http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168420,00.html
He was very right-wing anyway, glad he died.
Wasn't he just more constitutionally geared?...not necessarily liberal vs. conservative....like Scalia?
Quote from: daRktYpE on September 04, 2005, 11:09 PM
glad he died.
What the hell dude? I wouldn't say "Clinton was a bastard liberal, I'm glad he died." I wouldn't be glad
anybody died.
I'd be glad if Osama died.
But yeah, that was pretty heartless. He leaned the court towards a more Republican stance, but he was liberal on a lot of things - like gay marriage.
Read up on Roe v Wade and his stand on that. I'm sure you'll see things my way after that.
:) good 1 dark
Quote from: hismajesty[yL] on September 03, 2005, 10:52 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168420,00.html
[/quoteQuote from: hismajesty[yL] on September 03, 2005, 10:52 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168420,00.html
lol Gayz kan.w/e legal now.
Quote from: daRktYpE on September 07, 2005, 05:20 PM
Read up on Roe v Wade and his stand on that. I'm sure you'll see things my way after that.
Rehnquist dissented in Roe v Wade.
Quote from: White and Rehnquist Dissent
I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers [ 410 U.S. 222] and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand.
Quote from: Rehnquist Dissent
I have difficulty in concluding, as the Court does, that the right of "privacy" is involved in this case. Texas, by the statute here challenged, bars the performance of a medical abortion by a licensed physician on a plaintiff such as Roe. A transaction resulting in an operation such as this is not 'private' in the ordinary usage of that word. Nor is the 'privacy' that the Court finds here even a distant relative of the freedom from searches and seizures protected by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which the Court has referred to as embodying a right to privacy...To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.
Findlaw case link (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=410&invol=113)
Quote from: daRktYpE on September 07, 2005, 05:20 PM
Read up on Roe v Wade and his stand on that. I'm sure you'll see things my way after that.
Congratulations. You have passed all others on my moron meter.
Its too bad. He was a great justice, political stances aside. Interesting that John Roberts has already been put up for the position. The good news? The Democrats can't just block him just because they're pissed that Bush named, get this, a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN to the court.
I think it will be interesting to see what becomes of John Roberts. It's disapointing that the Bush Administration has refused to release a lot of documents which would provide insights as to how he interprets the law and constitution (past rulings, arguments, etc.).
I personally don't have any definitive stance against him, because he has not had a chance to prove of himself. He could be the worst thing that has ever happened to the Supreme Court and America or he could be great.
Interesting thing to note though, he was never a judge, rather a lawyer who argued for both sides, aka: arguing for his client's standpoint, not his own. Therefore it's difficult to tell how he will interpret the law, radically conservatively, or moderately. I believe he is more of a moderate conservative, as appointing a far-right conservative would be bad publicity, for obvious reasons.
court decisions are public, if someone wanted to know they'd just have to go & look it up...nothing has to be released
Quote from: CrAz3D on September 09, 2005, 01:02 PM
court decisions are public, if someone wanted to know they'd just have to go & look it up...nothing has to be released
Decisions are public, yes -- but he's a laywer, not a judge AFAIK.
What MyndFyre said. If you can find some accurate[/b] documents which show his arguments it'd be appreciated.