Legal challenge to the "boss act"
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 03:47:57 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Legal challenge to the "boss act"
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Legal challenge to the "boss act"  (Read 6863 times)
StevenNick
StevenNick99
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,899


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: May 18, 2004, 09:20:28 PM »

And this from the person who calls our tax code unconstitutional. Face it, you're no Louis Brandeis.

You're right.  I'm closer to a John Jay.  You, on the other hand, are no Earl Warren!
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: May 18, 2004, 09:22:08 PM »

No. I'm more of a Brennan or Marshall.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: May 18, 2004, 09:26:22 PM »

Marshall?? Oh no... more like Ruth Ginsburg. :-D
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: May 18, 2004, 09:28:39 PM »

I'm better looking, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a legal brain of her caliber.
Logged
Brambila
Brambilla
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,088


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: May 18, 2004, 09:31:26 PM »

I wouldn't mind having the brilliance of Robert Bork. Wink
Logged
StevenNick
StevenNick99
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,899


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: May 18, 2004, 09:32:05 PM »

I'm better looking, but I certainly wouldn't mind having a legal brain of her caliber.

Brain?
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: May 18, 2004, 09:32:11 PM »

He is brilliant. But quite flawed.
Logged
Fmr. Gov. NickG
NickG
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,150


Political Matrix
E: -8.00, S: -3.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: May 18, 2004, 10:37:20 PM »


I oppose the bill, but I don't think it violates Roe or Casey, since it allows second trimester health exceptions.

There is a possible Commerce Clause issue (from the US Constitution), but this would be a very conservative theory under which to strike it down.

Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: May 19, 2004, 02:30:06 PM »

The holdings of Roe and Casey state the right to choose abortion can only be limited by regulations designed to protect maternal health. Therefore, the right to an abortion is still fundamentally a decision of elective choice in the second trimester, and to meet the current legal standard, if a woman can prove that any law abridging her right to an abortion in the first two trimesters is an undue burden on her private choice, the law is unconstitutional.

And don't be concerned. The Supreme Court will leave no stone unturned. If this law is held to be constitutional, it certainly will be.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: May 19, 2004, 02:41:36 PM »

Wow, that must be pretty liberal, then.

I'm a moderate
Logged
JohnFKennedy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,448


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: May 20, 2004, 11:25:21 AM »


I thought you got a rating almost as liberal as possible on one of those tests.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: May 20, 2004, 05:09:53 PM »

Here is what I proposed as a new amendment:

"No legal abortions shall be permitted after the first trimester of a womans' pregnancy, unless the woman was a victim of rape, or a medical doctor confirms that the mothers' health would be in serious danger if the pregnancy was to continue, and she was forced to bear a child."

Here is what I would like if I could have my way:

"No legal abortions shall be permitted after the first timester of a womans' pregnancy, unless the woman was a victim of rape, or a medical doctor confirms that the mothers' or fetus' health would be severly impaired or in morbid danger if the pregnancy was to continue, and the mother was forced to bear a child."

Basically, I would like to have another exception for severe complications of the baby. Some tests to determine the health or otherwise of fetuses canot be performed until the 16th week, in the second trimester.

I would like to include that, but it isn't practical.

Is it not better to at least allow some form of abortion, txg, then leaving the situation in a state of limbo? At least this way we will have a law that wll allow for extreme cases to abort their pregnancy for the whole term.

 
 
 
 
 
 
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: May 20, 2004, 09:56:07 PM »

Here is what I proposed as a new amendment:

"No legal abortions shall be permitted after the first trimester of a womans' pregnancy, unless the woman was a victim of rape, or a medical doctor confirms that the mothers' health would be in serious danger if the pregnancy was to continue, and she was forced to bear a child."

Here is what I would like if I could have my way:

"No legal abortions shall be permitted after the first timester of a womans' pregnancy, unless the woman was a victim of rape, or a medical doctor confirms that the mothers' or fetus' health would be severly impaired or in morbid danger if the pregnancy was to continue, and the mother was forced to bear a child."

Basically, I would like to have another exception for severe complications of the baby. Some tests to determine the health or otherwise of fetuses canot be performed until the 16th week, in the second trimester.

I would like to include that, but it isn't practical.

Is it not better to at least allow some form of abortion, txg, then leaving the situation in a state of limbo? At least this way we will have a law that wll allow for extreme cases to abort their pregnancy for the whole term.

 
 
 
 
 
 

first trimester without restraint.
second AND third trimesters in cases of rape,incest and the possibility of harm or death to the mother.
Logged
Platypus
hughento
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,478
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2004, 02:22:51 AM »

my amendment llows for second and hird trimester abortions due to rape and mothers' health, and hilst i would like second trimester abortion to be allowable for childs' health, it won't pass.

1st Trimester: Completely legal
2nd Trimester: Legal in cases of rape and health
3rd trimester: ditto

I think that is a reasonable comprimise, and at least it exists.
Logged
© tweed
Miamiu1027
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,563
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2004, 02:29:16 PM »

I thought you got a rating almost as liberal as possible on one of those tests.

I got -2, -1.5 on the compass and an 18 on the quiz show...what else do you want me to say.
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2004, 06:54:57 PM »

If you want a compromise, I would suggest a reaffirmation of the terms of Roe. First trimester, no restrictions. Second Trimester, regulations to promote maternal health allowed if not creating an undue burden. Third trimester, state has the power to criminalize abortion if exceptions are made for life, health, rape, and incest.
Logged
Nym90
nym90
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,260
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -2.96

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2004, 07:01:12 PM »

That's my position exactly. I fully support Roe, but do not support going beyond it.

I'll be addressing this further in my campaign stop in Milwaukee tonight...stay tuned. Wink
Logged
migrendel
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,672
Italy


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2004, 07:16:15 PM »

I think that would do well. It would satisfy me, by giving the right to choose fairly comprehensive protection, and it would satisfy my opponents by giving them limited regulatory power. If we can agree on this, despite personal differences, we might solve the abortion issue.
Logged
The Dowager Mod
texasgurl
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,973
United States


Political Matrix
E: -9.48, S: -8.57

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2004, 09:01:43 PM »

If you want a compromise, I would suggest a reaffirmation of the terms of Roe. First trimester, no restrictions. Second Trimester, regulations to promote maternal health allowed if not creating an undue burden. Third trimester, state has the power to criminalize abortion if exceptions are made for life, health, rape, and incest.
works for me.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 12 queries.