Terri's Law overturning/checks and balances?

[Peter Ahlstrom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/national/23CND-SCHI.html?pagewanted=1

"If the Legislature with the assent of the governor can do what was attempted here, the judicial branch would be subordinated to the final directive of the other branches," the court wrote. "Vested rights could be stripped away based on popular clamor."

Hm...I think the judicial branch today has far too much power to reverse any decision the other branches make. What can the other branches do to reverse judicial decisions? Nothing at all, except for constitutional amendments. Oh, they can impeach judges too, but when was the last time that happened?

If the Legislative AND Executive branches agree on something, shouldn't they be able to overturn judicial decision?

[stacer]

The same thing happened here in Massachusetts, when the judiciary *ordered* the legislative to make a law legalizing gay marriage. That's not really constitutional, is it, for a court to order a law to be made? Yet they've been scrambling here to try to fix the laws, make a compromise, and when that didn't go through, you know what happened.

At the same time, though, in this particular issue, was the governor overstepping his bounds by making a law that may have been unconstitutional? I don't know the case well enough to say, and right-to-die issues are a tender subject.

[House of Mustard]

If the Legislative AND Executive branches agree on something, shouldn't they be able to overturn judicial decision?  

The problem is that the Constitution lays out the judicial system on the assumption that it is non-partisan.  Technically, since the positions are appointed, and since the Supreme Courts and District Courts are groups of judges rather single judges, partisan politics shouldn't make their way into decisions.  Of course, it doesn't work perfectly.

Generally, though, I don't think that judicial legislation is as big a problem as a lot of other people do.  Cases like those mentioned will ultimately end up in the Supreme Court, and that body is still surprisingly balanced: three on the left, three in the middle, and three on the right.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

Yet it was the Supreme Court that declared abortion legal.

[House of Mustard]

That particular case has very little to do with judicial legislation.  They didn't declare abortion legal.  They declared that the law against it was unconstitutional.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I personally don't see much difference between that and the thing that brought on this thread, where a law was declared unconstitutional in Florida. Except that overturning a law against abortion is a much greater miscarriage of justice.

I haven't seriously read up on the reasoning that the Supreme Court used to determine that abortion was constitutional, but the 5th amendment seems to say that no person can be deprived of life without due process of law.

If this country's people have not supported a constitutional amendment specifically banning abortion, it seems to me to indicate that the majority of the citizens are evil.

[Entsuropi]

And it seems to me that this is a bit heavy for the forum.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

If not the rant forum, where?

[Archon]

Ookla, why do you say that people are evil because they dont make an amendment banning abortion? It seems to me that in many situations it would be better for babies not to be born. Abusive households, poverty etc.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

So if there's a child in an abusive household, or their family doesn't have enough money, we should have mercy on them and kill them?

[Archon]

In some cases it is better than what they would go through otherwise.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

I'm shocked you thought I was asking that question seriously.

If you think killing people in order to save them from misfortune is a good thing, you're entitled to that opinion, but I'd have to say you're evil.

I support the death penalty for people who commit violent crimes, but I don't support the death penalty for innocent children who have commited no crime.

It's ridiculous to assume we know how happy someone's life is going to be in the long run or even the short run.

If parents are not able to care for their children, they should give them to someone who is able.

Abortion is a way to avoid responsibility for mistakes by pretending the mistakes never happened. Perhaps instead of merely killing babies before they are born (or after, as you say would be fine), the irresponsible people who get pregnant or who impregnate others without being able to care for the issuance of such a pregnancy should also have their lives terminated? That way at least the person being punished would be being punished for something THEY did, instead of for something someone else did.

[Archon]

First of all, I didnt say that we should honestly do that, but I did say that it would be better for SOME.

If you think killing people in order to save them from misfortune is a good thing, you're entitled to that opinion, but I'd have to say you're evil.

Don't worry, you arent the first to call me evil. I might be, I really dont know, I am pretty weird in my values system I suppose. Killing someone if you know the road they would travel is worse than death would probably be considered evil by many. But you can't say that it couldnt save someone from a lifetime of misfortunes and pain.

It's ridiculous to assume we know how happy someone's life is going to be in the long run or even the short run.

You don't think that if the father is abusive we can predict how happy that child is going to be for the short term?

If parents are not able to care for their children, they should give them to someone who is able.

True, but how realistic is it that a parent who doesnt care enough to keep the child for themselves is going to work hard enough to find a loving environment for their child? It might happen, but it is far more likely that the baby would end up somewhere worse.

I support the death penalty for people who commit violent crimes, but I don't support the death penalty for innocent children who have commited no crime.

   Don't forget that everybody dies. Everyone will die someday, it is just a matter of how. Therefore, all you would be doing if you killed them before they were fully born would be depriving them of the life they live. If that life is full of pain, strife, and hardship, then it was an act of mercy to keep them from that.

[Peter Ahlstrom]

That's exactly what Satan's plan was before the world was created, to save us from a life full of pain, strife, and hardship. But that's what life IS. A life with no pain, strife, and hardship isn't much of a life at all! That's the stuff that makes us grow and progress as a person. Someone who just has their life handed to them on a platter isn't going to ever grow up.

You say if a father is abusive, save the kid by killing him. I say that's unfairly punishing the kid; punish the person who committed the crime, not the victim. It's far more likely the baby would end up somewhere worse? There are plenty of families today who are trying to adopt kids. However, I do think that not enough attention is given toward teaching parents how to be parents in this society.

But just as abortion is treating the symptom rather than the disease, so is adoption. Unmarried people/people who can't afford children should stop having sex.

[Archon]

Please don't quote the Bible, as I cant follow that well, not having read it. I was referring to a balance abnormally tilted toward negative feelings by the way. I understand very well the concept of balance, I agree that much of life is pain, and without pain we couldnt really know happiness. But some peope do not see as much of the positive as the negative. Some of these people would end up killing themselves anyway. Some wouldnt out of fear or doubt, but would lead a less than fulfilling life, because of the problems they experienced for the early parts of their life.

I say that to kill the child is not a punishment, but an act of mercy. Like I said, they would die someday anyway, killing them early just protects them the painful life that they would live. If a warm, safe home can be found for them, that is awesome. If not, it would be better for them to die early and not have to spend so much time crying. Yes you might deprive them of happiness, you probably will, but the question is, will you protect them from more than you deprive them of? In most, or at least many, cases that abortions take place, I would say yes.