Activism Change

BY THE PEOPLE

Question:

Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net>, in article <33235937.7…@express-news.net> wrote:

[...] >I do not want to exert governmental control over anyone’s life.  I >just want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children.  

It’s called terminating a pregnancy, Jack, and it’s a woman’s constitutional right.   A pity you can’t make each woman’s decision for them.  It’s obvious you would like to do so. [...]

Response:

trul…@albany.net wrote: > Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net>, in article > <33235937.7…@express-news.net> wrote: > [...] > > Papa Jack wrote: > > I do not want to exert governmental control over anyone’s life.  I > > just want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children.

    ================================================================= > David Truland wrote: > It’s called terminating a pregnancy, Jack,

   ================================================================ Papa Jack comments: Another euphemism, David.        ABORTION KILLS UNBORN CHILDREN      THERE IS NO WAY TO "TRERMINATE THE PREGNANCY" WITHOUT KILLING      THE UNBORN CHILD.   Why do you scramble so desperately to dissemble, David?  You are supporting the mass slaughter of millions of unborn children.   If you don’t have the stomach to admit what it is you support, perhaps you should reexamine your position.    ================================================================ > David Truland wrote: > and it’s a woman’s constitutional right.  

   ================================================================ Papa Jack comments: What part of the constitution gives a woman the right to abort a child?  I’ve read the entire constitution several times recently and I don’t remember even seeing the word "abortion." If you’re talking about Roe v. Wade, please quote the specific part of the decision that says abortion is a constitutional "right."    ================================================================ > David Truland wrote: > A pity you can’t make each woman’s decision for them.  It’s > obvious you would like to do so. > [...]

   ================================================================ Papa Jack comments: Why are you so terribly desperate to squeeze me into your distorted little stereotype, David?  You should have figured out by now I just don’t fit.   Have a nice day. — {               Papa Jack { {               http://www.express-news.net/papajack         "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all          men are created equal; that they are endowed by          their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that          among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of          happiness."          –Thomas Jefferson

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -trul…@albany.net wrote: > Papa Jack <papaj…@express-news.net>, in article > <331FB3CD.3…@express-news.net> wrote: > >Papa Jack comments: > >Your reply below, David, is simply unsatisfactory.  That is > >why I so seldom reply to your posts.  Your reply below, David, > >is simply unsatisfactory.  That is why is so seldom reply to > >your posts.  You want to quibble over what YOU think I meant > >when I wrote something — not for the purpose of advancing the > >discussion but rather for the purpose of flaming me.  To be > >truthful, I’m not that interested in your flames. > >Another point that make you look bad, David, is the fact that > >you cut and sliced significant portions of my post with only > >unsubstantiated remarks that they did not address your point.   > >You hide what I wrote and you say it doesn’t address the point, > >but you fail utterly to explain why.  That does give the apperance > >of dishonesty.

     =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > Here are the facts Jack: > In article <331C3A8B.4…@express-news.net> you stated that > "A major factor in [Roe v. Wade] was the assertion that the > Supreme Court was the primary source of governmental > control over people’s day-to-day lives." > In article <331d5afe.1846…@news.albany.net> I responded: > "Could you please cite this passage for us ‘Papa?’" > Since then you have not posted a thing which supports your > assertion.

     =============================================================== Papa Jack replies: That is a bald-face lie, David.  What you should say if you had any integrity is that you don’t like what I posted.  First, I quoted Justice Rehnquist, then Justice Blackmun, and finally Judge Bork. All three of these esteemed judges were very critical of judicial activism.      =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > I suppose your repeated failed attempts are due to a basic > misunderatanding.  Here’s a clue:  defining freedoms from the meaning > the constitution (the Supreme Court’s function) is not even remotely > related to "governmental control over people’s day-to-day lives."

     =============================================================== Papa Jack replies: It is when the courts supplant the legislatures in designing laws as the Supreme Court clearly did in Roe v. Wade.  Let’s look to The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the U.S., pp.740-741:    …Justice Potter Stewart’s concurring opinion properly    pointed out that this invocation of substantive due process    meant that the Court was enforcing a right not spcifically    spelled out int the Constitution.    [...]    …Justices  Byron White and William Rehnquist, in separate    dissents, criticized the Court for enforcing a right not    specified in the Constitution to overturn statutes that    were no more restrictive than those widely in forve when    the 14th Amendment was adopted.  In addition, they criti-    cized the Court or the trimester framework, which, in their    view, was arbitrary.  If the state had an interest in protec-    ting the potential life of the fetus, that interest existed,    and was equally strong, through the entire pregnancy.  Further,    they said, the Court’s balancing of competing interests and    careful laying out of what doctors could do in various circum-    stances resembled a statute.    [...]    …for the flaws of Blackmun’s privacy analysis, employing a    newly discovered constitutional "right" were widely noted after    Roe was decided.    [...]    …Critics also pointed out that, given the acknowledged impact    of abortion on the fetus and the medical dimensions of the    technique, it was silly to treat the case as one involving    "privacy" in the way that "Griswold," which was abourt the use    of contraceptives, involved actions performed in the privacy of    the home.      =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > For instance:  The Griswold decision you refer to struck down a > Connecticut law prohibiting contraceptive sales.  Now just who do you > suppose was exerting "control over people’s day-to-day lives." the > State of Conn. or the Supreme Court?

     =============================================================== Papa Jack replies: As Justice Potter Stewart called it, Griswold involved "an uncommonly silly law."  One does not have to support the silly law to criticize the poor legal reasoning that was involved in the uncommonly silly but insidious decision written by Justice Douglas.  This was the decision which gave us famous sentence:   "THE FOREGOING CASES SUGGEST THAT SPECIFIC GUARANTEES IN THE    BILL OF RIGHTS HAVE PENUMBRAS, FORMED BY EMANATIONS FROM    THOSE GUARANTEES THAT HELP GIVE THEM LIFE AND SUBSTANCE." This is clearly a license given by the Supreme Court to itself to find a whole host of new and creative "rights" that the Founding Fathers never intended.  In short, it’s an invitation for the SC justices to impose their own morality on the nation.  And, they have been doing so in case after case ever since. In the Griswold case, Justice Black, with whom Justice Stewart joined, dissented, in part:    I REPEAT SO AS NOT TO BE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT THIS COURT DOES    HAVE POWER, WHICH IT SHOULD EXERCISE, TO HOLD LAWS UNCONSTI-    TUTIONAL WHERE THEY ARE FORBIDDEN BY THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION.      MY POINT IS THAT THERE IS NO PROVISION OF THE CONSTITUTION    WHICH EITHER EXPRESSLY OR IMPLIEDLY VESTS POWER IN THIS COURT    TO SIT AS A SUPERVISORY AGENCY OVER ACTS OF DULY CONSTITUTED    LEGISLATIVE BODIES AND SET ASIDE THEIR LAWS BECAUSE OF THE    COURT’S BELIEF THAT THE LEGISLATIVE POLICIES ADOPTED ARE    UNREASONABLE, UNWISE, ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS OR IRRATIONAL.      THE ADOPTION OF SUCH A LOOSE, FLEXIBLE, UNCONTROLLED STANDARD    FOR HOLDING LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, IF EVER IT IS FINALLY ACHIEVED,    WILL AMOUNT TO A GREAT UNCONSTITUTIONAL SHIFT OF POWER TO THE    COURTS WHICH I BELIEVE AND AM CONSTRAINED TO SAY WILL BE BAD FOR    THE COURTS AND WORSE FOR THE COUNTRY.  SUBJECTING FEDERAL AND    STATE LAWS TO SUCH AN UNRESTRAINED AND UNRESTRAINABLE JUDICIAL    CONTROL AS TO THE WISDOM OF LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS WOULD, I FEAR,    JEOPARDIZE THE SEPARATION OF GOVERNMENTAL POWERS THAT THE FRAMERS    SET UP AND AT THE SAME TIME THREATEN TO TAKE AWAY MUCH OF THE    POWER OF STATES TO GOVERN THEMSELVES WHICH THE CONSTITUTION PLAINLY    INTENDED THEM TO HAVE.        =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > No, Jack, it’s people like you who want to exert "governmental control > over people’s day-to-day lives" by telling people what they can and > can’t do with their reproductive lives.

     =============================================================== Papa Jack replies: I do not want to exert governmental control over anyone’s life.  I just want to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children.   Stopping slaughter is not an unreasonable interferrence in lives.      =============================================================== > David Truland wrote: > If I were you Jack, I’d go back to not responding to my posts.

     =============================================================== Papa Jack replies: Frankly, I think you’re correct.  I sort of feel like a big boy beating up on a little boy.  You haven’t learned how to defend yourself yet.   Have a good day. — {               Papa Jack { {               http://www.express-news.net/papajack         "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all          men are created equal; that they are endowed by          their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that          among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of          happiness."          –Thomas Jefferson

Response:

Filed under: Judicial Activism

Related Posts

• Dr. Peter Bregginn
• YOUR SHOP NEEDS A SIGN, FOR CREDIBILITY
• Here come the fascists.......
• Supreme Court's 'pro-God' Pledge Ruling
• Judge suffers from self inflicted wound.
• Should Christians vote?... YES !!!!!!!!!!!
• S.F.: Marry anybody, marry a duck, marry a tree....
• the fallacy behind roe.vs.wade?