Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

runboard.com       Sign up (learn about it) | Sign in (lost password?)

Page:  1  2  3 ... 5  6  7 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


Just like Brown, Roe ranks as one of the best decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. The fact that there has been a lot of disagreement about it outside The Court is irrelevant. There were probably lots of people who disagreed with Brown also. I suspect a lot of people still don't believe in making sure that schools are integrated but of course it doesn't matter.

The fact that Judge Barrett doesn't believe Roe is a super-precedent strongly suggests that she is unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. It's certainly an indication that she doesn't have a great understanding of the significance of Roe nor recognize that any disagreement about it doesn't really matter. Roe v Wade is about a basic right of women just as important as the basic right to an equal education in public schools.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/barrett-roe-v-wade-not-super-precedent-that-cannot-be-overturned
10/13/2020, 11:10 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

Barrett said that a case like Brown v. Board of Education, which banned segregation in schools, would be considered a super precedent because “people consider it to be on that very small list of things so widely established and agreed upon by everyone, calls for its overruling simply don’t exist.”

“I'm answering a lot of questions about Roe which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall into that category,” the Supreme Court nominee told Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn.

She added: “Scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled but descriptively it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling."



I find it very interesting that any judge or legal scholar would consider outside disagreement with a court ruling to have any bearing whatsoever on whether a Supreme Court ruling should set firm precedent or qualifies as a super-precedent. Are those folks outside our courts qualified to make legal rulings like members of the Supreme Court? Does their disagreement with a ruling like Roe matter in the slightest?

If so, why? Roe stands on its own as one of the best legal decisions ever made by the Supreme Court. No amount of disagreement, even among judges and legal scholars will change that fact. And it was a legal decision written by a Republican!
10/13/2020, 11:19 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


There is no such thing as a "super precedent," It is a precedent or it isn't. Super was a phrase coined during Roe vs Wade and anything to do with birth control as well. It was a made up term by a couple judges in a lower court, who were conservative, surprise, not.
10/14/2020, 2:04 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

There is no such thing as a "super precedent," It is a precedent or it isn't. Super was a phrase coined during Roe vs Wade and anything to do with birth control as well. It was a made up term by a couple judges in a lower court, who were conservative, surprise, not.



Super precedent just means a precedent that needs to stand and be supported by all of the judiciary as Brown likely is. I doubt that you would be able to find any judge who claims that integrating public schools was a bad idea.

No judge or legal scholar should disagree with Roe either. It supports a basic right just as much as Brown.
10/14/2020, 3:16 am Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Fiero425 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 06-2017
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 174
Karma: 4 (+4/-0)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

katie5445 wrote:

There is no such thing as a "super precedent," It is a precedent or it isn't. Super was a phrase coined during Roe vs Wade and anything to do with birth control as well. It was a made up term by a couple judges in a lower court, who were conservative, surprise, not.



Super precedent just means a precedent that needs to stand and be supported by all of the judiciary as Brown likely is. I doubt that you would be able to find any judge who claims that integrating public schools was a bad idea.

No judge or legal scholar should disagree with Roe either. It supports a basic right just as much as Brown.



It doesn't matter that R v W is settled precedent, Republicans and conservatives use it as a political tool! As someone said the other day, "if you're willing to kill babies, you're capable of anything" I guess! That's how Dems and Libs are looked at and it's so obscene, women went with Trump over Hillary so that's how far gone these people are! emoticon

---
"Yes, I feel it; the power fills me! I feel the universe within me! ...You Are No Longer My Equal! I AM More Than Man, More Than LIFE; I AM A GOD!" Skeletor to He-Man in Masters Of The Universe
10/14/2020, 3:32 am Link to this post PM Fiero425 Blog
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

Fiero425 wrote:

quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

katie5445 wrote:

There is no such thing as a "super precedent," It is a precedent or it isn't. Super was a phrase coined during Roe vs Wade and anything to do with birth control as well. It was a made up term by a couple judges in a lower court, who were conservative, surprise, not.



Super precedent just means a precedent that needs to stand and be supported by all of the judiciary as Brown likely is. I doubt that you would be able to find any judge who claims that integrating public schools was a bad idea.

No judge or legal scholar should disagree with Roe either. It supports a basic right just as much as Brown.



It doesn't matter that R v W is settled precedent, Republicans and conservatives use it as a political tool! As someone said the other day, "if you're willing to kill babies, you're capable of anything" I guess! That's how Dems and Libs are looked at and it's so obscene, women went with Trump over Hillary so that's how far gone these people are! emoticon



Even if at least some Republican politicians use the controversy merely for political gain the folks who support candidates like Trump take the issue very seriously. That's why they say things like you quoted. As I've mentioned, the abortion controversy is one of the main drivers of conservatism in this country and the unshakeable support for questionable politicians like Trump.

Of course there wouldn't be any abortion controversy if this country had enough respect for women and their rights.
10/14/2020, 7:16 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


I agree and they have a poor argument. When they insist on using a religious argument that is not on the table. If they use murder, science defines the life of a blastocyst or a fetus but not as a viable human. To object to the morning after pill and especially BC is just as bad.
10/16/2020, 1:47 am Link to this post PM katie5445 Blog
 
Yobbo Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 11-2008
Posts: 2661
Karma: 26 (+34/-8)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I agree and they have a poor argument. When they insist on using a religious argument that is not on the table. If they use murder, science defines the life of a blastocyst or a fetus but not as a viable human. To object to the morning after pill and especially BC is just as bad.



Worse, actually!
10/17/2020, 4:34 pm Link to this post PM Yobbo
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I agree and they have a poor argument. When they insist on using a religious argument that is not on the table. If they use murder, science defines the life of a blastocyst or a fetus but not as a viable human. To object to the morning after pill and especially BC is just as bad.



Science doesn't tell us that the unborn blastocyst or fetus has no right to life. That is a moral judgment which has nothing to do with science. It also is not dependent on someone being religious.

Nat Hentoff was "pro-life" believing that the unborn had a right to life and he was neither religious nor a conservative.

The reason why the "pro-life" view is wrong has nothing to do with the unborn supposedly having no right to life. In fact, I see no good reason to claim they don't.
10/18/2020, 7:15 pm Link to this post PM Philer Blog
 
Rigby5 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 04-2005
Location: Mountain Time
Posts: 6799
Karma: -5 (+26/-31)
Reply | Quote
Re: No, Judge Barrett, it's a super-precedent


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

katie5445 wrote:

I agree and they have a poor argument. When they insist on using a religious argument that is not on the table. If they use murder, science defines the life of a blastocyst or a fetus but not as a viable human. To object to the morning after pill and especially BC is just as bad.



Science doesn't tell us that the unborn blastocyst or fetus has no right to life. That is a moral judgment which has nothing to do with science. It also is not dependent on someone being religious.

Nat Hentoff was "pro-life" believing that the unborn had a right to life and he was neither religious nor a conservative.

The reason why the "pro-life" view is wrong has nothing to do with the unborn supposedly having no right to life. In fact, I see no good reason to claim they don't.




I think science does tell us a blastocyst has no right to life because rights are an aspect of a sentient brain. Otherwise we could not pull the plug on someone who was brain dead.
And it is pretty clear a fetus does not yet have a sentient brain.

But I agree it does not matter.
The right to abortion superceeds any rights a fetus may have, because the fetus infringes upon the rights of the woman.
For example, if the life of some one depended upon the transfusion of some rare blood type, no one could order that life saving transfusion. Everyone has the right to deny providing that support. Government can use force to prevent abuse, but not to force support. The fact a fetus was created by sex, does not obligate the person who engages in sex.
10/19/2020, 12:00 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 ... 5  6  7 





You are not logged in (login)