• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W:44]

Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Ikari said:
How is this surprising? It has been affirmed by the courts, it's not going to be overturned. Duh.
Click to expand...

I don't see how the mere acknowledgment that the Court affirmed Roe in Casey is a prediction that Roe will not be overruled, or a declaration of intent not to help overrule it. Roe is one of the most contrived, lawless decisions in the Court's history. I hope that Judge Gorsuch would vote to overrule it, if he should be appointed and a suitable case one day come before the Court. I also hope that President Trump will be able to place a second justice on the Court before too long.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Scrabaholic said:
“Roe v. Wade is a precedent of the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said during his first day of questioning. “It was reaffirmed in Casey ... and in several other cases.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a Supreme Court case in 1992 that established states have the right to put certain restrictions on abortions as long as they don’t create an “undue burden.”

“It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed,” Gorsuch added.

As is standard for judges during confirmation hearings, Gorsuch repeatedly said he would not talk about how he would rule on particular issues. But he also said precedent is an important part of how he rules as a judge.

Read more here: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch says respects precedent, even Roe V. Wade | The Sacramento Bee

===========================================================================


Trump *had* to have known Mr. Gorsuch's views on RvW, given how he said he'd appoint SC judges who would overturn it. Yet, he nominated him anyway. I don't think he had any intention of appointing judges who would overturn the ruling.
Click to expand...

My understanding of PP v Casey is that the majority more or less admitted Roe v Wade was bad jurisprudence, but argued that because it had been in place for around two decades at that point, there was no overturning it. As a piece of legal reasoning, Roe has not often been followed. It served mostly as precedent simply in allowing abortion in a wide variety of cases, not in the legal reasoning to support this. (and since PP v Casey not even in these). An Originalist like Gorsuch has to face the question of long-held precedent that they feel is unoriginal or bad legal reasoning. Most, like Scalia, are reluctant to overturn such precedent completely, especially in one go (there is some room for chipping away, though). Others, perhaps like Justice Thomas, are more radical in their approach to precedent. I'm not surprised, knowing what I do about him, that Gorsuch is in the first group. Whether he would vote to put tighter restrictions on abortion rights, though, is a different question.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Wessexman said:
My understanding of PP v Casey is that the majority more or less admitted Roe v Wade was bad jurisprudence, but argued that because it had been in place for around two decades at that point, there was no overturning it. As a piece of legal reasoning, Roe has not often been followed. It served mostly as precedent in its conclusions (and since PP v Casey not even in these). An Originalist like Gorsuch has to face the question of long-held precedent that they feel is unoriginal or bad legal reasoning. Most, like Scalia, are reluctant to overturn such precedent completely, especially in one go (there is some room for chipping away, though). Others, perhaps like Justice Thomas, are more radical in their approach to precedent. I'm not surprised, knowing what I do about him, that Gorsuch is in the first group. Whether he would vote to put tighter restrictions on abortion rights, though, is a different question.
Click to expand...

You might be interested in reading Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. He mocks Justice Kennedy--deservedly, I think--for invoking stare decisis in Casey to give him a colorable excuse to avoid overruling Roe outright, and then completely ignoring stare decisis in Lawrence, when observing it would have required him to uphold a state sodomy law. I think the impression you seem to have that Scalia tended to support stare decisis is not accurate. And I have seen Justice Thomas, who you seem to think is quick to brush aside stare decisis, write that he was regrettably supporting an old decision despite his strong disagreement with it, just because the thing had been around so long that time had lent it an undeserved veneer of legitimacy.

By the way, your reference to Roe as "a piece of legal reasoning" made me smile. One of its many harsh critics once famously wrote that nowhere in the decision is any legal reasoning to be found. And he was right. Roe is substantive due process arbitrariness at its worst. It is so bad that there is a story about it which, although it can't be confirmed, refuses to die. According to this story, the law clerks of the rookie justice who authored the majority opinion, Harry Blackmun, secretly called it "Harry's Abortion."
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

My understanding is that it is Thomas who has the reputation of being the more radical originalist, whereas Scalia is seen as the more moderate. Originalist scholar Randy Barnett, for example, even talked of Scalia's infidelity, and called him a faint-hearted originalist. But you may be correct. I claim no expertise.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Honestly **** stare decisis when the decisions clearly do not align with the text; just because some dudes in robes said it decades ago doesn't make it right - they violated their oath to uphold the Constitution by abridging and amending the text, creating things wholecloth.

These adulterations should be recognized for what they are and removed.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

prometeus said:
But it clearly does. He was alone in his opinion while the majority said the opposite. That makes him wrong.

Since the opinion WAS wrong, it implies that quite well

Bottom line is that he did side with the corporation over the little guy, as he did in other cases, but in this instance fortunately he was overuled by the majority.

No decent and just person would hide behind the letter of the law, as an excuse for injustice.
Click to expand...


So you want judges, unelected judges, to make up the law as they go along to suit your preferred outcome? Do you feel the same when judges make up laws that don't suit your particular leanings?

The opinion is wrong insofar as the majority thought otherwise. That's fine. That's the way the system works.

My issue is you assuming the man is evil because you clearly don't understand how things actually work. Judges do not make law. They apply the law that others have written. Gorsuch's reading of the law is reasonable - despite the idiotic comments of Al Franken. Did you even bother to read the opinion or are you just regurgitating soundbites?
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

prometeus said:
But it clearly does. He was alone in his opinion while the majority said the opposite. That makes him wrong.
Click to expand...

Appeal to Popularity or Appeal to Numbers. Look it up. You're using it here.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Harshaw said:
Appeal to Popularity or Appeal to Numbers. Look it up. You're using it here.
Click to expand...
THAT IS AN OPINION. Exactly how/why did the S.C Justices reach a unanimous conclusion? Your opinion is completely ignoring all the Data and Logic they used! Now while I'm quite aware that S.C. Decisions are also called "opinions", those Decisions are all about how some law or other is or is-not compatible with the Constitution (including Amendments) --and "compatibility" is something that is often very Objective (factual), not just Subjective (pure opinion). (Example: if some Law tries to generally ban handgun ownership, it is Objectively incompatible with the Amended Constitution.)

Therefore I submit to you the notion that to the extent there was actual Objectivity involved in that S.C. Decision, you are incorrect to assume anyone agreeing with the Justices is automatically committing an "Appeal to Popularity" or "Appeal to Numbers" fallacy.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

FutureIncoming said:
THAT IS AN OPINION. Exactly how/why did the S.C Justices reach a unanimous conclusion? Your opinion is completely ignoring all the Data and Logic they used! Now while I'm quite aware that S.C. Decisions are also called "opinions", those Decisions are all about how some law or other is or is-not compatible with the Constitution (including Amendments) --and "compatibility" is something that is often very Objective (factual), not just Subjective (pure opinion). (Example: if some Law tries to generally ban handgun ownership, it is Objectively incompatible with the Constitution.)

Therefore I submit to you the notion that to the extent there was actual Objectivity involved in that S.C. Decision, you are incorrect to assume anyone agreeing with the Justices is automatically committing an "Appeal to Popularity" or "Appeal to Numbers" fallacy.
Click to expand...

My post had nothing to do with any of this. Bye.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

The only objective ruling a Supreme Court justice can make as regards to the Constitution and some federal law or policy regarding education is to note that the Constitution says nothing about education and follow the 10th Amendment.

See also: "abortion," also a word found nowhere in the text.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

JayDubya said:
See also: "abortion," also a word found nowhere in the text.
Click to expand...
NEITHER DOES THE WORD "HUMAN" APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION. Only the word "person" (sometimes pluralized) is used. And since neither you nor other abortion opponents have the slightest iota of Objectively Verifiable Data showing that unborn humans qualify as persons, the unborn are not associated with any rights under the Amended Constitution. It Is Very Simple!
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Scrabaholic said:
“Roe v. Wade is a precedent of the Supreme Court,” Gorsuch said during his first day of questioning. “It was reaffirmed in Casey ... and in several other cases.”

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a Supreme Court case in 1992 that established states have the right to put certain restrictions on abortions as long as they don’t create an “undue burden.”

“It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed,” Gorsuch added.

As is standard for judges during confirmation hearings, Gorsuch repeatedly said he would not talk about how he would rule on particular issues. But he also said precedent is an important part of how he rules as a judge.

Read more here: Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch says respects precedent, even Roe V. Wade | The Sacramento Bee

===========================================================================


Trump *had* to have known Mr. Gorsuch's views on RvW, given how he said he'd appoint SC judges who would overturn it. Yet, he nominated him anyway. I don't think he had any intention of appointing judges who would overturn the ruling.
Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: While I'm used to being betrayed on this issue, Gorsuch didn't say he wouldn't overturn Roe v Wade, he said it was established precedent, which it is.

Just as, for example, Dred Scott v Sandford was.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

FutureIncoming said:
NEITHER DOES THE WORD "HUMAN" APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE AMENDED CONSTITUTION. Only the word "person" (sometimes pluralized) is used. And since neither you nor other abortion opponents have the slightest iota of Objectively Verifiable Data showing that unborn humans qualify as persons, the unborn are not associated with any rights under the Amended Constitution. It Is Very Simple!
Click to expand...

That's a whole lot of irrelevant noise, fam.

Abortion isn't mentioned, so it isn't a right. If it isn't a right, Congress can legislate in federal terrritory and the states can legislate in their territory. You're welcome for the civics lesson.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

JayDubya said:
Honestly **** stare decisis when the decisions clearly do not align with the text; just because some dudes in robes said it decades ago doesn't make it right - they violated their oath to uphold the Constitution by abridging and amending the text, creating things wholecloth.

These adulterations should be recognized for what they are and removed.
Click to expand...

As various Supreme Court justices have observed, mistakes by the Court, given enough years, become so thoroughly embedded that it is no longer practical to correct them. Too much water has gone under the bridge. One example is the use of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle for incorporating this or that part of the Bill of Rights into that amendment and applying it to the states.

The same amendment contains a Privileges or Immunities Clause, which probably was meant to be its centerpiece. But when it was only five years old, in 1873, that clause was so narrowly interpreted by the Court in the Slaughter-House Cases as to read it right out of the Constitution. And it has been pretty much a dead letter ever since. When the Court, then, around 1900, took up the long project of incorporating much of the Bill of Rights, it relied by default on the Due Process Clause instead.

Taking that course has had many unfortunate results, as Justice Thomas discussed in 2010 in his concurring opinion in the Court's most recent incorporation decision, McDonald v. Chicago. But is the Court supposed to undo a century's worth of incorporation decisions, after all those courts, for all those years, have relied on them in all those tens of thousands of cases?
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

matchlight said:
As various Supreme Court justices have observed, mistakes by the Court, given enough years, become so thoroughly embedded that it is no longer practical to correct them. Too much water has gone under the bridge. One example is the use of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as the vehicle for incorporating this or that part of the Bill of Rights into that amendment and applying it to the states.

The same amendment contains a Privileges or Immunities Clause, which probably was meant to be its centerpiece. But when it was only five years old, in 1873, that clause was so narrowly interpreted by the Court in the Slaughter-House Cases as to read it right out of the Constitution. And it has been pretty much a dead letter ever since. When the Court, then, around 1900, took up the long project of incorporating much of the Bill of Rights, it relied by default on the Due Process Clause instead.

Taking that course has had many unfortunate results, as Justice Thomas discussed in 2010 in his concurring opinion in the Court's most recent incorporation decision, McDonald v. Chicago. But is the Court supposed to undo a century's worth of incorporation decisions, after all those courts, for all those years, have relied on them in all those tens of thousands of cases?
Click to expand...

I don't see where there's a problem with the Court acknowledging that the foundations are wrong, but too much depends on it, so this NEW course will rule for cases from now own, but leave the other lines of jurisprudence in place for previous issues.

It would be no more complicated than some of the other jurisprudential frameworks they've developed.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Harshaw said:
I don't see where there's a problem with the Court acknowledging that the foundations are wrong, but too much depends on it, so this NEW course will rule for cases from now own, but leave the other lines of jurisprudence in place for previous issues.

It would be no more complicated than some of the other jurisprudential frameworks they've developed.
Click to expand...

I don't see any problem with doing that, either. As I remember, that's more or less what Justice Thomas was saying in McDonald. The majority had just relied on the Due Process Clause, as usual, in incorporating the Second Amendment into the Fourteenth and applying it to the states. Thomas thought the Court should have revived the Privileges or Immunities Clause and relied on it instead. I agree with him, for all the reasons he gave in his opinion.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

JayDubya said:
That's a whole lot of irrelevant noise, fam.
Click to expand...
FACTS ARE FACTS. Your description of facts qualifies a lot more as "irrelevant noise" than the actual facts.

JayDubya said:
Abortion isn't mentioned,
Click to expand...
DOESN'T NEED TO BE. Since unborn humans are not persons, and since neither you nor other abortion opponents have the slightest iota of Objectively Verifiable Data showing that unborn humans qualify as persons, they don't qualify as anything more than mere-animal entities (and don't even qualify for "endangered species" status) , and everyone knows it is quite OK to kill common mere-animal entities, like snakes or rabbits (often for food), or mice or rats (because are pests).

JayDubya said:
so it isn't a right.
Click to expand...
IT IS AS MUCH AS A RIGHT AS YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL RATS. Considering the known/proven/well-documented assaults committed by an unborn human upon its hostess, it is perfectly reasonable for a pregnant woman to want to be rid of an unwanted womb-occupant, just like it is perfectly reasonable for her to want to be rid of an unwanted rat occupying her house.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: ‘It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed’

Scrabaholic said:
*I* am not surprised. However, a lot of anti choicers were banking on RvW being overturned.
Click to expand...

He answered truthfully but left out the part where he believes that states rights applies. The right will do whatever they can to keep female reproduction in service to the sky man. No amount of lying, false eqivocation or medical ignorance is too much to protect "innocent" tadpoles from "sinful" whores.

That we are still fighting this ridiculous fight is a testament to its political usefullness. I guess whatever drags conservatives out of their double-wides and into the voting booths is good for the right, even if it subjugates half the population.

What a tool.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

FutureIncoming said:
IT IS AS MUCH AS A RIGHT AS YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KILL RATS. Considering the known/proven/well-documented assaults committed by an unborn human upon its hostess, it is perfectly reasonable for a pregnant woman to want to be rid of an unwanted womb-occupant, just like it is perfectly reasonable for her to want to be rid of an unwanted rat occupying her house.
Click to expand...

Comparing your social undesirable of choice to "rats," are we?

;)

Did you maybe miss it when I suggested you and your peers should try to sound less like Saturday morning cartoon villains or Nazis (same thing)?

In any event, an originalist will read the plain text and note that nothing supports the Roe decision... and act accordingly. This man will do so. I am satisfied.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

JayDubya said:
Comparing your social
Click to expand...
IN WHAT WAY DOES AN UNBORN HUMAN QUALIFY AS "SOCIAL"? I suspect that if you actually studied the meaning of the word, you would find that rats are far more social than unborn humans, which don't act any more "social" than parasites.

JayDubya said:
undesirable
Click to expand...
SINCE WHEN IS ASSAULT DESIRABLE?

JayDubya said:
of choice
Click to expand...
NO "CHOICE" INVOLVED HERE; this is the Overall Abortion Debate, after all! The Objectively Measurable/Verifiable qualities of just one generic type of entity (the unborn human) is a main object of discussion in that Debate.

JayDubya said:
to "rats," are we?
Click to expand...
I DON'T SEE YOU POINTING OUT ANY INACCURACIES IN THE COMPARISON I PRESENTED. Opinions: aplenty; factual inaccuracies: none.

JayDubya said:
In any event, an originalist will read the plain text and note that nothing supports the Roe decision... and act accordingly. This man will do so. I am satisfied.
Click to expand...
MAYBE YOU SHOULD READ WHAT I WROTE IN #46.
 
Last edited:
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Gaius46 said:
So you want judges, unelected judges, to make up the law as they go along to suit your preferred outcome? Do you feel the same when judges make up laws that don't suit your particular leanings?
Click to expand...
where have I said anything like that?

The opinion is wrong insofar as the majority thought otherwise. That's fine. That's the way the system works.
Click to expand...
In the absence of other criteria it is the only thing we have.

My issue is you assuming the man is evil
Click to expand...
No that is an exaggeration.

because you clearly don't understand how things actually work.
Click to expand...
All that because I pointed out that he had a flawed argument?

Judges do not make law.
Click to expand...
Nor have I ever said they do. You are making up stuff.

They apply the law that others have written.
Click to expand...
Exactly, and he tried to misapply it, not because he is evil or because he is incompetent, but because he is biased.

Gorsuch's reading of the law is reasonable
Click to expand...
Not when one is the sole dissenter.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

Harshaw said:
Appeal to Popularity or Appeal to Numbers. Look it up. You're using it here.
Click to expand...
Actually no, I am using facts and the sole criteria available.
 
Re: Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W

prometeus said:
Actually no, I am using facts and the sole criteria available.
Click to expand...

You're arguing that Gorsuch was wrong because he was outnumbered. It's what you said. And that is a fallacy - Appeal to Popularity or Appeal to Numbers. That's a fact.
 
Neil Gorsuch on abortion ruling in Roe v. Wade: It’s been repeatedly reaffirmed[W:44]

prometeus said:
where have I said anything like that?

In the absence of other criteria it is the only thing we have.

No that is an exaggeration.

All that because I pointed out that he had a flawed argument?

Nor have I ever said they do. You are making up stuff.

Exactly, and he tried to misapply it, not because he is evil or because he is incompetent, but because he is biased.

Not when one is the sole dissenter.
Click to expand...

I read your comments regarding Gorsuch siding with "corporations over the little guy" as you preferring outcomes that favored the little guy despite what the law may actually be. If that's a wrong reading then my apologies.

On you believing him evil - I making that statement because you made it personal by calling him a "douche bag," which I read as saying - he's siding with the corporation, not because he actually believes his interpretation is correct but because he wants to **** the little guy.

Believe it or not I don't agree with his interpretation. I think he was splitting hairs too finely. But that doesn't mean I think he's a douche or an asshole. I save those for the corporation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom