Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (169381)	8/9/2001 1:44:46 PM
From: H-Man	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Kinda depends on your judicial view of Roe v. Wade. Many believe that the court legislated instead of interpreted. The court had to make two significant leaps: First, that there is a right to privacy in the 4th amendment, which cannot be violated, even with probable cause. Second, that it is a strictly private matter, where the state has no interest in the fetus. To be clear, I am not arguing either side of the abortion issue, but the fact that they did legislate in this matter is a pretty common and accepted view. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (169381)	8/9/2001 7:26:53 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"Wrong about that. The framers of the constitution thought up the Supreme court to decide on issues that the constitution itself was unclear about. Abortion is one of these and unfortunately the court had a right to decide on the issue." There is simply nothing in the constitution that even mentions the word abortion. The idea that this is a constitutional question is in my view (obviously not the Court's view) absurd. The court clearly legislated in this area because those on the court at that time thought they were the judge of "the good, the true and the beautiful". Nothing more than substitution of their judgment for that of the legislature's and clearly a terrible decision. The court could just as well have decided that Abortion was unconstitutional based on the rights of the unborn fetus. And could have made a better argument for that position. Little joe

To: gerard mangiardi who wrote (169381)	8/10/2001 8:16:14 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The Constitution is not "unclear" on abortion. It is silent. The Constitution is meant to limit the power of the federal government. The Court had no business substituting its judgment for the judgment of the states which did not allow the practice. Given that the underlying case was fraudulent (the case was manufactured by abortion rights activists), I think the decision rests on even shakier grounds. However, those who still oppose abortion are not without remedies. For instance, a bill could be passed to remove jurisdiciton over abortion cases from the Court, an amendment to the Constitution. etc.. Until such time however, we are all bound by the decision, like it or not. JMHO. JLA