Remind Me Not to Move to South Dakota...

Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Wouldn't you just love to live in South Dakota? Later this month, a law goes into effect there that will require doctors who work in the one abortion clinic in the state to tell women who are seeking an abortion: "'the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,' and that they have 'an existing relationship with that unborn human being' that is constitutionally protected. (What does the constitutionally protected part mean? Who knows.) In addition, doctors are ordered to describe 'all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors,' including 'depression and related psychological distress' and 'increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.'"

LOVELY.

While I am deeply ambivalent on the topic of abortion, I have to say that mincing the language between "fetus as person," which the SCOTUS determined was not the case in Roe v Wade, and "fetus as human being" is disingenuous, at best. Additionally, forcing physicians to make statements to their patients that they obviously don't believe to be true is an abrogation of their First Amendment rights. If a doctor actually believed that statement, would they actually work in an abortion clinic in the first place?

I believe my reproductive freedom is the cornerstone of my ability to be an equal and contributing citizen. So while I think that sex education and affordable birth control are the real cornerstones of that ability, I also believe abortions should be safe, legal and rare.

Why does this law leave the same taste in my mouth as that retarded "Academic Freedom" law in Louisiana?

40 comments:

Cindi in CO said...

When I think about abortion, I always consider the line from Cider House Rules, when the Doctor tells his apprentice, regarding the performance of the procedure, that, "You don't have a choice, because they don't have a choice."

I love John Irving.

John the Scientist said...

Maybe, just maybe, if they raised their daughters to respect and protect themselves, the number of abortions in the state would go down a lot more than it will after this piece of dipshittery was passed.

Nathan said...

In addition, doctors are ordered to describe 'all known medical risks of the procedure and statistically significant risk factors,' including 'depression and related psychological distress' and 'increased risk of suicide ideation and suicide.'"

To the degree that this statement is true, I have no problem with doctors describing the medical risk factors. I would like to know if the psychological effects described have been documented. The first part of the described law is complete asshatery. And based on your description that there's only one place to get an abortion in the entire state, I suspect a lot of women are visiting neighboring states already anyway.

It occurs to me that the previous sentences don't really flow, one to another very well.

Tough.

Janiece Murphy said...

Nathan, based on my (admittedly limited) reading on this, the causation between abortion and suicide has not been documented or proven. Which I believe is called "Faulty Causality" in logical circles.

And yes, dipshittery is an accurate description.

What really kills me is that these are the same asshats who advocate "abstinence only" sex education programs.

Yeah. Great choice, you retard.

John the Scientist said...

"Which I believe is called "Faulty Causality" in logical circles."

Well, medicine isn't totally logical because of the "first do no harm" oath. In a drug trial ALL adverse events are assumed to be drug related. Hence the silliness when you rad lists of side effects in the package insert. Every drug has stuff such as nausea and headache in their label. These maladies happen in the non-drug taking population, too, and probably are due to chance, but good old Hippocrates reaquires us to assume those things are treatment-related.

Having been through one abortion at the side of my spouse (the fetus was most likely already dead), I can say that only the hardest of hearts would not be depressed for a while. So I've got no problem with that particular wording as an antidote to the extreme partisans on the other side who want to violate your "rare" rule by insisting it's no different from getting a boil lanced.

But that "Constitutionally protected" dipshittery has got to go. Now.

Janiece Murphy said...

John, you'll note my comment was limited to the "abortion/suicide" causation, not the "abortion/depression" causation.

Because the latter has been clinically proven, and the former has not.

Enacting a law based on an unproven hypothesis is also dipshittery in my book.

John the Scientist said...

Ah. But the link between depression and suicide has been proven, so we might be dancing around two ends of a logical chain.

What's left unsaid for the listener to infer is that "depresion" is full-blown clinical, takin' Prozac depression, versus a normal period of grief that's going to last for a while.

But I can live with that little bit of chicanery. The questions about legality are not legit, though. "Constitutionally protected" is a deliberate distortion of the law as it stands.

Random Michelle K said...

Depression and grief are two entirely different things.

Grief is sadness that has a source and a cause.

Depression is sadness without source or cause.

Grief *can* lead to depression, when an individual is unable to move on, but the two should not be equated.

Janiece Murphy said...

Thanks, Michelle. An important distinction.

