Roe V. Wade

[Stiofán]

This one will be fun.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111953,00.html


DALLAS — A federal appeals court has agreed to hear a request from the woman formerly known as "Jane Roe" to reconsider the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade that legalized abortion.

[Steve]

"reconsider"? What about the statute of limitations?

[Coot]

There's no statute of limitations in Constitutional law.

[cdw]

I didn't read the link which is why I am probably confused, but I thought she tried this, it was thrown out and it was over. IMO that woman needs a life...you know, like get on with it already?

[Sierra Mike]

Show of hands--who thinks Roe v Wade should stand?

SM

[Stiofán]

I didn't read the link which is why I am probably confused, but I thought she tried this, it was thrown out and it was over. IMO that woman needs a life...you know, like get on with it already?
It's in the link. Case thrown out in district court has been appealed to circuit court which has decided to hear it.

[Steve]

Show of hands--who thinks Roe v Wade should stand?

SMI think it should stand.

I also think abortion as a form of birth control should be strongly discouraged, perhaps even penalized, but I think Roe v. Wade should stand.

[Plunge]

Show of hands--who thinks Roe v Wade should stand?

SM

Roe v Wade is judicial garbage. This isn't talking about the right of abortion or not, it is the way the justices went about it. The rule on medical proceedures without being doctors and instead of just ruling whether abortion is legal or not, take it upon themselves to do the job of our legislative branch.

An embarrassment to the judicial branch of government.

[Neo]

Roe v Wade is a legal or judicial decision based upon a particular US Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution and the case before it when it made its ruling.

Unfortunately, people do not want to discuss it as such. They want to discuss it on a personal or societal basis, which is irrelevant to the legal decision itself.

Legally it is one of the worse decisions made by any modern Supreme Court. It is only one vote on the current Supreme Court from being overthrown.

The first mistake the courts made in Roe v Wade was taking the case. The second mistake was for SCOTUS to rule as they did. There was no legal basis other than a majority of activism to reach the decision they did.

IMO there is nothing within the US Constitution to justify abortion as a "right."

My personal beliefs on abortion have no bearing or influence whatsoever with my legal opinion. And as stated earlier, Roe v Wade is a legal issue.

[Coriolis]

IMO there is nothing within the US Constitution to justify abortion as a "right."
Perhaps, but that's what Consitutional ammendments are for -- things that aren't in the Constitution that ought to be -- like freedom of speech and religion, and right to bear arms. Even Scalia agrees with this!

[Neo]

Perhaps, but that's what Constitutional amendments are for -- things that aren't in the Constitution that ought to be -- like freedom of speech and religion, and right to bear arms. Even Scalia agrees with this!

We haven't had an amendment to the Constitution in 33 years and most of the amendments of the past century deal with things such as terms of office or succession. Only roughly half have to do with traditional rights such voting. It has been a travesty when things like prohibition and its subsequent repeal were addressed through the amendment process. But we seemed to learned from such fiascos.

Things like what you mention freedom of speech, religion, and the right to bear arms were all adopted as one act with the first 10 Amendments in 1791, also known as the Bill of Rights and which were originally argued or attempted to be in the original Constitution--and their failure to be so included was a great disappointment to many of the original framers of the Constitution who could not agree on their content.

IMO things like banning flag burning, gay marriage, abortion "rights" and other such subjects have no place in the Constitution as new amendments. True, if a sufficient number of the American people want an amendment of any issue it is their right through the proposal and ratification process to have them added if so motivated. But the importance of Amending the Constitution is such that the process is so structured that it is very difficult to amend it--as it should be, especially in our ever evolving highly partisan and special interest group influences. Amendments should mean something other than a knee jerk feel good reaction to a phenomena of the time or some political issue.

And in a related subject one should not try to make the Constitution to be more or say more than it actually does, as is the case IMO on Roe v Wade. The Constitution was never meant to be a government or secular Bible crafted to govern or regulate our every action. It is why within the very Constitution things such as States Rights are so prominent in their influence or for that matter the legislative process not to mention the often cited "community standards" case law test.