• 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!

Brett Kavanaugh Said Roe v. Wade Is Not ‘Settled Law’ In 2003 White House Email

NotreDame said:
There is a very important reason why laws are placed into writing, to fix what the law proscribes, allows, creates, abolishes, and to preclude the judiciary from legislating from the bench, to keep the judiciary from retracting, adding to, reducing, rights, privileges, found in the written law, and to keep the judiciary from retracting, reducing, adding to, what the law allows or prohibits.
Click to expand...

Yep.. laws are placed in writing.. and those laws at time.. violate peoples rights.. and thus we have judicial branch.. whose job it is to curtail and check legislative and executive overreach.

Not the other way around. Sometimes the Judiciary can overstep its bounds.. like in the hobby lobby decision.. or in citizens united. and even in Roe V wade by allowing some restriction of abortion.
 
Lursa said:
It's sickening that they attempt it and even more egregious that there is no mechanism for punishing them for attempting to bring obviously illegal legislation to the voters.
Click to expand...

Yes.. its sickening.

Particularly for a medical provider like myself that sees the real medical issues involved here. When you get right down to it.. its an attempt by men to punish women for daring to control their own bodies.

I never got that..until a few years ago.. when there was a discussion about contraception in the ACA..

And Obama convened a conference to discuss it.. woman's contraception... and NOT ONE WOMAN WAS ON THE PANEL.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes.. its sickening.

Particularly for a medical provider like myself that sees the real medical issues involved here. When you get right down to it.. its an attempt by men to punish women for daring to control their own bodies.

I never got that..until a few years ago.. when there was a discussion about contraception in the ACA..

And Obama convened a conference to discuss it.. woman's contraception... and NOT ONE WOMAN WAS ON THE PANEL.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Sorry you have to see that.

I know the realities as well. I am a trainer on ultrasound machines...I see plenty of fetal ultrasounds and many are heartbreaking.

The thing is, it's all punitive, not preventative.

It harms any parent that has to jump thru legal hoops to make the hardest, saddest decision of their lives.

And if there are some imaginary women that would want to abort a healthy viable fetus (rather than give birth at that point and collect $$ in private adoption), she will find an illegal means to do so, just like women have thru history.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yep.. laws are placed in writing.. and those laws at time.. violate peoples rights.. and thus we have judicial branch.. whose job it is to curtail and check legislative and executive overreach.

Not the other way around. Sometimes the Judiciary can overstep its bounds.. like in the hobby lobby decision.. or in citizens united. and even in Roe V wade by allowing some restriction of abortion.
Click to expand...

Sure, but the judicial branch is bound to the plain text of the laws, not permitted to ignore the plain text, and certainly not allowed to refuse to follow the plain text of the law. The Court in Roe, did not follow the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
 
Lursa said:
Exactly. Sorry you have to see that.

I know the realities as well. I am a trainer on ultrasound machines...I see plenty of fetal ultrasounds and many are heartbreaking.

The thing is, it's all punitive, not preventative.

It harms any parent that has to jump thru legal hoops to make the hardest, saddest decision of their lives.

And if there are some imaginary women that would want to abort a healthy viable fetus (rather than give birth at that point and collect $$ in private adoption), she will find an illegal means to do so, just like women have thru history.
Click to expand...

You got that right... and whats worse.. the ones that claim that they "fight for the life of the child"... are the first ones to throw a hissy fit because the school lunch program is giving a hungry 5 year old a free peanut butter sandwich.. because it "teaches them to be a taker"..

A 5 year old!.
 
NotreDame said:
Sure, but the judicial branch is bound to the plain text of the laws, not permitted to ignore the plain text, and certainly not allowed to refuse to follow the plain text of the law. The Court in Roe, did not follow the plain text of the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...

No they are not bound to the plain text of laws. First.. if they were bound to the plain text of laws.. the jim crow laws would all be still in place.. so would "separate but equal" laws.... but because judges looked at more than just the text of the law.. but in how the law was applied.. and the effects of the law.. we have a much more free society.

and when it comes to the Constitution? The plain text does not include gender reassignment surgery, computers, cell phones and electronic health records... it does not include radioactive waste, and that plain text was written by folks whose idea of freedom.. though advanced for the time, thought that freedom applied to white males.. and black females were property to be raped when the felt like it. And because of that.. if judges were "bound to the plain text".. of the constitution.. then the supreme court would become irrelevant.
 
jaeger19 said:
No they are not bound to the plain text of laws. First.. if they were bound to the plain text of laws.. the jim crow laws would all be still in place.. so would "separate but equal" laws.... but because judges looked at more than just the text of the law.. but in how the law was applied.. and the effects of the law.. we have a much more free society.

and when it comes to the Constitution? The plain text does not include gender reassignment surgery, computers, cell phones and electronic health records... it does not include radioactive waste, and that plain text was written by folks whose idea of freedom.. though advanced for the time, thought that freedom applied to white males.. and black females were property to be raped when the felt like it. And because of that.. if judges were "bound to the plain text".. of the constitution.. then the supreme court would become irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Oh? The judiciary can just make it up as they go along? That doesn’t make any sense and a purpose of written is preclude anyone from making it up as they go along.

