AG: High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer
June 26, 2005
WASHINGTON - The legal right to abortion is settled for lower courts, but the Supreme Court "is not obliged to follow" the Roe v. Wade precedent, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Tuesday as the Senate prepared to consider John Roberts' appointment that would put a new vote on the high court.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Gonzales said a justice does not have to follow a previous ruling "if you believe it's wrong," a comment suggesting Roberts would not be bound by his past statement that the 1973 decision settled the issue.
Gonzales said circumstances had changed since Roberts commented on Roe v. Wade during his 2003 confirmation hearing for the seat he now holds on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
"If you're asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you're bound by the precedent," Gonzales said.
"If you're a Supreme Court justice, that's a different question because a Supreme Court justice is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong," Gonzales said.
--xx--
"Not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it's wrong"????
?? WTF ??
That's just great - so now the idea of legal precedent is "dead" in this country as well as freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
Ergo:
Quote:
• Said the administration opposes federal legislation to shield reporters from having to reveal confidential sources, but also said the government has been "very very careful," issuing only a dozen subpoenas since 1991 seeking reporters' confidential sources.
So breaking the Watergate scandal would never happen, if this administration get's its way, because the legal precedent associated with Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward not exposing Deep Throat would no longer apply?
What a complete load of horse shit.
Have the administration/president appoint Supreme Court Justices who "see it his way realtive to the support of his constituants" and screw the rest of us.....for a lifetime.
.lovely.
c-
PS: So we should all be above legal precedent now and break whatever laws or rulings or whatever we want, because we believe them wrong? Police should stop reading the Miranda Rights if they believe them wrong? Where is the fricking line drawn exactly? Awesome - "Anarchy for Everyone" starting from the top down,..... good going fella.
Post subject: Re: "High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade"
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:29 pm
too drunk to moderate properly
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
He's not saying anything that we didn't know before. The Supreme Court can reverse any previous ruling that they'd like. It was there ruling in the first place.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Post subject: Re: "High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade"
Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 11:49 pm
Yeah Yeah Yeah
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
B wrote:
He's not saying anything that we didn't know before. The Supreme Court can reverse any previous ruling that they'd like. It was there ruling in the first place.
Yes it can. Just lovely. We're just another inch closer to getting those other people's agenda met because they got their guys into the offices to do it, and we didn't.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:02 pm Posts: 10690 Location: Lost in Twilight's Blue
Epyon wrote:
There is no greater freedom than to decide how to live your life and what to do with your body. .
Oh the irony.
_________________ Scared to say what is your passion, So slag it all, Bitter's in fashion, Fear of failure's all you've started, The jury is in, verdict: Retarded
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:43 pm Posts: 489 Location: My Own Private Idaho
Epyon wrote:
That is how the system works. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, so be it. That does not stop your ability to: A.) Not have sex B.) Not have safe sex C.) Not use birth control D.) Offer your child for adoption
There is no greater freedom than to decide how to live your life and what to do with your body. You decide what happens in terms of your sexuality. The onus is on the individual, where it should be. However, once conception occurs, you are dealing with two individuals. Your rights and freedoms should not impede the rights and freedoms of others, and your child is given such as an individual. You control your body and yourself, which is guaranteed by the Constitution, but you are not guaranteed control over others. This is especially true in terms of controlling the lives of others. Now, that said, women should certainly have unlimited access to birth control, condoms, abstinance, and other means of preventing conception as that is their right and freedom as an individual concerning their own bodies. Value the rights and freedoms of the individual and you cannot go wrong.
**********************************************************
Value the rights and freedoms of actual individuals and you can't go wrong. You can go plenty wrong giving something that is not a fully-fledged human more rights than living humans.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
Oh for Christ's sake. No highest court of appeal anywhere in the world is bound by its previous decisions. Only court I'm aware of that used to do it was the House of Lords in the UK and even they stopped some 30 years ago.
Secondly, Roe v. Wade is largely hollowed out by Planned Parenthood v. Casey anyway. The trimester framework is gone. Now all legislation has to do is not place an "undue burden" on a woman's right to choose. Legislatures around the US have tested the limits of this. Lack of funding means that getting an abortion is prohibitive in the US anyway.
Lastly, most states will retain abortion in some form or another. If Roe and Casey get overturned, it won't mean that abortion is illegal. It would just mean that it is not a right guaranteed under the Constitution.
Roe is the least of your problems in regard to substantive rights with the Roberts appointment.
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
Post subject: Re: "High Court Not Bound by Roe V. Wade"
Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 2:13 am
Supersonic
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
cltaylor12 wrote:
B wrote:
He's not saying anything that we didn't know before. The Supreme Court can reverse any previous ruling that they'd like. It was there ruling in the first place.
Yes it can. Just lovely. We're just another inch closer to getting those other people's agenda met because they got their guys into the offices to do it, and we didn't.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Epyon wrote:
That is how the system works. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, so be it. That does not stop your ability to: A.) Not have sex B.) Not have safe sex C.) Not use birth control D.) Offer your child for adoption
You forgot "Have an abortion."
