Big Bad Dad as Legal Scholar
I am not, nor have ever been, a law student for one major reason. Despite the fact that I’m intrigued by law, I hated school. Any desire I ever had to become a lawyer was outweighed by my inability to go to school any longer than I had to.
My legal credentials are limited to a professional designation relating to regulatory compliance and 14 years experience in a job which requires a strong knowledge of law and the ability to do some legal research. Several attorneys I’ve worked with over the years have tried to recruit me into positions underneath them. I still haven’t ruled out furthering my education in the legal field.
Despite having very little legal education, there are several observations from the Alito hearings I feel sufficiently qualified to discuss:
1. Roe v. Wade is the litmus test by which all justices are judged for a good reason. Never before has such a poorly decided opinion been viewed as so important. If a state passes a law prohibiting a practice which it believes is contrary to its community standards, how does a made-up “constitiutuional right to privacy” trump the state’s ability to pass a law which is in the best interests of its citizens?
How would this then not also apply to a state’s ability to determine its own age of consent laws?
In addition, it was decided on equal protection grounds, later upheld by Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Equal protection for whom? The latter case specifically struck down spousal notification requirements, thereby infringing on the rights of all would-be fathers to be involved in the decision.
Pro-choicers would have you believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would make all abortion illegal and would relegate the fairer sex to back alleys and clothes hangers.
Uh…no, it wouldn’t.
It would allow the individual states the ability to establish their own abortion laws consistent with the standards and values of the community. Some states may well abolish abortion but most would not.
A precedent is a precedent is a precedent. There is no such thing as a “superprecedent” nor a “super-duper precedent”. Never before has a court decision been stamped with a great big “S” across the front. Arlen Spector should stop making up legal jargon.
Speaking of Spector, he needs to get off this stare decicis obsession. Sure, it’s a good idea in some cases but if it was the law of the land, Plessy v. Ferguson would’ve never been overturned and the the south would continue to be segregated.
A lawyer is hired to represent his client.and will make any arguments necessary to bolster his client’s position…whether he agrees with that position or not. As was the case with Roberts, the Democrats are attempting to use his analyses, written for his clients, against him. Move on. Concentrate on his opinions when he was supposed to be impartial, not when he was being paid to be partial.
Speaking of his opinions, it’s generally not a good idea to trash him on his dissents when said dissent was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court later.
Conference call is over. Gotta go back to work.
My legal credentials are limited to a professional designation relating to regulatory compliance and 14 years experience in a job which requires a strong knowledge of law and the ability to do some legal research. Several attorneys I’ve worked with over the years have tried to recruit me into positions underneath them. I still haven’t ruled out furthering my education in the legal field.
Despite having very little legal education, there are several observations from the Alito hearings I feel sufficiently qualified to discuss:
1. Roe v. Wade is the litmus test by which all justices are judged for a good reason. Never before has such a poorly decided opinion been viewed as so important. If a state passes a law prohibiting a practice which it believes is contrary to its community standards, how does a made-up “constitiutuional right to privacy” trump the state’s ability to pass a law which is in the best interests of its citizens?
How would this then not also apply to a state’s ability to determine its own age of consent laws?
In addition, it was decided on equal protection grounds, later upheld by Casey v. Planned Parenthood. Equal protection for whom? The latter case specifically struck down spousal notification requirements, thereby infringing on the rights of all would-be fathers to be involved in the decision.
Pro-choicers would have you believe that overturning Roe v. Wade would make all abortion illegal and would relegate the fairer sex to back alleys and clothes hangers.
Uh…no, it wouldn’t.
It would allow the individual states the ability to establish their own abortion laws consistent with the standards and values of the community. Some states may well abolish abortion but most would not.
A precedent is a precedent is a precedent. There is no such thing as a “superprecedent” nor a “super-duper precedent”. Never before has a court decision been stamped with a great big “S” across the front. Arlen Spector should stop making up legal jargon.
Speaking of Spector, he needs to get off this stare decicis obsession. Sure, it’s a good idea in some cases but if it was the law of the land, Plessy v. Ferguson would’ve never been overturned and the the south would continue to be segregated.
A lawyer is hired to represent his client.and will make any arguments necessary to bolster his client’s position…whether he agrees with that position or not. As was the case with Roberts, the Democrats are attempting to use his analyses, written for his clients, against him. Move on. Concentrate on his opinions when he was supposed to be impartial, not when he was being paid to be partial.
Speaking of his opinions, it’s generally not a good idea to trash him on his dissents when said dissent was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court later.
Conference call is over. Gotta go back to work.
posted by Big Bad Dad at 2:52 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home