I think the other issue here is the incredible arrogance of this. "Make sure you consider the consequences of your actions, boys and girls, before you make a choice."

No shit. Really?

I think a case could be made that the majority of women who seek an abortion have considered the consequences.

And there are a lot of perfectly legal potential choices in this world that can lead to negative emotional results. Are we going to legislate all of them? No, we're not. Only the ones that pertain to abortion, because it's part of a larger plan to slowly eliminate the availability of abortion without actually making it illegal.

Sorry. I find this strategy dishonest and paternalistic. Since self-determination is something I feel very strongly about, it yanks my chain.

/rant

John the Scientist said...

""Make sure you consider the consequences of your actions, boys and girls, before you make a choice.""

The government does this all OVER the place, not just here. Warnings on cigarette packs, set belt laws, helmet laws (which I oppose on Darwinistic thinning of the herd principles), etc.


But this example is egregiously paternalistic. However, I find the glossing over of the potential side effects by the hard-core pro-choice crowd just as offensive.

That is why we need a third party in this country. There is a sociological law that says that extremists push out moderates when everyone is on the same basic page. It happened with the Bolsheviks pushing out the Mensheviks, and it's happening in the Democratic Party (MoveOn) and it's already happened in the Republican party with the religious right.

There must be a way to require a careful consideration of the risks (which a large number of the Planned Parenthood types DO gloss over) and benefits without waxing moralistic.

But neither party is going to allow THAT to happen. Reasonable people are being squeezed out of the political process.

Janiece Murphy said...

Militant fire-breathers on either side of an issue get on my damn nerves.

I'm a small "l" libertarian in some ways, but I don't think that qualifies as a third party...

The Mechanicky Gal said...

Any correlation between the abortion and the EXTREME RELIEF that a: it is over, b: it was SAFE, or c: you are not doomed by a failure of your/his birth control method of choice or a moment of poor decision?
I'm just curious.
Iffn you don't think abortion is something for you, don't have one. Don't have a uterus? Than don't stick your dick where the consequences may be unpleasant. And try and talk sense to a teen who is invincible? Best of luck to you on that one.

Cindi in CO said...

You know what Amy? I like you.

The Mechanicky Gal said...

Thanks!

Twitchard said...

Oh my goodness.

We can't have doctors telling pregnant women that their fetus is a human being, now can we? I was under the impression that when a woman becomes pregnant, it was with a cow, or a turtle, or some other sort of animal. How dare they force the doctor to tell the nasty lie to them that is is a human being? And how dare they force these poor doctors into telling their patients that their baby is 'living'. Never mind that unborn babies exhibit all six scientific properties of life, this outrage is still a horrendous lie!

We know for sure it's a lie because the SCOTUS said it was. Just like the SCOTUS told us in 1857 in Dred Scott vs. Sandford, when they told us that it was also a lie that Black people counted as citizens.

So, yes, I think I will remind you not to move to South Dakota. Living there myself, I can reassure you that wherever you are living now is close enough.

Janiece Murphy said...

Twitchard, if you can't abide by the posting rules on my blog, then feel free to stay in South Dakota with the rest of the folks who don't understand what "rule of law" and "Constitutional right to privacy" means.

Or you can just fuck off. Your choice.

Random Michelle K said...

Take B! Take choice B!

Cindi in CO said...

What Michelle said! B! B! B!

And one more thing, young man.

It's real easy to protest abortion when you don't have a uterus, mister.

The Mechanicky Gal said...

Yes, by all measn choose choice B! See, we're all about you having a choice! And I will trust you to never stick your dick somewhere where a pregnancy could result. Because really, abstinance IS the best course, isn't it?
The whole ABORTION thing is this: Make sure you prctice what you preach (No sex outside of procreation, adopt those unwanted bebehs, no matter what the potential problems) and keep your ligislation off of someone's else's body. Are you overweight? I am SURE you would be all up in arms if someone told you that they were going to legislate what and how much you eat. Hmmmm?

The Mechanicky Gal said...

Oh, and 1 more thing. Maybe the educational system in South Dakota is a bit lax, but WOMEN KNOW THAT THEY HAVE A BABY GROWING IN THEM.
DUH. Self-righteous asshat.

Twitchard said...

Oh, I think I vaguely have heard of 'constitutional right to privacy'.
Isn't that one of those mythological beasts like dragons and unicorns, that people talk about sometimes but don't actually exist? It must be--the word 'privacy' does not appear ANYWHERE in the constitution. There is no such thing as a 'consitutional right to privacy'. It is a myth.

And even if we did live in the fairy land of myth and legend where such a right existed, I still wouldn't understand how a 'right to privacy' would translate into a 'right not to be told or have to tell people that the baby inside of them is a human being'.

But, gladly, I don't live in the fairy land of myth and legend. I live in South Dakota, inside the United States of America, a land dedicated to the self-evident truths

"that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Fortunately South Dakota is more concerned about protecting the true and real unalienable right to life than about this legendary 'right' to privacy.

Random Michelle K said...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The land where I live contains the 4th Amendment to the Constitution.

Funny. I thought they had the same Constitution in South Dakota.

Random Michelle K said...

And by the way, you were quoting the Declaration of Independence, not he Constitution.

One is a legal document that governs the law of the land.

The other is something more akin to Martin Luther's 99 Theses.

Please learn to tell the difference betwixt the two.

Random Michelle K said...

Post Script:

If you continue to act like an asshole, we'll continue to treat you like one.

Twitchard said...

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,"

Where do you see "privacy" in there? If the founding fathers had wanted a right to privacy, they would have said "no law shall be made violating the citizen's right to privacy". . .

The fourth amendment against search and seizures is exactly that---an amendment against search in seizures. Not some bizarre creation of some 'right to privacy'.

Though now that you mention it, I think the third National Treasure movie is going to feature Ben Gates on a quest to find the long-lost, legendary Right to Privacy. Maybe it's buried underneath Mount Rushmore here in South Dakota!

And by the way, the Constitution is the foundation for the way our country operates, but the Declaration of Indepedence is part of the foundation for the principles on which our country stands. The Constitution says what is legal or illegal; the Declaration what is right or wrong.

Oh I'm sorry for 'being an a-hole'. I didn't know that 'a-hole' was synonymous to 'anybody who disagrees with you'.

Janiece Murphy said...

Twitchard, please refrain from turning this thread into a debate on whether or not abortion is "right" or "wrong."

If you had read the thread (and the responses) you will have noted that whether or not abortion is "right" or "wrong" was not an issue - the issue is whether or not the new law in South Dakota is Constitutional under our current case law.

Because contrary to your opinion, I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence has no legal standing in our system of Jurisprudence (Eric, feel free to smack me down if I'm full of crapola on that one).

(Note to Twitchard: For your reference, Eric is an attorney, which makes him eminently more qualified to address that question than anyone else around here, including you.)

If I wanted to discuss the moral ramifications of abortion I would of linked to this discussion or this one, both of which were conducted civilly, maturely and with the least amount of recrimination possible under the circumstances. Since this is my blog, I get to determine the topic at hand on the various discussion threads, not you. If you wish to discuss the moral ramifications of South Dakota's law, feel free to do so on your own space. I am going to have to insist you respect mine.

I think you'll find that within this community, the fact that you don't agree with me does not make you an asshole. There is a diversity of opinion among the regulars here, including pro-choice, pro-life, Christian, atheist, agnostic and everything in between. Some of my regulars think I'm a foul-mouthed heathen destined for an eternity of hell-fire. That's okay with me - it's their opinion, and as long as they're respectful of me, and I am respectful of them, then it's all good.

And there lies the crux of the problem. If you wish to post a dissenting view, please do so following my posting rules. Which means being respectful. Because around here, acting like an asshole does make you an asshole. We live by the motto, "when people show you who they are, believe them."

So I will trust that further discourse on this topic will return to the respect and civility we've all come to enjoy.

Otherwise, I'll get out the Shovel of Doom™ and start swinging.

Are we all clear?

Janiece Murphy said...

Now that we've reset the bar for civil behavior around here, I would like to address the "Right to Privacy" issue (without the snark).

The SCOTUS Roe v Wade decision determined that laws against abortion violated a constitutional right to privacy under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That makes the concept, real, legal, and enforceable under our current law, whether or not an individual agrees with it or not.

Please defend your position that your believe this legal position to be "mythical."

Also please note that we are talking about current case law, not the dreams or wishes of activists on either side of the issue.

Random Michelle K said...

