Roe V Wade

Page 1 of 212>
July 11th, 2018 at 10:49:44 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9884
Roe V Wade Decided January 22, 1973

It is interesting to note that there is no obvious correlation between the vote and the political party of the POTUS that nominated the judge.

Concurrence included judges appointed by 2 Democratic Presidents and 5 Republican Presidents
Dissent included judges appointed by 1 Democratic President and 1 Republican President

Majority
Douglas, 17. Apr. 1939 - Franklin D. Roosevelt
Brennan, 16. Oct. 1956 - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Stewart, 5. May. 1959 - Dwight D. Eisenhower
Marshall, 2. Oct. 1967 - Lyndon B. Johnson
Burger, 9. Jun. 1969 - Richard Nixon
Blackmun,12. May. 1970 - Richard Nixon
Powell, 7. Jan. 1972 - Richard Nixon

Dissent
White, 11. Apr. 1962 - John F. Kennedy
Rehnquist, 7. Jan. 1972 - Richard Nixon

How did the SCOTUS become so politicized around issues like this?
July 11th, 2018 at 11:19:07 AM permalink
DRich
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 22
Posts: 937
I didn't realize Nixon appointed 4 justices in his brief tenure.
July 11th, 2018 at 11:49:26 AM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8072
Quote: DRich
I didn't realize Nixon appointed 4 justices in his brief tenure.


Six years is "brief?"
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
July 11th, 2018 at 12:03:55 PM permalink
AZDuffman
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 108
Posts: 8072
Quote: Pacomartin
Roe V Wade Decided January 22, 1973

It is interesting to note that there is no obvious correlation between the vote and the political party of the POTUS that nominated the

How did the SCOTUS become so politicized around issues like this?


What I do not get is how this issue became *THE* issue of the post-civil rights era. Classic "we did not know it at the time" thing. Modern feminism revolves around it. The real politicization of SCOTUS really hit with Bork. But no case is like RvW.

The "litmus test" is wild. As I said earlier, can anyone imagine a Southern Democrat Senator demanding a SCOTUS nominee hold Plessy V Ferguson as "settled law" in 1950?

I think it comes from the women's groups. Without the feminists, Democrats lose. No chance to win. The radical feminists have made it their key issue. Look at how Bill Clinton treated women. But he was pro-abortion. So they backed him to the end. The Democrats know they lose without backing from the feminist groups. Thus they defend it to the end.

The real big thing thought is how much the Democrats make it a mandatory issue. If you are not pro-abortion, do not even ask to speak at the convention or have some leadership position. It is like you have to be Catholic to join the Knights of Columbus, or male to be a Freemason. No other issue with either party is really like this.
The man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it
July 11th, 2018 at 2:13:50 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 822
Posts: 9884
Quote: DRich
I didn't realize Nixon appointed 4 justices in his brief tenure.


All four in his first term,

Warren E. Burger (19071995) VA replace Chief Justice Warren 9. Jun. 1969 (743)
Harry Blackmun (19081999) MN replace Associate Justice Fortas 12. May. 1970 (940)
Lewis F. Powell Jr. (19071998) VA replace Associate Justice Black 6. Dec. 1971 (891)
William Rehnquist (19242005) AZ replace Associate Justice J. Harlan II 10. Dec. 1971 (6826)

Quote: AZDuffman
The real big thing thought is how much the Democrats make it a mandatory issue. If you are not pro-abortion, do not even ask to speak at the convention or have some leadership position. It is like you have to be Catholic to join the Knights of Columbus, or male to be a Freemason. No other issue with either party is really like this.


I was thinking of the other side. In 1973 there were only three judges nominated by Democratic Presidents, one from FDR, one from JFK, and one from LBJ. Yet Roe V Wade was approved by a 7-2 majority.

How did the overturning of Roe V Wade become such a strongly partisan issue for potential SCOTUS nominees?
July 11th, 2018 at 2:30:46 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2440
The things both parties stand for have changed over the last 50 years.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
July 11th, 2018 at 2:34:55 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2440
Example, 1956 republican platform

1. Provide federal assistance to low-income communities;

2. Protect Social Security;

3. Provide asylum for refugees;

4. Extend minimum wage;

5. Improve unemployment benefit system so it covers more people;

6. Strengthen labor laws so workers can more easily join a union;

7. Assure equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/28/facebook-posts/viral-meme-says-1956-republican-platform-was-prett/
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
July 11th, 2018 at 2:36:23 PM permalink
Dalex64
Member since: Mar 8, 2014
Threads: 2
Posts: 2440
I think it has also been mentioned that supreme court justices were a lot less partisan, and actually judged cases on their merits rather than on their ideological positions.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan
July 11th, 2018 at 4:41:35 PM permalink
Wizard
Administrator
Member since: Oct 23, 2012
Threads: 199
Posts: 4605
I still don't really get the Supreme Court's argument on that decision. I'm not stating my position on the matter and am not very interested in debating it, but what in the Constitution did they feel outweighed the right of each state to make their own laws regarding it?
Knowledge is Good -- Emil Faber
July 11th, 2018 at 5:19:46 PM permalink
Fleastiff
Member since: Oct 27, 2012
Threads: 54
Posts: 6032
Just as a candidate can not run for governor without being queried on the death penalty even if no executions are scheduled, a judicial candidate can not run without being questioned on abortion issues.

The constitution says nothing about abortions or cell phones but it sure says a lot about keeping the government out of people's homes and certainly out of their bedrooms.

Even Ireland recently held a referendum with hordes of ex-patriat Irish returning to cast a ballot to do away with the Equal Dignity rule that grants a fetus the status of a separate person and that no medical procedure of any sort can be performed on a woman if it might injure the fetus irrespective of the mother's desires or the nature of the medical condition.

As wealth increases, birth rates decline. Women can have lives separate from their wombs, children are not needed for farm labor and retirement income, fifty percent mortality by age six is a thing of the past and women do not want to return to being viewed as an incubator. Many women are greatly concerned about having children but they do not want to be shackled to husbands by economics or laws and feel that the state has no call to intrude into their private lives.
Page 1 of 212>