Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

In case you didn't know. He's dead. He was a very old man, battleing cancer for a long time, and it finally beat him. What I want to know is, how do you think this will effect the supreme court?

I disagree with him on most political aspects, but I shudder to think what he will be replaced with. Do you think his replacement will push the supreme court political balance over the edge? What do you think his death might result in, by way of supreme court decisions over the coming years? Do you think this could change the way our country works? For better? For worse? Could he be the tie-breaker when it comes to overturning rRoe vs. Wade, if a case like that ever reaches the supreme court? How about other famous and signifigant (oftimes controversial) court cases?

On your mark... set... DEBATE!!!!

_________________

I think you mean Chief Justice Renquist, but anyway..

I think it's a tragedy for what it will do to the court. It sucks to be able to see this trainwreck coming and not be able to do anything about it (apart from write your representatives--do it now!).

_________________

Actually, I would not mind one bit if Roe vs. Wade were overturned. I think it's high time this country recognized that it's playing with the lives of real people here and quit passing death sentences on people whose only crime is to be conceived at a time inconvenient to the mother.

_________________

While I agree with you that abortion is not right, I don't think it should be overturned. Because if it is, then it will go back to what it was in the past, dark alleyways with a clothes hanger. It's much safer the way it is now. But in reality, it would be best if there were more adoptions.

_________________

Are there any statistics as to how many of these back-alley abortions were committed prior to Roe vs. Wade? It would be interesting to compare how many abortions are committed today in comparison.

Personally, I've already pretty much given up on Roe vs. Wade. I think that organizations like Ark-La-Tex Pregnancy Center and Save-A-Life Foundation will do much more good than any legislation. But I'm concerned that the legalizing of abortion ended up becoming a sanctioning of them, and as a result, far more women are getting them when, in my own humble opinion, they should start using some common sense in their sex lives. A nice rule of thumb would be, if you're not ready for the responsibility, don't take the risk. Simple logic. But I've already stated that on other threads.

Toastpaint.

_________________

Dids, I couldn't agree with you more. But the world is full of people that don't use their minds sometimes.

_________________

Why use your brain and common sense when you don't have to take responsibility for your own actions?
I've always joked that I am pro-choice... You have the choice not to do it, don't ya? (rape doesn't count.. I still don't know how I feel about abortion in instances of rape)

As for John Roberts, I really think that he would be a good addtion to the Supreme Court, but even I will admit that he isn't Chief Justice material.. He's a rookie, and he's a bit too conservative for my tastes.. I would love to see a court made up of nothing but Straight Down The Line moderates.. People who don't let personal bias into interpreting laws, people who view the constitution as black and white, with no gray areas.. (In my opinion, most of the world would be great with no conservatives and no liberals) But the chances of that happening are about as great as StrongMad letting StrongBad kick the cheat with no repercussions.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

How about 4 liberals, 4 conservatives and one moderate? That would be pretty balanced. I don't think Roberts is the best choice for Chief Justice. I don't think he has enough experiance for that role. I think Roberts will make it on to the bench, but that's it. I am afraid of who Bush's next nominee will be, though.

_________________

If you had 4 libs and 4 cons, nothing would ever get done. Even though the Supreme Court people tend to be a little more mature, and don't go for that party lines stuff as often, they're starting to degenerate into that more..
As for the next appointee, it's going to be Didymus... I called Bush and told him I would keep the pretzels away if he made that happen. He said he'd hook me up. Had I know that would work, I woulda asked for a date with Barbara or Jenna.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I would like to point out yet that the 'people' you are referring to aren't alive yet.

Are you so sure about that, KN? What insight do you have about when life begins that the rest of us don't? My understanding is that the child begins to grow the moment it is conceived, and to me, that means he or she is alive.

_________________

Then we should eliminate the "double homicide" that a person can be charged with, if they kill a pregnant woman, just so the laws are consistent. I mean, if it's not alive, you can't kill it, can you?
(I'm not trying to ignite a flame war here, I really don't like abortion, but laws are laws, and if I gotta live by 'em, I want them to make sense!)

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I believe that the functions you attribute to the soul are seated within the brain. This means that everything you are is simply that mushy stuff inside your head. It also means that if the brain can no longer function (ie: death) you (as in your conciousness, personality, self) cease to exist entirely.

By the same reasoning, a child is not truly alive untill it has a fully functioning brain. I'll get back to you on when exactly that is, but be assured that it matches the time at which a doctor can refuse to carry out an abortion (according to DUTCH law. I do not know wheter American abortion laws match ours). Before that time, the developing human-to-be may be terminated without considering this murder.

I believe that abortion is also in the interests of the would-be child. If a mother is incabable of properly caring for the child, it would either die or be left with a very traumatic childhood. Thus it is best to never let it be born. Same goes for times when a child would have a horrible disease that would grant him only a shadow of what life should be like, if it would be born.

Therefore, it is morally (cause you say this out of morality, right?) better to allow abortion then to deny people the right to terminate a pregnancy.

KN nailed a few good points that I'll both repeat and hopefully expand upon.

According to the AMA, a person is not "dead" until brainwaves cease to be, meaning that the lungs may stop and the heart may no longer be beating, but the person is alive so long as there are brainwaves happening (this is why it's possible for an incredibly small amount of people to live without a heartbeat).

Extrapolate that info and it's pretty easy to reason that a person isn't "alive" unless there are brainwaves going on. Now, for the first chunk of pregnancy the baby is only a small clump of cells with about the same amount of brain matter as a turnip, it's simply cells that are multiplying. So long as there is no brain activity, there is no reason to call it "alive". If you're going to call it a living baby simply because it's growing, then you'd better not cut any grass or pick flowers, because you're "murdering" living organisms that are equally as human.

And look who tends to have abortions. Middle-class suburban families with nice houses and steady jobs don't have abortions, poor teenagers in crap neighborhoods whose boyfriends ran off scared do. It's a drain on the economy to force these people to have kids, potentially damaging to the child to be in a situation like that, and if you think forcing them to have the baby and then putting them up for adoption is any better, you've never met many foster kids.

As for Rehnquist, well, I am a little worried about what Bush will do in terms of replacing him. The man is hell-bent on doing everything according to what God tells him to, which is a slight problem since church and state are supposed to be separate from one another.

On the subject of Bush being able to replace this person, I would request a thread about the seperation of powers (I hope you are all familiar with Montesquie and his teachings of Trias Politica, and that how Bush (who is, I think, the Legislative Power, may appoint the Judicial Power is a direct violation of this). Now on to the matter!

I am lucky (yeah, I know this is a bad choice of wording, but I think it is a good thing that I saw what it is actually like) enough to have actually seen an abortion. I know some of you probably believe that after an abortion, a fully developed fetus is squirted out of the vagina and then tossed in the dumpster, but what I saw was a pool of... some liquid. Definatly not something I would attribute sentience to and thus the status of 'living'.

I would like it if someone gave me some abortion laws, as to what the maximum length of pregnancy for an abortion is allowed to be. I can't seem to be able to find that at all.

Actually, I think he is the executive branch.. I'm pretty sure of it, but yeah, the point is still valid, but it's not like Bush is the first president to appoint Justices... They all do.
I would like to see people directly elect their judges, but I don't think it's gonna happen, short of a constitutional amendment, as I think the president appointing judges is mandated by it.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

D'OH! That's what I thought he was before I looksied at Wikipedia. Scratch that; Bush is the Executive branch.

What I mean is the practice of presidents appointing judges in general. It seems very strange. The reason I am fearful of this practice now is that Bush can use his power to appoint people that will rule cases in his favour.

Yep, just like previous presidents have done...
I'm sure this has been looked at before. There's gotta be a reason we don't directly elect judges.. We probably should be able to, though.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I'll take a shot at it. Because in the executive and legislative branches, the elected officials are supposed to represent the people. The president, the people as a collective, and the legislative, people as they are grouped according to district.

The judicial branch, however, is supposed to represent Law, which would include justice as a concept as well as the written laws in place. I'm not sure this exactly explains it, but, hey, it's only a theory.

_________________

Whereas here too, the government represents the people (not the WILL of the people), we do not elect judges. I do not know how they get their jobs, but I assume it is veterancy as a lawyer or something.

*BUZZ* Wrong. Wikipedia knows all.

_________________

Read what my Location says. I don't live in the US

I'm glad to see we finally got back on topic.

Don't hate me if I'm not that active on this thread. I only have a few minutes a day to get on....

Anyway, I like the idea that the supreme court should be completely moderate. The point of the supreme court is to interpret the constitution, and thats not going to happen if our judges are biased. It doesn't matter what side they lean toward.

_________________

I would agree. But it seems that the liberals are always complaining that the courts are conservative-biased and the conservatives that they are liberal-biased. I think that's why they're not elected: because no matter what stand they take, they're going to tick somebody off somewhere.

_________________

Of course, how they intepret the constitution will depend on their bias.

Reading up on John Roberts, it says "in general, Roberts appears to be a judicial minimalist, emphasizing precedent, as opposed to an originalism-oriented or rights-focused jurist. "Judge Roberts's opinions thus far are careful, lawyerly, and narrow. They avoid broad pronouncements. They do not try to reorient the law."

Of course, this could mean nothing when he becomes a supreme court justice. It might be just the license he has been waiting for to reorient certain laws. That has been the case for certain justices in the past.



Didn't see much on Wikipedia, but the CIA World Factbook states:

Judicial branch: Supreme Court or Hoge Raad (justices are nominated for life by the monarch)

who happens to be Queen Beatrix.

The relationship between the Queen and the government seemed kind of strange to me. She doesn't have a lot of power, but she does get to nominate judges, and she has to appoint every person in the government (though she generally appoints the leaders that the people voted for). Is that the same level of power given to monarchs in other Constitutional Monarchies? Or are most of them less powerful than that?

It's funny how things get twisted, cus it sounds like, here, Roberts is gonna "go with the flow" so to speak, meaning he believes "It's been this way for years, so let's keep it that way". It would seem that some would have us think that he wants to march in our homes and take all of our "rights" away... I'm willing to bet that, somewhere between those two extremes is where he's gonna be.
On an interesting side note, there was a lady that called in on CSPAN the other day talking about how Roberts "obviously doesn't care about rights. He argued a case that abortion clinic protestors be allowed to protest. How can he care about people's rights if he lets nutjobs like this have their way?"... It gave me a good laugh, cus, those "nutjobs" have freedom of speech. He was in favor of protecting that. His arguing of this case was about freedom of speech, not abortion. I think she was trying to connect that to supporting abortion clinic bombers, which is, at best, a stretch, but some people will try anything to discredit someone who they don't agree with politically (look what some in my party did to Clinton, for an example)..

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

That's... wrong. The bill of rights guaranees our right to peaceful protest. No matter what it's about. But ANYWAY...

we've come at unlucky time, with such a conservative president, and all of the supreme court justices up and dyeing. It will be a long time until the court will be balanced at all, and I fear it will never be moderate.

Oh well, that's life.

_________________

gosh darn it *pokes thread* this seriously needs to get a move on....

So... Roe vs. Wade,and lets try not to get off topic too easily here

The supreme court was created to make decisions and interpret the law. Even if you disagree with the supreme courts past decisions, that doesn't mean it should be over turned. The supreme court isn't there is interpret the countries beliefs, it's there to decide what the constitution says.

_________________