Can someone explain the vote in California?

I believe that you are the one that is confused on substantive rights within the constitution. Stanford Law
Different than Substantive due process – but, there are substantive rights within the constitution Shag…

Did you even read the link you cited?! Here is the first line:
"Substantive Due Process" is the fundamental constitutional legal theory upon which the Griswold/Roe/Casey privacy right is based. The doctrine of Substantive Due Process holds that the Due Process Clause not only requires "due process," that is, basic procedural rights, but that it also protects basic substantive rights.

That line alone confirms what I have been saying; that substantive rights stem from the "theory" of substantive due process. In fact, I can find nothing in that link that in any way counters what I have been saying; it only confirms it. If I am missing something, then quote the passage.

So, you are determining what the proper outcome of the opinion of the Supreme Court should be. No wonder you love quoting dissent… Remember Shag, it is the highest court in the land – our laws live and die by that court. Current opinion is what counts. If the court decides to be active, that is what the court is. All of Scalia’s dissents can’t change that. It will swing the other way eventually, it always does (the early 1800s supreme court was very active).

So...current opinion determines weather the rulings of the court are right or not?! That is patently absurd and self serving circular logic as well as a pretty blatant Argumentum ad populum.

Are you also trying to argue that I am not qualified to determine what the proper interpretation is and when the court is wrong? Can you say ad hominem attack? I have no doubt that if the court were to rule abortion illegal, you would be one of the first to claim it was a wrong decision.:rolleyes:

But, without a declaration on when life begins (the founding fathers believed it was at ‘quickening’) the fetus isn’t protected. There is no statement of life in the constitution – I keep asking for you to show me where that text is, and you keep ignoring me.

That is irrelevant to the constitutional question in regards to abortion. The Roe v. Wade ruling didn't hinge on that right, it hinged on a made of broad "right to privacy" for the mother. That is the constitutional issue, not if the baby has a right to life.

Are you related to the man Shag? Or do you just blindly follow his decree?

Appeal to ridicule? I thought you were better then that...;)

I do suscribe to his judicial philosophy, and have had to study him a lot for school ( I played the part of Scalia in a "mock court" class dealing with the Newdow case; the whole semester was spent studying Scalia's jurisprudence).

And yes, he is against abortions – but he is a realist enough to know that without an amendment it can’t be made illegal. There is no clear constitutional solution to this problem – so without one, the court can’t declare them unconstitutional (or constitutional for that matter).

Correction:
He is against the SCOTUS ruling on abortion at all. In his view, the states constitutionally have every right to rule on it as they have a vested interest in protected that life and don't have the same prohibitions as the Federal government, per the U.S. Constitution. He has been pretty clear and consistent on that. Roe v. Wade is bad law that has aboslutely no constitutional basis, in his view.

The states cannot infringe on the rights stated in the constitution, and until there is a constitutional amendment regarding beginning of life, the states cannot arbitrarily decide to ban abortions.

Actually, the states can. As you said (and Scalia points out), there is nothing on abortion in the Federal constitution, either way. The states are free to do as they please. Only by creating a "substantive right to privacy" can it then be unconstitutional for the states to make a law banning abortion because it would then violate that made up "right".

You say the constitution doesn't say anything on abortion, so the SCOTUS cannot outlaw it, but it can make it legal by claiming to protect a "right to privacy"?! I am sure, if I spent the time, I could come up with a "previously unfknown substantive right" in the Constitution that defines life as beginning with conception; all I need is to be appointed to the SCOTUS.

And you might find Scalia ‘brilliant’ (blick) but there are plenty who find him contradictory at best – this was interesting regarding his viewpoints on allowing international law to shape our business law, but not our personal rights (Scalia has always been adept at picking and choosing when it supports his view point – sort of the supreme cherry picker I guess;) ). I have lots and lots of these Shag. I personally find the man egotistical and bordering on elitist, well, in fact he certainly wanders over to elitism with his whole textualism and original meaning arguments as unapproachable, residing on some sort of ‘correct’ pedestal. That is, until he needs to go with original intent to back his opinion.

Actually, that tends to be a red herring and mischaracterization. Scalia is very consistent. Only by spinning and distorting (usually by oversimplifying his views) can people claim he is not consistent.

Well, enough on your ‘god’ Scalia. And you do have to remember all the stuff you quote from him is just his opinion. There is lots and lots of opinion out there that contradicts his, but I am not going to make this a Supreme Court opinion/dissent pissing contest as much as you would like it to go there Shag.

You are now trying to justify simply disregarding him bacause you disagree with him. You are already making pretty obvious "appeal to authority" arguments to do so.

So, until the point when society dictates to women and declares conception as life, should we overrule the individual’s moral views and values? Or, Shag, maybe the individual rights should be steamrolled in favor of the (in this case) minority’s morals and values.

You are missing the point. The Roe v. Wade ruling does override individual moral views and values. You are only looking at it from one side, and since your values are not the ones overridden, you have no problem with it.

States voting on an chosing to ban or allow for abortion is individual morals and values determining where the law should fall.

And again, you keep citing rights that would be "steamrolled" by banning abortion, but you cannot cite them in the constitution. All you can do is cite activist judges and rules by activist judges.

You keep saying that ‘most’ people would say that life begins at conception, but, I haven’t seen anything that relates to that fact. I realize we can parry back and forth on this regarding polls and source, but I believe if it truly was a majority that believes life begins at conception, and abortions should be criminalized that this question could have been resolved long ago with an amendment. Heck, just the result here in Colorado this past election overwhelming points to public opinion not wanting an amendment dictating that life begins at conception.

I clearly stated that was my opinion. Also, I would want to see the wording of that bill and how it was voted on. This is a very devisive issue where there is no middle ground. So polls are not very telling as any question regarding this will not be neutral and will effectively be a leading question that introduces too much error in the poll to make it valid.

For now, it will remain dependent on the individual's morals and values, I think just as the founding fathers would have liked it.

Every law is based on morals and values, in fact they are imposing certain morals and values that most of society holds. That is what a law is.
 
There is substantive due process, and there are substantive rights – you keep getting the two mixed up – The first paragraph in my link describes the difference – you keep saying that the constitution doesn’t have substantive rights listed in it – just as a point of interest I was trying to show that it does – freedom of speech and freedom of religion are spelled out, and are substantive rights.

From Stanford Law... (the link)
"Substantive" rights are those general rights that reserve to the individual the power to possess or to do certain things, despite the government’s desire to the contrary. These are rights like freedom of speech and religion. "Procedural" rights are special rights that, instead, dictate how the government can lawfully go about taking away a person’s freedom or property or life, when the law otherwise gives them the power to do so.

All I was pointing out is that you needed to clarify your terms, shag….

The right of privacy is a substantive right that isn’t expressly stated in the constitution, like freedom of speech and freedom of religion which are expressly stated, so it is based on substantive due process. That is why it isn’t a great stance for abortion rights… You keep bringing up Roe vs Wade and I had to define a couple of times why it came down in favor of abortion rights, I have never said that I agree with how the court came to its conclusion in Roe vs Wade.

And I think in my second post regarding this subject (post #51) I stated that I wasn’t going down the Roe vs Wade route in arguing this – that actually is pretty boring, and has been done lots – I thought I would argue this from a different stance. Since the mother’s rights are spelled out in the constitution and the fetus’s rights aren’t (much as your rights as a man are defined within the constitution, and my rights as a woman aren’t), then when the various state amendments regarding anti abortion/pro life make their way through the court systems to the SCOTUS, it should be thrown out on the basis that the fetus currently has no rights in the constitution. The rights of the fetus, even if declared that it has rights by the states, should not overrule the federal constitutional rights of the mother. It is how slavery was defeated, the state laws which allowed slavery were knocked down with the 14th amendment. When there gets to be an amendment that states when life begins, then the states’ laws can be enforced, until that point, the fetus has no declared rights within the constitution, and the court has to defer to the mother’s rights which are declared in the constitution.

Although Roe vs Wade is the law that currently upholds abortion rights, I didn’t think even it was necessary. Why can’t abortion rights be upheld just by using a definition of ‘when life begins’? Since there isn’t a clear definition of that in the constitution, then the mother’s rights (which liberty is certainly one of them, the liberty to do with her body as she sees fit) should over ride any ‘supposed’ rights that the fetus has, since the fetus hasn’t been determined to have ‘life’ status associated with it. There isn’t any “what if” clause here Shag. You can’t assume the fetus is alive, and have its assumed rights take precedent over the absolute rights of the mother. Specifically her ‘life’ and her ‘liberty’ rights. Those are the rights that you want 'steamrolled' by the states adding laws that gives fetuses rights. The fact that the state decides that life starts at conception shouldn't overrule the fact that the federal government doesn't have a point when life begins.

I think the substantive due process right of privacy is actually pretty weak – it was a framework that the ’73 court could work with, but, is in danger if the court swings to a court that breaks with current tradition upholding rights that are defined by substantive due process.

