Law school exam question . . . .
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
Yes, they usually say “the dissent is wrong because … “
Vitriol is subjective, but some rancor is not unusual.
The justices think very highly of themselves and their opinions. It’s like a 9 member Watercooler.
Note Alito has elevated the "preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development" above that of the life of the mother.
OF course, IANAL, but that's how I read that passage.
You can write them a letter and tell them how they suck. I’m sure they’d love to hear from the publick.
Don't forget the return address!
Oh, I don't think they suck at all. By all accounts Roe was a house of cards. Legislatures should legislate.
My concern with Alito is his politically tinged (at times) language...."abortionists" instead of "doctors" or "medical professionals" as an example. And yes, he knows exactly what he's doing. His opinion is a fine piece of writing and readable. That's hard to do.
Also, I'm not sure how concreate this passage might end up being:
He says all of the above while:
1. noting in his defense of his opinion other precedents having nothing to do with abortion
2. i'm not sold the pro-life movement won't come after contraception. Slippery slopes and all
3. Yeah, everything is subject to stare decisis, like Roe.
Theyre fun suckers. But remember. They can never come after the rhythm method. Practice. Practice. Practice. And you can control your reproductive destiny.
Abortions 'to save the life of the mother'
are less than 3% of the total...
Anyone using 'life of mother' to support any pro-death argument is a fraud.
Two recently deceased guys were waiting in line at heaven's buffet restaurant. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a guy in a white coat with a stethoscope around his neck, cuts in to the front of the line. The first guy says" What the heck, who does he think he is?" The second guy says, "Don't mind him, that's just God, he thinks he's a doctor."
Unless it is your wife dying. Seriously, you think 3% do not matter?
If unborn persons now have the right to veto their parents' abortion decision, doesn't a 5- or 6-year-old actually-born person also have the right to veto his parents' anti-vaccination or anti-medical treatment or home schooling decisions?
If the father of an unborn person dies without a will (not unheard of at all), does the unborn person have a right of inheritance against the monetary claims of the to-be-birth-mother against the late father's estate? (Actually-born persons likely already have such a claim in the absence of a will.)
The Republican Religious Right may well be surprised by government intrusions on families that result from pronouncing sweeping rights for unborn persons, as opposed to just declaring abortion a matter of state law not federal and thus illegal under law of a particular state,
Where is my post saying 3% don't matter?
It's the 97% who are slaughtered for convenience that demonstrate the depravity of pro-death supporters.
"Sweeping rights" being "Hey, please don't kill me."
Furthermore, the left is already making moves as indicated in your first paragraph. This ruling changes nothing of that. We'd still be fighting them over our children, the COVID pandemic, school fights, transgender movement, etc. already being examples of that.
Your inheritance question really boils down to "Should the father have to take care of his children?" The answer to that question is yes. If he and the mother are not married and he passes before the child is born, then his money should be tied up and that child and mother should have the ability to contest any will that does not include that child.
This fallacy that pro-life people want men to skirt responsibility is just that, a fallacy. The pump and dump men are mostly pro-choice.
97% slaughtered? Half of abortions are done by pill, which basically causes a miscarriage, not a D and C.
90% of abortions occur in the 1st trimester
Fewer than 1% of abortions occur in the third trimester.
It is a bit of a straw man, but it's not stupid.
You truly don't understand that you all are the dog who caught the car. Asa Hutchinson was on Meet the Press this week and didn't understand that the Plan B pill, which he says would remain legal as a contraceptive in Arkansas, causes a spontaneous abortion. Legislatures across the country are going to have a really hard time legislating what all this is going to look like. It'll probably be like "repeal & replace" for Obamacare where they spent so long saying they were going to do something they never actually got around to having a plan on they off chance they got the opportunity to actually do it.
Fetal personhood, which Alito certainly alludes to in his opinion, is a really hairy concept. Pregnant lady having a cigarette? Charged with child endangerment or child abuse? Claim as a dependent on taxes before birth? Either fetuses have rights or they don't. In the history of America it's never been held that rights attach before birth. So these are real questions.
So poisoning someone is a little less murdery than stabbing them to death? Just trying to sus out what exactly your argument is by bringing that up.
1) Slaughter is a really loaded word.
2) If a miscarriage is a slaughter, then 1/4 of pregnant women slaughter their babies without any outside help.
3) The fetus doesn't get poisoned. It causes the body to miscarry.
"The fetus isn't poisoned......."
It's still dead, murdered....
Distinction without difference.
The vitriol on the court was never more apparent than when you read the opinions on the high school football coach praying case. The majority opinion asserted that, in this instance, it was a coach expressing his personal views, without coersion. Sotomayor went so far as to include a photo of one of the postgame prayers in her rebuttal opinion, which showed the coach huddled up with most of the team and holding up his helmet, obviously leading a group prayer ceremony. It was nothing short of one justice calling another justice an outright shameless liar.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Because they think it will help get them elected again by their electorate.
Politicians, by and large, just don't care about any long term, institutional damage done by their particular antics to get elected. Staying in power is their primary end and they will use nearly any means to achieve that.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
The dissent and majority can and often do write testily towards each other.
From most accounts, though, Sct justices are very friendly to each other personally.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Hmm, he did at least list it before "maternal health and safety".
The text:
A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319 (1993). It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests. Id., at 320; FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 313 (1993); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976) (per curiam); Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 491 (1955). These legitimate interests include respect for and preservation of prenatal life at all stages of development, Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 157–158; the protection of maternal health and safety; the elimination of particularly gruesome or barbaric medical procedures; the preservation of the integrity of the medical profession; the mitigation of fetal pain; and the prevention of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability. See id., at 156– 157; Roe, 410 U. S., at 150; cf. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 728– 731 (identifying similar interests)
...
When theorizing what legitimate interests the state might have in regulating abortion he notes the bolded. Perhaps these aren't in any particular order but he opens the door for consideration of "prenatal life" up to fertilization.
I'll admit I might be wrong in my assumption. Won't be the first nor last time.
Sotomayor doesn't like that a group of people were willing to pray together in public, and was willing to assume, in an intellectually dishonest way, that there is subtle social coercion that needs to be prohibited. She would not make that same assumption about people who (example) publicly show up at a Pride rally. Similarly, if one asserted that some/many at a Pride rally were just there because of peer pressure/subtle social coercion, they would be slammed.
One mans meat is another mans poison.
We are all shocked to find gambling in the other guys casino.
Judges develop a special kind of weird.
Law nerds getting off on intellectually stimulating legal debates.
Occupational hazard.
Highest level legal yabbuts.
Wrong. Poisoned and not poisoned are actual differences. I’m sorry you don’t know how pills work.
And alive vs dead comes down to a determination of whether a fetus is alive or only potential life.
And according to your logic that miscarried equals dead, if a pregnant women did something to cause her miscarriage then she’d be as culpable for the loss of the fetus as much as a person who did the most gruesome abortion procedure or even shot a 9-month pregnant woman directly in the abdomen with full intent.
No you're not.
You don't care what his argument is; you just want to disagree with it.
And a close second to their primary goal of "staying in power" is simply attacking the Democrats for the sake of attacking, owning the libs for the sake of owning, etc. They think they look cool when they're attacking somebody (even Mike Pence) .
Proof can be seen in Mark Meadows' attacks on Trump following Jan. 6 followed by Meadows' 180-degree switch to attacking and owning the Dems. After he attacked Trump and then attacked the Dems, who is left for him to attack?
The fool who made the hunting-the-RINOs video recently just wanted to attack somebody, even fellow Republicans.
