Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Hostage; blue-duncan; wmfights; Forest Keeper; wagglebee
Are you a lawyer?

I am a frustrated Rock Musician who spends my days working as an attorney.

Justices have said they may review Roe. If that is the case they would not want to bring up Griswold in this case because it may compromise a later review of Roe.

If Roe is constitutional then the Health Care legislation (which puts the government between the citizen and his physician) is unconstitutional.

I would prefer that the argument be limited to the "right to be left alone" as enunciated in Griswold and not use Roe as a wedge to overturn this health care monstrosity.

Roe touches on additional issues of protecting those least capable of protecting themselves, i.e., the unborn or the almost born. The issue in Roe is effectively when the rights of the unborn are vested (a subject that the Supreme Court evaded in the decision).

24 posted on 03/24/2010 2:16:30 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (LPFOKETT GAHCOEEP-w/o*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]


To: P-Marlowe

Thank you. Roe is different in that it harms the unborn whereas Griswold does not. Good distinction.

So you think Griswold can stand on its own against Obamacare and not have impact on a review of Roe?

What instrument frustrated you? Or what in Rock frustrate you. I am a songwriter with a couple of pieces before Alison Krauss’ people.


30 posted on 03/24/2010 2:22:54 PM PDT by Hostage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe

Could an amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit the Government from making ANY medical decisions for citizens be effective?


41 posted on 03/24/2010 2:57:24 PM PDT by Reagan69 (WHEN THEY COME FOR YOUR GUNS, GIVE THEM THE AMMO FIRST.!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe

Thank you for your explanation on why Griswold is applicable. However, wasn’t Roe used in the Washington State case regarding the right to commit suicide?


50 posted on 03/24/2010 3:23:57 PM PDT by Lobbyist (capitalist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe; Hostage; blue-duncan; wmfights; wagglebee
I would prefer that the argument be limited to the "right to be left alone" as enunciated in Griswold and not use Roe as a wedge to overturn this health care monstrosity. Roe touches on additional issues of protecting those least capable of protecting themselves, i.e., the unborn or the almost born. The issue in Roe is effectively when the rights of the unborn are vested (a subject that the Supreme Court evaded in the decision).

Yep, I fully agree. Griswold is the better sword. Normally I would worry that even if we won here they could just end run us with a new tax-entitlement scheme and put all of it under the taxing power. But, now we have Brown in Mass. so they can't keep trying new tricks. It's this or start over. Nice job putting this together, Marlowe.

77 posted on 03/24/2010 10:47:32 PM PDT by Forest Keeper ((It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

To: P-Marlowe

“The issue in Roe is effectively when the rights of the unborn are vested (a subject that the Supreme Court evaded in the decision).”

Along with deciding whether or not the thing in utero, the thing that could, before birth, inherit and be murdered by other than his mother, was a PERSON. Absolutely incomprehensible decision on multiple levels.

And Griswold wasn’t a whole lot better, a natural precusor to dozens of judicial legislations. And—oddly or not so oddly, on the heels of the demise of the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities (another Democrat triumph).


96 posted on 03/25/2010 12:42:39 PM PDT by Mach9 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson