Comments on: Scalia: Abortion Rights Not Constitutional

Supreme Court Justice Defends Positions In TV Debate With ACLU

[buffalo_ken]

Sadly,

Commentary changes to party lines. This is not a good thing.

Lets all just remember to be life-affirming.

BK

[bluestardad]

Stay the Course, Vote Republican.

[tejasdemo]

I wonder how he feels about discrimination based upon how much money you have in your wallet ?

[smasterb]

The point, when we put ourselves before others in our choices, we are not free. We are oppressed. All of us, I don%u2019t exclude myself.

The point of my original post.

If you belive that means I'm making hasty judgments, thats O.K.

love K.

[fighttfuture]

This states deciding is a pass-the-buck platitude and, well, ***. These constitutional issues are to do with all our individual rights, as a people. Do you have a right to your body, your life, your future, already in progress, over a clump of cells that has a potential to become, over time, a human being? This is not a States rights issue; it a individual rights issue. Also, not to mention, states are trying to pass laws making it illegal to go to another state to even have exercise your choice. That%u2019s like asking each state to decide if slavery is ok and wanting your slaves that ran to a free territory back! Didn%u2019t work too well, as I recall!

[buffalo_ken]

Or how about this?

There is a concept. Concepts cannot be killed. Once they have been conceived they will have been.

Now, there is a difference between a concept and an actualization (if you don't believe this, then you may not care to read on). An actualization is real. It has substance unto its own. I would put forth that a baby inside its mother's womb has not yet been actualized.

This makes a difference when it comes to choice.

BK

[fighttfuture]

This states deciding is a pass-the-buck platitude and, well, ***. These constitutional issues are to do with all our individual rights, as a people. Do you have a right to your body, your life, your future, already in progress, over a clump of cells that has a potential to become, over time, a human being? This is not a States rights issue; it a individual rights issue. Also, not to mention, states are trying to pass laws making it illegal to go to another state to even have exercise your choice. That%u2019s like asking each state to decide if slavery is ok and wanting your slaves that ran to a free territory back! Didn%u2019t work too well, as I recall!

[pixelslinger]

The fundamental flaw in the Constitution is that the legislative branch (Congress) must view and act on the Constitution as a living document whereas there are a number of federal judges who see the Constitution as a bingind document only to be interpreted word for word.

Where does this get a Constitutional Fundamentalist into trouble?

Well, my state wants to ban the use of sugar (all sugar) in coffee. I challenge the law and the magistrate court upholds it, the state court of appeals upholds it because they have to, and the state supreme court upholds it because there's no Constitutional provision that says additives of any sort may be used in my coffee. So I appeal to the Supreme Court and Justice Scalia is one of the four votes needed to hear the case - but the Constitutional Fundamentalists unanimously say "I'm sorry, sir, but there is no provision in the Constitution for which you may challenge this law, it IS Constitutional."

No biggie, right? It's just sweetener in coffee.
Well let's talk about privacy then.

[pixelslinger]

Under the same model, one must also acknowledge that there's nothing wrong with the government, at any time, doing the following:

Logging and recording your internet activity.
Logging and recording all of your emails.
Logging and recording all of your text messages, cell phone, and wireless phone messages.
Data mining your medical records for publication in the Selective Service database, CIA and FBI investigations, involuntary paternity/maternity tests, etc.
At random questioning you about your firearms, ammunition, rate of use, logging of use, randomly entering your home to ensure that you are meeting federal and local requirements of firearm maintenance.
All of this is possible because some people don't like the outcome of Roe v. Wade. Abortion has something to do with medical records and gun rights? Yup.
The parameters of personal privacy that have struck down the government and been used against countless civil and criminal cases were all founded in the application of law used to decide Roe v. Wade - none of which is found written down in the Constitution.

[agnim]

Athomkat
Your position is fundamentally flawed. Here%u2019s why.

1. TO BEGIN WITH, THE US CONSTITUTION DISCRIMINATED BASED ON RACE FROM THE DAY IT WAS WRITTEN WHEN IT ALLOWED FOR THE ENSLAVEMENT OF HUMANS, AND BASED ON RACE AT THAT!

2. An admissions quota system, say, INSTITUTED FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HELPING TO RIGHT PAST CONSTITUTIONAL WRONGS AND MOVE THE SOCIETY FORWARD, discriminates no one! Especially when such a system does not specifically single out any particular individual for rejection!

3. If one citizen criminally imprisons another human and the society in turn imprisons the offender, THOSE TWO ACTS OF IMPRISONMENT ARE NOT THE SAME, even though they may both have the label of 'imprisonment'.

4. In other words, an act that redresses a constitutional wrong is of greater virtue than the constitutional wrong of allowing enslavement and racism in the first place.

Anyone with a sense of virtue should have no problem with those points.