[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference turris::womannotes-v2

Title:	ARCHIVE-- Topics of Interest to Women, Volume 2 --ARCHIVE
Notice:	V2 is closed. TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 is open.
Moderator:	REGENT::BROOMHEAD

Created:	Thu Jan 30 1986
Last Modified:	Fri Jun 30 1995
Last Successful Update:	Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:	1105
Total number of notes:	36379

671.0. "Supreme Justice? Maybe?" by CUPMK::SLOANE (Opportunity knocks softly) Mon Jun 26 1989 10:21

    
    Some recent U. S. Supreme Court decisions give me hope that Roe v.
    Wade will not be overturned. In particular, the Court has cited
    First Amendment rights ("freedom of speech") in refusing to ban
    both telephone porno calls, and burning of the U.S. flag.

    [I am discussing the decision-making processes of the Court. I am
    *NOT* arguing pro or con here for either of those decisions or for
    or against abortion. Abortion has been discussed numerous times,
    and the two other are also excellent candidates for heated
    discussion.] 

    Traditional reasoning by many people has been that many issues
    before the Supreme Court are voted along partisan lines: the
    liberals vote one way; the conservatives vote another. Most of the
    conservatives are viewed as avid Reagan-Busch supporters who will
    vote according to the party line. Traditional reasoning also says
    that abortion vote is split almost evenly, and that it will be the
    swing vote of one or two justices (particularly the only woman
    justice, Sandra O'Connor) that will decide whether or not the
    right to an abortion remains constitutionally protected.

    The flag and telephone porn decisions shattered this simplistic view
    of the Court. In the flag burning vote, two of the most
    conservative justices -- Scalia and Kennedy -- joined the majority,
    while liberal justice Stevens dissented.

    For many people the flag issue is as emotional an issue as is 
    abortion. (And why that is is also a good topic for another
    note.) The flag (and to a lesser extent, the telephone porno vote)
    show that some justices make decisions based more on law than on
    popular opinion, and that they are not afraid to go against
    traditional, party-line decisions.

    Many of the recent Supreme Court decisions have not been decided
    in line with my personal beliefs. But I do feel more hopeful that
    the abortion issues will be decided based on Constitutional law
    rather than emotion. We will know, one way or another, in the next
    few weeks.

    Bruce

T.R	Title	User	Personal Name	Date	Lines
671.1	Maybe Not .....	CUPMK::SLOANE	Opportunity knocks softly	`Tue Jun 27 1989 11:16`	34
	Yesterday's note may have been premature ... The Supreme Court appears to be moving the country backwards to suppression, barbarism, and special privileges for selected groups. Already they have tossed hand grenades at EEO and minority and women's rights. (I say "hand grenades" rather than H-bombs because there are still many federal and state laws that give some measure of protection.) I thought there was some glimmer of hope when I entered the base not yesterday, but as I drove home the radio told me that the Court has said you can now execute children and mentally retarded people. This puts the U.S. on a barbaric level just a tad above the Union of South Africa. Who knows what the ruling will be on abortion rights? As I drove, I pictured the Court having its off-the-record discussions of these issues (with drinks served, no doubt, by the only female Justice). In my mind, the majority wanted to rule against everything: execute anybody, make abortion illegal, and eliminate any vestige of equal opportunity for anyone. They were hung up on flag burning, however: some wanted to make it a capital crime, while others only wanted to make it punishable by life imprisonment. In a brilliant turn of mind, Justice Rehnquist pointed out that if they ruled in favor of flag burning, (a relatively minor, but highly emotional issue) public attention would be focused on that ruling, and all the other issues would be ignored by the public. And that is what they did. And so our rights go up in a cloud of red, white, and blue smoke. Bruce
671.2	evil thoughts	ULTRA::ZURKO	Even in a dream, remember, ...	`Tue Jun 27 1989 11:26`	4
	I must admit that when I heard Bush was spending time deciding whether to go the legislative or constitutional amendmant route on the flag-burning issue I thought "maybe that'll keep him distracted". Mez
671.4	Perspective	WAYLAY::GORDON	Do whales like to be watched?	`Tue Jun 27 1989 12:36`	6
	As Jay Leno said on The Tonight Show last night: "I have a pile of leaves in my back yard that I can't burn, but this pile of flags is ok..." --D
671.5	I'll probably get yelled at for this one	MPGS::HAMBURGER	Take Back America	`Tue Jun 27 1989 14:08`	28
	> not yesterday, but as I drove home the radio told me that the > Court has said you can now execute children and mentally retarded > people. Could you please provide something more than just a broad statement like that? that sounds totally irrational. what children? all of grades 1-12? ages 2-5? a little factual reporting please, don't lower yourself to the level of a lot of the media. > This puts the U.S. on a barbaric level just a tad above > the Union of South Africa. Bashing SA seems to have taken on the status of knee-jerk. I think that there are many far more culpable and vicious governments around. try: China China in Tibet Burma Russia in Soviet Georgia Russia in afganistan(remember the TOY bombs? left specifically for kids?) Iran Iraq (the above does not in any way apply approval of what SA does, merely that it is always/only singled out when in reality they look down-right nice compared to many others on the list). Amos-who-would-rather-see-facts-and-honest-opinions-than-hype
671.6		CUPMK::SLOANE	Opportunity knocks softly	`Tue Jun 27 1989 14:53`	16
	The Boston Globe - June 27, 1989 - page 1 "WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled yesterday that the Constitution does not prohibit the execution of murderers who commit their crime at the age of 16 or who are mentally handicapped ..." etc. Read it for yourself - I don't see much point in quoting more, because it is front page headlines in all papers, and the lead story on most newscasts. And, in my opinion, it is only a tad more barbaric than the other U. of S. A. Bruce
671.7	there may be less to this than meets the eye	RAINBO::TARBET	I'm the ERA	`Tue Jun 27 1989 15:03`	8
	hmmm...I'd like to know what they mean by "mentally handicapped". A 16-year-old is not a child in any way except legally. An argument can be made that a person of that age is emotionally immature, but that draws an arbitrary line that would be hard to defend on rational grounds; this century is the first in which a person of that age was not regarded as fundamentally adult. =maggie
671.8	Clarity of statement = less heated arguments	MPGS::HAMBURGER	Take Back America	`Tue Jun 27 1989 17:39`	9
	RE:.6 Thank You. You wil admit there has to be some distinction between saying the supreme court has ruled it is legal to execute children and saying the court has ruled that the state may execute murderers who happen to be under the established adult age limit as set by various states. Amos
671.9	It's not quite that way ...	JAMMER::JACK	Marty Jack	`Thu Jun 29 1989 11:53`	13
	No one has mentioned one very important point: The case was remanded for resentencing to have the lower court reconsider whether the punishment was appropriate in light of all the facts in the case, including the age of the person. The finding is only that capital punishment is not absolutely precluded by the age or mental capacity of the convicted person. These factors must still be taken into account during sentencing. Hearing the facts relating to the brutality of the murder as quoted on NPR, I have to believe that the convicted person at age 15-16 had plenty of awareness of what they were doing.