Law School Discussion

Poll

well will they?

yes, unconstitutional
11 (78.6%)
no, constitutional
3 (21.4%)

Total Members Voted: 13

.

.
« on: February 22, 2006, 02:33:19 AM »
:)


Happy_Weasel

  • *****
  • 5470
  • Me and Gir, the happy weasel.
    • MSN Messenger - ominusdemon2@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Sadly, yes.  Even though it goes against 200+ years of case law. *sigh*

My only question is, who's going to pay for all the kids born with horrible birth defects? 

I agree, and when you put it like that it seems that SCOTUS is developing the legitimacy level of professional wrestling.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
SCOTUS is developing the legitimacy level of professional wrestling.

Extremely accurate - though Roe v. Wade itself did nothing to improve the Court's legitimacy.

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
So it improved its legitimacy in the health profession....

Freak

  • ****
  • 4767
  • What's your agenda?!
    • AOL Instant Messenger - smileyill4663
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - smileyill
    • View Profile
I was referring to their lack of sound legal reasoning...

! B L U E WAR R I O R..!

  • *****
  • 7267
  • "make a friend who was once a stranger" br.war.
    • View Profile
here is one area buster/fern...will not comment on...it would show his true hypocritical human rights mentality.

Happy_Weasel

  • *****
  • 5470
  • Me and Gir, the happy weasel.
    • MSN Messenger - ominusdemon2@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Yeah, there are basically no logical connection between holding a double standard and changing your mind on an issue every couple of decades.

Sadly, yes.  Even though it goes against 200+ years of case law. *sigh*

Wait, are you saying that there are 200+ years of case law against banning "partial-birth" abortion?  What Supreme Court have you been following?

Quote from: Lily
SCOTUS is developing the legitimacy level of professional wrestling. 

Since when did SCOTUS have any more legitimacy than professional wrestling?  You're talking about the same body that ruled in favor of racially-motivated concentration camps, said that blacks weren't people, and has ultimately overturned or given "negative treatment" to virtually every decision it has ever made.

Happy_Weasel

  • *****
  • 5470
  • Me and Gir, the happy weasel.
    • MSN Messenger - ominusdemon2@msn.com
    • View Profile
    • Email
Sadly, yes.  Even though it goes against 200+ years of case law. *sigh*

Wait, are you saying that there are 200+ years of case law against banning "partial-birth" abortion?  What Supreme Court have you been following?

I'm talking about the theoretical underpinnings, specifically as they pertain to ninth amendment states' rights and doctors' privacy rights.  If you read the unedited version of Roe v. Wade, it seems to have more to do with doctors' privacy rights than the woman's.  That's not coincidental; Blackmun's most influential employer was the Mayo Clinic -- and the 200+ years of case law dealing with privacy revolve around doctors. 

Quote
Quote from: Lily
SCOTUS is developing the legitimacy level of professional wrestling. 

Since when did SCOTUS have any more legitimacy than professional wrestling?  You're talking about the same body that ruled in favor of racially-motivated concentration camps, said that blacks weren't people, and has ultimately overturned or given "negative treatment" to virtually every decision it has ever made.

Actually, the vast majority of cases remain upheld.  Only a few are overturned.  I remember reading in a Linda Greenhouse article about a law professor who said something to the effect of, "If you had told me forty years ago that Republicans would appoint the majority of Supreme Court justices by the mid-1990s and that Brown v. Board of Education and Affirmative Action would not be overturned, I'd think you were smoking crack."   (Sadly, I won't give the NYT money so I can't look up the precise quote, but you get the picture.)

...and I wonder what would happen then.

By the, way I was agreeing and tying in yours and blue's arguement.