And many of your examples are covered by a plain text reading of the Constitution. Where the plain text is inadequate, the Original Meaning can suffice to provide meaning to the text.

And a plain text approach doesn’t render the Court irrelevant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
Oh? The judiciary can just make it up as they go along?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Nope...but the judiciary is not BOUND to the plain text.. because the plain text is insufficient for the purposes of the judiciary. WHERE in the constitution does it discuss say privacy and electronic emails? Oh wait.. it doesn't... and yet that's a privacy question that could come before the supreme court.

And yes.. a "plain text" approach does render the court irrelevant. IF the only thing a justice can do is cite and follow the "plain text"... then why is there a need for a supreme court? Just look at the text and if it addresses it.. then that's that... if it doesn't.. then the legislature and executive branch have free reign. No need for a court.. just something with a high school reading level to read off the plain text.

No.. many of my examples are not covered by plain text reading. The plain text reading was that there would be equal protection under the law.. 14th amendment.

Well the plain text in jim crow laws.. was that there would be equal treatment under the law. Everyone would say have to prove the ability to read in order to vote. . See.. fine.. equal treatment... except that white people would be coached.. black people would be given harder passages.. requirements would actually be waved for white folks etc.

In Segregation.. under the law.. treatment would be equal.. that's plain text.

In reality.. black schools would be funded less, have worse conditions, worse teachers, fewer staff, and less resources like text books.

Sorry but a "plain text" view of the constitution.. did not work.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope...but the judiciary is not BOUND to the plain text.. because the plain text is insufficient for the purposes of the judiciary. WHERE in the constitution does it discuss say privacy and electronic emails? Oh wait.. it doesn't... and yet that's a privacy question that could come before the supreme court.

And yes.. a "plain text" approach does render the court irrelevant. IF the only thing a justice can do is cite and follow the "plain text"... then why is there a need for a supreme court? Just look at the text and if it addresses it.. then that's that... if it doesn't.. then the legislature and executive branch have free reign. No need for a court.. just something with a high school reading level to read off the plain text.

No.. many of my examples are not covered by plain text reading. The plain text reading was that there would be equal protection under the law.. 14th amendment.

Well the plain text in jim crow laws.. was that there would be equal treatment under the law. Everyone would say have to prove the ability to read in order to vote. . See.. fine.. equal treatment... except that white people would be coached.. black people would be given harder passages.. requirements would actually be waved for white folks etc.

In Segregation.. under the law.. treatment would be equal.. that's plain text.

In reality.. black schools would be funded less, have worse conditions, worse teachers, fewer staff, and less resources like text books.

Sorry but a "plain text" view of the constitution.. did not work.
Click to expand...

Nope...but the judiciary is not BOUND to the plain text.. because the plain text is insufficient for the purposes of the judiciary.
Click to expand...

If the Court is not bound to the plain text, then logically they Court can make it up as they go along. That is exactly what the above quoted statement allows, a judiciary, not bound to the plain text, can make it up as they go along because the plain text is "insufficient for the purposes of the judiciary." But a judiciary making it up as they go along is nonsense.
 
NotreDame said:
If the Court is not bound to the plain text, then logically they Court can make it up as they go along. That is exactly what the above quoted statement allows, a judiciary, not bound to the plain text, can make it up as they go along because the plain text is "insufficient for the purposes of the judiciary." But a judiciary making it up as they go along is nonsense.
Click to expand...

Nope.. there is a difference between being being "bound" to the plain text .. and following the text and spirit of the Constitution its role in preserving freedom as a guide.. And that's what our judiciary HAS to do. Where does the plain text include cell phones and electronic medical records?

Where does the plain text include homosexuality and wedding cakes. Where does the plain text campaign finance reform. or Universal healthcare?

Plain text advocates only seem to rear their ugly head when they want to take away anothers freedoms.
 
poweRob said:
He jjust said in this hearing that Roe was "Settled Law". Is he lying now or lying then? Or has he "evolved" on the issue?

