• 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!

The Case for Abolishing the Supreme Court

veritas1 said:
I'm saying that the sudden alarm over "partisans" or "extremists" has arisen because conservatives have the upper hand. I consider the Roe decision to have been the product of an extremist interpretation of the Constitution, not because it involves abortion but because it relies on a specified right nowhere enumerated in the document.
Click to expand...

The right to privacy arises from individual freedom. You deny that individual freedom is a right guaranteed under the Constitution and the 9th amendment?

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.
Click to expand...

The Right of Privacy: Is it Protected by the Constitution?
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
The right to privacy arises from individual freedom. You deny that individual freedom is a right guaranteed under the Constitution?
Click to expand...

Individual freedom is assumed. It's why the Federal government is prohibited from various activities by the Bill of Rights. It nowhere deals with the issue of privacy. If privacy can be claimed as a right under the Constitution and used as a pretext for unlimited abortion, then what else can it be used for? The justices in favor of the ultimate ruling knew they had no support from the Constitution and so they conjured the privacy right out of thin air. The case should have been returned to the states. If the voters and legislators of the states wanted unlimited abortion, they could certainly put it into law.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Can't win an election? Abolish the electoral college. Pesky Supreme Court upholding that annoying constitution? Either pack the court with judges without such scruples or get rid of that too!

Then presume to prattle to the winners of elections about respecting democracy.
Click to expand...

what this shows is once again how unhinged these people really are.
 
veritas1 said:
Individual freedom is assumed. It's why the Federal government is prohibited from various activities by the Bill of Rights. It nowhere deals with the issue of privacy. If privacy can be claimed as a right under the Constitution and used as a pretext for unlimited abortion, then what else can it be used for? The justices in favor of the ultimate ruling knew they had no support from the Constitution and so they conjured the privacy right out of thin air. The case should have been returned to the states. If the voters and legislators of the states wanted unlimited abortion, they could certainly put it into law.
Click to expand...

Abortion are limited by viability so your premise is incorrect. The Bill of Rights enumerates multiple rights of privacy and the 9th Amendment makes it clear that they don't magically end with those either. The idea that women do not have control of their own bodies goes against that amendment.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Abortion are limited by viability so your premise is incorrect. The Bill of Rights enumerates multiple rights of privacy and the 9th Amendment makes it clear that they don't magically end with those either.
Click to expand...

The Bill of Rights does no such thing. It speaks to specifics as your own link shows. It requires a "broad reading" of the BOR to arrive at the privacy right as Goldberg favored. If the 9th confers a right to abortion on demand, what else does it confer? This is why we need strict constructionists on the court. Issues not specific to Constitutional protections should remain as a question for state legislatures.
 
veritas1 said:
The Bill of Rights does no such thing. It speaks to specifics as your own link shows. It requires a "broad reading" of the BOR to arrive at the privacy right as Goldberg favored. If the 9th confers a right to abortion on demand, what else does it confer? This is why we need strict constructionists on the court. Issues not specific to Constitutional protections should remain as a question for state legislatures.
Click to expand...

No, Rights of the people must be decided by the SC or they are not rights. The right to control your own body should be self-evident and basic. Otherwise what good are any rights.
 
iguanaman said:
No, Rights of the people must be decided by the SC or they are not rights. The right to control your own body should be self-evident and basic. Otherwise what good are any rights.
Click to expand...

I'm not going to get into a long winded argument about abortion but there are two people involved here and one of them ends up dead. I've yet to find any Constitutional right to get rid of people because they are inconvenient. Unless you think the 9th amendment confers such a right.
 
iguanaman said:
No, Rights of the people must be decided by the SC or they are not rights. The right to control your own body should be self-evident and basic. Otherwise what good are any rights.
Click to expand...

No the rights of the people are to be protected by the SC. they do not decide rights.
if rights can be decided it means they can be taken away which is not what the founders established.
 
Spartacus FPV said:
Can't win an election? Abolish the electoral college. Pesky Supreme Court upholding that annoying constitution? Either pack the court with judges without such scruples or get rid of that too!

Then presume to prattle to the winners of elections about respecting democracy.
Click to expand...

The most hilarious presumption is the asinine idea that the GOP cares about respecting democracy.

On the 'Comedy Gold Scale', that rates a 10.
 
AtlantaAdonis said:
https://www.vox.com/2018/10/12/17950896/supreme-court-brett-kavanaugh-constitution

I said basically the same thing not long ago. Now Harvard Law profs are starting to talk about it. I guess I'm ahead of the curve. Really good and thought-provoking article, but too bad some will dismiss it as just being the prattling of a lib'ral.
Click to expand...

if something broken you don't go and destory it but try to fix.

We are the only country that SC has life time appointee. Most likely the founding fathers assumed no one will live into their nintes back then (sort of natural term limit)

Simple solution to give 10 year term limit. (I prefer 6 years). The we have constant flow of "new Blood" into Suprem court. This is actually one issue that both side of the isle and majority of Americans want.

Not sure a 80 year old has his/her thumb on the most current issues that the country is dealing with.

As they say Green and growing, ripe and rotten

Diving Mullah
 
Cardinal said:
Why would it be? And please do a little better than Vancemack, who was only able to name someone he didn't like.
Click to expand...

Shows your partisanship if your post was only directed at one side.
 
RetiredUSN said:
You lost the election I = So get rid of the electoral system.

You lost the election II = So white racist & misogynists elected Trump

You lost the election III = So white women are stupid.

You lost a fight against Kavanaugh I = So get rid of the Supreme Court.

You lost the fight against Kavanaugh II = So white men need to go away.

You lost the fight against Kavanaugh III = So your 11th hour bombshell failed.

What will progressives want to burn down next time ?
Click to expand...

One guy writes an article = “progressives” want to burn down the court
 
Tanngrisnir said:
The most hilarious presumption is the asinine idea that the GOP cares about respecting democracy.

.
Click to expand...

It hasn't been the GOP pissing and moaning about the results of a Democratic presidential election for almost two years...

I realize though that you have no use for facts.
 
trixare4kids said:
It hasn't been the GOP pissing and moaning about the results of a Democratic presidential election for almost two years...

I realize though that you have no use for facts.
Click to expand...

Just how "democratic" the election of a candidate who lost the popular vote by over 3 million is still open for discussion. Americans are used to a Govt. elected by a majority. The idea of minority rule is an anathema to most of us. The entire election stunk to high heaven and it is only the partisans that don't see that.
 
trixare4kids said:
It hasn't been the GOP pissing and moaning about the results of a Democratic presidential election for almost two years...

I realize though that you have no use for facts.
Click to expand...

It's been the GOP who's been pushing voter suppression for decades.

I realize you wouldn't know a fact if you saw one.
 
ludin said:
No the rights of the people are to be protected by the SC. they do not decide rights.
if rights can be decided it means they can be taken away which is not what the founders established.
Click to expand...

That is what the right to privacy does. Protect our rights. The 9th amendment is there for a reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom