The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

Souter was considered a huge threat to Rowe V. Wade.  The common thought / fear was that his confirmation would send women back to the dark alleys, hotel rooms and (forgive me) wire coat hangers for abortions = when abortion was illegal and women put their lives at risk to have it done.

The point being that Souter turned out to be a basic none threat to Rowe V. Wade...and Alito would be as well.

I believe that is the point of the thread.

See ... this is why you just don't talk politics and religion amongst friends!

For the record ... I don't get it either. :-\

Wait isn't Souter the place where Thomas the train lives?

"Maine's historical insight" added with eyes rolling meaning...?  What?  I'm trying to figure out the point of the thread as is everyone else.

Souter was considered a huge threat to Rowe V. Wade.  The common thought / fear was that his confirmation would send women back to the dark alleys, hotel rooms and (forgive me) wire coat hangers for abortions = when abortion was illegal and women put their lives at risk to have it done.

The point being that Souter turned out to be a basic none threat to Rowe V. Wade...and Alito would be as well.

I believe that is the point of the thread.

Yup, that's it.

Sorry I wasn't around to back up my own thread but I got busy all of a sudden.

Basically my point is, I don't see why we should believe NOW and NARAL and whoever when they say confirming Alito will mean the end of Roe, huge piles of dead women stacked up outside state courthouses, asteroids crashing into Earth, etc. They've cried wolf before.

Also, if Alito is confirmed, corpses will reanimate, angrily climb out of their graves and go on an unstoppable brain-eating rampage throughout the country. Write your senators!

Alito sucks.

By the way, I watched the confirmation hearing on tv last night (yes, I am nerd regarding that stuff, but its interesting) and really like Wisconsin senator Russ Feingold. I think he is a really intelligent and articulate man and I wish he would become a stronger voice for the democratic party and consider running in 08. Too bad though the voters of this county are made up by crazy Christians and honkies that would never vote for a jew, despite the qualifications he might bring to the table.

I don't follow the Economists reasonings on how overturining Roe v. Wade would benefit pro-choicers. Pro-choicers already have what they want. How would any change benefit them? It would not.

In terms of Feingold, I have not followed him very much. Both of you have stated he is a smart man so maybe I will look him up. In terms of Lieberman, that guy is basically a liberal economist with a conservative social agenda. Too middle of the road to get enough votes from either side I imagine.

The Constitution says nothing about abortion.  It falls into the category that each state should decide it's legality individually.  The Supreme Court overstepped it's authority in outlawing it in the first place. 

Rights are not implied by the Constitution.  That's simply wrong.  They are either stated or not stated.  Those that aren't fall to each state to decide.  It's pretty clear if you read the document.

I basically agree. However, it does get more complicated.

Example: The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech..." If you read this literally, states can make laws abridging freedom of speech because they're not Congress. Florida could tell Dave Gray that he has to shut this site down for being critical of Bush. I don't think anyone thinks the Constitution would allow that.

The constitution does not say a lot about of a lot of things (at least not explicity), however many rights are implied and that is where the right to chose comes from (privacy). Its the courts job to interpret which rights are available and they did. In no manner did they overstep their authority.

I get your point, but it's a bit idealistic. Abortion is always going to be a point of contention. Maybe it will focus more on the state level if Roe is overturned, but it will still be debated. Pro-lifers would only be happy if abortions were only allowed in extreme cases (and some would only be happy if it was not allowed at all) so the debate would still go on.

Laws can always be repealed so there is no end to this debate one way or another. A solid stance by the judiciary branch is the only way to have a consistent line on this one.

Actually, the Constitution states clearly that no state should make laws to abridge the rights of US citizens.  Section 1 of the 14th Amendment reads as follows:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

"Privileges and immunities" do not include the rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. See The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873).

Well, they're thought of as being part of the substantive rights that are protected by the "due process" clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is the same source of rights the Supreme Court has said includes the right to an abortion. 

"Substantive due process" is often criticized as an oxymoron by people who think Roe was wrongly decided (this includes me, by the way). But, at least under current doctrine, if you say Roe is wrong because courts shouldn't read stuff into the Constitution that isn't in the text (i.e. that the idea of substantive due process is a pathetic joke), then you do have to come up with an alternative explanation for why states can't violate free speech rights, or conduct unreasonable searches, or impose cruel and unusual punishment, and so on.

I think you're right that the "privileges and immunities" clause seems the most natural source of individual rights against states. And that was what the Fourteenth Amendment's framers had intended, according to a lot of evidence. So your instinct is right on. But that's just not the way the Court has read it. But even if it was, "privileges and immunities" is pretty vague. You seem to be assuming that everyone would agree that it means the same thing as the rights secured against the federal government in the Bill of Rights, when that doesn't necessarily follow.

Sorry for the long post, you got my con law juices flowing.