Brett Kavanaugh Said Roe v. Wade Is Not ‘Settled Law’ In 2003 White House Email

The email from his time in the George W. Bush White House was in response to a draft opinion article in support of one of Bush’s appeals court nominees. The piece was written with the intent to place it under the names of anti-abortion women. The draft stated, “It is widely accepted by legal scholars across the board that Roe v. Wade and its progeny are the settled law of the land.”

Kavanaugh’s email, however, stated: “I am not sure that all legal scholars refer to Roe as the settled law of the land at the Supreme Court level since Court can always overrule its precedent, and three current Justices on the Court would do so.”​
Click to expand...

2003 was fifteen years ago.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope.. there is a difference between being being "bound" to the plain text .. and following the text and spirit of the Constitution its role in preserving freedom as a guide.. And that's what our judiciary HAS to do. Where does the plain text include cell phones and electronic medical records?

Where does the plain text include homosexuality and wedding cakes. Where does the plain text campaign finance reform. or Universal healthcare?

Plain text advocates only seem to rear their ugly head when they want to take away anothers freedoms.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. The phrase "following the text" of the Constitution is exactly what I have been saying. In "following the text" of the Constitution, where the text speaks unambiguously, the Court must follow the text.

The Constitution does not have a "spirit" for anyone to follow.

and following the text and spirit of the Constitution its role in preserving freedom as a guide.. And that's what our judiciary HAS to do. Where does the plain text include cell phones and electronic medical records?

Where does the plain text include homosexuality and wedding cakes. Where does the plain text campaign finance reform. or Universal healthcare?
Click to expand...

To be sure, the Constitution does not address every aspect of life, and when some feature of life, aspect of life, conduct or behavior, is not addressed by the Constitution, but should be or needs to be, then the remedy is to amend the Constitution. After all, the framers included the amendment process in the U.S. Constitution for the purpose of effectuating a change to the Constitution. The amendment process, not the judiciary, is the proper method for updating the Constitution to contemporary times.

Cell phones, medical records, are included in provisions in the Constitution, such as constituting "effects" in the 4th Amendment, or "property" in the 5th and 14th Amendments.

But the point remains when some aspect or feature of life is not covered by the text of the Constitution, or its Original Meaning, then an amendment is needed to update the Constitution, to bring those features and aspects of life within the Constitution, and the judiciary is not authorized to update the Constitution to include those aspects and features of life by judicial decree.
 
NotreDame said:
Nonsense. The phrase "following the text" of the Constitution is exactly what I have been saying. .
Click to expand...

Nope.. you said BOUND TO THE PLAIN TEXT.. nice try at your nuanced position.

The Constitution does not have a "spirit" for anyone to follow.
Click to expand...
it most certainly does.

To be sure, the Constitution does not address every aspect of life, and when some feature of life, aspect of life, conduct or behavior, is not addressed by the Constitution, but should be or needs to be, then the remedy is to amend the Constitution
Click to expand...

so now we are back to having to go through amending the constitution.. so that my wife and I could get married. Marriage is not specifically in the constitution.

Amending the constitution so that police officers can't take your cell phone and download all your information without a warrant..

sorry.. but email and electronic records are not specifically in the constitution.


But the point remains when some aspect or feature of life is not covered by the text of the Constitution, or its Original Meaning, then an amendment is needed to update the Constitution, to bring those features and aspects of life within the Constitution,
Click to expand...

Poo.. that would mean that segregation, Jim Crow laws, and just about everything else would require a Constitutional amendment.

And freedom would not be served.. because since Amendment of the constitution generally takes agreement from congress... its unlikely that Congress is going to create an amendment.. to declare an law they created,, unconstitutional.

There would be no check on the power of Congress.

Not when the remedy is that you have to go through Congress to get an amendment to the constitution.
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope.. you said BOUND TO THE PLAIN TEXT.. nice try at your nuanced position.

it most certainly does.



so now we are back to having to go through amending the constitution.. so that my wife and I could get married. Marriage is not specifically in the constitution.

Amending the constitution so that police officers can't take your cell phone and download all your information without a warrant..

sorry.. but email and electronic records are not specifically in the constitution.




Poo.. that would mean that segregation, Jim Crow laws, and just about everything else would require a Constitutional amendment.

And freedom would not be served.. because since Amendment of the constitution generally takes agreement from congress... its unlikely that Congress is going to create an amendment.. to declare an law they created,, unconstitutional.

There would be no check on the power of Congress.

Not when the remedy is that you have to go through Congress to get an amendment to the constitution.
Click to expand...

You can’t logically have it both ways. You cannot rationally say the judiciary is to follow the text of the Constitution, as you have, and also say they do not have to follow the text of the Constitution, and the latter statement is exactly what you are stating when you say the judiciary can update the Constitution to include current circumstances not coming within the text of the Constitution. Such a contradictory view is nonsense.

