a Star Wars fan? This book is marvelous -- & about 3-5 pages actually talk about SC decision-making (the author's area of expertise; re: star wars, he's just a rabid fan): https://www.amazon.com/World-According-Star-Wars-ebook/dp/B018E2KI2K.

did you like Scalia? Do you like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Are you aware they were best friends?

When you say “judges don’t use their best judgement” -- Laws often contain ambiguities in there definitions and guidance. When that occurs justices will use their best judgment to try to understand the intent, etc in order to render a decision. Is this not the case? Why is that controversial?

When you say justices cannot alter or eliminate a right but can only interpret it --- The end result of their interpretation can certainly alter or eliminate a right. Of course subsequent courts can override the prior decision with their new interpretation.

You say I’m wrong that the SC decided it knew the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection –--- Isn’t the result of their decision that constitutional rights do not extend to life inside the womb but only begin when life exits the womb? If so, then they certainly did determine the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection. If I’m wrong on this let me know.

You say the SC judges on many matters where the subject of the matter cannot be found in the constitution.---- At least I think that’s what you’re saying. If so, please provide a few examples. Don’t most decisions reference the origin of the courts authority in a particular matter and don’t some of those references lead to a related or relevant constitutional clause, paragraph, etc.?

You say the SC did not create new law out of thin air but instead interpreted human rights, as described in the constitution, to cover a woman’s right to control her body. ----- Didn’t the SC interpretation of human rights prohibit states, among other things, from outlawing abortion? If so, their interpretation becomes the law doesn’t it? So post Roe v Wade if a state prohibits abortion that would be against the law. A law that didn't exist before Roe v Wade.

Why the commentary on defining life, or when life begins? I didn't address those issues in my post. And, my position on abortion is immaterial to the conversation. I do believe though that it’s a personal matter best left to the individual or state.

It's been years since I read Roe v Wade. I'm happy to be corrected on any of the above if I'm mistaken.

edit -

Little-Known Facts about Roe v. Wade

by ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS January 23, 2017

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary.

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary. Yesterday marked the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and made unconstitutional most state efforts to regulate abortion practices. The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford……

...Some of our current slate of expansive abortion rights comes also from two other Supreme Court cases: Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). While Roe permitted late-term abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother, Doe defined a mother’s health expansively, as determined by “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient.” Under this logic, doctors are able to justify abortion in practically any instance, as any woman who might experience emotional strain or mental discomfort as the result of the pregnancy would be legally entitled to the termination of it....

...Some of the justices signing onto the majority opinion were not convinced by his rationalization, arguing that creating this framework amounted to legislative activity. Blackmun eventually persuaded them, however, and even expanded his initial framework by permitting abortion later in pregnancy, to preserve the mother’s health.....

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444135/roe-v-wade-abortion-constitutional-right-supreme-court-wrote-fiction

[TGW]

Social Security has been proven to work well, which means it decreased poverty of our elderly and provided health and life insurance to those who couldn't normally afford a private plan.

Two in five elderly Americans would be poor without Social Security (as opposed to 1 out 5...our current rate). The program lifts 14.5 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Makes sense to "conserve" that, huh?

Let me ask you this question in a different way. If it is a great program (and you will get no disagreement from me), would you ever stretch the program until it is unsustainable? Is that progressive or conservative?

You'd have to prove to me what "unsustainable" actually is. Until then, I can't really say yes or no.

IMO it isn't stretched out enough. It's a great program that should be propped up more. The private alternative to SS has shown to be a massive failure (privatized accounts i.e. 401ks and privatized health insurance).

[TGW]

Why aren't the "fiscal conservatives" up in arms over this:

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/341312-pentagon-predicts-f-35-program-costs-to-jump-by-27-billion-report

Pentagon predicts F-35 program costs to jump by $27 billion: report
he Pentagon’s F-35 fighter jet program, the most expensive program to date, is expected to jump by at least $27 billion in costs, Bloomberg reported.

The total acquisition cost for the Lockheed Martin-made F-35 is predicted to spike about 7 percent to at least $406.5 billion, according to a draft of the Selected Acquisition Report, to be submitted to Congress this week.

The uptick follows several years of declining estimates. The report expected the current cost of $379 billion from a previous high of $398.5 billion in early 2014.

F-35 program spokesman Joe DellaVedova didn’t immediately respond to Bloomberg on the cost estimate increase. The Joint Strike Fighter program office typically waits until the report is formally released to Congress before commenting.
Delayed testing could be one reason for the increase. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) in April released a report that said “cascading F-35 testing delays” could add more than $1 billion to the cost of the program.

An extended production of the Air Force’s 1,763 F-35A models could also add to the new cost estimate, as could additional Marine Corps and Air Force F-35 variants.

The program cost increase cited in the report for Congress does not mean higher costs for future aircraft contracts, but the findings are still likely to draw attention from the White House.

President Trump has spoken out frequently in trying to lower F-35 contract costs, and met several times with Lockheed CEO Marillyn Hewson.

Prior to his inauguration, Trump tweeted that the costs of the program were “out of control.” He then took credit for a price decrease in the Pentagon’s February agreement to buy 90 more planes for $728 million less than the last batch.

Experts have said the price per plane was already on the decline.

Half a trillion dollars! Holy **** our taxpayer money is going to outdated jets. Great.

[dckingsfan]

Social Security has been proven to work well, which means it decreased poverty of our elderly and provided health and life insurance to those who couldn't normally afford a private plan.

Two in five elderly Americans would be poor without Social Security (as opposed to 1 out 5...our current rate). The program lifts 14.5 million elderly Americans out of poverty.

Makes sense to "conserve" that, huh?

Let me ask you this question in a different way. If it is a great program (and you will get no disagreement from me), would you ever stretch the program until it is unsustainable? Is that progressive or conservative?

You'd have to prove to me what "unsustainable" actually is. Until then, I can't really say yes or no.

IMO it isn't stretched out enough. It's a great program that should be propped up more. The private alternative to SS has shown to be a massive failure (privatized accounts i.e. 401ks and privatized health insurance).

In this case a picture is worth a 1000 words. These are the CBOs projections and if anything they are a bit rosy (you might not like the originator of the figure though). Wouldn't it be better to conserve the programs rather than let them head toward default? Are you okay with those programs squeezing all other programs (National Parks, Interstate Highway System, NIH, etc.).

I will pick on your party (even though both parties are equally at fault), the Ds in congress have defended baseline spending as a political tool for reelection purposes. Even though they know that that same baseline spending is hurting those that they want to help.

[TGW]

Let me ask you this question in a different way. If it is a great program (and you will get no disagreement from me), would you ever stretch the program until it is unsustainable? Is that progressive or conservative?

You'd have to prove to me what "unsustainable" actually is. Until then, I can't really say yes or no.

IMO it isn't stretched out enough. It's a great program that should be propped up more. The private alternative to SS has shown to be a massive failure (privatized accounts i.e. 401ks and privatized health insurance).

In this case a picture is worth a 1000 words. These are the CBOs projections and if anything they are a bit rosy (you might not like the originator of the figure though). Wouldn't it be better to conserve the programs rather than let them head toward default? Are you okay with those programs squeezing all other programs (National Parks, Interstate Highway System, NIH, etc.).

I will pick on your party (even though both parties are equally at fault), the Ds in congress have defended baseline spending as a political tool for reelection purposes. Even though they know that that same baseline spending is hurting those that they want to help.

Easy solution...raise taxes on the rich. Raise corporate taxes. Close loopholes. Cut military spending on bulls**t like outdated F-35 jets program that costs almost a trillion dollars. End the trillion dollar wars.

[I_Like_Dirt]

I support those kinds of solutions, but I don't think those are any simpler solutions than improving efficiency in the health care industry, because right now, in terms of collective costs, Americans are paying way more for the health care they get than anyone else. Yes, the care is top of the line for those that get it, but it isn't even remotely close to efficient. Hell, other countries aren't efficient and America makes them look brilliant by comparison.

And no matter what you do, eventually that efficiency in health care is going to have to be tackled, and more likely sooner than later.

[dckingsfan]

Easy solution...raise taxes on the rich. Raise corporate taxes. Close loopholes. Cut military spending on bulls**t like outdated F-35 jets program that costs almost a trillion dollars. End the trillion dollar wars.

