The Ronald Reagan On Everything Thread

[lynx]

Who won? Roe or Wade?

And who are they in the first place?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2004 - 10:11
Just to be clear, j2....

When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.

When you don't ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".

Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn't it?

Okay, to be clear, then:

I feel Roe v. Wade is flawed and constitutes judicial activism because it deprived the citizenry of the U.S. of their right to a proper public debate on the subject of abortion and it's legality.

It also trampled the issue of state's rights into the bargain.

If the question had been decided by public referendum, as would have been right and proper, all the concurrent and coincidental issues could have been incorporated into the debate, and the people would have at least have had the satisfaction of having "had their say", which is very important, especially when a constituency ends up on the losing end of a proposition.

Such "democratic" exercises aren't favored by the courts, however, as concern for minorities has, for decades, trumped the old, worn-out caveat of "majority rule".

I feel that, had the issue undergone such a debate and referendum, women would have access to abortion, but would exercise that access with a bit more consideration for the act, which consideration should honestly not offend anybody.

Liken it if you will to the gymnastics required by law (not always enforced, BTW) in order to buy a gun; not too long ago, you wanted a firearm, you went and bought one-it was just that simple.

Now, you have registrations, waiting periods, etc., none of which could be said to be impinging on lawful access to guns, and frankly, I can't remember the last time I actually heard anybody bitch about having to "wait for their gun".

I still hear the statement that goes something like, "from my cold, dead hands..." quite often; I don't think the gun lobby is dead, or even suffering to any extent, do you?

Now:

What would have been wrong with that scenario, instead of the one we currently have, caused by a Court which felt compelled to find a right that didn't exist, and in the process over-rode the wishes of the people it represents?

The public, at the time (and probably to this day), would not have given blanket approval to any right-to-abortion, but neither would it have denied access to same.

And just think:

We wouldn't be subject to the ongoing rancor over the subject, we wouldn't have a total re-hash of the issue every time there's a Presidential election, it wouldn't be a litmus test that keeps judges from being appointed, we wouldn't be wasting time and money subsidizing two very large and lucrative lobbies, we wouldn't be putting up with clinics being bombed, or Doctors being shot, and we wouldn't be at each other's fucking throats constantly over this issue, which, frankly, should have been disposed of thirty-odd years ago.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@20 June 2004 - 10:34
we wouldn't be putting up with clinics being bombed, or Doctors being shot, and we wouldn't be at each other's fucking throats constantly over this issue, which, frankly, should have been disposed of thirty-odd years ago.

Good morning J2.
I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, however for some reason i find it hard to believe that the sort of terrorist that bombs abortion clinics at present would be unlikey to continue if all of your suggested criterior had taken place and it had ended in favour of abortion. i also feel that we would still debate the issue should it arise.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc+20 June 2004 - 13:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 20 June 2004 - 13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@20 June 2004 - 10:34
we wouldn&#39;t be putting up with clinics being bombed, or Doctors being shot, and we wouldn&#39;t be at each other&#39;s fucking throats constantly over this issue, which, frankly, should have been disposed of thirty-odd years ago.

Good morning J2.
I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, however for some reason i find it hard to believe that the sort of terrorist that bombs abortion clinics at present would be unlikey to continue if all of your suggested criterior had taken place and it had ended in favour of abortion. i also feel that we would still debate the issue should it arise. [/b][/quote]
We&#39;ll never know, will we.

More&#39;s the pity.

Good afternoon, BTW.

[vidcc]

Originally posted by j2k4@20 June 2004 - 11:32

Good afternoon, BTW.

sorry i&#39;m on mountain time, still morning here. Actually it&#39;s still the 20th century

[j2k4]

Then you&#39;re not actually posting on this board, are you?

Your name wouldn&#39;t happen to be Wells, would it?

[Rat Faced]

Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2004 - 15:11
Just to be clear, j2....

When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.

When you don&#39;t ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".

Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn&#39;t it?

Very well put sir

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced+20 June 2004 - 15:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced &#064; 20 June 2004 - 15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@20 June 2004 - 15:11
Just to be clear, j2....

When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.

When you don&#39;t ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".

Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn&#39;t it?

Very well put sir [/b][/quote]

Given the latter instance was activism and the former was not, the shoe fits very nicely indeed, gents.

Sometimes it just works out that way.

Thanks for the cake.