Babies and Borders

[stevenash]

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

No, I disagreed because it is incorrect.

" Because a liberal said it " and the emboldened quite often accompany one another.

[LumRaiderFan]

12 minutes ago, UT alum said:

I want to know why you think what I said is incorrect.  A more conservative court is going to be more sympathetic to states’ rights than a liberal court. That means more leeway in enforcing federal law. I’m not talking politics here, I’m talking about the law and it’s interpretation.

My understanding is that the SC will decide a case based on the Constitution.  They have no power to legislate from the bench and decide themselves how much power will be given to the states on a particular case.

A case could be brought before them that stipulates this split between state and federal authority, but I don't think the SC can simply make that decision on their own.

Maybe we're saying the same thing two different ways and I'm no lawyer and may have this all wrong.

I would be interested to hear a lawyer's perspective on this.

TXHoops, your thoughts?

[UT alum]

7 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

My understanding is that the SC will decide a case based on the Constitution.  They have no power to legislate from the bench and decide themselves how much power will be given to the states on a particular case.

A case could be brought before them that stipulates this split between state and federal authority, but I don't think the SC can simply make that decision on their own.

Maybe we're saying the same thing two different ways and I'm no lawyer and may have this all wrong.

I would be interested to hear a lawyer's perspective on this.

TXHoops, your thoughts?

Texas has a limit of twenty weeks. After that, not legal. Other states have different limits on term. It’s not legislation from the bench, it’s interpretation of legislation. 

Conervatives believe in original intent, liberals more in interpretation given the times in which we live.

I think we’re basically saying the same thing, but neither of us are lawyers so we can’t talk like they do.

[TxHoops]

1 hour ago, UT alum said:

Texas has a limit of twenty weeks. After that, not legal. Other states have different limits on term. It’s not legislation from the bench, it’s interpretation of legislation. 

Conervatives believe in original intent, liberals more in interpretation given the times in which we live.

I think we’re basically saying the same thing, but neither of us are lawyers so we can’t talk like they do.

 

1 hour ago, LumRaiderFan said:

My understanding is that the SC will decide a case based on the Constitution.  They have no power to legislate from the bench and decide themselves how much power will be given to the states on a particular case.

A case could be brought before them that stipulates this split between state and federal authority, but I don't think the SC can simply make that decision on their own.

Maybe we're saying the same thing two different ways and I'm no lawyer and may have this all wrong.

I would be interested to hear a lawyer's perspective on this.

TXHoops, your thoughts?

I think you’re both saying the same thing too (in different ways).  And you’re both mostly correct in what you’re saying.   The SCOTUS is there to protect the Constitution.  In the Constitution (i.e., the 10th Amendment), the issue of states’ rights is certainly a matter the Court would need to consider in many cases.  

[TxHoops]

By the way, as LRF knows, he and I are very simpatico in our belief that most things should be decided by the individual states.  This particular issue is one that i struggle with concerning leaving it to the states.  For instance, marijuana is an easy one.  The feds should have no skin in that game.  But would we really be okay (as someone mentioned in this or another thread) if California announced tomorrow that they were decriminalizing pedophilia and making the state a safe haven for child molestons?  

[TxHoops]

3 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

By the way, as LRF knows, he and I are very simpatico in our belief that most things should be decided by the individual states.  This particular issue is one that i struggle with concerning leaving it to the states.  For instance, marijuana is an easy one.  The feds should have no skin in that game.  But would we really be okay (as someone mentioned in this or another thread) if California announced tomorrow that they were decriminalizing pedophilia and making the state a safe haven for child molestors?  

 

[LumRaiderFan]

15 minutes ago, TxHoops said:

By the way, as LRF knows, he and I are very simpatico in our belief that most things should be decided by the individual states.  This particular issue is one that i struggle with concerning leaving it to the states.  For instance, marijuana is an easy one.  The feds should have no skin in that game.  But would we really be okay (as someone mentioned in this or another thread) if California announced tomorrow that they were decriminalizing pedophilia and making the state a safe haven for child molestons?  

I certainly wouldn't, and that's where I would hope our individual rights would trump all and, if necessary bring the feds in to preserve them, as they did when some southern states were trampling the rights of minorities.

[TxHoops]

6 minutes ago, LumRaiderFan said:

I certainly wouldn't, and that's where I would hope our individual rights would trump all and, if necessary bring the feds in to preserve them, as they did when some southern states were trampling the rights of minorities.

Precisely.