To the extent the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, it doesn't mean abortions will be illegal -- it just means it's up to the states to regulate (just like it was before Roe). Like I said in another thread, there's little chance a state legislature will make abortions illegal.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:43 pm Posts: 489 Location: My Own Private Idaho
Epyon wrote:
SecretGirl wrote:
You can go plenty wrong giving something that is not a fully-fledged human more rights than living humans.
When do you consider people to be "fully-fledged"? That logic fails miserably when one could say that children, handicapped, and mentally retarded people are not "fully-fledged". Bad argument.
********************************************************** My argument is a sound one. Fully-fledged means able to survive in the most basic way on their own. Everyone mentioned on the list above can do this. A zygote or early fetus cannot. A fetus is fully dependent on someone else to do everything for them or they do not exist. Can a fetus successfully eliminate on its own? No. Can it take oxygen from the air on its own? No.
Secondly, how does a fetus have more rights and freedoms than the mother? The fetus did not decide to have sex, it did not decide to have unprotected sex, it did not decide to not use birth control, and it did not decide to not be adopted.
This is for the living, breathing to decide, not a zygote. Hey, zygote! Yeah, you sexy cell pack...let's get it on!
At that point, it only has one right...to live.
No it doesn't. It has only the circumstances that nature and a couple might decide it has. Most pregnancies end in abortions that *nature* decided on. So much for fetal rights.
The argument that the mother has less does not hold water. A woman has a multitude of freedoms to not get pregnant to begin with. Why do so many overlook that? Why are so many afraid to admit that each individual woman has every right and liberty over their own body and what goes on with it. A woman's body is her own body, but once she is pregnant, another individual exists there and should be granted every opportunity to live. Her body is still her body, but her baby's body is his/her body as well. Both are individuals. In abortion, the fetus' rights and freedoms as guaranteed by the Consitution (or should be in my opinion) are infringed upon by another individual in the worst form - a penalty of death.
If it were a person, then it would be a penalty of death. Since it's not a person, it's the penalty of not existing. Nature does this every day.
This does not even have to be a matter of faith, but a matter of common sense and of individual liberty. The old adage of, "Against abortion, don't have one" is TRUE. If you don't want to have an abortion, do not have sex, do not have unprotected sex, do use birth control, and if all else fails, consider adoption. Even in the case of rape, how can a death penatly of an innocent person be called justice? It cannot. That person has every right to life as the mother. Individual freedom and liberty. That is what it is all about. You lose that, and THEN you lose democracy. If we cannot uphold the only right a individual has at that stage of life...that being life itself, then are we actually free?
A zygote is neither innocent nor not innocent. It is a bundle of cells with some potential, but that is all. It is not an individual. When it becomes an individual, you have an argument. Before that, you have magical thinking.
We're actually free when we can decide whether or not to bring another life into this world. That's when we're free.
Do you feel tumors should not be excised? Let's say it's benign. Oh, dear. Let's not endanger its right to life.
Whatever. It's up to the individual whether to have a child or not. Not up to mistakes and happenstance. Every child deserves to be a wanted child. I was an unwanted child as was my sibling. My life has been okay, my sibling's not so great in some respects. Suicide attempts and wishes that they had never been born. Terrible feelings of abandonment by birth parents. I would never consider giving any child of mine up for adoption. Not after what I've experienced and gone through. Abortion would have been better.
I wish life were simple and everything fell into place the way many right-to-life people paint it, but it doesn't.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:38 am Posts: 5575 Location: Sydney, NSW
SecretGirl wrote:
Do you feel tumors should not be excised? Let's say it's benign. Oh, dear. Let's not endanger its right to life.
You just cannot be serious.
_________________
Jammer91 wrote:
If Soundgarden is perfectly fine with playing together with Tad Doyle on vocals, why the fuck is he wasting his life promoting the single worst album of all time? Holy shit, he has to be the stupidest motherfucker on earth.
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
Quote:
This does not even have to be a matter of faith, but a matter of common sense and of individual liberty. The old adage of, "Against abortion, don't have one" is TRUE. If you don't want to have an abortion, do not have sex, do not have unprotected sex, do use birth control, and if all else fails, consider adoption. Even in the case of rape, how can a death penatly of an innocent person be called justice? It cannot. That person has every right to life as the mother. Individual freedom and liberty. That is what it is all about. You lose that, and THEN you lose democracy. If we cannot uphold the only right a individual has at that stage of life...that being life itself, then are we actually free?
But what about the people like myself who believe that a one month old fetus is not a life, so we are to have our rights to our bodies taken away because you do?
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:18 am Posts: 3920 Location: Philadelphia
Quote:
It would be a step in the right direction at least.
???? Since when is taking away a persons freedoms and rights a step in the right direction? And the old saying of "if you're against abortion, don't have one" i think is very good. Don't push your moral outlook on me and the laws that govern my life... I'm against guns and stupid people, but there doesn't seem to be any shortage of either around.
_________________ I remember doing nothing on the night Sinatra died
And the night Jeff Buckley died
And the night Kurt Cobain died
And the night John Lennon died
I remember I stayed up to watch the news with everyone
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
