View Single Post
      06-10-2008, 07:17 AM   #72
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
48
Rep
2,049
Posts

Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BKsBimmer View Post
Just ask some of her gay and lesbian friends. I'm sure you'll get an earful.
In other words, you are convinced she will "come to her senses" but have no actual clue why changing her decision makes any sense at all.

How typical.

Quote:
Interesting, my circle of friends includes folks from all persuations, including some gay and some of them conservative. No one I know who is pro-choice wants to see Roe v. Wade overturned.
Have any of the actually studied the issue? Being pro-choice and believing Roe was a poor decision is not all that uncommon.


“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”
Laurence Tribe: “The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”
….

“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”
Edward Lazarus: “The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002
“[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible."
“Liberals, Don’t Make Her an Icon” Washington Post July 10, 2003.
“(I)t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.

“This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited to the protection of the 14th Amendment.
….

“By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values.”
Kermit Roosevelt: “Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’,” Washington Post, January 22, 2003.
“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway.”
Michael Kinsley: “The Right’s Kind of Activism,” Washington Post, November 14, 2004.
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i