 |
|
02-19-2007, 08:24 PM
|
 |
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by rob
Cat, your right about trying to get votes, personaly I will vote for the honset guy if there is one, that states his true feelings, regardless of how it effects him. McCain was just playing for votes here.
|
Again, I used to think he was honest but I think McCain for some reason sees his destiny as being in the White House before he dies and will do just about anything to get it. Of all people that should be outraged by getting smeared by his own party and the Karl Rove machine it sould be McCain...it shows me a real lack on integrity on McCain's part to not call foul at anytime that has been going on. Wrong is wrong whether from your own party or not. I like Newt Gingrich because he has pointed out the smear sh** that has happened in his own party, John Danforth is also high up on my list also because of this. |
02-19-2007, 10:14 PM
|
|
Political Mastermind
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,107
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
Abortion is not going away very soon...when things sit on the books too long they just don't get taken away very easily (strari decisis)...name one time this has happened?
McCain can take any stance he wants on abortion but in the end the rhetoric lines up with just gaining votes rather than making actual legislation.
|
Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson
after 58 years. |
02-20-2007, 12:38 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaja
Brown v. Board of Education overturned Plessy v. Ferguson
after 58 years.
|
This decision keeps the status quo of racial segregation:
Quote:
|
Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), was a landmark United States Supreme Court decision in the jurisprudence of the United States, upholding segregation and the constitutionality of the "separate but equal" doctrine.
|
You have the wrong decision but this still keeps the status:
Quote:
|
Cumming v. Richmond County Board of Education, 175 U.S. 528 (1899) ("Richmond") was a class action suit decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. It is a landmark case, in that it sanctioned de jure segregation of races in American schools. The Supreme Court overturned its decision in Richmond in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
|
This is a completely new direction for the country of established doctrine from the very start of the United States:
Quote:
|
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954),[1] is a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which explicitly outlawed racial segregation of public education facilities.
|
Seems as though the accepted practice before Roe V Wade (like segregation) was that abortion was illegal... Roe is new law like Brown vs Board of Ed.
Quote:
|
Before the scientific discovery that human development began at fertilization, British common law allowed abortions to be performed before quickening, the earliest perception of fetal movement by a woman during the second trimester of pregnancy. [83] In 1803, England put abortion law into statute, by making abortion of a quick fetus a capital crime, and providing lesser penalties for the felony of abortion before quickening.[84] The Soviet Union in 1920, and Iceland in 1935, were two of the first countries to pass legislation generally allowing abortion. The second half of the 20th century saw the liberalization of abortion laws in other countries. The Abortion Act 1967 allowed abortion for limited reasons in the United Kingdom. In the 1973 case of Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down laws banning abortion during the first and second trimesters, and also legalized abortion for limited reasons in the third trimester, based upon an inferred right to privacy in the U.S. Constitution
|
if Roe V Wade call be overturned then Brown V Board of Ed can be too? Fat chance...
McCain will lose on this issue...
|
02-20-2007, 01:10 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,777
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by George O Well
"I think that Roe's penumbras and emanations are an absolute affront to the constitution."
>>>Good one. Do you write for Dennis Miller?
|
No, but I like him and I liked him when he was doing his thing attacking Repubs.
Penumbras and emanations are IN the Roe v. Wade decision and were first coined by Justice Hugo Black who was as crazy as a mound of shit on a wet Wednesday. |
02-20-2007, 01:14 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenianforever1689
No, but I like him and I liked him when he was doing his thing attacking Repubs.
Penumbras and emanations are IN the Roe v. Wade decision and were first coined by Justice Hugo Black who was as crazy as a mound of shit on a wet Wednesday.
|
Black...why does he matter? Harry Blackmun wrote the the majority decision up. |
02-20-2007, 01:15 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,777
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
Abortion is not going away very soon...when things sit on the books too long they just don't get taken away very easily (strari decisis)...name one time this has happened?
|
How about that Old Dred Scot decision? Hmmmmmm?
Brown v. Board turned over some major decisions like the one about separate but equal. |
02-20-2007, 01:19 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,112
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by fenianforever1689
How about that Old Dred Scot decision? Hmmmmmm?
Brown v. Board turned over some major decisions like the one about separate but equal.
|
But this is still established doctrine of segregation...Dred Stott keeps the status quo...
I am talking about reversing something that has REAVESED the accepted (but wrong) status quo of the time... |
02-20-2007, 01:23 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,777
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
Black...why does he matter? Harry Blackmun wrote the the majority decision up.
|
Hugo Black is the justice who originally came up with the rationale for the eventual Roe decision. I think it was Griswold v Connecticut. {See also Buck v. Bell}
There are other cases where stari decisis will also play a role. Roe isn't the only case. See also " In the matter of Baby M". |
02-20-2007, 01:28 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,777
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by cat's meow
But this is still established doctrine of segregation...Dred Stott keeps the status quo...
I am talking about reversing something that has REAVESED the accepted (but wrong) status quo of the time...
|
Dred Scot went beyond what the case originally set out to determine in proclaiming that the Missouri Compromise was null and void.
But the point is that Dred Scot, Plessy and evev Brown v Board did overturn the past.
As Roberts said in his tribunal in front of murderers {Kennedy} and KKK members {Robert Byrd} he would rely on stare decisis and he pointed to both Dred Scott and Brown v. Board as examples of when past decision were right to be ignored. Mark Levin has a good chapter on it in his book as well. |
02-20-2007, 01:51 AM
|
|
Machiavelli Incarnate
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mid-south
Posts: 12,112
|
|
 by your answer...
The accepted practice in this country was the oppression Blacks, non-land owners, and women...
Dred Scott supports this (against Blacks)...
Plessy supports this...
Brown goes the other direction... |
| Thread Tools |
|
|
| Display Modes |
 Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
|
