Runboard.com
Слава Україні!

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

Page:  1  2  3 

 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

Liberal Democratic senators grilled Barrett — whose children include two adopted from Haiti and one with Down syndrome — on how her religious beliefs might affect her rulings, citing an article she co-wrote in 1998 for the Marquette Law Review that said the Catholic Church’s “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute.”

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) told Barrett.

But when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked when it would be “proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law,” Barrett answered, “Never.”

“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she added.



https://nypost.com/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barrett-woman-of-faith-who-says-religion-has-no-place-in-rulings/

Reality is a little different from her assessment. Whether it is appropriate or not justices like the one she used to work for did impose their personal convictions on the law or at least on their Supreme Court rulings regarding those laws. What else were they going to turn to make their rulings? The law itself? The problem with that idea is that the law can be ambiguous at times and open to personal interpretation based on how one wants the law to work.
9/30/2020, 7:56 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: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

Liberal Democratic senators grilled Barrett — whose children include two adopted from Haiti and one with Down syndrome — on how her religious beliefs might affect her rulings, citing an article she co-wrote in 1998 for the Marquette Law Review that said the Catholic Church’s “prohibitions against abortion and euthanasia (properly defined) are absolute.”

“The dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that people have fought for for years in this country,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) told Barrett.

But when Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) asked when it would be “proper for a judge to put their religious views above applying the law,” Barrett answered, “Never.”

“It’s never appropriate for a judge to impose that judge’s personal convictions, whether they derive from faith or anywhere else, on the law,” she added.



https://nypost.com/2020/09/26/amy-coney-barrett-woman-of-faith-who-says-religion-has-no-place-in-rulings/

Reality is a little different from her assessment. Whether it is appropriate or not justices like the one she used to work for did impose their personal convictions on the law or at least on their Supreme Court rulings regarding those laws. What else were they going to turn to make their rulings? The law itself? The problem with that idea is that the law can be ambiguous at times and open to personal interpretation based on how one wants the law to work.



She is compared to Scalia, and if that is true, then she would be as wrong as Scalia.
For Scalia said that for abortion to be legal, it has to be in the Constitution, citing Originalism.
But actually abortion is in the Constitution, as is everything that is not specifically prohibited to people, like things that harm others, like murder and theft.

So it really boils down to 2 main arguments.
One is the scientific argument of whether a fetus is a human life, and the second is whether someone can be forced to support the life of another.
And an Originalist should come down on being for abortion rights on both of these issues.

Last edited by Rigby5, 10/1/2020, 3:21 pm
10/1/2020, 3:20 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

She is compared to Scalia, and if that is true, then she would be as wrong as Scalia.
For Scalia said that for abortion to be legal, it has to be in the Constitution, citing Originalism.
But actually abortion is in the Constitution, as is everything that is not specifically prohibited to people, like things that harm others, like murder and theft.-Rigby



That begs the question since people who are "pro-life" believe that abortion qualifies as a form of murder.

quote:

So it really boils down to 2 main arguments.
One is the scientific argument of whether a fetus is a human life, and the second is whether someone can be forced to support the life of another.
And an Originalist should come down on being for abortion rights on both of these issues.



There's nothing about originalism that requires you to believe that a fetus doesn't qualify as human life. To prevent further continuous debate on that subject people who are pro-choice should acknowledge that it does.

And the question of whether someone can be forced to support the life of another has been answered. That's why spouses are sometimes required to pay child support.

That said, there is also nothing about originalism that justifies opposing a woman's right to choose to obtain an early abortion or overturning Roe v Wade. If Justice Scalia believed that there was that was only a further indication that he was an incompetent justice on The Court.
10/1/2020, 8:09 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: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

She is compared to Scalia, and if that is true, then she would be as wrong as Scalia.
For Scalia said that for abortion to be legal, it has to be in the Constitution, citing Originalism.
But actually abortion is in the Constitution, as is everything that is not specifically prohibited to people, like things that harm others, like murder and theft.-Rigby



That begs the question since people who are "pro-life" believe that abortion qualifies as a form of murder.

quote:

So it really boils down to 2 main arguments.
One is the scientific argument of whether a fetus is a human life, and the second is whether someone can be forced to support the life of another.
And an Originalist should come down on being for abortion rights on both of these issues.



There's nothing about originalism that requires you to believe that a fetus doesn't qualify as human life. To prevent further continuous debate on that subject people who are pro-choice should acknowledge that it does.

And the question of whether someone can be forced to support the life of another has been answered. That's why spouses are sometimes required to pay child support.

That said, there is also nothing about originalism that justifies opposing a woman's right to choose to obtain an early abortion or overturning Roe v Wade. If Justice Scalia believed that there was that was only a further indication that he was an incompetent justice on The Court.




The proof that under Originalism that abortion has to be legal is because it was. Historically, during the times of the founders, abortion was perfectly legal.

{...
Abortion is as old as antiquity. As long as people have been having sex, there have been women having abortions. The American debate over whether a woman should have the right to end her pregnancy is a relatively new phenomenon. Indeed, for America’s first century, abortion wasn’t even banned in a single US state.
Even the definition of abortion was different. In early America, as in Europe, “What we would now identify as an early induced abortion was not called an ‘abortion’ at all,” writes Leslie Reagan in When Abortion Was a Crime: Women, Medicine, and Law in the United States, 1867-1973. “If an early pregnancy ended, it had ‘slipp[ed] away,’or the menses had been ‘restored.’ At conception and the earliest stage of pregnancy before quickening, no one believed that a human life existed; not even the Catholic Church took this view.” Abortion was permissible until a woman felt a fetus move, or “quicken.” Back then, Reagan notes, “the popular ethic regarding abortion and common law were grounded in the female experience of their own bodies.”

When US states did begin banning abortion in the 19th century, doctors seeking to drive out traditional healers, or in their words, quacks, often led the way. They had help from nativists who were concerned about women’s growing independence and the country’s growing diversity. Contemplating the colonization of the West and South in 1868, anti-abortion campaigner Dr. Horatio R. Storer asked if these frontiers would be “be filled by our own children or by those of aliens? This is a question our women must answer; upon their loins depends the future destiny of the nation.” Who would control those loins, and indeed whose childbearing is considered desirable, lay at the heart of regulations on abortion and contraception across the centuries.

The laws every state passed by 1880 banned abortions in all cases but for “therapeutic reasons” that were largely left up to the medical practice and the legal system to determine. In practice, that meant wealthier women with better access to doctors had abortions, while other women bled.
...}
https://billmoyers.com/story/history-of-abortion-law-america/
10/2/2020, 3:25 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
katie5445 Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Administrator

Registered: 10-2016
Posts: 7485
Karma: 47 (+62/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


One cannot argue on religion, one can however argue on morals, many of our laws are made because of what is morally right or wrong. That is a more difficult argument than religion, you can have an atheist be anti abortion.
10/3/2020, 2:31 am Link to this post PM katie5445 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: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

One cannot argue on religion, one can however argue on morals, many of our laws are made because of what is morally right or wrong. That is a more difficult argument than religion, you can have an atheist be anti abortion.



I don't think laws should be based on religion or morals.
To me it is the Utilitarian approach that makes the most sense.
The greatest good for the greatest number.
Which means let everyone do whatever they want, until it impact on other people.
And then establish a compromise, so that each side gets the maximum freedom you can give them.

That rules out any laws against abortion because a fetus does not yet have any interests, concerns, rights, or anything.
The status of a fetus is more like an invading parasite.
If you want a child, then it may all be worth it, but clearly we are over populated by at least a factor of 2, so we certainly should not encourge it.
10/3/2020, 3:44 am Link to this post PM Rigby5
 
Philer Profile
Live feed
Blog
Friends
Miscellaneous info

Registered user

Registered: 12-2016
Posts: 5360
Karma: 24 (+39/-15)
Reply | Quote
Re: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

The proof that under Originalism that abortion has to be legal is because it was. Historically, during the times of the founders, abortion was perfectly legal.-Rigby



So was slavery. That doesn't mean that originalism requires slavery to be allowed or maintained as it once was.
10/4/2020, 4:32 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: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

katie5445 wrote:

One cannot argue on religion, one can however argue on morals, many of our laws are made because of what is morally right or wrong. That is a more difficult argument than religion, you can have an atheist be anti abortion.



One can argue on religion and in particular when a particular religion tries to lay some sort of morality on us.

Most of our laws are based on moral ideas so we run into a problem if we get our morality from a religion but we also believe in keeping religion out of politics. That doesn't really work very well.

But you're right about atheism and abortion. One does not have to be a Christian or a follower of any other religion to be opposed to abortion. Nat Hentoff was a famous liberal atheist who was also anti-choice.
10/4/2020, 4:38 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: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

I don't think laws should be based on religion or morals.-Rigby



It's not really a matter of what anyone thinks they should be based on. Laws will be based on moral standards whether anyone likes it or not.

quote:

To me it is the Utilitarian approach that makes the most sense. The greatest good for the greatest number.



Utilitarianism is a classic moral philosophy. One provided to us largely by the British.

quote:

Which means let everyone do whatever they want, until it impact on other people.
And then establish a compromise, so that each side gets the maximum freedom you can give them.



Just the matter of when and how much it impacts other people is a moral question. If someone overdoses on drugs it certainly impacts their family but does that mean we should ban some drugs? If so, why not ban motorcycles since people are lost riding them as well?

Most laws are about moral questions which don't always have easy answers.

quote:

That rules out any laws against abortion because a fetus does not yet have any interests, concerns, rights, or anything.
The status of a fetus is more like an invading parasite.
If you want a child, then it may all be worth it, but clearly we are over populated by at least a factor of 2, so we certainly should not encourge it.



You'd never convince someone who is pro-life with that moral argument. You need to start out admitting that the fetus has a right to life to convince an anti-choice legislator not to make a legislative mistake.
10/4/2020, 4:51 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: Amy Coney Barrett's view on imposing personal convictions


quote:

Philer wrote:

quote:

The proof that under Originalism that abortion has to be legal is because it was. Historically, during the times of the founders, abortion was perfectly legal.-Rigby



So was slavery. That doesn't mean that originalism requires slavery to be allowed or maintained as it once was.



That is my point, in that Scalia's Originalism does permit slavery I think. That is why the word "Originalism" is a poor choice in my opinion. A better choice would have been something like Primacy, where one tries to remember that the only source of legal authority is a democratic republic comes from the defense of individual rights. That works not only for the original rebellion, but also the progressive improvements later.
10/5/2020, 3:09 pm Link to this post PM Rigby5
 


Add a reply

Page:  1  2  3 





You are not logged in (login)