Activist Judge Inserts Herself Into State Abortion Legislation

In #1 you state that it's constitutional for a state to have the objective to reduce abortions. In #4 you state that the judge has the authority to the state's right to that objective.

#4 is poorly written so you may be trying to say something else, but trying to follow the train of logic I'm not sure what that could be.
 
DamnYankee said:
In #1 you state that it's constitutional for a state to have the objective to reduce abortions. In #4 you state that the judge has the authority to the state's right to that objective.

#4 is poorly written so you may be trying to say something else, but trying to follow the train of logic I'm not sure what that could be.
Click to expand...

ok, i can sorta see that. the basic premise is that yes, states have power to do certain things in order for the good of society, but those are always offset by the level of scrutiny provided to whatever right that is. In almost every case though, if there is a federally protected right, a state law is subject to scrutiny by the federal courts to determine if the law oversteps it's authority in restricting a federally protected right or a law is too vague in determining it's compelling government interest.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
ok, i can sorta see that. the basic premise is that yes, states have power to do certain things in order for the good of society, but those are always offset by the level of scrutiny provided to whatever right that is. In almost every case though, if there is a federally protected right, a state law is subject to scrutiny by the federal courts to determine if the law oversteps it's authority in restricting a federally protected right or a law is too vague in determining it's compelling government interest.
Click to expand...

The specific area of the law that the judge has an issue with is that the states require the clinic to give the mother scientific information. I don't see how that infringes upon the rights of the mother. Liberals are always screaming that conservatives hate science, and here we have clear evidence that, as usual, that it is liberals who hate the very thing that they claim conservatives hate.
 
DamnYankee said:
The specific area of the law that the judge has an issue with is that the states require the clinic to give the mother scientific information. I don't see how that infringes upon the rights of the mother. Liberals are always screaming that conservatives hate science, and here we have clear evidence that, as usual, that it is liberals who hate the very thing that they claim conservatives hate.
Click to expand...
of course liberals are going to hate that part of the law, because it uses their 'emotional' argument against them and that will bother the shit out of them. it still hasn't changed the judicial authority on it though. at least at this point.
 
The NC law requires the clinic to inform the mother. In no way could that infringe on her rights. She can still kill her kid, now she just has to have the opportunity to see its face first. :D
 
DamnYankee said:
The NC law requires the clinic to inform the mother. In no way could that infringe on her rights. She can still kill her kid, now she just has to have the opportunity to see its face first. :D
Click to expand...
and I equate that with the state requiring you to have a drivers license. I see no unconstitutional authority to require government permission to travel a certain way.
 
Isn't it cute how whenever a judge upholds the constitution and freedom how the wingnuts call them activist judges? :)

Predictable too. The wheenie whined about "activist judges" who dared permit African Americans to actually have rights (gasp!)
 
mott, i'm not saying that you said anything about the following, but lots of people here cried activist judges over the citizens united decision.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
doubtful, but just to help you out a little bit.

1) it's the states objective to reduce the amount of abortions. something I would consider to be within their constitutional authority

2) since abortion has been deemed a constitutional right, any such laws that infringe on that right must be narrowly tailored to achieve that objective.

3) according to the judges temporary injunction, "North Carolina officials "have not articulated how the speech-and-display requirements address the stated concern in reducing compelled abortions, and none is immediately apparent,"

4) so, in conclusion, the judge is exercising her authority to protect constitutional rights by requiring the state to show a compelling government interest in reducing abortions is narrowly tailored by producing some evidence.

pretty basic constitutional law.

that wasn't too difficult for you, was it?
Click to expand...

1) The states objective is irrelevant....

2) The state may not REQUIRE a women to view an ultrasound or listen to a heartbeat

3) The state my OFFER a women the opportunity if she wants to see or hear anything...

4) The womens "right" to the abortion is not infringed in any way at all....

pretty basic constitutional law.

that wasn't too difficult for you, was it?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Isn't it cute how whenever a judge upholds the constitution and freedom how the wingnuts call them activist judges? :)

Predictable too. The wheenie whined about "activist judges" who dared permit African Americans to actually have rights (gasp!)
Click to expand...

Yeah, 'cuz the requirement is so unconstitutional, bra!! :cig:
 
DamnYankee said:
No, just that my understanding is different than yours. I believe in reading the Constitution as plain English and if there is a question of interpretation then look at the intent of the men who wrote it, before they signed it. You apparently look at it differently, perhaps taking legal precedence into account. I think that legal precedence, unless it is clearly founded in the original language is bullshit. Most precedent is based on interpretation of what the founders did after the Constitution became law, or worse, what other folks did later on.

No other professional field accepts 'because we did it this way before' as a basis to make a current decision. Its only the legal profession that does this.
Click to expand...

that is not accurate. business's make decisions based on that all the time.

also, the fact is, it is not always possible to know the exact intent of the founders. scotus is tasked with interpreting the constitution. and if you read constitutional cases, you will find that many cases do in fact cite the founders intent, especially if the issue has not been considered before.
 
Yurt said:
that is not accurate. business's make decisions based on that all the time.

also, the fact is, it is not always possible to know the exact intent of the founders. scotus is tasked with interpreting the constitution. and if you read constitutional cases, you will find that many cases do in fact cite the founders intent, especially if the issue has not been considered before.
Click to expand...

Yes businesses do use that basis for making decisions, and is the why many business fail. Its a basic logical fallacy.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Isn't it cute how whenever a judge upholds the constitution and freedom how the wingnuts call them activist judges? :)

Predictable too. The wheenie whined about "activist judges" who dared permit African Americans to actually have rights (gasp!)
Click to expand...

I label this judge as an activist because the issue that she raised is clearly not in her authority to rule on.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top