Actually, that is a common misconception. There isn't a taxing problem per se, Between local, state and federal taxes you are at 40% of GDP (see the figure below). And that is slowing growth - the more you slow growth, the faster you run out of funding for those programs.

But yes to having a more efficient tax code, that would help growth. Remember, some of the best carveouts (casinos, Wall Street, etc.) came from the Ds (I know you know all the ones from the Rs). But do you hear the Ds supporting tax code revamp vs. "raising taxes"?

But the key to this that you seem to be missing is that we have a spending problem - and the spending problem comes in the form of baseline spending. Please check the graph in the previous post again. You could literally raise taxes on the top 1% to 100% and not be able to pay for what we have promised. Is that progressive? Or would a conservative approach of using what we have to the best affect be better?

As to reducing defense spending - we have been doing so for quite some time - I would like to see us get to 2% of GDP. Was Trump right to get our partners to do their fare share (figure below).

[bsilver]

There's a good chance that Roe vs Wade could be reversed in the next few years. A Kennedy retirement, replaced by a Gorsuch like judge would result in a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the deciding vote. He's strongly anti-abortion, but has said Roe vs Wade is decided law. His vote is not certain. Another liberal retirement - probably due to health - none would ever leave under a Republican - would virtually guarantee reversal of Roe vs Wade.
Reversing Roe vs Wade would leave abortion up to the states. The chances of a uniform federal govt policy by Constitution Amendment or legislation are extremely unlikely. Policy left to individual states would lead to chaos. Abortion in one state would be murder, and legal in a neighboring state. Women who could afford it would go to another state for an abortion. Poor women wanting abortions would be the only ones more likely to give birth. But, people such as myself, would gladly provide funds for travel to an abortion state.
The end result would not be that different than today. Women wanting abortions will still have access.

[dckingsfan]

There's a good chance that Roe vs Wade could be reversed in the next few years. A Kennedy retirement, replaced by a Gorsuch like judge would result in a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the deciding vote. He's strongly anti-abortion, but has said Roe vs Wade is decided law. His vote is not certain. Another liberal retirement - probably due to health - none would ever leave under a Republican - would virtually guarantee reversal of Roe vs Wade.

Reversing Roe vs Wade would leave abortion up to the states. The chances of a uniform federal govt policy by Constitution Amendment or legislation are extremely unlikely. Policy left to individual states would lead to chaos. Abortion in one state would be murder, and legal in a neighboring state. Women who could afford it would go to another state for an abortion. Poor women wanting abortions would be the only ones more likely to give birth. But, people such as myself, would gladly provide funds for travel to an abortion state.

The end result would not be that different than today. Women wanting abortions will still have access.

I respectfully disagree that there would be a "good" chance. I think it would be slim at best. The precedent was established by a 7-2 vote, not a razor-thin 5-4 margin. It would hold - the SC likes to uphold precedent. Double precedent in light of Planned Parenthood v. Casey...

So, is it probable - no. Is it possible - I guess anything is possible.

[payitforward]

Maybe I'm a radical conservative then Everyone doesn't want to conserve habits and institutions that work well PIF. There are millions of Americans for example that want to do away with the electoral college. If you think about it, you can come up with many other things that have worked well in the past that people want to eliminate. Think about Indu's family health insurance. It worked very well for him in the past and then it was canceled and replaced with a much more expensive plan that doesn't work well.

Oh my.... No, Popper. What you mean is that not everybody agrees about what works well. People don't, & will never, agree about a phrase as broad & meaningless as "works well."

To take your example, if you'd like to include the Electoral College in what "works well," of course you will have to describe what you mean by that. What makes you think it either does work well or has worked well. Also, worked well in pursuit of what aim? Has there ever been a case where it didn't work well? Is there a way to deal with such cases?

& what you leave out is also important -- works well for whom?

As I say, a definition of being conservative as "I'm in favor of keeping things that work well" says no more than a definition of radical as "I'm in favor of jettisoning things that work badly."

Btw, I downloaded & read that $1 publication about 20 important cases in the history of the Supreme Court. I recommend it.

[payitforward]

I thought it was a given that when the constitution does not provide legal definition/guidance on a particular issue then of course the courts would have to use their best judgement to adjudicate competing interests (assuming it's in the wheelhouse of their authority).

No way! *All* decisions refer back to the law. & the law refers back to the most basic of laws: the Constitution. The courts are not in any other business, nor do judges "use their best judgement."

...there are a significant numbers of people in this country who would endorse the limitation of say, political speech (by an individual or media group) if it furthered their interest. I'm talking about fundamental constitutional rights that would be altered or eliminated if we are not careful in choosing our SC.

As I pointed out, what is covered under "freedom of speech" has been a moving target, & much more (not less) is covered now than was a century ago.

Nor can a justice eliminate a right! Or alter one. Justices can and do (I mean always do, Popper) interpret rights (and more) differently at different times. The changes go in all directions over time. But all of those changes are subject to further change by the same means that changed them in the first place.

I hate to use this as an example but it's the first thing that pops into my mind. Abortion is not mentioned in the constitution. If I'm not mistaken, prior to Roe vs Wade the individual states regulated the act however they saw fit. The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself. If the federal govt. determined that they needed to get involved with the issue then congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws if necessary. Instead a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air.

The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection. What a slippery slope that is.

Well, that is completely wrong. Right down the line. Congratulations.

1. "The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself." Good God, man. How many examples do you need of matters the SC judges on, matters it MUST judge on, where there's no specific "constitutional authority in the document." We couldn't have a rule of law at all if that didn't happen.

2. "congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws" (on this subject). Sigh. No, Popper. Laws passed by Congress are subject to adjudication by the SC as to their Constitutionality. Hence, if abortion were to be considered unconstitutional before such a law, then the law would be unconstitutional. If it were considered constitutional, otoh, then you wouldn't need that law. I ask you to think that through slowly, please, because it's kinda critical.

3. "a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air." Again, this was NOT one of "the prerogatives of the people and their representatives." Nor did the court "create new law out of thin air" or out of anything else. They interpreted individual rights, as described in the Constitution, to cover a woman's right to control her body.

4. "The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection." Total BS, Popper. Utterly & completely false. Have you even read Roe v. Wade? You haven't, have you?

The Court is not in a position to define "life." Nor am I. Nor are you. Nor when "human life" "begins." & once again, you aren't in a position to do that one either. Nor am I. What you think about that subject, what I think about it, what a SC justice thinks about it, these are all utterly irrelevant & were irrelevant in Roe v. Wade.

If you have a stance to take on the question, then I assume you'd rather have SC justices who rule the way you want. That just puts you in that group you were talking about of people who want justices appointed based on their own personal politics. Confirms that you are a radical not a conservative.

If the Supreme Court, legal thinking, Constitutional interpretation, or any related subjects are of interest to you, man, then why not go out & read about them? Real books I mean, not political tracts of any persuasion. There are plenty of books aimed at the general reader.

This 30-page publication covers 20 landmark decisions in the history of the court & costs a buck: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Decisions-Summarized-Explained-ebook/dp/B008WRJ4GY

This one I don't know, but I've read other volumes in the "Very Short Introduction" series & they've been outstanding: https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Supreme-Court-Short-Introduction/dp/0199754543

This is a highly regarded book by Scalia: https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691004005 that argues a point you are likely to agree with, but includes lengthy responses from other scholars & Scalia's answer to them.

& this by a very different SC justice: https://www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-Interpreting-Democratic-Constitution/dp/0307274942

Are you a Star Wars fan? This book is marvelous -- & about 3-5 pages actually talk about SC decision-making (the author's area of expertise; re: star wars, he's just a rabid fan): https://www.amazon.com/World-According-Star-Wars-ebook/dp/B018E2KI2K.

did you like Scalia? Do you like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Are you aware they were best friends?

When you say “judges don’t use their best judgement” -- Laws often contain ambiguities in there definitions and guidance. When that occurs justices will use their best judgment to try to understand the intent, etc in order to render a decision. Is this not the case? Why is that controversial?

When you say justices cannot alter or eliminate a right but can only interpret it --- The end result of their interpretation can certainly alter or eliminate a right. Of course subsequent courts can override the prior decision with their new interpretation.

You say I’m wrong that the SC decided it knew the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection –--- Isn’t the result of their decision that constitutional rights do not extend to life inside the womb but only begin when life exits the womb? If so, then they certainly did determine the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection. If I’m wrong on this let me know.

You say the SC judges on many matters where the subject of the matter cannot be found in the constitution.---- At least I think that’s what you’re saying. If so, please provide a few examples. Don’t most decisions reference the origin of the courts authority in a particular matter and don’t some of those references lead to a related or relevant constitutional clause, paragraph, etc.?

You say the SC did not create new law out of thin air but instead interpreted human rights, as described in the constitution, to cover a woman’s right to control her body. ----- Didn’t the SC interpretation of human rights prohibit states, among other things, from outlawing abortion? If so, their interpretation becomes the law doesn’t it? So post Roe v Wade if a state prohibits abortion that would be against the law. A law that didn't exist before Roe v Wade.

Why the commentary on defining life, or when life begins? I didn't address those issues in my post. And, my position on abortion is immaterial to the conversation. I do believe though that it’s a personal matter best left to the individual or state.

It's been years since I read Roe v Wade. I'm happy to be corrected on any of the above if I'm mistaken.

edit -

Little-Known Facts about Roe v. Wade

by ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS January 23, 2017

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary.

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary. Yesterday marked the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and made unconstitutional most state efforts to regulate abortion practices. The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford……

...Some of our current slate of expansive abortion rights comes also from two other Supreme Court cases: Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). While Roe permitted late-term abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother, Doe defined a mother’s health expansively, as determined by “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient.” Under this logic, doctors are able to justify abortion in practically any instance, as any woman who might experience emotional strain or mental discomfort as the result of the pregnancy would be legally entitled to the termination of it....

Look man.... First off, I'm familiar w/ the bogus reasoning in the National Review article you cite. I have read on all sides of this issue. Have you? If you haven't, then in fact you haven't really thought about the issue in any serious way at all. & until you do, there is no reason for me or anyone to take seriously what you write about it.

Moreover, please understand that the fact that Alexandra DeSanctis thinks a piece of legal reasoning is "incredibly shaky" is of absolutely zero importance in this matter. Just as if I were to spend the time to find someone who graduated from college with a BA earlier this Summer or last who is on the other side of the issue, that too would be of zero importance.

Ms. DeSanctis is a devout Catholic for whom abortion is legalized murder. In another piece of her writing, she describes "the unborn" as members of the family. She has a right to her beliefs; she has a right to write about them for the NR. Or for Ethika Politika. I support that right and would fight any attempt to take it from her. I support as well her right to skip her graduation ceremony from Notre Dame last Summer, because (among other reasons) she would have had to shake the hand of VP Joe Biden. All the same, it'd take a lot of evidence, & a lot more years of living on Alexandra's part, before I'd be willing to say she was as good a person as I have reason to think Joe Biden is.

Similarly, I don't question your right to any belief you hold. & if you simply want to be the mouthpiece of someone's ideas, that's up to you. But I'd say that to have an actual take on the Supreme Court you'd have to done a little more investigating & reading than it seems you have ("seems" -- I could be wrong). I'd guess as well that you could stand to learn a little about the history of abortion as well.

I hope you do look into these things, Popper. I have no reason to have anything against you, any more than I do to have anything against Nate (who is in fact one of my absolute favorite posters on this Board), but that doesn't mean I am going to take seriously ideas I know to be false or that I know to have an intimate & long-term connection with oppressive right-wing ideologies (& practices). Especially when I know that these ideas were cooked precisely to that set of goals.

For clarity, yes, of course a SC decision is law. That is the point of it. OTOH, when you write "...my position on abortion is immaterial to the conversation. I do believe though that it’s a personal matter best left to the individual or state," you entirely miss the point: if this "personal matter" is left to the "person" ("to the individual" as you write), & you agree, then you are a supporter of Roe v. Wade, as that is its point.

If you think that abortion is "a personal matter best left to the... state," then you have affirmed something that's a contradiction in terms.

[popper]

No way! *All* decisions refer back to the law. & the law refers back to the most basic of laws: the Constitution. The courts are not in any other business, nor do judges "use their best judgement."

As I pointed out, what is covered under "freedom of speech" has been a moving target, & much more (not less) is covered now than was a century ago.

Nor can a justice eliminate a right! Or alter one. Justices can and do (I mean always do, Popper) interpret rights (and more) differently at different times. The changes go in all directions over time. But all of those changes are subject to further change by the same means that changed them in the first place.

Well, that is completely wrong. Right down the line. Congratulations.

1. "The SC invented a constitutional authority that doesn't exist in the document itself." Good God, man. How many examples do you need of matters the SC judges on, matters it MUST judge on, where there's no specific "constitutional authority in the document." We couldn't have a rule of law at all if that didn't happen.

2. "congress is the appropriate place to debate and pass new laws" (on this subject). Sigh. No, Popper. Laws passed by Congress are subject to adjudication by the SC as to their Constitutionality. Hence, if abortion were to be considered unconstitutional before such a law, then the law would be unconstitutional. If it were considered constitutional, otoh, then you wouldn't need that law. I ask you to think that through slowly, please, because it's kinda critical.

3. "a handful of politically motivated justices usurped the prerogatives of the people and their representatives and created new law out of thin air." Again, this was NOT one of "the prerogatives of the people and their representatives." Nor did the court "create new law out of thin air" or out of anything else. They interpreted individual rights, as described in the Constitution, to cover a woman's right to control her body.

4. "The SC decided it knows the exact moment when a life is worthy of constitutional protection." Total BS, Popper. Utterly & completely false. Have you even read Roe v. Wade? You haven't, have you?

The Court is not in a position to define "life." Nor am I. Nor are you. Nor when "human life" "begins." & once again, you aren't in a position to do that one either. Nor am I. What you think about that subject, what I think about it, what a SC justice thinks about it, these are all utterly irrelevant & were irrelevant in Roe v. Wade.

If you have a stance to take on the question, then I assume you'd rather have SC justices who rule the way you want. That just puts you in that group you were talking about of people who want justices appointed based on their own personal politics. Confirms that you are a radical not a conservative.

If the Supreme Court, legal thinking, Constitutional interpretation, or any related subjects are of interest to you, man, then why not go out & read about them? Real books I mean, not political tracts of any persuasion. There are plenty of books aimed at the general reader.

This 30-page publication covers 20 landmark decisions in the history of the court & costs a buck: https://www.amazon.com/Supreme-Court-Decisions-Summarized-Explained-ebook/dp/B008WRJ4GY

This one I don't know, but I've read other volumes in the "Very Short Introduction" series & they've been outstanding: https://www.amazon.com/U-S-Supreme-Court-Short-Introduction/dp/0199754543

This is a highly regarded book by Scalia: https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Interpretation-Federal-Courts-University/dp/0691004005 that argues a point you are likely to agree with, but includes lengthy responses from other scholars & Scalia's answer to them.

& this by a very different SC justice: https://www.amazon.com/Active-Liberty-Interpreting-Democratic-Constitution/dp/0307274942

Are you a Star Wars fan? This book is marvelous -- & about 3-5 pages actually talk about SC decision-making (the author's area of expertise; re: star wars, he's just a rabid fan): https://www.amazon.com/World-According-Star-Wars-ebook/dp/B018E2KI2K.

did you like Scalia? Do you like Ruth Bader Ginsburg? Are you aware they were best friends?

When you say “judges don’t use their best judgement” -- Laws often contain ambiguities in there definitions and guidance. When that occurs justices will use their best judgment to try to understand the intent, etc in order to render a decision. Is this not the case? Why is that controversial?

When you say justices cannot alter or eliminate a right but can only interpret it --- The end result of their interpretation can certainly alter or eliminate a right. Of course subsequent courts can override the prior decision with their new interpretation.

You say I’m wrong that the SC decided it knew the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection –--- Isn’t the result of their decision that constitutional rights do not extend to life inside the womb but only begin when life exits the womb? If so, then they certainly did determine the exact moment when life is worthy of constitutional protection. If I’m wrong on this let me know.

You say the SC judges on many matters where the subject of the matter cannot be found in the constitution.---- At least I think that’s what you’re saying. If so, please provide a few examples. Don’t most decisions reference the origin of the courts authority in a particular matter and don’t some of those references lead to a related or relevant constitutional clause, paragraph, etc.?

You say the SC did not create new law out of thin air but instead interpreted human rights, as described in the constitution, to cover a woman’s right to control her body. ----- Didn’t the SC interpretation of human rights prohibit states, among other things, from outlawing abortion? If so, their interpretation becomes the law doesn’t it? So post Roe v Wade if a state prohibits abortion that would be against the law. A law that didn't exist before Roe v Wade.

Why the commentary on defining life, or when life begins? I didn't address those issues in my post. And, my position on abortion is immaterial to the conversation. I do believe though that it’s a personal matter best left to the individual or state.

It's been years since I read Roe v Wade. I'm happy to be corrected on any of the above if I'm mistaken.

edit -

Little-Known Facts about Roe v. Wade

by ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS January 23, 2017

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary.

Justice Harry Blackmun invented the ‘trimester’ framework and admitted that it was arbitrary. Yesterday marked the 44th anniversary of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, which established a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion and made unconstitutional most state efforts to regulate abortion practices. The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford……

...Some of our current slate of expansive abortion rights comes also from two other Supreme Court cases: Roe’s companion case, Doe v. Bolton (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). While Roe permitted late-term abortion to preserve the life or health of the mother, Doe defined a mother’s health expansively, as determined by “all factors — physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman’s age — relevant to the well being of the patient.” Under this logic, doctors are able to justify abortion in practically any instance, as any woman who might experience emotional strain or mental discomfort as the result of the pregnancy would be legally entitled to the termination of it....

Look man.... First off, I'm familiar w/ the bogus reasoning in the National Review article you cite. I have read on all sides of this issue. Have you? If you haven't, then in fact you haven't really thought about the issue in any serious way at all. & until you do, there is no reason for me or anyone to take seriously what you write about it.

Moreover, please understand that the fact that Alexandra DeSanctis thinks a piece of legal reasoning is "incredibly shaky" is of absolutely zero importance in this matter. Just as if I were to spend the time to find someone who graduated from college with a BA earlier this Summer or last who is on the other side of the issue, that too would be of zero importance.

Ms. DeSanctis is a devout Catholic for whom abortion is legalized murder. In another piece of her writing, she describes "the unborn" as members of the family. She has a right to her beliefs; she has a right to write about them for the NR. Or for Ethika Politika. I support that right and would fight any attempt to take it from her. I support as well her right to skip her graduation ceremony from Notre Dame last Summer, because (among other reasons) she would have had to shake the hand of VP Joe Biden. All the same, it'd take a lot of evidence, & a lot more years of living on Alexandra's part, before I'd be willing to say she was as good a person as I have reason to think Joe Biden is.

Similarly, I don't question your right to any belief you hold. & if you simply want to be the mouthpiece of someone's ideas, that's up to you. But I'd say that to have an actual take on the Supreme Court you'd have to done a little more investigating & reading than it seems you have ("seems" -- I could be wrong). I'd guess as well that you could stand to learn a little about the history of abortion as well.

I hope you do look into these things, Popper. I have no reason to have anything against you, any more than I do to have anything against Nate (who is in fact one of my absolute favorite posters on this Board), but that doesn't mean I am going to take seriously ideas I know to be false or that I know to have an intimate & long-term connection with oppressive right-wing ideologies (& practices). Especially when I know that these ideas were cooked precisely to that set of goals.

For clarity, yes, of course a SC decision is law. That is the point of it. OTOH, when you write "...my position on abortion is immaterial to the conversation. I do believe though that it’s a personal matter best left to the individual or state," you entirely miss the point: if this "personal matter" is left to the "person" ("to the individual" as you write), & you agree, then you are a supporter of Roe v. Wade, as that is its point.

If you think that abortion is "a personal matter best left to the... state," then you have affirmed something that's a contradiction in terms.

Following are comments from a few legal experts and a few legal commentators who are/were sympathetic to the abortion cause. They eviscerate the decision consistent with my original post. I don’t think there’s a conservative among them PIF. Let me know if you need more examples.

“[I]t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result. This is not surprising. As a constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.” — Kermit Roosevelt, University of Pennsylvania law professor

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.” — Laurence H. Tribe, Harvard law professor

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose. … Justice Blackmun’s opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the … years since Roe’s announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.” — Edward Lazarus, former clerk to Justice Harry Blackmun

“Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy). … [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present [in Roe].” — Alan Dershowitz, Harvard law professor

“Blackmun’s [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.” — William Saletan, Slate columnist, writing in Legal Affairs

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching.” — Michael Kinsley, columnist, writing in the Washington Post.

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the Court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”— Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

'What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right,'' Professor Ely wrote in the Yale Law Journal in 1973, ''is not inferable from the language of the Constitution...

[bsilver]

There's a good chance that Roe vs Wade could be reversed in the next few years. A Kennedy retirement, replaced by a Gorsuch like judge would result in a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the deciding vote. He's strongly anti-abortion, but has said Roe vs Wade is decided law. His vote is not certain. Another liberal retirement - probably due to health - none would ever leave under a Republican - would virtually guarantee reversal of Roe vs Wade.

Reversing Roe vs Wade would leave abortion up to the states. The chances of a uniform federal govt policy by Constitution Amendment or legislation are extremely unlikely. Policy left to individual states would lead to chaos. Abortion in one state would be murder, and legal in a neighboring state. Women who could afford it would go to another state for an abortion. Poor women wanting abortions would be the only ones more likely to give birth. But, people such as myself, would gladly provide funds for travel to an abortion state.

The end result would not be that different than today. Women wanting abortions will still have access.

I respectfully disagree that there would be a "good" chance. I think it would be slim at best. The precedent was established by a 7-2 vote, not a razor-thin 5-4 margin. It would hold - the SC likes to uphold precedent. Double precedent in light of Planned Parenthood v. Casey...

So, is it probable - no. Is it possible - I guess anything is possible.

Casey was 5-4. At least 4 judges went against precedent. Alito and Thomas will vote to overturn. Gorsuch looks to be as conservative as anyone on the court. If Trump gets 2 more picks I see it getting overturned. However, I think Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Breyer/Kagan will do their best to wait until 2020.

[dckingsfan]

There's a good chance that Roe vs Wade could be reversed in the next few years. A Kennedy retirement, replaced by a Gorsuch like judge would result in a 5-4 decision with Roberts as the deciding vote. He's strongly anti-abortion, but has said Roe vs Wade is decided law. His vote is not certain. Another liberal retirement - probably due to health - none would ever leave under a Republican - would virtually guarantee reversal of Roe vs Wade.

Reversing Roe vs Wade would leave abortion up to the states. The chances of a uniform federal govt policy by Constitution Amendment or legislation are extremely unlikely. Policy left to individual states would lead to chaos. Abortion in one state would be murder, and legal in a neighboring state. Women who could afford it would go to another state for an abortion. Poor women wanting abortions would be the only ones more likely to give birth. But, people such as myself, would gladly provide funds for travel to an abortion state.

The end result would not be that different than today. Women wanting abortions will still have access.

I respectfully disagree that there would be a "good" chance. I think it would be slim at best. The precedent was established by a 7-2 vote, not a razor-thin 5-4 margin. It would hold - the SC likes to uphold precedent. Double precedent in light of Planned Parenthood v. Casey...

So, is it probable - no. Is it possible - I guess anything is possible.

Casey was 5-4. At least 4 judges went against precedent. Alito and Thomas will vote to overturn. Gorsuch looks to be as conservative as anyone on the court. If Trump gets 2 more picks I see it getting overturned. However, I think Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Breyer/Kagan will do their best to wait until 2020.

The point of Casey is it sets a greater precedent. The original decision was 7-2. Trump would need at least 2 more for it to be overturned... even that would be unlikely.

And I still don't think Kennedy is going to retire very soon. But one of Ginsburg/Sotomayor/Breyer/Kagan would also need to die to get 2 more swing votes on the SC.

It is possible, but I think unlikely. I could also see the mid-terms flipping the Senate to the Ds. The Rs are not exactly governing well.