Sorry for the long quote:

The principles laid down in this opinion affect the very essence of constitutional liberty and security. They reach farther than the concrete form of the case there before the court, with its adventitious circumstances; they apply to all invasions on the part of the Government and its employes of the sanctities of a man's home and the privacies of life. It is not the breaking of his doors, and the rummaging of his drawers, that constitutes the essence of the offence; but it is the invasion of his indefeasible right of personal security, personal liberty and private property, where that right has never been forfeited by his conviction of some public offence...The protection guaranteed by the Amendments is much broader in scope. The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings, and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found in material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone -- the most comprehensive of rights, and the right most valued by civilized men. To protect that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the Government upon the privacy of the individual, whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment. And the use, as evidence in a criminal proceeding, of facts ascertained by such intrusion must be deemed a violation of the Fifth. -- Justice Louis Brandeis

The 4th Amendment defines our right to privacy. The development of laws like HIPAA serve only to strengthen the ideal that the security of our persons includes personal information about our persons.

Janiece Murphy said...

No problem, Michelle.

twitchard, please defend your position that you believe the Constutional right to privacy is "mythical" in light of the evidence prsented, both the 4th and 14th Amendment.

Twitchard said...

First of all, even though it's not really important (the truths are, after all, self-evident) when it comes to things like court decisions the Declaration, or even things far more obscure than the Declaration, are very admissible. Take, for example, Supreme court decisions that deal with 'separation of church and state'. The phrase 'wall of separation between church and state' does not appear in the Constitution, nor the Bill of Rights, but in a private letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to some pastor. I cannot imagine that a private letter would be grounds for a supreme court decision but yet the Declaration, a public letter, would not.

Random Michelle, that long quote you have there is an excellent example of what is known as 'judicial activism'. The supreme courts function is, as clearly stated in the constitution, to interpret the constitution and decide when it has been violated. The supreme courts function is NOT to extend the constitution and invent new rights. But yet, that is what happened.

When the constitution grants "protection against unreasonable searches and seizure", and then the supreme court somehow manages to 'interpret' that as a "right to kill your baby", it is obvious that they are no longer interpreting the constitution, and instead extending the constitution.

The supreme court has said that there is a right to privacy. However the constitution does not. Therefore the 'constitutional right to privacy' is a myth.

One last thing, I'd like to take back the comment about reminding you not to move to South Dakota--we need all the people here we can get.

Random Michelle K said...

You're thinking of Common Law. I do not believe the Declaration qualifies as Common Law, which stretches back to before the Magna Carta.

The letters of Thomas Jefferson are of great use to constitutional scholars, however, because as the individual who wrote the Constitution, his letters, as well as the letters of Adams and the other founders, help us to clarify what they meant in particular phrases. They are *not* law, however, they tells us what Jefferson and others were thinking when they created the Constitution.

Hasn't the "judicial activism" trope gone cold yet?

The constitution is a living document, and the Supreme Court exists to define those laws and relate them to a modern age. The world in which we live was unimagined by the founding fathers. They could not have created rules for things wire taps because such a thing was beyond their ken.

The Constitution must exist to interpret a document written two hundred years ago, so it can be applied to the modern day and age.

Additionally, I note that it is only "judicial activism" when a ruling goes against a conservative stand point.

I haven't heard many cries about "judicial activism" when the SC decided to overturn the DC gun ban. A ruling with which I agree, BTW, but that doesn't change the fact that this exactly the same kind of "judicial activism" about which conservatives scream whenever a case doesn't go their way.

Judicial activism is a necessary part of the American legal system, for it is the only way that change can be affected and modern laws can be enacted.

Judicial activism has helped to give us Civil rights, and is continuing to make sure Civil Rights are given to all Americans, not just Protestant White males.

The Constitution is a living document, and as such must change with time. Because I for one, do not want to live in the world of 200 or 400 years ago.

Janiece Murphy said...

twitchard, last warning: This is not a discussion about the moral ramifications of abortion. Watch the "kill the baby" references. Your attempt to polarize the discussion will not be tolerated.

You've also failed to defend your position. The Constitutional right to privacy is not a myth. It is established case law, currently in force in this country. The most you can assert is that you disagree with the interpretation of SCOTUS in this case, and provide backup material to support your position. You cannot wish it away based on your personal opinion. Reality's a bitch that way.

I note that you fail to address SCOTUS' interpretation of the 14th amendment also providing a right to privacy. Is that because you previously noted the immorality of the Dred Scott v Sanford decision? After all, the 14th Amendment overturned that decision (rightfully so), but it also allows women the right to an abortion.

"Judicial activism" is just a buzzword that allows neocons to retain the status quo (or their version of the status quo). It's semantically null, and its widespread use by Rush Limbaugh and other talking heads limits its usefulness in mature discussion. It's also an unethical position to deny its place our judiciary. See Brown v The Board of Education for an example.

Your assertion that the Supreme Court's job is not to "invent new rights" is incomplete. One of the Supreme Court's jobs is to interpret the Constitution, which in fact means interpreting our rights in a modern context. Not to invent new rights, but to interpret them. Its other job is to make case law. The concept of case law is well established in our judiciary. I recommend A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law by Antonin Scalia for a basic tutorial.

Case law, and to use your term, "judicial activism," is necessary to apply the Bill of Rights to our modern society. Under your credo, my electronic communication should be open to the government, for them to spy on me at any time, simply because the founding fathers did not specifically address it. The fact that the technology was centuries away from realization when the Bill of Rights was written makes such intrepration neccesary. Do you really want a literal interpretation? If so, I suggest you time warp yourself to the past, because that's where that attitude belongs (with all due respect to Judge Bork).

My belief is that the Constitution must be a living document, open to interpretation based on modern life and technologies. Because my right to privacy is currently protected by the Constitution. It's the Rule of Law, and the Constituation and the case law built on it is not written on an etch-a-sketch, to be shaken up whenever it doesn't coincide with someone's religious or political beliefs.

Random Michelle K said...

Heh.

Looks like we had the exact same response and I got mine out just a few minutes later.

Random Michelle K said...

On backwards day I got it out a few minutes later.

On a normal day it was a few minutes earlier.

(sigh)

Janiece Murphy said...

Michelle, does that make me your bug-eating girl-bitch?

Hehe.

Random Michelle K said...

Depends upon the bugs. ;)

Twitchard said...

Random Michelle
Thomas Jefferson did NOT write the Constitution. I suggest you go back to your history textbooks, where you will learn that Thomas Jefferson had no part [b]whatsoever[/b] in writing the Consitution.

"The constitution is a living document, and the Supreme Court exists to define those laws and relate them to a modern age."

The Constitution is a 'living document'. What the heck does that mean? Says who? And the Supreme Court does NOT exist to 'define' the laws. That would be the department of the legislative branch, to make the laws. At the point where the Judicial branch is 'defining' the laws of the land is the point where it has overstepped its boundaries.

If the constitution is supposed to be a 'living' document and supposed to change to fit the times, we have a process for doing that--the amendment process.

If somebody is going to be changing the meaning of the Constitution, it had better be the senators and representatives that We the People voted for. Not nine people in robes who we didn't.

You didn't hear cries of 'judicial activism' overthrowing the gun ban because a gun ban would violate a right clearly stated in the constitution, the right to bear arms. Not some 'right to privacy' that nobody ever heard about before Supreme Court judges dug up from underneath Mt. Rushmore or something and started touting about.

But you're partially right. The right wing does tend to be quiet when 'judicial activism' is in their favor. But can you really expect them to do otherwise?

Janiece:

In short, yes I do want a literal interpretation of the Constitution. If the constitution becomes outdated, then the proper course of action would be to go through the legislative branch and update it. I think Bork had the right ideas. Government in the United States is of the people, by the people, and for the people. And of all the three branches of government, the judicial branch least represents the people.

You claim that it is the Supreme Court's job to 'interpret' the Constitution of the United States. Even that is not certain--if you read the constitution, you will not find that listed among their duties. While I agree that in order to be effective at all in adjudicating, the Supreme Court must be able to interpret the letter of the law, they should not be interpreting too much into the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is much too subjective.

You keep on using the term 'case law'. This phrase is in itself evidence that the Judicial branch in America has overstepped its boundaries. Who makes the 'case law'? Well, the courts do. But, making the law is a job for the legislative branch--not the courts.
'Case law' shouldn't really exist.

Can you really try and argue that nine judges (and not even all nine, just five of them, really) who the people didn't vote for should be able to make the law to suit their whims or their subjective interpretation of what, to quote Michelle, "Jefferson and others were thinking when they created the Constitution."? Really, there are other, better ways of keeping the constitution up to date.

Janiece Murphy said...

twitchard, I invite you to look up the history of "case law" before you dismiss it as a case of so-called "judicial activism."

Like common law, it's a system we inherited from the English, many hundreds of years ago. That doesn't really jive with your vision of modern judges overstepping their bounds. You may not think case law should exist, but its history is hundreds of years old, and it (and the Constitution) has always been the basis for our judiciary. Don't like it? Feel free to do the work necessary to overhaul our entire judiciary when you get your majority. Because right now, and for the last several hundred years, it's the only game in town. It's that damn "reality" again.

And for the record, I have read the Constitution. Many, many times when I was in the service, and then in incredible detail when I took a Law, Politics and Policy course in college.

However, you appear to think that the Constitution should be the only law in the land. What you're apparently missing is that while the Constitution is the law of the land, and that all laws and administrative processes must be in accordance with the Constitution, our judiciary and administrative processes are so much more complicated. I don't have time today to school you in administrative law and processes, but if you do even a smidgen of research, I'm sure you'll find out why Law School is such a grind. While Constitutional Law is certainly the cornerstone, there's a myriad of other pressures, histories and precedent out there that affect our judicial reality.

You comments surrounding whether the judiciary is going too far in interpreting the spirit of the law is a question for the ages. In some cases, I believe they go too far. In others, I believe they don't go far enough. It's really a question of who's ox is being gored, isn't it?

Can you really try and argue that nine judges (and not even all nine, just five of them, really) who the people didn't vote for should be able to make the law to suit their whims or their subjective interpretation of what, to quote Michelle, "Jefferson and others were thinking when they created the Constitution."?

Yes, actually, I can. Because that's the way the law is. If you can change the Constitution (a herculean task in today's society) to more closely suit your interpretation of the Constitution, then feel free to do so. But I have to live, work, and make decisions based on the reality as it exists today. Is it the very best system that could possibly be in place? Of course not. Is it preferable to other systems in place around the world? You bet. I'll take our flawed system (including judicial activists) any day over Sharia.

twitchard, I appreciate the fact that you apparently take an interest in the world in which you live. It's uncommon enough in someone of your age, but I would respectfully suggest that you spend more time evolving your own ideas and opinions instead of regurgitating what you've read in the right-wing blogosphere. You're well-written, and apparently of above-average intelligence, but I find your commentary naive and lacking in depth. To me, it's obvious that you could be so much more with some work surrounding critical thinking, research and an open mind.

I hope you will take these comments in the spirit they were intended. However, I don't believe you'll broaden your mind or horizons because some stranger said you should. Anymore than I'll suddenly go back to being a conservative on the word of a teenager.

So take it for what it's worth, and good luck in your future endeavors.

Twitchard said...

The day we accept a flawed government and judicial system because it could be worse ("it's better than Sharia"), the day we sacrifice our principles of Democracy, rule by the people, of the people, and for the people because "that's the way the law is", the day we let our mammoth judicial system become the tyranny that our founding fathers worked so hard to overthrow because "that's reality" is the day that the principles of America are dead.

One final question, the Tenth Amendment, which states
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If this 'case law' is, like you state, a system we inherited from the English, many hundreds of years ago, how does this fit in with accordance to the Tenth amendment? From my apparently inadequate impression of it, it seems to me that 'case law' is not delegated to the United States by the constitution, is not a power of the States, and not a power of the people. It seems to like law by the lawyers, of the lawyers, and for the lawyers.

Janiece Murphy said...

twitchard, I am not suggesting we should just "accept" a flawed system. I said, repeatedly, that if you didn't like it, you're free to do the work required to change it. While I recognize it could be better, and I fulfill my obligations as a citizen to try and make it better, overall I'm satisfied with it. That means I'm not willing to do the work. Don't imply I have some obligation to radically change the judiciary because you find it unacceptable. I've already sacrificed more years for democracy and the Constitution than you've lived, and your implication that I'm somehow deficient compared to your self-righteousness is laughable. Come back when you've had some skin in the game.

I've also already provided a reference for your question regarding case law, written by a Justice of the Supreme Court. If you don't want to read it, then don't, but stop pestering me with questions I've already addressed because you don't want to look it up.

I'm tired of you, and this discussion, and I will no longer be participating. Continue to rant if you wish, or not.