Definitely. Get it all out in the open, and get it on record. Or, a they might say in SD, like totally fer sure, like OMG, totally awesome! Put me down on the list as a “part time” conservative (little C) who thinks the gubmint should stay out of a woman’s personal business. It is not the gubmint’s place to enforce someone’s religious baggage on everyone else.
Once in a long while, you surprise me. Sure I was expecting the usual “judicial fiat”, “will of the majority”, and “SDP is all made up anyway” stuff you always trot out, but the last sentence of your quoted paragraph surprised me in it’s banality. A person cannot complain about a bad judicial decision because it was part of the process? If this court re-adopts Plessey and overrules Brown, there is no reason to complain because it’s all part of the process? Look, I know you hold the whole “it’s all about process” near and dear to your heart, but saying that you can’t complain about a judicial decision, simply because it is done according to process, is just patently ridiculous.
Just picking up this one point - is it necessarily the case that this would have happened? Or would some, many or most of those 40 million have been born to women who would subsequently not have had the babies that, in the actual timeline, they did have?
I didn’t say you can’t complain. I asked how you could complain. And the answer, obviously, is you can complain about the result being not what you wanted… but not about the process by which the result arrived, since you (presumably) endorsed that process earlier.
I think judicial review has been pretty much an accepted “process” for awhile now, so I doubt you’ll get many people complaining about it. But to each their own, I guess.
Well, “judicial review” is the 50,000 foot look at the process. But cunningly concealed within “judicial review” are the particular analytical methods used to accomplish that review.
One may accept judicial review uncomplainingly as a process, while still objecting to particular analytical methods used in furtherance thereof.
Maybe. But I’d bet that this decision, while tossing this law out on its ear, will practically a step-by-step guide on how to ban abortion-on-demand.
The next challange will do better.
We don’t have “abortion on demand” right now, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. States are free to ban abortion in the 3rd trimester and to place restrictions on it in the 2nd trimester (as long as there is a provision “for the health of the mother”).
There are at least 5 SCOTUS justices who absolutely will not agree to a ban on 1st trimester abortions. I don’t see how the next challenge we be any different.
Ah, see, there it is. I just missed your usual, and unfounded, swipe at “judicial activists”. Carry on.
By what criteria should we decide what issues “the supreme law of the land” should be silent on? Why on abortion and not, say, slavery?
This is a good point, though it could be used by both sides in the abortion debate (those who seek to preserve the “civil rights” of the woman and those who seek to preserve the “civil rights” of the fetus).
Well, for one thing the Consitution is not silent on the issue of slavery:
My bad; I was making a somewhat different point than the one I was responding to; maybe I didn’t read clearly enough. The consititution isn’t silent on the issue of slavery because we amended it, and we could amend it to say something about abortion—should we? But as it stands currently, you are correct.
I thought that was a little too easy. 
That’s what a lot of folks think. Or, just leave it up to the states like it was before Roe. It all depends on how you think the constitution should be interpreted.
I think his “how can you complain” remark was more directed at your “Of course, the laws of a state may not flout the supreme law of the land, unless I disagree with the supreme law of the land.” Before Roe, the supreme law was to allow the state to legislate abortion. If Roe were overturned, would you complain about those trying to make abortions a constitutional right again as flouting the supreme law of the land? If not, the only hypocrit I see aint Bricker.
Except a blob of flesh does not deserve civil rights. If the death of a few cells is murder, then I murder every time I scratch myself.
This legislation is clearly calculated to present a challenge to Roe v. Wade to the new SCOTUS ASAP. And it will happen. And the new Court will almost certainly overturn Roe v. Wade. And that will be the worst thing, electorally, to happen to the Republican Party since Watergate. It’s going to do them a lot more damage than the gay marriage controversy did to the Dems in 2004.
Wanna bet? I say they won’t.
Yep! (If it happens, which it won’t this time).
That’s why I put “civil rights” in quotation marks: part of the issue in question is whether or not a fetus does/should have any civil rights at all. Certainly a newborn, or just-about-to-be-born, baby is more than just a “blob of flesh”—but at what point does it become more than just a blob of flesh? Any hard-and-fast line you draw (conception? birth? viability? one of the trimesters?) is problematic, but the laws have to draw a line somewhere.
And that’s all I’ll say, because (1) I myself don’t know where the line should be drawn, and (2) to go any further would just take us over the same arguments that have been argued over time and time again in GD.
Well, we could try reading the text of the supreme law of the land. I think that should be the sole criteria on what it says, myself. The supreme law of the land is silent on abortion. It forbids slavery because in it, in black letters on white paper, under heading “Thirteenth Amendment,” it clearly says that slavery is forbidden.
Fair enough, then you believe that all laws pertaining to libel, slander, indecency, prosecution for revealing classified documents, etc. should all be tossed out, as well?