Sotomayor calls abortion rights 'settled law'

[JoltinJoe]

The issue isn't legalized abortion. The issue is whether there is a right protected by the constitution to an abortion.

I respect the outcome of the democratic process on the issue, whether that law reflects my values or not.

Whether, and to what extent, abortion is legal is an issue which our founders intended to be resolved like most issues in a constitutional democracy -- by the will of the people on a state-by-state basis.

Disagree vehemently on the state-by-state thing. Creates inequities state-to-state. The Constitutional is fluid. My opinion only.

Regardless, love you much, Jose'!

I disagree about your concerns about creating "inequity" on a state-by-state basis.

Our founders, in their wisdom, recognized that values, including moral values, vary by region and accordingly structured a system of federalism by which common national concerns were to be administered by a central, federal government -- while regional concerns, including questions of morality, were left for the states to determine on a localized basis. The federal government was intended to "promote the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

It is the rupture of this understanding, and the efforts to establish a nationalized morality from Washington, which has fractured our nation on social grounds -- accounting for the current red state v. blue state alignment.

Before Roe, for example, states in the northeast maintained permissive abortion laws, reflecting the more liberal social outlook of the majority of those states, while most Southern states restricted abortion, consistent with their more conservative social values. For the most part, there was national tranquility on the issue. The folks in Texas were happy with their abortion laws, the folks in New York liked theirs, and no one from Texas tried to change New York laws, and vice versa.

Then some outsiders found a Texas plaintiff and attacked Texas' abortion law. The Supreme Court struck down the law.

Within a few years, a group of social, religious conservatives, calling themselves the "Moral Majority," formed. They formed because they understood that if moral issues were going to be resolved on a national basis through the intervention of the federal court system, they wanted to influence that system (and the choices of judges for that system).

I know you decry religious fundamentalists who want to establish values on a national basis for everyone. But I think it is true that, prior to Roe (and other decisions hostile to their social values), they did not exist on a national basis. They were largely content that their values were reflected in their local laws, and cared little that other regions did not follow their values or their laws.

They exist on a national basis today -- a political result of the observation for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Nothing has done more to fracture our national union than the attempts to establish a national morality from Washington and through the federal court system -- and I think the social liberals cast the first stones in that battle.

[AZGrizFan]

I disagree about your concerns about creating "inequity" on a state-by-state basis.

Our founders, in their wisdom, recognized that values, including moral values, vary by region and accordingly structured a system of federalism by which common national concerns were to be administered by a central, federal government -- while regional concerns, including questions of morality, were left for the states to determine on a localized basis. The federal government was intended to "promote the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

It is the rupture of this understanding, and the efforts to establish a nationalized morality from Washington, which has fractured our nation on social grounds -- accounting for the current red state v. blue state alignment.

Before Roe, for example, states in the northeast maintained permissive abortion laws, reflecting the more liberal social outlook of the majority of those states, while most Southern states restricted abortion, consistent with their more conservative social values. For the most part, there was national tranquility on the issue. The folks in Texas were happy with their abortion laws, the folks in New York liked theirs, and no one from Texas tried to change New York laws, and vice versa.

Then some outsiders found a Texas plaintiff and attacked Texas' abortion law. The Supreme Court struck down the law.

Within a few years, a group of social, religious conservatives, calling themselves the "Moral Majority," formed. They formed because they understood that if moral issues were going to be resolved on a national basis through the intervention of the federal court system, they wanted to influence that system (and the choices of judges for that system).

I know you decry religious fundamentalists who want to establish values on a national basis for everyone. But I think it is true that, prior to Roe (and other decisions hostile to their social values), they did not exist on a national basis. They were largely content that their values were reflected in their local laws, and cared little that other regions did not follow their values or their laws.

They exist on a national basis today -- a political result of the observation for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Nothing has done more to fracture our national union than the attempts to establish a national morality from Washington and through the federal court system -- and I think the social liberals cast their first stones in that battle.

Reppies, Joe!

[dbackjon]

Actually Joe, it goes back to the 1800's - the inequality of civil rights.

The states have consistantly shown they are incapable of guaranteeing civil rights. They have forfeited that responsiblity.

[AZGrizFan]

Actually Joe, it goes back to the 1800's - the inequality of civil rights.

The states have consistantly shown they are incapable of guaranteeing civil rights. They have forfeited that responsiblity.

Which goes back to the question: Is it a RIGHT to have an abortion?

[D1B]

Actually Joe, it goes back to the 1800's - the inequality of civil rights.

The states have consistantly shown they are incapable of guaranteeing civil rights. They have forfeited that responsiblity.

Reppies D.

[dbackjon]

Actually Joe, it goes back to the 1800's - the inequality of civil rights.

The states have consistantly shown they are incapable of guaranteeing civil rights. They have forfeited that responsiblity.

Which goes back to the question: Is it a RIGHT to have an abortion?

Frame it the other way: Can a government FORCE a woman to carry to term and deliver a fetus that she does not want, or is incapable of carrying?

[Wedgebuster]

Actually Joe, it goes back to the 1800's - the inequality of civil rights.

The states have consistantly shown they are incapable of guaranteeing civil rights. They have forfeited that responsiblity.

Which goes back to the question: Is it a RIGHT to have an abortion?

Would have been more than right for your mother to have one.

[AZGrizFan]

Which goes back to the question: Is it a RIGHT to have an abortion?

Frame it the other way: Can a government FORCE a woman to carry to term and deliver a fetus that she does not want, or is incapable of carrying?

Only (in my mind) if that government is then going to take responsibility for that child lock stock and barrel....

[JoltinJoe]

Actually Joe, it goes back to the 1800's - the inequality of civil rights.

The states have consistantly shown they are incapable of guaranteeing civil rights. They have forfeited that responsiblity.

That problem was inherent at the founding, because the Constitution authorized slavery, which was an enormous stain on an otherwise brilliant document.

Thus, it became necessary in the later 1800s, for the Constitution to outlaw slavery (the 13th Amendment) and also to ensure that all civil rights granted to all United States citizens, including the newly emancipated black citizens, were binding on the states (the 14th Amendment).

Since then (with the notable exception of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896), the Supreme Court and the federal court system have not been shy to strike down offending state laws which restrict a citizen's civil rights.

But in any event, my point holds. To the extent that "social conservative"s tried to evade the civil rights of citizens (like refusing the right to vote), they did so in their own states. For example, no one from Alabama tried to prevent blacks from voting in state or federal elections in New York. And when they violated the rights of their minority citizens, the federal courts repeatedly struck down the laws.

[Skjellyfetti]

and also to ensure that all civil rights granted to all United States citizens, including the newly emancipated black citizens, were binding on the states (the 14th Amendment).

Since then (with the notable exception of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896), the Supreme Court and the federal court system have not been shy to strike down offending state laws which restrict a citizen's civil rights.

Yes... they were very shy.

Southern states had laws that SEVERELY restricted the civil rights of black citizens almost 100 years after the 14th Amendment was was ratified.

You kinda just skip from Civil War > equality in your summary. Not how it happened.

[Skjellyfetti]

And... it is settled law.

Roe v. Wade is not getting overturend in any of our lifetimes.

[JoltinJoe]

and also to ensure that all civil rights granted to all United States citizens, including the newly emancipated black citizens, were binding on the states (the 14th Amendment).

Since then (with the notable exception of Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896), the Supreme Court and the federal court system have not been shy to strike down offending state laws which restrict a citizen's civil rights.

Yes... they were very shy.

Southern states had laws that SEVERELY restricted the civil rights of black citizens almost 100 years after the 14th Amendment was was ratified.

You kinda just skip from Civil War > equality in your summary. Not how it happened.

Sky, you are missing the point and blurring the issue.

The laws that the Supreme Court were reversing in the 1960s were not the same laws being struck down in the 1880s.

[JoltinJoe]

And... it is settled law.

Roe v. Wade is not getting overturend in any of our lifetimes.

Roe has already been effectively overruled. See Casey.

[Purple For Life]

Frame it the other way: Can a government FORCE a woman to carry to term and deliver a fetus that she does not want, or is incapable of carrying?

Only (in my mind) if that government is then going to take responsibility for that child lock stock and barrel....

And since they'd never do that, it is a right, it's MY right, to do with MY body what I wish.

FYI, in case someone asks, the Man is 110% behind this option as well.

[AZGrizFan]

Only (in my mind) if that government is then going to take responsibility for that child lock stock and barrel....

And since they'd never do that, it is a right, it's MY right, to do with MY body what I wish.

