Sheesh… I did express my own opinion.
Is it all coming back to you now? You know what you just did? You reinforced the “blonde” sterotype.
BTW: I do have 'em, nice big ones.
The right to privacy wasn’t established with Roe. Roe is simply part of a series of cases, beginning with Griswold vs Connecticut (1965) that touch upon issues related to reproductive choice.
I am quite familiar with the case and, although I find no need or desire to “get back to” you, for the simple reason that I get some personal satisfaction from it, I will.
Oftentimes, on the SDMB, I make reference to George Orwell. The case of Texas v. Johnson lends me another opportunity.
In Orwell’s classic “Animal Farm”, whenever a crisis would arise on the farm, the animals would go around to the side of the barn where their constitution was written. When they would get there, they would find that some of the words would be changed since the last time they had been there.
In Texas v. Johnson, we find that some of the words to our Constitution have changed.
Now, according to activist (translated liberal) judges, “freedom of speech” has mutated into “freedom of expression”.
So now, let me ask you – had Johnson laid out the flag and, in public view, defecated on it in an act of protest, would that have been constitutionally protected “expression” as well?
Never said it was. So, are you attempting to make a point, or do you just like to hear yourself “think”?
Ohhh… Blalron, aren’t you going to “get back to me” on that one?
Nope, but the situation sure gives me new and additional appreciation for the anonymity that I once thought of as silly. It sure would suck to have your name attached to a court decision if you subsequently changed your political views diametrically on the subject!
But court decisions at this level, while directed to specific people and their specific situations, are designed to provide sweeping answers for the general situation. If the case in question did not have implications for how the law ought to address many many other people who would be in comparable situations the Supremes would not grant the case certiorari. The Supreme Court exists primarily to set precedents and iron out conflicts between governing branches, not to render justice to a lone individual.
Hmmm… looks as though the heat got turned up a little too high for a few of 'em, and all they could do was hit 'n run.
Does Razorsharp remind anyone else of a belligerent drunk trying to pick a fight with anyone in the bar who glances at him while he’s throwing a temper tantrum?
There there, dear boy. Let’s get you to bed. It will all be better in the morning.
Not quite. Ginsburg says she would have grounded abortion rights in the Equal Protection clause. Roe was decided under Due Process. Either way, you’re still in the 14th Amendment.
I just said that, Minty.
As far as Razorsharp, I think the best thing to do with him is go “There, there.” in a soothing tone. I honestly think he believes that the law exists outside of what courts say about it.
Justice, now, is different.
Come on, guys, none of you have ever explained how a state’s law against an elective medical proceedure is a violation of anyone’s privacy.
And you talk about “speaking the law”. I’m disappointed. I had heard that “Dopers” were better than that.
Oh no. It was E-Sabbath that started with the cheap shots. Sorry, I ain’t goin’ to just sit back and take it.
Now you’re fantasizing.
Why is that? Because I may happen to disagree with certain judicial decisions? Well Heck Fire, if law doesn’t exist outside whatever a court says, why do we have the appeals process?
Second opinion.
Do you think Justice Scalia is a “liberal activist” judge? He joined with the majority in Johnson.
If you want to get 100% literal with the constitution, how is posting on the internet “Freedom of Speech or the Press”? After all, you aren’t using your physical vocal cords to convey a message, nor are you using a physical printing press. That’s the way the phrase was understood back in 1789. Is applying the First Amendment protections to the internet a gross abuse of judicial power?
No, it would not be. The State has a legitimate interest in regulating public defecation, which does not serve to supress any particular point of view.
As for Flag Burning, as you may or may not be aware, the State does have the power to ban that, so long as the regulation is content neutral (I.E, a generalized anti-public burning ordinance).
But a law that says that ‘respectfull’ burning is an allowable method of disposing of a flag, but ‘disrespectfull’ burning is not allowed, that’s clearly a means of restricting the message that is communicated. To allow one but not the other has no rational basis, other than “we don’t like the message that this is sending, so we’ll punish you for it.”
Yes, I didn’t word that well. I should have said we have a decision grounded on a particular 14th Amendment argument that Justice Ginsburg is uncomfortable with. As I said before, perhaps she has a compelling Equal Protecion argument in her hip pocket. But that still doesn’t change her concern regarding the Roe v. Wade decision as it was actually constructed, which was my point.
At least I know how to spell (oh, sorry - low blow to your “big ones”).
For one second, can you stop throwing out legal arguments - do you agree with legal abortion or not? I’m not afraid to state that I do, and was surprised that Roe reversed her original stance.
Women have uterusus. Men don’t. It’s an inescapable fact of life. Of course an abortion law is going to unequally impact women, but not all laws that treat people differently violates Equal Protection. So I don’t think that’s a very good argument.
Exactly whose argument are you engaging here, bub? 