some other dude
New member
What was Scalia's rationale? Why did Scalia think it was unlikely, in 2006?
(hint: it's what Chrys has been talking about)
How does that compare to Town's rationale?
toldailytopic: Raising Cain. What do you make of Cain's sexual harassment charges
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
What was Scalia's rationale? Why did Scalia think it was unlikely, in 2006?
(hint: it's what Chrys has been talking about)
How does that compare to Town's rationale?
Rather, it's Scalia's "hope" set against the Court's actual holding in Planned Parenthood v Casey, as I set out.
If you want a sharper, academic attack on Roe from him you should read his opinion in Lawrence v. Texas. I already have. And I think he's wrong in much of it, contradicted by abler jurists and history.
As to Chrys, he presumes any number of things that don't bear up under reasonable scrutiny. First, he believes that a Republican White House would give us justices less concerned with the Court's independent status and more likely to act in accord with the political aims of the nominator. History doesn't bear that notion out. It was a Republican appointed Court that gave us Roe to begin with.
Chrys suggests the problem was a Democratic watering down of appointments (Does he actually note how and who? He does not). He further proposes a destruction of the Democratic party would keep pro choice elements from blocking more aggressive conservative justices. The problem with the proposition is that it doesn't recognize that parties reflect, not determine their constituency. So the only way to destroy the party is to convince its adherents that the party planks, aims and alliances are against their interests.
Far easier and infinitely more probable that people could be turned on the one issue here that matters than on the larger ideological embrace. And if you can turn that majority you can approach the amendment that will take the guesswork and precedent out of the equation.
some other dude
New member
Town, on an opinion of SCOTUS Justice Scalia's with which Town disagrees:
Good for you Town, good for you.
Go pretend you're a legal expert somewhere else, would you?
Please?
Your egotism is impressive but not endearing.
Good for you Town, good for you.
Go pretend you're a legal expert somewhere else, would you?
Please?
Your egotism is impressive but not endearing.
Right. And for the Justices in agreement with the actual case on point I cited to and produced writing from.
I omit the rest of your usual follow through and offer the obligatory:
I'm not interested in your estimation of my character or the expression of your own, only in your argument/counter, to the extent you can fashion one.
Which is seeming less and less likely by the post. :thumb: