As a Supreme Court Justice, would you reverse Roe v Wade?
Poll - Total Votes: 38
Yeah
Nah
I have no opinion on the matter
You can only vote on one answer.
26-30, F
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
If I was a SCOTUS justice, I would have no idea if I'd reverse Roe v. Wade until after I'd heard the oral arguments and read all of the amicus briefs in the case.
While I personally believe all abortions are a tragedy, I do not think that giving the federal government the power to reach into a woman's uterus and dictate what happens there is good for society in the long run.
A government powerful enough to give us everything we think we want is also powerful enough to take from us everything we thought we had.
In the meantime, there is much that can be done to reduce the number of abortions that take place in the US each year.
1. Reduce the cost and difficulty of private adoptions. Any two fertile male and female idiots can reproduce, regardless of their ability or desire to care for a child, yet would-be adoptive parents are subjected to expensive and time-consuming procedures which can discourage them from adopting.
2. Make it easier for couples who want to adopt and women who have an unintended and/or unwanted pregnancy to find each other to see if a private adoption and maternity care is feasible or desirable.
3. Eliminate all remaining societal stigma of being a pregnant, single woman regardless of her age and celebrate the new life that wants to enter this world through her.
I've wanted children and a family of my own for a long time, so I have difficulty understanding how any woman could want an abortion without the pregnancy posing a threat to her life or severe genetic defects in the fetus.
While I personally believe all abortions are a tragedy, I do not think that giving the federal government the power to reach into a woman's uterus and dictate what happens there is good for society in the long run.
A government powerful enough to give us everything we think we want is also powerful enough to take from us everything we thought we had.
In the meantime, there is much that can be done to reduce the number of abortions that take place in the US each year.
1. Reduce the cost and difficulty of private adoptions. Any two fertile male and female idiots can reproduce, regardless of their ability or desire to care for a child, yet would-be adoptive parents are subjected to expensive and time-consuming procedures which can discourage them from adopting.
2. Make it easier for couples who want to adopt and women who have an unintended and/or unwanted pregnancy to find each other to see if a private adoption and maternity care is feasible or desirable.
3. Eliminate all remaining societal stigma of being a pregnant, single woman regardless of her age and celebrate the new life that wants to enter this world through her.
I've wanted children and a family of my own for a long time, so I have difficulty understanding how any woman could want an abortion without the pregnancy posing a threat to her life or severe genetic defects in the fetus.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@EnigmaticGeek You’re not a judge but your first paragraph sounded like Kavanaugh during his confirmation hearing. 😝
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@SimplyTracie Well, I think that's a good thing. Anyone who has predetermined how (s)he would rule on any particular case has no business on the bench.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@EnigmaticGeek That said, a mere opinion doesn’t mean much till you’re sitting on the bench. And an opinion does not mean your decision is already made up.
For example, Kavanaugh was asked a simple question, “Do you think it’s wrong for a boss to fire an employee because he or she is gay?”
For example, Kavanaugh was asked a simple question, “Do you think it’s wrong for a boss to fire an employee because he or she is gay?”
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@SimplyTracie All of the SCOTUS confirmation hearings are just political theater, anyway. They provide little insight into how a nominee would rule once (s)he is on the bench. Only the actual written opinions of the nominees provide any insight into the though processes each nominee uses to arrive at a conclusion, and I haven't heard a single one quoted on TV.
No one thought SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts would've voted to uphold the ACA by concluding it was a tax, despite the Obama administration always asserting the insurance mandate wasn't a tax.
Most, if not all, of the SCOTUS justices have voted on at least one case in a way that astonished their supporters and detractors.
No one thought SCOTUS Chief Justice John Roberts would've voted to uphold the ACA by concluding it was a tax, despite the Obama administration always asserting the insurance mandate wasn't a tax.
Most, if not all, of the SCOTUS justices have voted on at least one case in a way that astonished their supporters and detractors.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@EnigmaticGeek Right. So why not just answer the committees questions as honestly as possible? Say what they mean and mean what they say. If they’re not strong enough to say it then they shouldn’t sit on the the bench.
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@SimplyTracie What questions didn't Kavanaugh answer honestly?
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@EnigmaticGeek He was asked if its wrong to fire a person because he or she is gay?
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@SimplyTracie What was his answer?
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@EnigmaticGeek He said he could not comment because of pending litigation on that same issue. It’s a simple yes or no answer. He could elaborate if he chose to do so.
As you said, their answer will in no way determine how they will ultimately vote as a Justice on SCOTUS. Everyone knows that. So why not just answer honestly.
As you said, their answer will in no way determine how they will ultimately vote as a Justice on SCOTUS. Everyone knows that. So why not just answer honestly.
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@SimplyTracie If there is a case that is currently winding its way through the federal court appellate process, it could end up at the SCOTUS. If Kavanaugh had answered the question, he would have to recuse himself from the case if/when it does get to the SCOTUS, assuming he is confirmed. Answering such a question about a pending case would be a disqualifying action for me to vote for any SCOTUS nominee, regardless of the answer given.
Senator Corey Booker, who asked Kavanaugh the question, is an attorney, and is smart enough to know that the vast majority of US voters don't know proper judicial conduct, don't know of or understand ex parte communications and their legal ramifications when they involve judges who opine on matters which they may very well be hearing in the near future.
I am not singling out the Democrats here. The Republicans do the same political theater for their own political ends.
