Abortion, Planned Parenthood v. Casey

[A18]

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

I would have voted to uphold the 1982 act in its entirety. But as bad as Roe was, this decision is arguably worse. At least Roe handed down a workable standard: basically any and all regulation of abortion prior to the third trimester was unconstitutional.

Casey's "undue burden" standard is a joke. Arguing over whether a burden is "due" or "undue" is a lot like discussing whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

[opebo]

None of the above, as they all violate the constitutional right to privacy.

[Emsworth]

I would (of course) uphold all three requirements. There is no constitutional right to abort a fetus.

Casey's "undue burden" standard is a joke. Arguing over whether a burden is "due" or "undue" is a lot like discussing whether chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla.

I fully agree. Arbitrary decisions like Casey make Supreme Court's Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence muddled, incoherent, and incomprehensible.

[Schmitz in 1972]

I agree that the compelling interest test with it's undue burdens and all is complete crap. The scary thing is that the 1992 court is just about the most conservative we've had in the past 70 years. If that court couldn't overturn Roe. v Wade than which one will? Assuming that Roberts and Alito turn out OK (a BIG assumption I might add), we're still one vote away from overturning garbage like this.

Let's hope that Stevens finally croaks soon.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Let's hope that Stevens finally croaks soon.

Compassionate conservative.

[Emsworth]

I agree that the compelling interest test with it's undue burdens and all is complete crap. The scary thing is that the 1992 court is just about the most conservative we've had in the past 70 years. If that court couldn't overturn Roe. v Wade than which one will? Assuming that Roberts and Alito turn out OK (a BIG assumption I might add), we're still one vote away from overturning garbage like this.

Substantive due process and the compelling interest standard are here to stay. Even a conservative court is unlikely to overturn either of these doctrines; both Alito and Roberts have explicitly affirmed their support for these concepts.

Roe is certainly in some danger of being overturned, although a sudden frontal assault on that decision is unlikely to succeed any time soon. Alito probably opposes Roe, but I am not at all sure about Roberts.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I agree that the compelling interest test with it's undue burdens and all is complete crap. The scary thing is that the 1992 court is just about the most conservative we've had in the past 70 years. If that court couldn't overturn Roe. v Wade than which one will? Assuming that Roberts and Alito turn out OK (a BIG assumption I might add), we're still one vote away from overturning garbage like this.

Substantive due process and the compelling interest standard are here to stay. Even a conservative court is unlikely to overturn either of these doctrines; both Alito and Roberts have explicitly affirmed their support for these concepts.

Roe is certainly in some danger of being overturned, although a sudden frontal assault on that decision is unlikely to succeed any time soon. Alito probably opposes Roe, but I am not at all sure about Roberts.

So Roberts just happens to have a wife who is an anti-abortion activist? Roberts is clearly anti-Roe, but he's not quite as batsh**t crazing as lying Alito.

[bullmoose88]

Only provision 3206.

[Emsworth]

Only provision 3206.

Which parts of the Constitution would the other provisions have violated, in your opinion?

[A18]

I agree that the compelling interest test ... is complete crap.

It's not even the worst one. "Congruence and proportionality" is even more subjective.

[Frodo]

All of the above

[bullmoose88]

Only provision 3206.

Which parts of the Constitution would the other provisions have violated, in your opinion?

You're going to disagree with me, I think Philip will as well. I, like Ernest, believe there is a right to privacy, be it a nonenumerated right (9th, gets ready for Philip's flak) or in the penumbras of the first 8 amendments of the bill of rights. In case its not obvious by now, I'm influenced by William O'Douglas (and to a lesser degree, Goldberg).

I'm well aware of what you guys (I'm speaking generally, and if I unfairly group you, I'm sorry) have said regarding privacy and the 9th amendment. I respect your arguments and certainly I may buy into them in the future, but not now. Certainly given the fact that I am pro life, it pains me that *hypothetically* I'd rule in this fashion.

What I'd really like to see, just to see it done, is one of you guys try to convince me to join you in the vote on the condition that you do not attempt to try to convert me to a whole different judicial philosophy (I think what I'm getting at here is that, one of you guys should use "my" philosophy and argue the side I didn't take.) I think one of you two, being as bright as you are (or as I think you are), could do it.

Ah well...I should lay off the beer.

[opebo]

...given the fact that I am pro life

You're a pro-lifer?  I assumed with all that talk of you being a moderate, a social liberal, and a RINO, that you were on the side of freedom on this issue.  No, you firmly belong in the Religious Party, Bull.

[Schmitz in 1972]

...given the fact that I am pro life

You're a pro-lifer?  I assumed with all that talk of you being a moderate, a social liberal, and a RINO, that you were on the side of freedom on this issue.  No, you firmly belong in the Religious Party, Bull.

Or it could be that he sees the blatant hypocrisy in refusing to use the criteria for the end of life (permanent ending of electrical activity from the brain) as the criteria for the beginning of life (electroencephalographs can pick up brain waves in children just 5 weeks after conception).

[A18]

Bullmoose, I can't do that, because I don't know what your method of interpretation is.