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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (110474)	4/21/2005 6:33:45 AM
From: JDN	Respond to of 793689

Very good point, but seems to me its EVEN WORSE then the author states. The decision on Roe vs Wade seems to me to have been the starting point for the moral decay in the government of these United States and the people within. I know my formative years were in the 50's and things were SO MUCH different. Yes, standards of living have improved vastly for most of us, BUT standards of morals have descended dangerously low IMHO. Can the former survive without the latter? jdn

To: LindyBill who wrote (110474)	4/21/2005 7:18:14 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793689

That's an excellent piece by Brooks.

To: LindyBill who wrote (110474)	4/21/2005 7:41:32 AM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793689

The thing that gets forgotten about Roe v. Wade, Lawrence vs. Texas, etc., is that the original bases for the cases are criminal prosecutions. Put into a nutshell, is it constitutional to put somebody in prison for doing X, Y or Z? I realize that even the SCOTUS loses sight that this is what's at stake, but they shouldn't. It's unreasonable to expect the courts to always defer to the legislature. Courts are co-equal to the legislature, and exist to provide a check and balance on the legislature (and the executive.) Sometimes legislatures go too far. And it's axiomatic that living in a democracy we won't always agree on what's "too far." I would have to agree that it's going too far to say that there is a "right" to have an abortion, but I disagree that it's going too far to say that abortion shouldn't be a crime. What if, say, the legislature decided that not going to church was a crime. Should the courts defer? What if, say, the legislature decided that being a Communist was a crime. Should the courts defer? What if, say, the legislature decided that it was OK to take private property from one private person and give it to another private person for a private person. Should the courts defer? What if, say, the legislature decided that blacks and whites marrying each other was a crime. Should the courts defer? What if, say, the legislature decided that the penalty for fornication should be stoning to death. Should the courts defer? It seems to me that in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas, the SCOTUS was doing what they are expected to do, but the results are unpalatable. Not being happy with the result is not a good reason to criticize the process.