Ruth Bader Ginsburg Disagreed With Roe vs Wade

[esmith]

Are you pro-abortion in some sense?

What makes you think I am anti-abortion.
What I personally believe has no bearing on the argument if society determines one way or the other since I have no personal stake in the argument.
However, who I vote for is not totally determined by that persons stance on the subject.
One has to weigh many consequences on ones suppot of a person running for public office and abortion is way down the list.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What makes you think I am anti-abortion.
What I personally believe has no bearing on the argument if society determines one way or the other since I have no personal stake in the argument.
However, who I vote for is not totally determined by that persons stance on the subject.
One has to weigh many consequences on ones suppot of a person running for public office and abortion is way down the list.

You are not one for all voters.

 

[esmith]

Yes, but it is rather simple. How and when do you assign rights? I mean I don't have to read a long text in a religious sense.
The core question is when does a human become a human? That is alway a belief even in non-religious sense,

Incorrect, one has to determine if a court has the right to make laws or just to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by the representatives of the people.

 

[esmith]

You are not one for all voters.

unclear to me on what you are saying

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Incorrect, one has to determine if a court has the right to make laws or just to rule on the constitutionality of a law passed by the representatives of the people.

It is not that simple.

 

[esmith]

It is not that simple.

Ah, but it is. A court does not have the right under our Constitution to make laws.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

unclear to me on what you are saying

You weigh how you wote. That is how it should be. But you don't vote for everybody:
"...and abortion is way down the list."

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, but it is. A court does not have the right under our Constitution to make laws.

But they didn't make a law in one sense. They made a ruling about rights in the constitution in one understanding. You have another understanding, but that is not the only one.

 

[pearl]

Ah, but it is. A court does not have the right under our Constitution to make laws.

No, they don't, but SCOTUS certainly sets 'precedents'.

 

[F1fan]

Problem is that many Supreme Court Justices have also had the opinion that Roe vs Wade was an improper decision.
I realize that the following link is from a enity that thinks that abortions are a "sin" the article does make some compeling thoughts.
One should read this with an open mind without preceived judgement and hyperbole.
Just to make things clear I look at the argument for and against abortions and other "life" ending decisions this way. If there is a "Maker" then you will have to answer to that entity at the end of life, if not no harm no foul.
10 Legal Reasons to Reject Roe

Are you opposed to how Roe was written? Or are you opposed to the rights for women it established?

We know you are right wing. So I am suspicious of your real motive here. It is corrupt and dishonest to present an argument here that suggests there is trouble with the opinion (from a republican justice, btw) and that it is somehow invalid as IF you are interested in legal opinions. But I suspect your actual motive is the net legal sabotage that would occur if the Roe opinion is overturned on procedural grounds.

Am I right to assume your real motive is the overturn of the Roe opinion because it will mean abortion is by default illegal in 23 states?

Am I right to assume your interest here isn't really how the opinion was argued, reasoned, and written?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Then one can not honestly debate the question if one does not listen to the other side of an argument does one.

Yeah, on this one we can. It's shameful and embarrassing Conservatives are so damn eager to drag America down on the freedom index, all to force others to live in accordance to their own personal religious beliefs.

 

[Nakosis]

It seems that a lot of people's hair is on fire with the leaking of this draft document concerning Roe vs Wade.
What they seem to forget or most likely never knew is that Supreme Court Justics Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't think that the finding of the SCOTUS was proper in the case of Roe vs Wade.
Maybe everyone who has gone off half-cocked might take some time and think about what she said.
From: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

If they had done it properly initially it wouldn't be in jeopardy now.
Side stepping the democratic process has consequences.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, yes. So let us remove all versions of rights or however you phrase it, because that is what she said.

I find "rights" an artificial thing.
IOW, there are no rights except what we choose to enforce. What society chooses to enforce is based on culture/feelings?
There are no natural/universal right that anyone has a natural requirement to respect.

So we have a semi-democratic process to decide what rights should exist and be enforced.
I may not agree with what rights do or don't exist but this is not up to me alone.

Society as a whole makes these decisions. Using the court to side-step this process can cause enforcement of rights society is not ready for.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It seems that a lot of people's hair is on fire with the leaking of this draft document concerning Roe vs Wade.
What they seem to forget or most likely never knew is that Supreme Court Justics Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't think that the finding of the SCOTUS was proper in the case of Roe vs Wade.
Maybe everyone who has gone off half-cocked might take some time and think about what she said.
From: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

She essentially said that it was the right decision, but for the wrong reasons. In other words the Supreme Court should have made abortion legal based upon women's rights.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If they had done it properly initially it wouldn't be in jeopardy now.
Side stepping the democratic process has consequences.

If the court had done it properly we wouldn't be having this problem right now. If it had been based on women's rights it would have been much harder to overturn.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I find "rights" an artificial thing.
IOW, there are no rights except what we choose to enforce. What society chooses to enforce is based on culture/feelings?
There are no natural/universal right that anyone has a natural requirement to respect.

So we have a semi-democratic process to decide what rights should exist and be enforced.
I may not agree with what rights do or don't exist but this is not up to me alone.

Society as a whole makes these decisions. Using the court to side-step this process can cause enforcement of rights society is not ready for.

Well, it is a checks and balances thing. We generally have courts to use limited power versus the limited power of congress versus the limited power of the executive.
Depending on how you view that, Roe vs Wade is how it is or an overreach.
As for rights as such. Yes they are a social constructs, which relies on power as such, though power is not just raw power.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If the court had done it properly we wouldn't be having this problem right now. If it had been based on women's rights it would have been much harder to overturn.

How?

 

[Nakosis]

If the court had done it properly we wouldn't be having this problem right now. If it had been based on women's rights it would have been much harder to overturn.

Ok, except I see the failure is with the legislative branch.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It seems that a lot of people's hair is on fire with the leaking of this draft document concerning Roe vs Wade.
What they seem to forget or most likely never knew is that Supreme Court Justics Ruth Bader Ginsburg didn't think that the finding of the SCOTUS was proper in the case of Roe vs Wade.
Maybe everyone who has gone off half-cocked might take some time and think about what she said.
From: Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Offers Critique of Roe v. Wade During Law School Visit | University of Chicago Law School
“My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

Why do you think that should matter to anybody not on the Supreme Court? They're making judgments of constitutionality. I assume that I am not alone when I say that I am making a moral judgment. For one making moral judgments, if the Constitution doesn't support it, then the Constitution should be changed. That's a different kind of assessment than those who are not trying to decide what is right or wrong, but what is already supported by the Constitution.

Also, religious judgments don't matter to humanists making moral judgments. What the faithful believe a god wants is not part of the moral calculus outside of those circles. Neither the Constitution nor any religious dogma factor into moral theory or making moral judgments. For me, the issue is simply one of deciding who should have the choice of whether the pregnancy comes to term, the pregnant woman or the church using the power of the state. That's a no-brainer to me. Neither the church nor the state are moral authorities. The dictates of conscience and what it tells one is right and wrong is the proper moral authority and sole moral compass.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, except I see the failure is with the legislative branch.

Partially. They should have legalized it a long time ago. They can't seem to find a valid reason to oppose it. It is like the marriage equality issue. People have the right to marry. The state does not get to decide whom they marry. Sometimes the Supreme Court is forced to step in when states have unconstitutional laws. The Roe vs. Wade case had the right decision. But it was for the wrong reason.