Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski  Oh ye of little historical insight.
Plessy v Ferguesson 1897 established the basis of separate but equal. Brown v Board of Education 1954 overturned the decision. |
Thanks for providing me with some "historical insight." I forgot about those two cases. But, I think one would have to admit that both rulings were made under slightly different sets of circumstances.
In the earlier case, the conclusion was made by the court that blacks were offered an equal but separate set of conditions that specifically applied to the case in question...even though in reality separate didn't necessarily mean equal in many other segregation-related situations throughout the US. And, in the later case, the court conclusion wasn't so well defined as it was in the earlier case...even though I personally would agree for various reasons that separate could never be equal, at least not in today's world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski The misguided myth that because Roe v Wade is a well established rule of law is just that a myth. Roe decided in 1973 is only 34 years old, Plessy was 57 when it was finally overturned. |
I seriously doubt that Roe v. Wade would be held up based on historic precedent. I think it would be held up for the same exact reasons it was ruled.
And, if it's challenged, what sort of case would it be challenged by?
(Personally speaking, I think abortion-related rulings, in general, would be impractical if such rulings were to be left entirely up to the states. And I think the US Supreme Court *did* make an effort in letting the states have at least some say over the outcome of a pregnancy.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski Interestingly enough, Webster also upheld the establish of life at conception. |
Actually, the US Supreme Court didn't "uphold" the idea that life begins at conception. This is what the court concluded:
"1. This Court need not pass on the constitutionality of the Missouri statute's preamble. In invalidating the preamble, the Court of Appeals misconceived the meaning of the dictum in
Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, Inc., 462 U.S. 416, 444, that "a State may not adopt one theory of when life begins to justify its regulation of abortions."
[p491] That statement means only that a State could not "justify" any abortion regulation otherwise invalid under
Roe v. Wade on the ground that it embodied the State's view about when life begins. The preamble does not, by its terms, regulate abortions or any other aspect of appellees' medical practice, and § 1.205.2 can be interpreted to do no more than offer protections to unborn children in tort and probate law, which is permissible under
Roe v. Wade, supra, at 161-162. This Court has emphasized that
Roe implies no limitation on a State's authority to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion,
Maher v. Roe, 432 U.S. 464, 474, and the preamble can be read simply to express that sort of value judgment. The extent to which the preamble's language might be used to interpret other state statutes or regulations is something that only the state courts can definitively decide, and, until those courts have applied the preamble to restrict appellees' activities in some concrete way, it is inappropriate for federal courts to address its meaning.
Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U.S. 450, 460. Pp. 504-507."
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services
(Any state could just as well provide the value judgment that "life begins at birth" in the preamble within a similar law, and the US Supreme Court would have ruled the same way it did for Missouri's law.)
03-08-2007, 08:19 PM
Linear Mode
