Roeing Away…

Homepage Forums Politics Roeing Away…

This topic contains 55 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Davis 6 months, 3 weeks ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #42849

    Unseen
    Participant

    To answer the guy in vid posted by Unseen who asked what is to stop? As to retroactive laws it is the prohibition against ex post facto laws in body of constitution. As to the shocking disparity between criminalizing the rapist v the woman who aborts the rapist’s fetus it is the 8th amendment.

    I agree that bucking ex post facto laws is unlikely even for a court recently infused with three conservatives who effectively lied their way onto the court by asserting, basically, that Roe v. Wade was protected by stare decisis. And isn’t lying to a government official illegal, BTW?

    However, I can imagine some wiggle room for a highly-motivated Justice to find a way around the principle embodied in the 8th Amendment if they find some other principle more persuasive. Remember, they basically are motivated by a belief that abortion is baby murder.

    #42852

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen: agree that bucking ex post facto laws is unlikely even for a court recently infused with three conservatives who effectively lied their way onto the court by asserting, basically, that Roe v. Wade was protected by stare decisis. And isn’t lying to a government official illegal, BTW?

    However, I can imagine some wiggle room for a highly-motivated Justice to find a way around the principle embodied in the 8th Amendment if they find some other principle more persuasive. Remember, they basically are motivated by a belief that abortion is baby murder.

    Yeah, the issue is perjury. But i am sure they must have had a come to Jesus moment that enlightened their decision and accounts for that transformation.

    My memory of decisions i’ve read about ex post facto is a bit hazy but my impression is it is not an issue to wiggle on. On the other hand i suppose these scum Justices might do bout anything.

    #42853

    Unseen
    Participant

    @jake

    There are exceptions recognized even for the 1st Amendment (“yelling fire in a crowded theater” is supposedly bad, but a whispering campaign is to be preferred, I guess).

    #42858

    jakelafort
    Participant

    @unseen

    Man i hate that fire in the crowded theater hypothetical. It throws people off. It is only ever a 1st amendment speech issue if the government is legislating against the subject speech. In any event yes the first amendment is absolutely not absolute. It is filled with limitations. It is essentially a balancing act between the rights of the speaker and the government’s interest.

    Ex post facto laws are different. It is to my memory a cut and dry issue. If one lacks actual or constructive notice of the passage of a statute then it is utterly unjust to make a citizen subject to criminal penalty for behavior that occurs beforehand.

    #42859

    Unseen
    Participant

    It is to my memory a cut and dry issue. If one lacks actual or constructive notice of the passage of a statute then it is utterly unjust to make a citizen subject to criminal penalty for behavior that occurs beforehand.

    Based on the congressional testimony of Trump’s court nominees, I told concerned friends that it really couldn’t happen that the SC could just reverse itself on Roe v. Wade but that abortion would probably die a death by a thousand cuts over time, making getting an abortion done more and more restricted and hard to obtain.

    Boy, it sure looks like I was wrong.

    I believe that this court, if it can find a way around the 8th Amendment, will do so.

    #42860

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, if that issue is taken on cert. and the decision reverses the plain meaning and precedent concerning ex post facto laws then this nation is utterly gonzo. I heard today that Louisiana is gonna pass a law making abortion into homicide. Imagine the scenario where some poor woman is raped and gets an abortion and then is prosecuted for homicide and all of this before overruling Roe? That is kafkaesque justice.

    #42861

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Oh and i think it was your link about Louisiana. Out of the fog…well it could have been NPR..

    #42862

    Unseen
    Participant

    Unseen, if that issue is taken on cert. and the decision reverses the plain meaning and precedent concerning ex post facto laws then this nation is utterly gonzo. I heard today that Louisiana is gonna pass a law making abortion into homicide. Imagine the scenario where some poor woman is raped and gets an abortion and then is prosecuted for homicide and all of this before overruling Roe? That is kafkaesque justice.

    Maybe not a direct assault but by taking past actions into account, it might color their decision in certain cases. That isn’t impossible, is it?

    #42863

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen…Maybe not a direct assault but by taking past actions into account, it might color their decision in certain cases. That isn’t impossible, is it?

    Not sure i follow you. However the scenario i laid out is so contrary to the fundamental notions of justice that it would be shocking.

    #42870

    Unseen
    Participant

    @jake

    This video outlines the insanity this anti-abortion fever is promoting. The first part of the video on this page outlines the effect a repealing of Roe v. Wade would have on the country in general. Where it really gets interesting and horrifying is what Missouri legislators are considering, which is in the second half of the video, which isn’t that long.

    More here: Missouri wants to stop out-of-state abortions. Other states could follow.

     

    • This reply was modified 7 months ago by  Unseen.
    #42876

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Maybe the USA will be divided (or ought to be) into two countries. The viewpoints of the majority right and left are so far apart that it might be the best thing. Beats civil war or the possibility of descending into outright fascism.

    #42878

    Unseen
    Participant

    Maybe the USA will be divided (or ought to be) into two countries. The viewpoints of the majority right and left are so far apart that it might be the best thing. Beats civil war or the possibility of descending into outright fascism.

    Good luck with the pro-abortion states seceding from the union. It led to armed conflict back in the mid-1800s. The worst war by far we’ve ever experienced as a country.

    Besides, the pro-abortion states will wake up and realize that if they lose all of the West Coast and the most prosperous part of the East Coast (the North), the states which basically subsidize the rest of the country, they’ll have to fight to keep them under control.

    #42904

    Unseen
    Participant

    @jake

    I’m starting to wish a Philosophy of Law course had been among my philo studies.

    Is this ever discussed in law courses: Is having a right the default unless it’s abrogated or limited by law?

    In other words, I have the right to buy mustard, engage in recreational sex, or wander near and far unless some law takes that right away or limits it, do I not?

    #42905

    Davis
    Moderator

    Yeah I really enjoyed the jurisprudence seminar during my bachelor. The difference between continental and anglo-saxon legal thought in particular was VERY interesting.

    #42909

    jakelafort
    Participant

    @unseen

    I’m starting to wish a Philosophy of Law course had been among my philo studies.

    Is this ever discussed in law courses: Is having a right the default unless it’s abrogated or limited by law?

    In other words, I have the right to buy mustard, engage in recreational sex, or wander near and far unless some law takes that right away or limits it, do I not?

    As you are aware law school instruction is largely Socratic. Sure, there is some memorization of black letter law required. However the major objective is to make student think like lawyers. A fair number of students drop out, fail or can’t pass the bar simply because they are incapable of reasoning well. The way Enco approaches issues is anathema to success in law school and in the practice of law. One must be able to examine issues from opposing perspectives.

    Enco raised the 9th amendment. Classes in constitutional law include the 9th. “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” I agree with your position, Unseen. I think the 9th amendment either supports or at least does not mitigate your position. I can’t think of exceptions that would undermine your position.

Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 56 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.