|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 14, 2024 14:27:55 GMT -5
Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality? Close. More like an activist, Federalist judge followed by an activist-led, Federalist-led 5th Circuit court of appeals didn't consider constitutionality.
Which, of course, flies in the face of the opening post in this thread, which was made by a fellow Federalist.
Interesting, indeed.
Never understood this federalist society thing. Federalists such as Hamilton had a very loose interpretation of the constitution. Jefferson was not a federalist and hated the federalist. But the Federalist Society uses his silhouette as their trademark and take his anti federalist view of the constitution. It seems to me They should be the anti federalist society. Maybe Bullfrog or Tarp can explain. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 14, 2024 14:59:41 GMT -5
I will happily defer to Bullfrog on this one, while warning him to choose his words more carefully this time.
|
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 14, 2024 22:27:14 GMT -5
Close. More like an activist, Federalist judge followed by an activist-led, Federalist-led 5th Circuit court of appeals didn't consider constitutionality.
Which, of course, flies in the face of the opening post in this thread, which was made by a fellow Federalist.
Interesting, indeed.
Never understood this federalist society thing. Federalists such as Hamilton had a very loose interpretation of the constitution. Jefferson was not a federalist and hated the federalist. But the Federalist Society uses his silhouette as their trademark and take his anti federalist view of the constitution. It seems to me They should be the anti federalist society. Maybe Bullfrog or Tarp can explain. The silhouette is of James Madison, not Jefferson. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papersavalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed78.aspThe "Federalist" in "Federalist Society" isn't about the old Federalist political party of Hamilton, it's a reference to the Federalist Papers. We're legal disciples of James Madison (who wrote most of the Constitution). Hamilton's primary relevance to us is that he wrote Federalist 78, which is our defining canon for defining the proper role of the courts and judicial interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 14, 2024 22:49:49 GMT -5
Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. The FDA historically said that "Plan B" worked by stopping a fertilized egg from implanting. That's an abortion as a pro-life person would define it, where life begins at conception: In recent years, they changed the label to say that it "may" work that way. From the FDA Label: "Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun." www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/021045s016lbl.pdfwww.verywellhealth.com/how-plan-b-works-906842#:~:text=The%20FDA%20labeling%20for%20the,it%20works%20by%20preventing%20ovulation. So some research says the drug doesn't prevent implantation at all. Yet the FDA says it "may," and historically it was presumed that it "did" and that was the primary mechanism by how it worked. If it stops a fertilized egg from implanting, it's causing an abortion and places it in the same category as any other abortion or "morning after" pill. I would only accept that "Plan B" is not an abortion pill if it's completely conclusive it does not stop a fertilized egg from implanting. |
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Jun 14, 2024 22:57:24 GMT -5
Bullfrog, While I agree the conservatives currently on the bench (not all conservatives) do take a more literal approach in the interpretation of the constitution, you do demonstrate your bias by implying liberals would ignore the constitution to get the result they wanted. I think justices on both sides try to take the approach of what was the framers intent with certain sections and the fact the framers made some sections broad and slightly ambiguous like the general welfare clause. Like today, there were opposing views on the power of the central government with some wanting the federal government to have more power and some wanting to limit it. This led to many sections being interpreted differently even back then. I would say there are political liberals who do not interpret the Constitution liberally but instead take a conservative approach to judicial interpretation. I've seen some. I've also seen a few political conservatives interpret the Constitution somewhat liberally and loosely. I believe the judicial philosophy one picks has a lot to do with intelligence and personality type. Originalists have a tendency to be sharp as tacks in terms of raw brain processing power. Which is not the same thing as wisdom. |
|
|
|
Post by cadman on Jun 15, 2024 5:22:04 GMT -5
Also, morning after pills like Plan B stop the pregnancy from happening, they do not end the pregnancy. They are not abortion pills. they have to be taken within 5 days after unprotected sex to stop the pregnancy from occurring and before conception occurs. Abortion pills like Mifepristone can be taken after the woman is pregnant to end the pregnancy up to 11 weeks after conception. Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy, not the prevention of a pregnancy. The FDA historically said that "Plan B" worked by stopping a fertilized egg from implanting. That's an abortion as a pro-life person would define it, where life begins at conception: In recent years, they changed the label to say that it "may" work that way. From the FDA Label: "Plan B is believed to act as an emergency contraceptive principally by preventing ovulation or fertilization (by altering tubal transport of sperm and/or ova). In addition, it may inhibit implantation (by altering the endometrium). It is not effective once the process of implantation has begun." www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/021045s016lbl.pdfwww.verywellhealth.com/how-plan-b-works-906842#:~:text=The%20FDA%20labeling%20for%20the,it%20works%20by%20preventing%20ovulation. So some research says the drug doesn't prevent implantation at all. Yet the FDA says it "may," and historically it was presumed that it "did" and that was the primary mechanism by how it worked. If it stops a fertilized egg from implanting, it's causing an abortion and places it in the same category as any other abortion or "morning after" pill. I would only accept that "Plan B" is not an abortion pill if it's completely conclusive it does not stop a fertilized egg from implanting. Just an FYI, about half of the fertilized eggs do not implant in the uterus naturally. That is a lot of natural abortions according to how you classify one. My opinion would be the woman is not pregnant until the egg attaches and is capable of growing into a fetus. Using your definition, God kills between 60 million and 130 million babies a year. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 9:09:32 GMT -5
Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality? He was a Trump appointed judge and conservative, I guess he could have let his personal feelings of abortion influence his opinion. The appeals court, also conservative judges, felt the plaintiffs had standing as well. So maybe they let their personal feelings of abortion cloud their judgement as well. But Bullfrog says conservatives do not do that. I would simply say their interpretation of Article III was different than SCOTUS and the main reason we have the high court and multiple experienced judges to try and be sure one judge does not accidently make a wrong interpretation based on his personal interpretation. Sounds like you’re saying that the different interpretations suggest that the issue isn’t really as plain as you first suggested. |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 9:10:24 GMT -5
I will happily defer to Bullfrog on this one, while warning him to choose his words more carefully this time. I bet he’s super scared now!😂 |
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 9:23:03 GMT -5
Interesting to contemplate why, if it’s so plain to see that the plaintiff had no standing, the ruling of the lower court was what it was. Activist judge who doesn’t consider constitutionality? Close. More like an activist, Federalist judge followed by an activist-led, Federalist-led 5th Circuit court of appeals didn't consider constitutionality.
Which, of course, flies in the face of the opening post in this thread, which was made by a fellow Federalist.
Interesting, indeed.
You seem to think the term Federalist should carry scorn or contempt. I don’t agree with that but I do get it. I view the term Liberal in much the same way. |
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 15, 2024 9:53:23 GMT -5
You don't know what I think, and you don't get it at all....but it's interesting to note that you view people who think differently than you ("liberal") as worthy of scorn and contempt. Actually, it says quite a bit about you, which should come as no surprise to anyone who reads your posts. Since you seem confused again, I was simply pointing out the bias in one Federalist saying Federalists tend to follow the constitution while citing a case where both the Federalist judge and the Federalist-led appellate court overstepped their bounds, only to be corrected 9-0 by Federalists and non-Federalists alike, anecdotally disproving the clearly biased assertion.
Here's what really happened: Bullfrog made a faulty assertion based on his bias, I called him out on it, and you essentially made the same point as me, then went on to misinterpret it with scorn, when really I was just calling bullshit.
Don't project your disdain on me -- we are not alike.
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 10:38:28 GMT -5
Oh, but I do. Not because of me but because of you.
I share your scornful views. Just not for the same reasons.
Agree. We are not alike, for which I am glad.
I made no statement about the lower court’s decision, except that it was interesting. I asked a probing question about it.
|
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Jun 15, 2024 10:54:06 GMT -5
It still amazes me as to how lazy people can not simply use one of the MANY contraceptive methods that are available. Instead they choose to simply end a life at their whims.
Yes women should have control of their bodies. Contraceptive devices or tube tying should be entirely their option.
Once conception occurs there is another life that has to be considered. The unborn, although they do not have a voice, have rights. Their rights need to be protected by all of us.
Exceptions should apply. Health of mother,rape, incest but honestly how many of the millions of murdered children would have fallen into this category? 1% ?
The unborn child has rights. Period!
|
|
|
|
Post by luapnor on Jun 15, 2024 11:06:22 GMT -5
Having sex is an overt act of reproduction. Nature made it almost irresistible for a reason... Nature also made killing another person part of survival. Control your impulses.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tarponator on Jun 15, 2024 11:06:27 GMT -5
Oh, but I do. Not because of me but because of you. I share your scornful views. Just not for the same reasons. Agree. We are not alike, for which I am glad. I made no statement about the lower court’s decision, except that it was interesting. I asked a probing question about it. I am not scornful of Federalists, except perhaps when a clearly biased person makes a clearly biased assessment, and uses a poor example to make his point.
I have no problem with competing ideas. To the contrary, and in case you had not noticed, I relish discussing them.
I also occasionally enjoy making fun on people who demean others for idiocy while writing poorly for someone in elementary school much less an adult calling others idiots or similar pejoratives.
And I never said you made a statement about the lower court's decision. I was answering your question and agreeing with you that it was interesting (that you appeared to agree with me).
|
|
|
|
Post by walkerdog on Jun 15, 2024 11:19:58 GMT -5
I didn’t say I agreed with you.
I said the situation was interesting to me. What I found interesting was that the lower court’s decision was what it was and that the SC decision was what it was. It is the different interpretations of the same law that it demonstrates that I find interesting. It’s a good example of how what some people see as plain isn’t necessarily always as plain as they think it is.
|
|
