HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Rubio: Roe v. Wade One Of...

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:45 PM

Rubio: Roe v. Wade One Of The ‘Most Blatant Instances Of Judicial Activism’

Source: TPM



TOM KLUDT 1:12 PM EST, TUESDAY JANUARY 22, 2013

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) issued a statement Tuesday to mark the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, calling the landmark Supreme Court decision on abortion rights "one of America’s most blatant instances of judicial activism that paved the way for the destruction of innocent unborn life."

The statement:

“Today marks the tragic anniversary of one of America’s most blatant instances of judicial activism that paved the way for the destruction of innocent unborn life. Since this decision, tens of millions of our nation’s unborn babies have been denied the chance to celebrate a birthday, begin kindergarten or go on to contribute their God-given talents to our world.

“As a U.S. senator, I am privileged to serve in a position that allows me to fight for the lives of the unborn. I will continue to fulfill my duty to fight to reduce the number of abortions. As with many of our nation’s most important debates, the battlefield of this issue is in the hearts and minds of the American electorate, and I pray that we can one day live in a society that fully cherishes every life from conception until death.”


Two separate polls released in the last week — one by NBC News and the Wall Street Journal and the other by Pew Research Center — indicated that Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to Roe being overturned.

-30-



Read more: http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/rubio-roe-v-wade-one-of-most-blatant

33 replies, 3633 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 33 replies Author Time Post
Reply Rubio: Roe v. Wade One Of The ‘Most Blatant Instances Of Judicial Activism’ (Original post)
DonViejo Jan 2013 OP
atreides1 Jan 2013 #1
Crow73 Jan 2013 #2
Zambero Jan 2013 #14
Dont call me Shirley Jan 2013 #3
secondvariety Jan 2013 #4
DhhD Jan 2013 #18
BlueStater Jan 2013 #5
awoke_in_2003 Jan 2013 #25
Socal31 Jan 2013 #27
AlbertCat Jan 2013 #6
BlueJazz Jan 2013 #7
LeftinOH Jan 2013 #8
Zambero Jan 2013 #17
onenote Jan 2013 #9
davidpdx Jan 2013 #26
SoapBox Jan 2013 #10
no_hypocrisy Jan 2013 #11
happyslug Jan 2013 #19
broadcaster75201 Jan 2013 #12
Deep13 Jan 2013 #13
geomon666 Jan 2013 #15
The CCC Jan 2013 #16
Judi Lynn Jan 2013 #32
libdem4life Jan 2013 #20
Blanks Jan 2013 #21
happyslug Jan 2013 #22
quakerboy Jan 2013 #23
MichiganVote Jan 2013 #24
Morganfleeman Jan 2013 #28
sinkingfeeling Jan 2013 #29
Dustlawyer Jan 2013 #30
HangOnKids Jan 2013 #33
Javaman Jan 2013 #31

Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:49 PM

1. Same shit different assbag...

Willing to fight for the unborn and then throw those children out into the street with no support system...that's the Republican way!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:49 PM

2. 2016

 

What happen to changing the way in which they deliver the rape is a gift from Jesus thingy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crow73 (Reply #2)


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:52 PM

3. STFU Rubio. You are not a woman, you have no right to make judgements about a woman's situation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:54 PM

4. But he's ok with Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to secondvariety (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:28 PM

18. MoveToAmend.org is a site and internet petition to end Citizens United.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:55 PM

5. I'd like to see this fucktard be forced to pass a baby through his peehole. N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BlueStater (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:15 PM

25. How long before they decide...

that sperm constitutes a life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to awoke_in_2003 (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:20 AM

27. There would be many-a tube-sock wanted for murder from my youth if that were the case.

n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:56 PM

6. "Since this decision, tens of millions of our nation’s ....."

... active vital women have gotten safe abortions and not died from dangerous "back alley" ones.


.... unwanted children have been spared neglect, short (and long) miserable lives and unfit parents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:56 PM

7. Mark Rubio is one of those people that truly think he has special knowledge into..

...the workings of the world. He's ignorant of so many things in life he deserves to have his picture on Wikipedia as a spokesman for the
Dunning–Kruger effect.


From Wikipedia: The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 04:59 PM

8. Pandering for 2016. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:25 PM

17. Indeed he is pandering

With anti-choice rhetoric, Rubio and others ilke him might well score some ideological points in the 2016 primary contests, but in espousing this extreme position it would come back to haunt him as a surefire nail in his coffin come general election time. Perhaps Rubio could hire on Murdock and that other idiot loser from Missouri, as consultants?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:00 PM

9. I wonder what other decisions Rubio thinks were blatant intances of Judicial activism

Griswold v. Connecticut?
Brown v. Board of Education?
Miranda v. Arizona?
Gideon v. Wainwright?


And which ones weren't judicial activism in his view:

Citizens United?
Bush v. Gore?



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #9)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:12 AM

26. The last two are prime examples of judicial activism

By Republicans

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:02 PM

10. Once an asshole...always an asshole.

STFU Rube...

and get your DICTATORSHIP SNOUT out of a woman's crotch.

ALWAYS wanting to tell a woman what she can and WILL do with HER body.

STFU!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:07 PM

11. Since when has the right to privacy been judicial activism?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to no_hypocrisy (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:46 PM

19. Since Griswald v Connecticut first made up the "Right to privacy"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut

The Actual Case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZO.html


Hugo Black's dissent:
MR. JUSTICE BLACK, with whom MR. JUSTICE STEWART joins, dissenting.

I agree with my Brother STEWART's dissenting opinion. And, like him, I do not to any extent whatever base my view that this Connecticut law is constitutional on a belief that the law is wise, or that its policy is a good one. In order that there may be no room at all to doubt why I vote as I do, I feel constrained to add that the law is every bit as offensive to me as it is to my Brethren of the majority and my Brothers HARLAN, WHITE and GOLDBERG, who, reciting reasons why it is offensive to them, hold it unconstitutional. There is no single one of the graphic and eloquent strictures and criticisms fired at the policy of this Connecticut law either by the Court's opinion or by those of my concurring Brethren to which I cannot subscribe -- except their conclusion that the evil qualities they see in the law make it unconstitutional.....

I repeat, so as not to be misunderstood, that this Court does have power, which it should exercise, to hold laws unconstitutional where they are forbidden by the Federal Constitution. My point is that there is no provision of the Constitution which either expressly or impliedly vests power in this Court to sit as a supervisory agency over acts of duly constituted legislative bodies and set aside their laws because of the Court's belief that the legislative policies adopted are unreasonable, unwise, arbitrary, capricious or irrational. The adoption of such a loose flexible. uncontrolled standard for holding laws unconstitutional, if ever it is finally achieved, will amount to a great unconstitutional shift of power to the courts which I believe and am constrained to say will be bad for the courts, and worse for the country. Subjecting federal and state laws to such an unrestrained and unrestrainable judicial control as to the wisdom of legislative enactments would, I fear, jeopardize the separation of governmental powers that the Framers set up, and, at the same time, threaten to take away much of the power of States to govern themselves which the Constitution plainly intended them to have......

I realize that many good and able men have eloquently spoken and written, sometimes in rhapsodical strains, about the duty of this Court to keep the Constitution in tune with the times. The idea is that the Constitution must be changed from time to time, and that this Court is charged with a duty to make those changes. For myself, I must, with all deference, reject that philosophy. The Constitution makers knew the need for change, and provided for it. Amendments suggested by the people's elected representatives can be submitted to the people or their selected agents for ratification. That method of change was good for our Fathers, and, being somewhat old-fashioned, I must add it is good enough for me. And so I cannot rely on the Due Process Clause or the Ninth Amendment or any mysterious and uncertain natural law concept as a reason for striking down this state law. The Due Process Clause, with an "arbitrary and capricious" or "shocking to the conscience" formula, was liberally used by this Court to strike down economic legislation in the early decades of this century, threatening, many people thought, the tranquility and stability of the Nation. See, e.g., Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45. That formula, based on subjective considerations of "natural justice," is no less dangerous when used to enforce this Court's views about personal rights than those about economic rights. I had thought that we had laid that formula, as a means for striking down state legislation, to rest once and for all in cases like West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U.S. 379; Olsen v. Nebraska ex rel. Western Reference & Bond Assn., 313 U.S. 236, and many other opinions. See also Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, 74 (Holmes, J., dissenting).

In Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U.S. 726, 730, this Court two years ago said, in an opinion joined by all the Justices but one, that

The doctrine that prevailed in Lochner, Coppage, Adkins, Burns, and like cases -- that due process authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely -- has long since been discarded. We have returned to the original constitutional proposition that courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies, who are elected to pass laws.

And only six weeks ago, without even bothering to hear argument, this Court overruled Tyson & Brother v. Banton, 273 U.S. 418, which had held state laws regulating ticket brokers to be a denial of due process of law. Gold v. DiCarlo, 380 U.S. 520. I find April's holding hard to square with what my concurring Brethren urge today. They would reinstate the Lochner, Coppage, Adkins, Burns line of cases, cases from which this Court recoiled after the 1930's, and which had been, I thought, totally discredited until now. Apparently my Brethren have less quarrel with state economic regulations than former Justices of their persuasion had. But any limitation upon their using the natural law due process philosophy to strike down any state law, dealing with any activity whatever, will obviously be only self-imposed.......

The late Judge Learned Hand, after emphasizing his view that judges should not use the due process formula suggested in the concurring opinions today or any other formula like it to invalidate legislation offensive to their "personal preferences," made the statement, with which I fully agree, that:

For myself, it would be most irksome to be ruled by a bevy of Platonic Guardians, even if I knew how to choose them, which I assuredly do not.

So far as I am concerned, Connecticut's law, as applied here, is not forbidden by any provision of the Federal Constitution as that Constitution was written, and I would therefore affirm.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0381_0479_ZD.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:17 PM

12. So?

That is what Courts are SUPPOSED to do (said the lawyer). Marbury v. Madison.

Sick to death of that stupid-ass meme.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:18 PM

13. No, not really.

Blatant examples include Citizens United, Bush v. Gore, Lochner vs. NY (1905), and Dredd Scott.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:22 PM

15. And just like that...

His candidacy is over. Thanks for playing Marky.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 05:23 PM

16. Rubio: Roe v. Wade One Of The ‘Most Blatant Instances Of Judicial Activism’

Poor stupid rube. He can't seem to remember when his parents fled Cuba. Was it under the Batista or under Castro?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The CCC (Reply #16)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:11 AM

32. How could someone "forget" something like that?

His parents "fled" Cuba before fleeing Cuba was cool, and entitled the "fleer" to a large "moving in" assortment of benefits, not available to any other U.S. residents through the Cuban Adjustment Act: instant legal status (no immigration agents chasing them around), instant social security, instant access to U.S. taxpayer-derived Section 8 Housing, welfare, instant access to free medical care, food stamps, financial assistance for education, etc., etc., etc.

Disgusting, twisted little clown. All his claims of "fleeing communism" are bogus.

Welcome to D.U. CCC.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:08 PM

20. I thought him more intelligent than to pick a street fight with "The View". Fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:13 PM

21. Watch Rubio on 'The Daily Show' if you want to see...

the deer in the headlights look.

Rubio was talking about immigration and John Stewart asked him if he noticed that conservatives often seem very informed about the 'issue' that they are passionate about; while being completely uninformed on a lot of other important issues (I'm paraphrasing badly) but Rubio had no idea what he was even talking about.

John Stewart just had to move on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:29 PM

22. Supreme Court Justice Ginsberg also believe Roe vs Wade was Judicial Activism.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1583

Now, Ginsberg also believe Roe vs Wade was correctly decided, but did argue that the timing of the decision was bad. The timing was bad for the Decision stopped in its track the then ongoing reform of abortion laws that was occurring in the US, but striking down all of them. Roe vs Wade also united the opposition to Abortion, given the broad nature of Roe vs Wade, those people who had supported limited reform of abortion law, either had to accept no restrictions on abortion (except in the last trimester) or support those people who opposed all abortions. Many supporters of reform ended up opposing abortions. Thus the huge opposition to abortion we have in the US at the present time. In many way Ginsberg saw this, she accepts it today, but has commented that Roe vs Wade was Judicial Activism that has come back to haunt the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:46 PM

23. Hes not completely wrong

I would say it has been one of the most influential cases of judicial activism.

Its funny how everyone's against judicial activism except when its for them. Im no different. I support RvW, but I sure as hell am offended by citizens united, or the GWB selection, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:54 PM

24. So says another man. Yawn.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 03:50 AM

28. It was judicial activism

When I went to lawschool, even my extremely liberal Con Law professor suggested it was judicial activism. The logic of the decision wasstrained. It's rooted in the "penumbras and emanations" of various portions of the Bill of Rights. When you rely on "penumbras and emanations" of a specific text, you're reaching. I agree with the result, but the logic was rather tortured.

Notwithstanding, Brown v. Board was judicial activism and that gave us desegregation, another good result.

On the flipside, conservatives have given us judicial activism in the form of decisions like Lochner v. New York, DC vs Heller, U.S. v Lopez, and Citizens United, all absolutely terrible decisions.

I'm rather tired of conservatives claiming the mantle of jurisprudential purity by suggesting only liberal judges engage in legislating from the bench. Both sides do it. Though when liberals do it, they defend the vulnerable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:40 AM

29. Yeah, and 70% of the population want Roe vs. Wade to stand. Get over it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:06 AM

30. It's only Judicial Activism when they don't like the result. When they do it (happens all of the

time, see Citizens United) it "was the right thing to do!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dustlawyer (Reply #30)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:22 AM

33. Yes! I Say This In my Head EVERY Time One Of These Shit Weasels Utters The Judicial Activism Meme

 

The RWers are just so pathetically obvious. My late Nan used to call that behavior "empty suit farting."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DonViejo (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:57 AM

31. What's truly remarkable about halfwits such as rubio is that it's blatantly clear...

they never actually read the law or had and still choose to be a colossal assholes.

Yes, it is about a womans right to decide what she wants to do with her own body, but more so, the entire concept of the law is to create an equality between sexes. Where as a man can impregnate a woman, be a jerk and walk away, washing his hands from any responsibility thus leaving the poor woman with the sole financial and emotional burden to raise the child on her own, the law allows a leveling of the playing field where a woman can take control over her own body and decide for herself if what she wants to do with her own pregnancy and her life. The implications of this law is so far reaching for womans rights and equality that it's hard to properly put in context.

The horrible thing now is how the reason and wording for the law has been so completely bastardized across the right wing spectrum and essentially changed, in the public forum, from the original intent that is has been now completely lost by the masses and especially the right wing morons who had never read the law in the first place and choose instead to follow the lead of right wing religious leaders, politicians and special interest groups to dictate to them what it means.

This is why I truly hate right wing "pro-life" sanctimonious morons.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread