Skip to comments.MSNBC Legal Analyst: Reasoning Behind Roe v. Wade ‘Shaky’
Posted on 07/07/2018 9:27:18 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Could Danny Cevallos days at MSNBC be numbered? The question arises because he hastwice by my counthad the temerity to confound liberal thinking on Joy Reids show.
Back in February, we noted Cevallos gently explaining to Reid that her suggestion that payments to Stormy Daniels and Karen McDougal could be bribes was wrong.
If that was a gutsy thing for Cevallos to do, he took things a giant step further today. For many liberals, abortion is the ultimate issue, and Roe v. Wade the sacred cow. But Cevallos had the audacity to flatly assert:
Anyonepeople on both sides would agree that the reasoning behind Roe, it stands on shaky ground. It rests on the idea that the right to privacy inherent in an abortion emanates from the penumbrait glows from the rights of the Constitution, even though its not explicitly in the text.
Get the rest of the story and view the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblogger.com ...
Speaking the truth about Roe? How much longer can Danny Cevallos last at MSNBC?
Ping to Liberal Media Criticism list.
He will get a trial gig on FOX by the end of the month.
Hope you’re right. Having seen him in action a few times, I think he’s a solid guy.
I am shocked!!
I pray that the Alveda King/Jon Voight production of Roe v Wade is released before the midterms.
It covers the ‘shaky’ reasoning the ruling was based on, as well as the first black female to graduate from Harvard. Who also happened to be the founder of the modern day ProLife movement.
“Penumbras and emanations”
The right to life is stated explicitly in the companion document, the Declaration.
Even Alan Dershowitz recognizes this truth.
The left doesn't seem to pay much attention to all of this "precedent" chit when they are going after the 2A.
If Roe is safe owing to "precedence" emanating from a tortured reading of the 14th and 4th amendments, the 2A ought to be dam near untouchable owing to the fact that it is expressly and definitively written into the constitution.
Shaky sometimes wins. Obamacare for example.
Shaking? Has he listened to any democrats speech lately?
Notice until there is a SC opening up, nobody ever spends much time discussing the merits of Roe v Wade.
If you can call it legal reasoning at all. If you read Roe its more about what a good policy Blackmun thought abortion was. Not much legal reasoning.
The SCOTUS never should have taken the case.
Penumbras and emanations
They also like to redefine words when legislating.
Basically there’s two honest people at MSNBC... or at least capable of being honest at times... He’s one of ‘em.
A privacy right “emanating” from the penumbra does not originate in Roe v. Wade. It comes from Griswold v. Connecticut on contraceptives, the writing of Justice Douglas. But Griswold should have been settled on the 9th amendment alone.
The Supreme Court basically goes by Planned Parenthood v. Casey , 505 U.S. 833 (1992), nowadays.
“Blackmun has been noted for the fact that compared to other Justices on the Supreme Court, he had let his law clerks utilize great latitude as far as writing opinions for him, such as his opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which was written by Stephanie Dangel, now a lawyer in Pennsylvania.”
“Ms. Dangel recalled working a minimum 12 hours a day, seven days a week while researching and writing opinions for the Casey case and others. ‘It was a very tense time and a very important decision. ... It was a 5-4 decision, so we knew one vote would change everything.’”
Roe v. Wade was 7-2.
Declaration is not a legal document. It’s a political document. We live under the constitution, the whole constitution, and nothing but the constitution, theoretically.
The thing that I have not seen discussed is that if Roe v Wade were invalidated, abortion in big cities run by democrats would be a lot less restrictive.
The truth is if R v W is overturned it doesnt matter. It goes back to the states. There is not one sate that will ban abortion. Its just a tool to block true conservatives from the SC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.