How many times have you ever seen a discussion on TV news (or any news, for that matter) of Kavanaugh's actual legal decisions as a judge, and of the percentage of time when his decisions were reversed on appeal and how his reversal statistics compare to other judges' reversal statistics? I've never seen any, which doesn't surprise me at all.
Even all the controversy over Russian collusion and interference with the 2016 election is nothing more than political theater. Virtually everyone with a stake in the outcome of any election will do everything they can to influence it. In the US, the media has the most influence on the outcome of the elections, but not because of the topics they choose to cover, but because of the topics they choose to ignore or omit, as those decisions actually control what the vast number of voters don't know.
If you and your mom conspire to go to the grocery store, you are both guilty of conspiracy, even if you never actually go to the grocery store. Conspiracy is one of those "crimes" for which there doesn't need to be a victim. It is little different than criminalizing thoughts. No "crime" without an identifiable victim should be a crime. As things are now in the US, any of us could be prosecuted for any number of victimless "crimes" most of which we've never heard of. All it would take is for a US attorney to decide to investigate us.
Senator Corey Booker, who asked Kavanaugh the question, is an attorney, and is smart enough to know that the vast majority of US voters don't know proper judicial conduct, don't know of or understand ex parte communications and their legal ramifications when they involve judges who opine on matters which they may very well be hearing in the near future.
I am not singling out the Democrats here. The Republicans do the same political theater for their own political ends.
How many times have you ever seen a discussion on TV news (or any news, for that matter) of Kavanaugh's actual legal decisions as a judge, and of the percentage of time when his decisions were reversed on appeal and how his reversal statistics compare to other judges' reversal statistics? I've never seen any, which doesn't surprise me at all.
Even all the controversy over Russian collusion and interference with the 2016 election is nothing more than political theater. Virtually everyone with a stake in the outcome of any election will do everything they can to influence it. In the US, the media has the most influence on the outcome of the elections, but not because of the topics they choose to cover, but because of the topics they choose to ignore or omit, as those decisions actually control what the vast number of voters don't know.
If you and your mom conspire to go to the grocery store, you are both guilty of conspiracy, even if you never actually go to the grocery store. Conspiracy is one of those "crimes" for which there doesn't need to be a victim. It is little different than criminalizing thoughts. No "crime" without an identifiable victim should be a crime. As things are now in the US, any of us could be prosecuted for any number of victimless "crimes" most of which we've never heard of. All it would take is for a US attorney to decide to investigate us.
SimplyTracie · 26-30, F
@EnigmaticGeek I don’t see why he would need to recuse himself. Most judges have rendered an opinion on many different cases while in lower courts. Does that mean they cannot be impartial and hear a case as a SCOTUS Justice?
Why are you bringing up Feinstein? Or Russian collusion?
If my mom and I conspire to go shopping and we do go shopping, how is that a crime? It would be a crime if we conspired to rob the store.
Why are you bringing up Feinstein? Or Russian collusion?
If my mom and I conspire to go shopping and we do go shopping, how is that a crime? It would be a crime if we conspired to rob the store.
EnigmaticGeek · 61-69, M
@SimplyTracie In the context the questions were asked, there was clearly an expectation that Kavanaugh would agree to rule a certain way before he had even heard any arguments either way. That is why neither he, nor any other SCOTUS nominee answers such questions.
In the past, the media didn't make such an issue when politicians asked such questions that they knew wouldn't be answered. SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg was asked similar questions during her confirmation, which she declined to answer, for example. No one made an issue of her not answering at the time.
My bad re. putting Feinstein in my previous comment. It was actually Senator Corey Booker who asked the question you mentioned. I have edited my comment accordingly.
Discussing personal opinions about a particular subject in advance of the probability of hearing a case about the same topic is improper for any judge at any level.
I brought up the collusion as another example of how the politicians use the media to manipulate the public.
Judges at all levels routinely issue rulings based upon the law ant the relevant facts of the case before them that do not necessarily match their own personal opinions of how they think the world, or society should be relative to the issues raised in those cases.
Conspiracy alone shouldn't be considered a crime, as there are no victims. If you and your mom conspired to rob a store, but you never actually carried out your plan, and no store was ever harmed, do you think you should be prosecuted for conspiracy? Conspiracy itself is only thought. Do you really think people should go to prison for their thoughts if not acted upon?
In the past, the media didn't make such an issue when politicians asked such questions that they knew wouldn't be answered. SCOTUS Justice Ginsberg was asked similar questions during her confirmation, which she declined to answer, for example. No one made an issue of her not answering at the time.
My bad re. putting Feinstein in my previous comment. It was actually Senator Corey Booker who asked the question you mentioned. I have edited my comment accordingly.
Discussing personal opinions about a particular subject in advance of the probability of hearing a case about the same topic is improper for any judge at any level.
I brought up the collusion as another example of how the politicians use the media to manipulate the public.
Judges at all levels routinely issue rulings based upon the law ant the relevant facts of the case before them that do not necessarily match their own personal opinions of how they think the world, or society should be relative to the issues raised in those cases.
Conspiracy alone shouldn't be considered a crime, as there are no victims. If you and your mom conspired to rob a store, but you never actually carried out your plan, and no store was ever harmed, do you think you should be prosecuted for conspiracy? Conspiracy itself is only thought. Do you really think people should go to prison for their thoughts if not acted upon?