Your posts repeatedly invoke the Constitution to condemn, criticize, approve, of decisions the court has made. You state repeatedly courts are to follow the constitution.

Yet, the Constitution creates a process for the express purpose of changing the constitution, and it’s the amendment process. The amendment process is the method for changing the constitution, not the judiciary. It’s irrational to profess the Constitution as paramount, that the Constitution is to be followed, but then not follow the Constitution when it comes to the Constitution’s amendment process. The Constitution is clear, the amendment process is to change the constitution, not the judiciary.

Indeed, the amendments changed the constitution to abolish slavery, protect the right to vote for women, abolish poll taxes to vote, abolish restrictions on the right to vote based on race, etcetera. By your logic, these amendments were unnecessary. By your logic, although the text of the constitution did not address the aforementioned subject matter, the judiciary could have chosen not to follow the text of the Constitution, and decide by judicial decree the aforementioned subject matter to exist in the constitution, rendering amendments unnecessary.

Indeed, your entire argument of the judiciary not following the text of the constitution to make it up as they go along to adapt the constitution to contemporary times renders, illogically, the amendment process unnecessary.

The drafters, framers, and ratifiers of the constitution have spoken. The amendment process is the constitutional method for changing, updating, the constitution, not the judiciary. The reason the drafters, framers, and ratifiers of the constitution included the amendment process is to change the constitution, such a method being unnecessary if the judiciary can do it.

Your example of the cellular phone and a warrant is erroneous. Cell phones conspire as “effects” in the 4th Amendment.

Email and electronic records constitute as “effects” in the 4th Amendment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
You can’t logically have it both ways. You cannot rationally say the judiciary is to follow the text of the Constitution, as you have, and also say they do not have to follow the text of the Constitution,
Click to expand...

Absolutely.. you can say the judiciary is to follow the text of the constitution and the spirit of the constitution. Sure you can. Why not? I think you are being purposely obtuse because you have no rebuttal for my point.

NOW.. saying that they are BOUND to the PLAIN TEXT of the constitution? that makes the constitution basically useless for everything that's not explicitly in that plain text.

Your posts repeatedly invoke the Constitution to condemn, criticize, approve, of decisions the court has made. You state repeatedly courts are to follow the constitution
Click to expand...

Yep.. so?

My posts also repeatedly invoke the spirit of the constitution.. and repeatedly recognize that things like baking cakes.. is not in the plain text of the constitution. In fact.. I specifically discuss the problems with problems with "the plain text".. when it comes to the secod amendment and gun control

The plain text says.. "in order to form a more perfect militia".. which has been taken by many.. including members of the supreme court.. to mean.. "well they said militia so.. firearms is not an individual right".

Now.. if we are bound to the plain text... yep.. they would have a point.

But we are not.. because we know that the purpose of the bill of rights was for individual freedom. We would have to believe that the bill of rights.. had 9 amendments for individual freedom.. and then for some reason.. the makers of the constitution.. just put in their some random amendment about militias.

Not buying it.

Yet, the Constitution creates a process for the express purpose of changing the constitution, and it’s the amendment process
Click to expand...
Yep.

The amendment process is the method for changing the constitution, not the judiciary
Click to expand...
Yep.

Indeed, the amendments changed the constitution to abolish slavery, protect the right to vote for women, abolish poll taxes to vote, abolish restrictions on the right to vote based on race, etcetera. By your logic, these amendments were unnecessary.
Click to expand...

Actually.. yes. In fact that was an argument that occurred regarding the bill of rights. Some were concerned that the bill of rights would be misconstrued to mean that only the rights put forth in the "plain text" would be the rights that people had. So there was argument whether the constitution should be amended or not.

That's the argument you are making.. if its not in the plain text of the constitution.. then said right does not exist.

Others were worried that the spirit of freedom and the role of the Constitution needed some firm amendments to MAKE SURE that certain rights were protected as they worried that some would not abide by the spirit of the constitution and its freedoms. So the constitution was amended with the compromise that one of the amendments stated basically.. "just because its not in the constitution does not mean its not a right"

Which by the way.. pretty much shows that the constitution is not about "the plain text"



Indeed, your entire argument of the judiciary not following the text of the constitution to make it up as they go along to adapt the constitution to contemporary times renders, illogically, the amendment process unnecessary.
Click to expand...

actually technically yes. When you have a judiciary that follows the spirit and intent of the constitution which was maximum freedom and less intervention from government. BUT the problem is that we still have a segment of the population that doesn;t believe in that sense of freedom.. or for themselves perhaps.. but not for groups like woman or black people etc. And for that the amendment process is necessary to firmly protect individuals from such people. Hence things like the right to vote for women.

