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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doo who wrote (466359)	1/27/2021 10:14:31 AM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542114

Ever read and studied in depth Roe v. Wade? I support its conclusion, but there's plenty of room to suggest it is nothing more than judicial hocus-pocus. Conservatives have valid legal arguments to support their argument that it was wrongly decided, frankly. As well, they have valid legal arguments that the decision should be left to state legislatures. I think both positions are the weaker of the two arguments on the issues, but that doesn't mean they are "making determinations and then finding the law." On that point, as I recall, RBG had a similar view: the outcome was correct but the argument was both politically and judicially suspect. Simply put, as I recall, she argued the right to abortion should be based on gender equity grounds rather than privacy grounds.

To: Doo who wrote (466359)

1/27/2021 11:41:24 AM

From: koan

Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 542114

You think I am naive because I think the liberals on the supreme court made (much) better decisions than the conservatives over the last 50 years? How can you say that with a straight face?

I have been reading how the supreme court votes and behaves for close to 60 years and the right wing consistently votes to support primitive venal ideology rather than modern sophisticated humane law.

I know courts come to different conclusions. Why do you think in my first post I said at the foundation the law is existential??

And, why I said given that the law is basically existential, having wise judges is that much more important----and the right wing and Republicans are anything but wise!

A lot of the law is simply based on the cultural norms and mores of the day e.g. the reason women could not vote until 1920, we had slavery, Black chain gangs, segregation and myriad laws against women, minorities and the LGBTQ community for so long.

Those decisions had nothing to do with the law and everything to do with ideology.

Which is why I say at the foundation, the law is existential in nature.

What is naive is thinking e.g. that Roe vesus Wade had something to do with legal logic.

The abortion issue is a dilemma i.e. there is no right choice or wrong choice, there is only a decision to be made---and when one is faced with a dilemma, as opposed to a problem with logical solutions, all they can do is make a decision---an existential decision.

Message #466359 from Slewnior at 1/27/2021 8:49:03 AM

The reason they come to different legal conclusions is because the law can lead to multiple valid, logical, legal conclusions. It's as simple as that, as common as that, and as legitimate as that. I understand why that's difficult to accept.

Granted, there is some measure of political views or beliefs that drive interest and adherence to one doctrine over another. That's true for both sides of the coin. But to simply declare that democratically appointed judges reach the "right" conclusion and republican appointees the "wrong" conclusion is just, well, naive and displays an ignorance of the decisions that were made and the law and doctrine underlying them.

Ever read and studied in depth Roe v. Wade? I support its conclusion, but there's plenty of room to suggest it is nothing more than judicial hocus-pocus. Conservatives have valid legal arguments to support their argument that it was wrongly decided, frankly. As well, they have valid legal arguments that the decision should be left to state legislatures. I think both positions are the weaker of the two arguments on the issues, but that doesn't mean they are "making determinations and then finding the law."

<<

Ever read and studied in depth Roe v. Wade? I support its conclusion, but there's plenty of room to suggest it is nothing more than judicial hocus-pocus. Conservatives have valid legal arguments to support their argument that it was wrongly decided, frankly. As well, they have valid legal arguments that the decision should be left to state legislatures. I think both positions are the weaker of the two arguments on the issues, but that doesn't mean they are "making determinations and then finding the law."

To: Doo who wrote (466359)	1/27/2021 11:57:03 AM
From: Graystone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542114

Kavanaugh or Gorusch I have to disagree on Kavanaugh, he has clearly demonstrated he has no right to be on the SC. It has nothing to do with politics, it has to do with his ability to articulate a reasonable posture, he is a dunce. That is the simple undeniable fact that can be drawn from his presented adjudications. If a person actually reasoning could get further from reality than Kavanaugh, I'd like to see it. He is the worst thing that the Republicans did in the four years they had control. We may discover that the other appointees are just as bad but that still remains to be seen. Kavanaugh should be impeached and removed from the bench.