12 hours ago, Procus said:

If you are arguing against de facto judicial legislation, I agree.  Judges should simply apply the applicable law to the facts of record before them.  Judges should not create new law.  As you aptly state, judges should interpret law.  It's one of the reasons why Roe, from a purely legal standpoint, is a poor opinion.  You could say the same thing about Miranda, and Brown v. Board of Education as well.

Judges didn’t create law in Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education. The Supreme Court ruled (or upheld state rulings) that law’s legislated by the states (Texas and Kansas) were unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment in both cases. Then gave the framework of their ruling.

I’m not sure what you mean on Miranda…

15 hours ago, PoconoDon said:

They balanced the two competing interests by breaking it into 3 trimesters. 1st Trimester the State is not allowed to regulate abortions at all. 2nd trimester the State may regulate abortions to save a Mother's life. 3rd trimester the State may regulate abortions as it sees fit over any rights of the mother. That's where we are now.

You're a little behind. The initial ruling from Roe split abortion rights into trimesters. But it was found impractical to determine trimesters, so a later SCOTUS case ruled the standard now which is "fetal viability". Arguments settled at 24 weeks as the limit for fetal viability. But Mississippi is essentially arguing for fetal viability at 15 weeks. If they win, Georgia will present another case for 8 weeks. To put a little context where the cases before SCOTUS are now.

1 hour ago, toolg said:

You're a little behind. The initial ruling from Roe split abortion rights into trimesters. But it was found impractical to determine trimesters, so a later SCOTUS case ruled the standard now which is "fetal viability". Arguments settled at 24 weeks as the limit for fetal viability. But Mississippi is essentially arguing for fetal viability at 15 weeks. If they win, Georgia will present another case for 8 weeks. To put a little context where the cases before SCOTUS are now.

It's kind of ironic. In the original case one of the points they made was that the original laws were made when having an abortion at any stage jeopardized a womens health and with the current medical advances that argument was mute. Now with the current medical advances I could see the age when a fetus is viable get shorter and shorter.

6 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Judges didn’t create law in Roe v Wade or Brown v Board of Education. The Supreme Court ruled (or upheld state rulings) that law’s legislated by the states (Texas and Kansas) were unconstitutional according to the 14th amendment in both cases. Then gave the framework of their ruling.

I’m not sure what you mean on Miranda…

They absolutely created law.  Miranda, they dictated that rights be read, Brown, they dictated forced bussing, Roe, they created a non-existent right of privacy that has nothing to do with the 14th amendment

14 minutes ago, Toty said:

I saw partial lady parts in the boobs and butt thread 

it was neither boobs nor butt, but welcome nonetheless 

it was a good day

Wow!  You're really funny!!!  🥱

1 hour ago, Procus said:

They absolutely created law.  Miranda, they dictated that rights be read, Brown, they dictated forced bussing, Roe, they created a non-existent right of privacy that has nothing to do with the 14th amendment

What specific law did the Supreme Court create?
Please be as specific as possible so I can read about it.

2 hours ago, Procus said:

Brown, they dictated forced bussing

Um, no. Forced bussing didn't come until over 20 years after Brown.

9 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

Um, no. Forced bussing didn't come until over 20 years after Brown.

You are correct - my mistake.  Was thinking of when Ike sent troops into Little Rock.

On 12/15/2021 at 6:34 PM, PoconoDon said:

The privacy protection under the Due process Clause of the 14th Amendment was an application of the term "liberty" and the SCOTUS held that yes, women have a right to privacy that includes deciding to have an abortion, but the SCOTUS also said that right is not absolute. The SCOTUS also ruled that the State has a compelling interest in protecting prenatal life.

They balanced the two competing interests by breaking it into 3 trimesters. 1st Trimester the State is not allowed to regulate abortions at all. 2nd trimester the State may regulate abortions to save a Mother's life. 3rd trimester the State may regulate abortions as it sees fit over any rights of the mother. That's where we are now.

As for the gun thing, I'd say that's just not happening.

I thought it's not trimesters but viability? Or something like that? But either way the Texas program is blatantly trying to skirt that ruling by setting the age at 6 weeks. 

No doubt that Newsom's law is a clear non starter. It's a stunt. The only question I have is if it's a stunt that could force the issue on rulings regarding Texas' law. Yeah the constitutionality of gun ownership is much more clear, but per Roe the ability to have an abortion is protected by the constitution in at least some circumstances.  Again I don't see how you allow one and not the other unless you overturn Roe. 

7 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

I thought it's not trimesters but viability? Or something like that? But either way the Texas program is blatantly trying to skirt that ruling by setting the age at 6 weeks. 

No doubt that Newsom's law is a clear non starter. It's a stunt. The only question I have is if it's a stunt that could force the issue on rulings regarding Texas' law. Yeah the constitutionality of gun ownership is much more clear, but per Roe the ability to have an abortion is protected by the constitution in at least some circumstances.  Again I don't see how you allow one and not the other unless you overturn Roe. 

Planned parenthood vs. Casey changed the framework of the courts decision to use fetal viability instead of trimesters.

Edit: But the line of thinking that "we don’t like this ruling, so let’s stack the courts with judges who will overturn this one ruling” is not good in the long run. Judges should not have conservative or liberal labels. They should interpret law.

20 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

I thought it's not trimesters but viability? Or something like that? But either way the Texas program is blatantly trying to skirt that ruling by setting the age at 6 weeks. 

No doubt that Newsom's law is a clear non starter. It's a stunt. The only question I have is if it's a stunt that could force the issue on rulings regarding Texas' law. Yeah the constitutionality of gun ownership is much more clear, but per Roe the ability to have an abortion is protected by the constitution in at least some circumstances.  Again I don't see how you allow one and not the other unless you overturn Roe. 

Yeah, you and others are right. It is viability now. My mistake. Abortion law isn't something I follow closely. Maybe I should, lol. While 24 weeks seems a reasonable bright line to me, we'll have to wait and see if the line gets moved or not. 

9 minutes ago, PoconoDon said:

Yeah, you and others are right. It is viability now. My mistake. Abortion law isn't something I follow closely. Maybe I should, lol. While 24 weeks seems a reasonable bright line to me, we'll have to wait and see if the line gets moved or not. 

Only reason I have the (very limited) knowledge I do is because my wife is an OBGYN so no worries

23 hours ago, Procus said:

You are correct - my mistake.  Was thinking of when Ike sent troops into Little Rock.

I am seeing a pattern here.

9 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

I am seeing a pattern here.

Yes, honesty

14 hours ago, Procus said:

Yes, honesty

Have you found those laws the Supreme Court created yet?

8 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Have you found those laws the Supreme Court created yet?

Here's a link to an article from the Northwestern Law Review that can probably answer most of your questions on judicial legislation

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=facultyworkingpapers

8 hours ago, MidMoFo said:

Have you found those laws the Supreme Court created yet?

Interesting article on judicial activism as well.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism

 

13 hours ago, Procus said:

Here's a link to an article from the Northwestern Law Review that can probably answer most of your questions on judicial legislation

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1106&context=facultyworkingpapers

 

13 hours ago, Procus said:

Interesting article on judicial activism as well.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/judicial-activism

 

So an opinion piece and another about judicial rulings.

Give me an actual law created by the SCOTUS.

Here's the latest clown, ur uh, candidate, nominated to the high court by Biden.  She can't even define what a woman is.  And she's supposed to be a judge on the Supreme Court.  What a joke the woke Democratic party is nominating such an unqualified candidate for such an important position.

 

13 minutes ago, Procus said:

Here's the latest clown, ur uh, candidate, nominated to the high court by Biden.  She can't even define what a woman is.  And she's supposed to be a judge on the Supreme Court.  What a joke the woke Democratic party is nominating such an unqualified candidate for such an important position.

 

 

On 12/18/2021 at 9:13 AM, MidMoFo said:

Have you found those laws the Supreme Court created yet?

 

25 minutes ago, Procus said:

Here's the latest clown, ur uh, candidate, nominated to the high court by Biden.  She can't even define what a woman is.

 

She didn't take the bait because she's a smart 🍪

10 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

On 12/18/2021 at 9:13 AM, MidMoFo said:

Have you found those laws the Supreme Court created yet?

 

Have you ever heard of Miranda warnings?

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

She didn't take the bait because she's a smart 🍪

It's pretty clear from that comment that you're not so smart.  There was no "bait" in that question.  It's pretty straight forward.

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

It's pretty clear from that comment that you're not so smart.  There was no "bait" in that question.  It's pretty straight forward.

 

Pot, meet kettle: The fact that you can't discern that the question was a trap demonstrates your level of intellect and political awareness pretty succinctly.

1 minute ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

She didn't take the bait because she's a smart 🍪

Being unable to define very basic words is often a sign of high intelligence. 

Just now, Kz! said:

Being unable to define very basic words is often a sign of high intelligence. 

 

I don't think she's unable to define it; she just recognized the attempt to rile up opposition from her own camp.