IF however we followed your strict amendment approach.. Ending segregation would have needed a constitutional amendment. Allowing my wife and I to marry would have required a constitutional amendment, getting rid of jim crow laws would have needed a specific constitutional amendment for each one.

Which would mean.. that the very congress and legislatures.. that had written these laws.. then had to turn around and create an amendment to abolish that very law!!!

See how silly your premise is?
 
Last edited:
jaeger19 said:
Absolutely.. you can say the judiciary is to follow the text of the constitution and the spirit of the constitution. Sure you can. Why not? I think you are being purposely obtuse because you have no rebuttal for my point.

NOW.. saying that they are BOUND to the PLAIN TEXT of the constitution? that makes the constitution basically useless for everything that's not explicitly in that plain text.



Yep.. so?

My posts also repeatedly invoke the spirit of the constitution.. and repeatedly recognize that things like baking cakes.. is not in the plain text of the constitution. In fact.. I specifically discuss the problems with problems with "the plain text".. when it comes to the secod amendment and gun control

The plain text says.. "in order to form a more perfect militia".. which has been taken by many.. including members of the supreme court.. to mean.. "well they said militia so.. firearms is not an individual right".

Now.. if we are bound to the plain text... yep.. they would have a point.

But we are not.. because we know that the purpose of the bill of rights was for individual freedom. We would have to believe that the bill of rights.. had 9 amendments for individual freedom.. and then for some reason.. the makers of the constitution.. just put in their some random amendment about militias.

Not buying it.

Yep.

Yep.



Actually.. yes. In fact that was an argument that occurred regarding the bill of rights. Some were concerned that the bill of rights would be misconstrued to mean that only the rights put forth in the "plain text" would be the rights that people had. So there was argument whether the constitution should be amended or not.

That's the argument you are making.. if its not in the plain text of the constitution.. then said right does not exist.

Others were worried that the spirit of freedom and the role of the Constitution needed some firm amendments to MAKE SURE that certain rights were protected as they worried that some would not abide by the spirit of the constitution and its freedoms. So the constitution was amended with the compromise that one of the amendments stated basically.. "just because its not in the constitution does not mean its not a right"

Which by the way.. pretty much shows that the constitution is not about "the plain text"





actually technically yes. When you have a judiciary that follows the spirit and intent of the constitution which was maximum freedom and less intervention from government. BUT the problem is that we still have a segment of the population that doesn;t believe in that sense of freedom.. or for themselves perhaps.. but not for groups like woman or black people etc. And for that the amendment process is necessary to firmly protect individuals from such people. Hence things like the right to vote for women.

IF however we followed your strict amendment approach.. Ending segregation would have needed a constitutional amendment. Allowing my wife and I to marry would have required a constitutional amendment, getting rid of jim crow laws would have needed a specific constitutional amendment for each one.

Which would mean.. that the very congress and legislatures.. that had written these laws.. then had to turn around and create an amendment to abolish that very law!!!

See how silly your premise is?
Click to expand...

I do not have a silly premise. But you do have a silly argument of followed the text of the constitution, except not really when it needs to be updated by the judiciary. That contradiction is the silliness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
I do not have a silly premise. But you do have a silly argument of followed the text of the constitution, except not really when it needs to be updated by the judiciary. That contradiction is the silliness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes.. you have a silly premise.. and my position is plainly correct.. otherwise.. segregation would still be the law of the land without an amendment.. the same with jim crow laws.. etc. I did not contradict anything.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yes.. you have a silly premise.. and my position is plainly correct.. otherwise.. segregation would still be the law of the land without an amendment.. the same with jim crow laws.. etc. I did not contradict anything.
Click to expand...

No, my premise is sound. The reason our nation values written law is because what is written is the law. The written law is what people read to understand their rights, liabilities, what is proscribed, what is allowed, what procedure is required, and so forth. What is not written is not law. The Supreme Law of the Land says the amendment process is required to change the Constitution. Hence, an amendment is required.

You pay lip service to the importance of written law but your adherence to the written law is nonexistent. You profess the text of the Constitution is to be followed then contradict this idea by stating the text can be ignored, which is exactly what you’ve argued to justify the judiciary not following the text of the Constitution. That contradiction is what is silly. What’s tragic is you do not perceive any contradiction exists.

Segregation can be prohibited under a plain text AND Original Meaning approach on the basis people aren’t treated equally by segregation.

Jim Crow laws violated various amendments, for instance, those amendments dealing with the right to vote, so this is also a poor example for your argument.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom