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

Skip to comments.

MSNBC Legal Analyst: Reasoning Behind Roe v. Wade ‘Shaky’
FinkelBlog ^ | Mark Finkelstein

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 has–twice by my count–had the temerity to confound liberal thinking on Joy Reid’s 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:

“Anyone–people 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 penumbra–it glows from the rights of the Constitution, even though it’s not explicitly in the text.”

Get the rest of the story and view the video here.

(Excerpt) Read more at finkelblogger.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; belongsinbloggers; clickbait; dannycevallos; getajob; joyreid; roevwade
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

1 posted on 07/07/2018 9:27:18 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: miss marmelstein; patro; abb; SE Mom; HarleyLady27; connyankee; Behind Liberal Lines; ...

Speaking the truth about Roe? How much longer can Danny Cevallos last at MSNBC?

Ping to Liberal Media Criticism list.


2 posted on 07/07/2018 9:28:12 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

He will get a trial gig on FOX by the end of the month.


3 posted on 07/07/2018 9:30:06 AM PDT by mosaicwolf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: mosaicwolf

Hope you’re right. Having seen him in action a few times, I think he’s a solid guy.


4 posted on 07/07/2018 9:31:51 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


5 posted on 07/07/2018 9:33:14 AM PDT by Jane Long (Praise God, from whom ALL blessings flow.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

“Penumbras and emanations”


6 posted on 07/07/2018 9:36:51 AM PDT by BenLurkin (The above is not a statement of fact. It is either satire or opinion. Or both.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
even though it’s not explicitly in the text.

The right to life is stated explicitly in the companion document, the Declaration.

Even Alan Dershowitz recognizes this truth.

7 posted on 07/07/2018 9:36:57 AM PDT by C210N (Republicans sign check fronts; 'Rats sign check backs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
"...the Supreme Court, even with the substitution of a Trump appointee for Justice Kennedy, is unlikely to overturn it [Roe v. Wade] given the court’s respect for precedent..."

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.

8 posted on 07/07/2018 9:42:52 AM PDT by skimbell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Shaky sometimes wins. Obamacare for example.


9 posted on 07/07/2018 9:44:13 AM PDT by Enterprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Shaking? Has he listened to any democrats speech lately?


10 posted on 07/07/2018 9:45:29 AM PDT by Lee25 (D)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Notice until there is a SC opening up, nobody ever spends much time discussing the merits of Roe v Wade.


11 posted on 07/07/2018 9:46:51 AM PDT by bcr100 (Its)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

If you can call it legal reasoning at all. If you read Roe it’s more about what a good policy Blackmun thought abortion was. Not much legal reasoning.


12 posted on 07/07/2018 9:47:19 AM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest
It was more then "shaky" it was a flat out nonexistent on a logical and legal scale.

The SCOTUS never should have taken the case.

13 posted on 07/07/2018 9:51:36 AM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear ( Bunnies, bunnies, it must be bunnies!! Or maybe midgets....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“Penumbras and emanations”

...

They also like to redefine words when legislating.


14 posted on 07/07/2018 9:58:20 AM PDT by Moonman62 (Give a man a fish and he'll be a Democrat. Teach a man to fish and he'll be a responsible citizen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

Basically there’s two honest people at MSNBC... or at least capable of being honest at times... He’s one of ‘em.


15 posted on 07/07/2018 10:07:04 AM PDT by GOPJ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-IsingvI_I STOP https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-s1_nfs7f4)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


16 posted on 07/07/2018 10:09:31 AM PDT by IndispensableDestiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Blackmun

“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.’”

http://www.post-gazette.com/business/legal/2012/04/16/Stephanie-Dangel-after-stints-in-big-law-relishes-star-role-at-Steeltown-Entertainment-Project/stories/201204160128

Roe v. Wade was 7-2.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade


17 posted on 07/07/2018 10:23:16 AM PDT by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

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.


18 posted on 07/07/2018 10:32:01 AM PDT by ichabod1 (If there is to be war, let it begin here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: governsleastgovernsbest

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.


19 posted on 07/07/2018 10:34:24 AM PDT by jimmygrace
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimmygrace

The truth is if R v W is overturned it doesn’t matter. It goes back to the states. There is not one sate that will ban abortion. It’s just a tool to block true conservatives from the SC.


20 posted on 07/07/2018 10:40:13 AM PDT by gibsonguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-44 next last

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.

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