Even if I were to accept your mind-reading, that’s only half the battle. Where’s the showing that any one of them would specifically find a Fifth Amendment right to life existing in an unborn child would prohibit abortion?
The problem with that loophole is that it allows every successive judge to enlarge his permissible area. After all, as GIGOBuster will cheerfully tell you, stopping the carbon emissions EPA plan, even temporarily, is some of the worst things humans can do to one another. If he’s in charge of weighing your proposed standard of action, he’s going to use it to justify giving the EPA the green light.
Right?
Perhaps, but I think this is going to happen anyway, with differing levels of intellectual honesty.
To be fair, I’ve never heard a Supreme Court Justice argue this, but I have heard lower-level (yet still highly-placed) lawyers argue against abortion, not only on 5th Amendment grounds, but also 8th and 14th. People of the caliber of Alabama’s Chief Justice have said these sorts of things.
So, seriously, just go and listen to them when they speak in front of assemblies and groups that they believe share their religious values. You’ll hear a lot of talk that is troubling to the 1st Amendment, too.
No, it isn’t. And I’m sure that you don’t know the difference.
Ok. I am certainly aware I don’t know every judge in the country.
But I would appreciate a cite to any of those, particularly to a Fifth Amendment claim. Did you hear them in person? Or was this something reported, in the news, that you could point me towards? My original claim was that no federal judge had ever found a Fifth Amendment right to life for the unborn, but I am certainly willing to learn about the other judicial voices who may have offered this opinion.
And as I have to press on, the concept of a “comment period” does imply that concerned citizens (and yes, corporations can comment, but that should not be the only voice) can comment on the new rules, problem is that it is clearly just a stalling tactic because in the past similar comment periods were not kind to the ones that had to face new rules and regulations regarding this issue. It is clear that powerful Republicans and fossil fuel corporation want to get a different answer, again, not likely.
http://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/
Public comments allow the public to submit written comments to an agency, again as noted, that is not really happening here because this is mostly the action of powerful republicans in the pockets of powerful interests. Most of the right wing media and even the corporate one does not bother much to report that most of the people (and even Republicans) do agree on the government setting rules to control emissions.
The point I made stands, what Bricker is trying to defend is the suppression of the people and experts that commented already on the issue and I can only see Republican leaders (minus a dead judge) in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry perverting justice in America and ignoring the comments of the people.
(The Daily Show talking about the historic People’s Climate March that took place in New York City while a House of Representatives committee (All the bad apples are the Republicans) struggles with the basic principles of global warming.)
Clear answer:
Does the law require a comment period?
And are you arguing that the comment period isn’t necessary?
Irrelevant, not talking about that. I would only say that you have not demonstrated that that is the reason why the stay of the rules took place.
The quote I made was to show precisely that it is good, but there is no evidence presented that that is the reason for the stay, and the link I made was to show the spanking the ones protesting EPA rules got in the past regarding the EPA and emission rules during the comment period.
The point I made anyhow was that, considering past comments, what the Republican governors and their lawyers and their judges obtained now was just to stall the process.
I have a new app for my phone, so that if I read a Bricker post that ends with “Right?”, the phone instantly flashes an image of Admiral Ackbar.
…“Its a TRAP!”…
After first ten times, I caught on. Maybe it was twenty. Long time ago.
Just a bit more of a comment here because you are looking as if you are willfully not paying attention, before you said that I already told everyone that:
“I can only see Republican leaders (minus a dead judge) in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry perverting justice in America and ignoring the comments of the people.”
So, yes indeed, I already did reply before to your red herring. And once again it has to be repeated; you are supporting powerful interests that are ignoring the comments of the people (and scientists that offer comments then too) So of course, I do see why the comment period is needed, because it also give us evidence of how irrational the ones that are attempting to stop new rules are.
Sorry, I’m in a rotten position to give a concrete cite. I did hear a justice of some variety speaking at the University of San Diego, giving the usual pro-life viewpoint to a (mostly) Catholic crowd. He said his “judicial philosophy” was that the unborn was “a person” and so the right to life was constitutionally intrinsic. I don’t remember the guy’s name, only the discussion afterward among those of us who didn’t agree with him.
I’d be truly amazed if you’d never actually heard anyone, a judge or justice, say this sort of thing.
True.
But I have shown that it’s not true that antipathy towards the science is the only possible reason for the stay.
Yes, but there’s a good bit of difference between the sort of generic claim that somewhere in the Constitution is secreted the right of the unborn to not be aborted and the highly specific claim that the unborn have a Fifth Amendment right to life.
I’ve heard people talk about the “natural rights,” that are found in the Ninth Amendment, for example.
That sounds to me like a chess player that is happy that he can make a check mate in his next move, only to find out that moving his piece will cause his king to be in check if he makes that move.
***If ***the reason was to recreate virtually the same past comments, showing once again the painful scientific ignorance of the Republicans, it was a move that clearly does not help your position.
What’s your explanation of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency?
I mean, that was 9-0 against the EPA. It wasn’t the evil conservatives beating up the poor liberals, was it?
(This case was not about comments, but about the right to sue the EPA).
Red herring again, until you have evidence that the stay was related to that. Anyhow the issue is about more than water pollution and not about the right of the people to complain about an action of an agency, once again the ones complaining in the matter at hand are Republican Governors in the pockets of the fossil fuel industry. And as shown already most of the people in those states do agree on the new rules.
Regarding the issue at hand we are talking also about a lot of people losing their land, with water “pollution” or not (as when more droughts that will come as a result of the inaction).
If it literally, explicitly, says that then, yes, you have to amend the Constitution to change it.
But we didn’t have to amend the 1st Amendment to apply “freedom of the press” to electronic media. We didn’t have to amend it to apply “freedom of speech” to freedom of unwritten communication or nonverbal communication.
It is implicit that “a legally guilty person may not be cruelly treated by the government” also means “a legally innocent person may not be cruelly treated by the government.” It is simply illogical to interpret it any other way.
The only legitimate way you can separate the two ideas if the Constitution does explicitly say, as you posit above.
In the case of slavery, the Constitution was explicit. It had to be explicit, because this were in obvious contradiction to the other principals set forth therein.
So you’ve found a case where fair-minded liberal Justices voted according to a principle of law. Is that supposed to inform? 
What would be relevant are examples where the right-wing Justices voted against their right-wing masters.