Gosnell case

[likeitfast55]

I withdraw from the debate sir. You have the floor and my respect.

[Forever_frost]

Now you did it, you brought fact and logic into the "Frost" bubble of self denial and insanity.

That is as dangerous as crossing the two energy streams. You know "Ghost Busters".

Bad mistake, now comes the name calling and double talking rhetoric.

I don't tend to resort to name calling or double talking. I asked for constitutional citation.

[likeitfast55]

Now you did it, you brought fact and logic into the "Frost" bubble of self denial and insanity.

That is as dangerous as crossing the two energy streams. You know "Ghost Busters".

Bad mistake, now comes the name calling and double talking rhetoric.


Well I humbly offer my apologies Frost, your response was more in line with your potential. Bravo.

[Forever_frost]

Quick question: Remind me where in the Constitution it states that any code or law may expand the authority of the federal government of any branch. Not US Code, actual words of the Constitution.

And Racr, I much prefer these discussions with Hatter. There's actual logic behind the discussion instead of retarded pictures and a "la la la" fingers in the ears response. I look forward to this discussion Hatter.

[racrguy]

Per sentance structure of the english language, the "under their authority" that you're citing only applies to "treaties made, or which shall be made,". So, as this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority.

Especially when you consider that, per US Code (Title 28, Part 4, Chapter 81), states that "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States." (Emphasis mine)

This goes to show that both the Constitution and US Law, which the US code is, support the Supreme Court's authroity in this case.



The case wasn't to challenge a federal law, it was to question the constitutionality of a state law. It was a case that was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, as the law allows.



Actually, if you read Rod v Wade it states that the court decided that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, thereby making all laws preventing it unconstitutional.



Full quote: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge. is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. - Justice Blackmun

These were his opinions of the case, not what the Supreme Court "said". Giving that he supported the verdict the Supreme Court made, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this quote.



Again, Justice Blackmun made this statement as his closing remarks about the majority opinion. However, I'd agree that he is correct here. Which brings us back to my earlier post.

What this guy said, Jim.

[Maddhattter]

.....ahem.....

your (sic) slipping, 'hattter

Curses...

[The King]

Per sentance structure of the english language, the "under their authority" that you're citing only applies to "treaties made, or which shall be made,". So, as this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority.

Actually, if you read Rod v Wade it states that the court decided that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, thereby making all laws preventing it unconstitutional.

.....ahem.....

your (sic) slipping, 'hattter

[Maddhattter]

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority"

Per sentance structure of the english language, the "under their authority" that you're citing only applies to "treaties made, or which shall be made,". So, as this was a case in law, under the constitution and the laws of the US, they do have authority.

Especially when you consider that, per US Code (Title 28, Part 4, Chapter 81), states that "Final judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had, may be reviewed by the Supreme Court by writ of certiorari where the validity of a treaty or statute of the United States is drawn in question or where the validity of a statute of any State is drawn in question on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, or where any title, right, privilege, or immunity is specially set up or claimed under the Constitution or the treaties or statutes of, or any commission held or authority exercised under, the United States." (Emphasis mine)

This goes to show that both the Constitution and US Law, which the US code is, support the Supreme Court's authroity in this case.

If the constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to have a law on something, the SC can't rule on it.

The case wasn't to challenge a federal law, it was to question the constitutionality of a state law. It was a case that was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court, as the law allows.

And if you read Roe v Wade, there is no constitutional right to abortion, just to privacy.

Actually, if you read Rod v Wade it states that the court decided that abortion is a fundamental right under the Constitution, thereby making all laws preventing it unconstitutional.

Borrowed from an email: "Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Full quote: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge. is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. - Justice Blackmun

These were his opinions of the case, not what the Supreme Court "said". Giving that he supported the verdict the Supreme Court made, I'm not sure what you're trying to get across with this quote.

Then the High Court made a key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

Again, Justice Blackmun made this statement as his closing remarks about the majority opinion. However, I'd agree that he is correct here. Which brings us back to my earlier post.

[Forever_frost]

You keep forgetting to read the whole sentence. IN THEIR AUTHORITY. You are lousy at this. Try again

[Forever_frost]

Did you just gloss over the part where it says:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States....

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority" If the constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to have a law on something, the SC can't rule on it. And if you read Roe v Wade, there is no constitutional right to abortion, just to privacy.

Borrowed from an email: "Supreme Court said:

"We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins . . . the judiciary at this point in the development of man's knowledge is not in a position to speculate as to the answer."

Then the High Court made a key admission:

"If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case [i.e., "Roe" who sought an abortion], of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life is then guaranteed specifically by the [14th] Amendment."

[racrguy]

all these are local news stories, the npr story is more about the employees losing jobs "Pa. Employees Fired In Wake Of Abortion Scandal"

CBS news and Fox News websites are local? Tell me more.

[jyro]

You are blinded

Somebody should have told the news about this before they started covering it...

http://www.thenation.com/article/158089/dr-kermit-gosnells-horror-show#

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/Neglect-of-West-Philly-Abortion-Victims-Was-By-Design.html

http://thegrio.com/2011/01/21/abortion-clinic-horror-in-philly-highlights-need-for-more-access/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20029214-504083.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133806324/pa-employees-fired-in-wake-of-abortion-scandal

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/04...ll-face-death/

all these are local news stories, the npr story is more about the employees losing jobs "Pa. Employees Fired In Wake Of Abortion Scandal"

[racrguy]

You really aren't good at this are you? "and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects" You really do have to finish the sentence when you try to argue. I would also like to remind you that the SC ruled that internment and slavery was constitutional while neither were. They get it wrong which is why their powers are limited

Did you just gloss over the part where it says:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States....

[Forever_frost]

Fine, I'll even use your own post.


Roe V Wade. Roe being Norma McCorvey, and Wade being Dallas DA Henry Wade. There was a law in Texas at the time that made it a crime to assist women in having an abortion. Thereby making it between the STATE AND THE CITIZENS THEREOF. It was also appealed up through the lower courts to reach the SCOTUS. More specifically, it was filed in the US District court in 1970, and reached the SCOUTS for an appeal the same year. Originally arguments were heard on December 13 1971, then REARGUED on October 11 1972, with a final decision January 22 1973.

You're merely taking the dissenting opinion of justices White and Rehnquist without fully understanding what you're talking about.


Go ahead and tell me again how they don't have authority.

I would also like to add that in 1989 Chief Justice Rehnquist upheld RvW in Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, but did change the trimester framework a bit.

You really aren't good at this are you? "and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects" You really do have to finish the sentence when you try to argue. I would also like to remind you that the SC ruled that internment and slavery was constitutional while neither were. They get it wrong which is why their powers are limited

[racrguy]

Seventy-two members of Congress on Wednesday sent letters to executives at three major networks — ABC, CBS, NBC — expressing outrage at their blatant avoidance of Kermit Gosnell’s grisly abortion trial.
Calling it a purposeful blackout, the legislators said they were “profoundly appalled” at the networks’ bias, The Daily Caller reported.
SEE RELATED: Liberal commentator admits the left is avoiding Kermit Gosnell trial to protect abortion rights
“The broadcasters’ blackout of the Planned Parenthood infanticide lobbying scandal and the Gosnell ‘House of Horrors’ murder trial are the biggest and most politically motivated media cover-ups in our nation’s history,” said Rep. Marsha Blackburn, as reported by The Daily Caller. “Censorship and media bias allows the corrupt abortion industry to profit at the expense of innocent women and children. The mainstream media has a responsibility to report the truth, not turn a blind eye to the biggest civil rights issue of our time.”
Witnesses at the trial have said that Mr. Gosnell instructed them on the best way to cut babies’ necks to ensure death. Mr. Gosnell is charged with killing seven babies and one adult woman, and testimony as his trial enters its fifth week has been gruesome at times.
The lawmakers also wrote, The Daily Caller reported: “Surely … [the details of the trial] meet your threshold criteria for a national news segment. Yet, despite this obvious fact, coverage of these stories has eluded your news divisions. … We see no excuse for your failure to report these stories other than blatant media bias.”
© Copyright 2013 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...#ixzz2QsFTeFeP
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Somebody should have told the news about this before they started covering it...

http://www.thenation.com/article/158089/dr-kermit-gosnells-horror-show#

http://www.philadelphiaweekly.com/news-and-opinion/cover-story/Neglect-of-West-Philly-Abortion-Victims-Was-By-Design.html

http://thegrio.com/2011/01/21/abortion-clinic-horror-in-philly-highlights-need-for-more-access/

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20029214-504083.html

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/16/133806324/pa-employees-fired-in-wake-of-abortion-scandal

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/02/04/philly-abortion-doctor-gosnell-face-death/