FYI, in case someone asks, the Man is 110% behind this option as well.

As is everyone on this board. You DEFINITELY don't want to procreate.

[JoltinJoe]

Which goes back to the question: Is it a RIGHT to have an abortion?

Frame it the other way: Can a government FORCE a woman to carry to term and deliver a fetus that she does not want, or is incapable of carrying?

The questions really are not flip sides of each other.

The people should be able to enact laws, and indeed properly understood, do possess the authority to enact laws, which outlaw or restrict the availability of an abortion.

[Col Hogan]

And... it is settled law.

Roe v. Wade is not getting overturend in any of our lifetimes.

For those of us with little legal knowledge, please explain...

Why is anything, once ruled on by the Supreme Court, but not written into any specific law, called "settled law"...

Thanks.....

[OL FU]

The issue isn't legalized abortion. The issue is whether there is a right protected by the constitution to an abortion.

I respect the outcome of the democratic process on the issue, whether that law reflects my values or not.

Whether, and to what extent, abortion is legal is an issue which our founders intended to be resolved like most issues in a constitutional democracy -- by the will of the people on a state-by-state basis.

Disagree vehemently on the state-by-state thing. Creates inequities state-to-state. The Constitutional is fluid. My opinion only.

Regardless, love you much, Jose'!

In the case of Roe, created from thin air does not equal fluid

[OL FU]

Disagree vehemently on the state-by-state thing. Creates inequities state-to-state. The Constitutional is fluid. My opinion only.

Regardless, love you much, Jose'!

I disagree about your concerns about creating "inequity" on a state-by-state basis.

Our founders, in their wisdom, recognized that values, including moral values, vary by region and accordingly structured a system of federalism by which common national concerns were to be administered by a central, federal government -- while regional concerns, including questions of morality, were left for the states to determine on a localized basis. The federal government was intended to "promote the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity."

It is the rupture of this understanding, and the efforts to establish a nationalized morality from Washington, which has fractured our nation on social grounds -- accounting for the current red state v. blue state alignment.

Before Roe, for example, states in the northeast maintained permissive abortion laws, reflecting the more liberal social outlook of the majority of those states, while most Southern states restricted abortion, consistent with their more conservative social values. For the most part, there was national tranquility on the issue. The folks in Texas were happy with their abortion laws, the folks in New York liked theirs, and no one from Texas tried to change New York laws, and vice versa.

Then some outsiders found a Texas plaintiff and attacked Texas' abortion law. The Supreme Court struck down the law.

Within a few years, a group of social, religious conservatives, calling themselves the "Moral Majority," formed. They formed because they understood that if moral issues were going to be resolved on a national basis through the intervention of the federal court system, they wanted to influence that system (and the choices of judges for that system).

I know you decry religious fundamentalists who want to establish values on a national basis for everyone. But I think it is true that, prior to Roe (and other decisions hostile to their social values), they did not exist on a national basis. They were largely content that their values were reflected in their local laws, and cared little that other regions did not follow their values or their laws.

They exist on a national basis today -- a political result of the observation for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Nothing has done more to fracture our national union than the attempts to establish a national morality from Washington and through the federal court system -- and I think the social liberals cast the first stones in that battle.

Very nice post and an eloquent description of one of the origins of our national debate on social issues.

[danefan]

And... it is settled law.

Roe v. Wade is not getting overturend in any of our lifetimes.

For those of us with little legal knowledge, please explain...

Why is anything, once ruled on by the Supreme Court, but not written into any specific law, called "settled law"...

Thanks.....

Haha. I got an A- in Constitutional Law and I'm not sure I can answer your question. There's a theory of judicial precedent, but that only really matters when the Court ruling likes the prior ruling. If they don't like it, they just distinquish the facts and avoid the precedent issue altogether.

Joe is a much more learned con law scholar and may have a better answer.

As to Sodamayor's comments - its the equivalent of sitting on the fence. She can rely on judicial precedent in these hearings to avoid getting stuck in a pickle about her own views on abortion.

[Purple For Life]

And since they'd never do that, it is a right, it's MY right, to do with MY body what I wish.

FYI, in case someone asks, the Man is 110% behind this option as well.

As is everyone on this board. You DEFINITELY don't want to procreate.

Blah blah blah. Some people here SHOULDN'T have procreated.