Drlee wrote:Two things. This is extremely good news. The police have been ignoring the fourth amendment for a long time now.
Agreed. While I can easily see a situation where a warrantless search and seizure of firearms is called for, this situation wasn't it--and the refusal of the police to return the stolen firearms until they were sued just makes it worse. The fact that this was a unanimous
decision just goes to show how far out of line the police were in this case.
A fetus is not a baby though Doug would have us believe that.
Right, that's why expecting mothers don't wear "baby on board" shirts. Oh, wait, some of them do. And then there's actually checking out a dictionary definition of "baby"
a. A very young child; an infant.
b. An unborn child; a fetus.
And then there's how the Mayo Clinic
describe the 1st Trimester of a baby's development.
Just accept it, the only people that can't accept that the unborn are babies are the mothers that want to kill them, those that want to allow the mothers to kill them, and those that for whatever reason are desperate not to take a position on the matter.
If Roe V. Wade is overturned it will not ban abortion in the US.
This is correct, it will send the question back to the states where it belongs. Yes, some states will allow the holocaust to continue while others will stop it. That's still an improvement over the current situation.
Pants-of-dog wrote:ACB does not get a free pass to be an activist judge just because you think it is a bad thing when the other side does it.
Why do you assume that any judge that is personally pro-life is an activist judge? Roe v. Wade
was one of the most constitutionally suspect opinions in the history of the Court.
Also, there is no large scale and well funded set of groups on the dead baby side that have openly paid for a judge to get a seat.
Are you claiming that Barrett has been paid massive bribes to rule for the pro-life side?
I notice that you are not disagreeing with the claim that there is an obvious conflict of interest and bias.
I just pointed out that "conflict of interest and bias" cuts both ways. The Left has been using judges that prefer their personal ideologies over the Constitution for generations, I'm not saying you're right, but even if you are, isn't turnabout fair play?
As for the constitutional "reasoning" behind Roe
, there's this on the legal reaction from Wikipedia
Justice Blackmun, who authored the Roe decision, stood by the analytical framework he established in Roe throughout his career. Despite his initial reluctance, he became the decision's chief champion and protector during his later years on the Court. Liberal and feminist legal scholars have had various reactions to Roe, not always giving the decision unqualified support. One argument is that Justice Blackmun reached the correct result but went about it the wrong way. Another is that the end achieved by Roe does not justify its means of judicial fiat.
Justice John Paul Stevens, while agreeing with the decision, has suggested that it should have been more narrowly focused on the issue of privacy. According to Stevens, if the decision had avoided the trimester framework and simply stated that the right to privacy included a right to choose abortion, "it might have been much more acceptable" from a legal standpoint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had, before joining the Court, criticized the decision for ending a nascent movement to liberalize abortion law through legislation. Ginsburg has also faulted the Court's approach for being "about a doctor's freedom to practice his profession as he thinks best.... It wasn't woman-centered. It was physician-centered." Watergate prosecutor Archibald Cox wrote: "[Roe's] failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations.... Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution."
In a highly cited Yale Law Journal article published in the months after the decision, the American legal scholar John Hart Ely strongly criticized Roe as a decision that was disconnected from American constitutional law.
What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure. ... The problem with Roe is not so much that it bungles the question it sets itself, but rather that it sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court's business. ... [Roe] is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.
— John Hart Ely (1973), "The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade", Yale Law Journal.
Professor Laurence Tribe had similar thoughts: "One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found." Liberal law professors Alan Dershowitz, Cass Sunstein, and Kermit Roosevelt have also expressed disappointment with Roe v. Wade.
Jeffrey Rosen and Michael Kinsley echo Ginsburg, arguing that a legislative movement would have been the correct way to build a more durable consensus in support of abortion rights. William Saletan wrote, "Blackmun's [Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference." Benjamin Wittes has written that Roe "disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply." And Edward Lazarus, a former Blackmun clerk who "loved Roe's author like a grandfather," wrote: "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible.... Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms."
The assertion that the Supreme Court was making a legislative decision is often repeated by opponents of the ruling. The "viability" criterion is still in effect, although the point of viability has changed as medical science has found ways to help premature babies survive.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.