I certainly won’t get in that pissing contest right now regarding Scalia – if you want to open a thread regarding the man, you are more than welcome. Watch it though, you may have role played him in school, you don't know who I have role played... well, not necessarily in school;)

Now, remember, I am NOT arguing Roe vs Wade…

And here is the text of the Colorado ballot measure…

Definition of Person: Shall there be an amendment to the Colorado constitution defining the term "person" to include any human being from the moment of fertilization as "person" is used in those provisions of the Colorado constitution relating to inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law?

Just what you are talking about Shag, inalienable rights, equality, process of law… and the pro life group threw lots and lots of money at this... lots.

Soundly defeated…

Every law is based on morals and values, in fact they are imposing certain morals and values that most of society holds. That is what a law is.

So, why should we need a law to define this particular set of morals and values? Why impose your morals and values on others? In this case, until life is defined, is it just an arbitrary decision on your part to inflict your particular value set or your exacting morals on others? The fetus hasn’t been declared as ‘alive’ in any federal legal sense, so why are you insisting that it should have rights?

What makes your morals and values ‘right’ and others' morals and values ‘wrong’ in this case Shag?

I am sure, if I spent the time, I could come up with a "previously unknown substantive right" in the Constitution that defines life as beginning with conception; all I need is to be appointed to the SCOTUS.

Don't worry Shag, I'll send the litmus test people links.... ;)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Perhaps there is a simple answer to this same sex marraige thing after all.
My feeling is that hetrosexuals(at least the ones who are not commited homophobes) are ok with same sex people being joined by some sort of union, but the "word" marraige is the buzz word they all want left too straights.
Well then l suggest the word marraige for same sex couples be changed too "Partnered"
What is wrong with a gay saying "I am partnered?
Seems lodgical to me, as long as all the rights hetrosexuals enjoy, are given to partnered same sex couples.
Sometimes people get so wrapped up in a cause, they can't see their nose on their faces.
Problem solved.
Bob.
 
So there you have it, folks...

Not only can you not do what you want with your own privately owned business, but the gays can sue you and get the government to force you to cater to their whims.

So much for "whatever they do in their private home is their own business." Now they're getting the government to sanction businesses.

eHarmony Says OK to Same-Sex Matches (Sort of)

Updated 1:08 PM EST, Wed, Nov 19, 2008

Related Topics:Eric McKinley | eHarmony.com Inc.

eHarmony has been embroiled in a legal dispute over whether to offer same-sex matches as part of its online dating service.

Online dating service eHarmony is adding another personality trait to its 29 dimensions of computability.

The California-based company will begin providing same-sex matches under as part of a settlement with New Jersey's Civil Rights Division.

Garden State resident Eric McKinley filed a complaint against the online matchmaker in 2005.

Under terms of the settlement, the company can create a new or differently named Web site for same-sex singles. The company can also post a disclaimer saying its compatibility-based matching system was developed from research of married heterosexual couples.

Neither the company nor its founder, Neil Clark Warren, admit any liability.

In addition, eHarmony will pay the division $50,000 to cover administrative costs. It will pay McKinley $5,000 and give him a free one-year membership to its new service.
 
Perhaps there is a simple answer to this same sex marraige thing after all.
My feeling is that hetrosexuals(at least the ones who are not commited homophobes) are ok with same sex people being joined by some sort of union, but the "word" marraige is the buzz word they all want left too straights.
Well then l suggest the word marraige for same sex couples be changed too "Partnered"
What is wrong with a gay saying "I am partnered?
Seems lodgical to me, as long as all the rights hetrosexuals enjoy, are given to partnered same sex couples.
Sometimes people get so wrapped up in a cause, they can't see their nose on their faces.
Problem solved.
Bob.

Well there's hope yet. That's what I've been saying all along. I'd vote for that. Now if only those busy bodies in black robes don't go stirring the pot again.
But I don't see a bright future for Arnold, Newsome, or Jerry who don't seeem to respect the voters in California.
 
Well there's hope yet. That's what I've been saying all along. I'd vote for that. Now if only those busy bodies in black robes don't go stirring the pot again.
But I don't see a bright future for Arnold, Newsome, or Jerry who don't seeem to respect the voters in California.


Guess what, those people in the black robes got it tossed back in their laps again today.
They are asking for written briefs by early december, and oral arguements by march of 09.
The arguement is just about the same, and will more than likely have he same result, that being same sex marraige will once again be legal in the state of california.
The arguement is that the voters by voting to amend the constitution voted for an illegal amendment.
Round 2.
Bob.
 
And by going back to the courts the pendulum is set back in motion. More money wasted that could be spent actually doing some good, more inflammatory exaggerations and lies, more devisivness. What a waste, all because of people playing word games.
 

Members online

Back
Top