Quantcast
Opinion

DOMA, other landmark US Supreme Court rulings throughout history

Comments

Return To Article
  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2013 10:05 p.m.

    Tyler D,
    I was talking specifically about abortion and contraception. Of course Democrats haven't gotten EVERYTHING they've ever wanted throughout history. But what MORE could they want on Abortion and Contraception?

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:57 p.m.

    Now I remember why I never get involved in abortion debates on this forum. Has anyone changed their mind? Has anyone even considered a different perspective?

  • Ranch Here, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:42 p.m.

    @first2third;

    Nice little insult there buddy.

    However, the fact that the state may determine how to implement the Article 4 Section 2 in no way implies that the implementation can violate the first part of the article, namely, "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    Amendment 14:

    "1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
    (this is critical)
    nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

    States implementing laws in such a way as to deny a group of citizens equal protection of the law, is a violation of the Constitution.

    DOMA is therefore unconstitutional as is Prop-8.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    June 24, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    You tried the scare tactics again when it looked like we would have a GOP controlled Congress with a Republican President and Supreme Court. Which happened. But did RowVWade even come up ONE TIME during that time? Nope!

    Scare tactics work for rallying the base... but reality doesn't support your claim. They had the chance and never brought up RowVWade.
    2:59 p.m. June 24, 2013

    =========

    So then,
    You are admitting that the do nothing GOP isn't 'really' going to reverse Roe v. Wade?,
    That they have used it merely as a political Red Herring for over 40 years?,
    And that the sheeple voting for the GOP keeping falling for the same old ruse time and time again?

    Welcome to the REAL world...

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 24, 2013 4:13 p.m.

    @2 bits – “You got everything you want... yet it's the GOP that won't compromise?”

    You’re kidding, right?

    First, let’s stick to today’s GOP and not the politics of 40-50 years ago (i.e., abortion and contraception).

    Since Obama became president, I defy you to name one piece a major legislation that was even slightly to the left of Rush Limbaugh that garnered any significant republican support… just one.

    Not Obamacare - which had as its foundation the conservative think-tank created Individual Mandate.

    Not Cap & Trade – a market friendly mechanism designed by conservatives.

    Not the Stimulus bill - despite its massive tax cuts and infrastructure spending.

    Not closing the gun show loop hole – despite overwhelming popular support.

    Not Financial Reform – despite the national desire to avoid another 2008.

    Not Debt Reduction – despite Obama agreeing to $2 or even $3 of cuts for every $1 of taxes.

    I’m not saying they should have gone along with everything Obama wanted, but in most cases they wouldn’t even discuss these issues unless they got their way 100%.

    Today’s GOP is the most uncompromising group of politicians in generations and the only reason they are even at the table on Immigration is pure political survival.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2013 2:59 p.m.

    FreedomFighter41,
    You said, "Once again, that ugly word, compromise, must be used. Unfortunately, the GOP doesn't want to compromise... On anything"!

    I'm not a Republican, but is it REALLY the GOP that won't compromise on ANYTHING?

    -You wanted abortion... you got abortion
    -You wanted contraception... you got contraception
    -You wanted government to PAY for your contraception... you got laws forcing insurance to pay for your contraception (Catholics got an exception but it wasn't a Democrat compromise.. it took a hard fought court decision, not an Obama compromise)

    You got everything you want... yet it's the GOP that won't compromise?

    Democrats keep claiming Republicans will overturn Row V Wade (mostly to scare people I think). You tried this when Bush was elected (claiming if we got a Republican President he'd overturn RowVWade). You tried the scare tactics again when it looked like we would have a GOP controlled Congress with a Republican President and Supreme Court. Which happened. But did RowVWade even come up ONE TIME during that time? Nope!

    Scare tactics work for rallying the base... but reality doesn't support your claim. They had the chance and never brought up RowVWade.

  • first2third Elmo, UT
    June 24, 2013 2:54 p.m.

    @Ranchhand, Not so fast my friend from Brokeback. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." Reading the ENTIRE paragraph of Section 4 of the constitution, we see that, "Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner" THAT part makes DOMA constitutional; Congress acted on their athority. If you don't like DOMA have congress change it. It is not in the courts purview. Your 14th amendment argument is thus null and void. Thanks for playing.
    Now on abortion 14th amendment, "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Key word LIFE. You see the state can't make you take care of your child once born but the state has an interest in life. From Carhart v Gonzalez, "[r]egulations which do no more than create a structural mechanism by which the State … may express profound respect for the life of the unborn are permitted." The law is clear in this regard.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 24, 2013 1:27 p.m.

    @FreedomFighter41 – “You can't have it both ways. You cannot be angry that abortion is an option and then prevent measures that prevent abortion!”

    Great comment!

    But you underestimate republicans… they have thought this through – it’s called abstinence ONLY education.

    Not quite sure how that gets taught to rape or incest victims, but then again as I learned from one of the republican candidates last year, a woman’s body will shut down the parts that allow her to get pregnant if it is forceful, so we shouldn’t worry about it.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:59 a.m.

    @ 2 bits

    "IMO Contraception is the answer, not abortion."

    My goodness you folks are just barely figuring this out? that's what we've been telling you for years!

    And yet, repubs, like you, are angry that Obamacare forces religious affiliated employment to cover birth control? Sheesh!

    You can't have it both ways. You cannot be angry that abortion is an option and then prevent measures that prevent abortion!

    Once again, that ugly word, compromise, must be used. Unfortunately, the GOP doesn't want to compromise... On anything!

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:44 a.m.

    @2 bits;

    Contraception doesn't always work. If a woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term she has the right to terminate the pregnancy. It is HER body being used for the 9-month incubation period. A fetus that has never taken a breath of air and can not survive outside the womb and requires 100% of it's host's existence to survive is not a human being (yet).

    I do agree that late-term abortions should be denied unless the health of the mother is at stake. There is plenty of time to make a decision about whether to abort or not prior to that time.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:28 a.m.

    Freedom Fighter41
    "I just wonder, since Abortion has been legalized, what do conservatives promote? A complete repeal of Roe vs Wade? And what happens if that doesn't "stop" abortion? I mean, you folks seemed to think that new laws wouldn't stop gun ownership. So what makes you think it will stop abortion? "

    ============

    Exactly! You want to do away with abortion, the demand must be attacked, not supply. Simple economics folks. Where there is a demand for service, there will be a supplier. Do away with the demand, the supply goes away.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:26 a.m.

    RanchHand,

    Regarding your question, "Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want?"... I don't think the Constitution says you have to carry a baby you don't want, but it does say you can't kill another human being because you don't want them!

    So the critical question is... are baby's "human beings"?

    Courts have decided an attacker is guilty of double_murder if he murders a mother and fetus. So there is some legal precedence indicating they are.

    If you can end their life because you don't want to carry them... at what age does that right end? You have to "carry" the baby till it's ~2 years old. So should a mother have the right to kill them until they are able to walk on their own?

    Or should that right end once they can breath on their own?

    Or does it end only when they can get their own food (not provided by the mother or father)?

    You make it sound so simple... but it's not.

    IMO Contraception is the answer, not abortion.

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:20 a.m.

    "I absolutely knew 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes would NOT vote for Obama's free stuff!"

    Would NOT vote for Obama's free stuff?

    So, folks who want a free ride would then vote against the candidate who supposedly offered them a "free lunch?" Hmmmmm interesting. This seems to go against everything conservatives said after the election. All well!

    I just wonder, since Abortion has been legalized, what do conservatives promote? A complete repeal of Roe vs Wade? And what happens if that doesn't "stop" abortion? I mean, you folks seemed to think that new laws wouldn't stop gun ownership. So what makes you think it will stop abortion?

    Furthermore, why aren't women ever included in the decision making process? The latest House committee to come up with an anti-abortion bill had absolutely ZERO women on it. Zilch. Nadda. Not one woman.

    Doesn't that seem a bit odd that the GOP excludes women from making choices that most effect them?

    If the GOP wants to complain about the election they need look no further than their "white old boys club" process of doing things.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    June 24, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    @Mountanman
    "I absolutely knew 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes would NOT vote for Obama's free stuff! "

    The 47% voted for Romney? Well I guess Romney did win 8 out of 10 states that have the highest percentage of 47%ers (all but Florida and New Mexico).

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 10:16 a.m.

    Actually, I never believed Romney would win the election! I absolutely knew 47% of Americans who pay no federal income taxes would NOT vote for Obama's free stuff! My credibility remains intact, in spite of your personal attack of it.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 24, 2013 10:08 a.m.

    @Mountanman;

    Where in the Constitution does it give you the right to force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 9:57 a.m.

    "And exactly where in the constitution does it say we have the right to kill unborn human beings?"

    Do you have any understanding of our government and how things work? Have you ever studied Roe vs Wade?

    Hence, why a law about abortion in Texas was challenged. It was raised to the Supreme Court. They ruled on it.

    That's how the system works. The Supreme Court may rule on laws and determine whether they are just or not.

    "Every act, evil or good is a choice!"

    Exactly. So why do folks like you want to take away that choice? That was Satan's plan. Without evil as an option, there is no good. 2 Nephi 2:11

    "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

    I, along with a prophet, believe in teaching correct principles and let others govern THEMSELVES. Keep those who wish for big government to control everything, like Mountainman, stay out of our lives! Don't take away my free agency like someone else attempted to do.

  • Lightbearer Brigham City, UT
    June 24, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    If you don't believe in gay marriage, don't marry somebody of the same sex. If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one. Where's the problem? Where in the Constitution does it say that you or the government has the right to butt in between a doctor and his patient?

    If you think abortion is evil, then you can rest assured that God will punish those who commit it. The Bible says "Do not judge, and you will not be judged" - leave the judging to God. If you believe that God has a plan, do you think that human beings can frustrate it?

    The Bible also says that it would be better for some if they had never been born. And Ecclesiates says that better than those who are dead and gone and those who are still alive "is the one who has not been born and has not seen the evil things that are done on earth." As I recall, LDS scriptures teach that those who die in infancy go straight to the Celestial Kingdom. Isn't that better than suffering a lifetime on this earth, "the vale of tears"?

  • FreedomFighter41 Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 9:46 a.m.

    History has proven that the Supreme Court has generally ruled the right way.

    Whether or not folks like Mountanman want to admit that or not...

    The truth is, wasn't Mountanman predicting a Romney victory last November? Yeah, there goes his credibility out the window.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 9:33 a.m.

    "And exactly where in the constitution does it say we have the right to kill unborn human beings?"

    Do you have any understanding of our government and how things work? Have you ever studied Roe vs Wade?

    Hence, why a law about abortion in Texas was challenged. It was raised to the Supreme Court. They ruled on it.

    That's how the system works. The Supreme Court may rule on laws and determine whether they are just or not.

    "Every act, evil or good is a choice!"

    Exactly. So why do folks like you want to take away that choice? That was Satan's plan. Without evil as an option, there is no good. 2 Nephi 2:11

    "For it must needs be, that there is an opposition in all things. If not so, my firstborn in the wilderness, righteousness could not be brought to pass, neither wickedness, neither holiness nor misery, neither good nor bad."

    I, along with a prophet, believe in teaching correct principles and let others govern THEMSELVES. Keep those who wish for big government to control everything, like Mountainman, stay out of our lives! Don't take away my free agency like someone else attempted to do.

  • Tyler D Meridian, ID
    June 24, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @Mountanman – “And exactly where in the constitution does it say we have the right to kill unborn human beings?”

    At what point is a fertilized egg a “human being?” Is it at conception or some later date – for example when a heart starts beating or a brain/nervous system develops, or when the fetus is viable (i.e., can live outside the womb)?

    Not trying to bait you here… really am curious just how black and white you see it.

    Thanks…

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 9:02 a.m.

    Calling it a choice does not make it less evil. Every act, evil or good is a choice! And exactly where in the constitution does it say we have the right to kill unborn human beings?

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 24, 2013 8:51 a.m.

    I don't care if their decisions are "controversial" as long as they aren't "political".

    I don't expect the Supreme Court's decisions to be "popular" (that's not their job), or to agree with me (that's not their job), as long as their decisions are based on the CONSTITUTION. THAT IS THEIR JOB.

    I HATE when decisions are based on focus_groups, polls, what's popular, or their political party's position. Their ONLY job should be applying what's already in the Constitution, not carrying party_agendas.

    The Supreme_Court is supposed to leave politics and popularity out of their mind and just apply the Constitution. That's why I hate when their decisions lately are "split" down party_lines. The court should NEVER be split along party_lines, because the only guide they have is the Constitution (and the Constitution doesn't get interpreted differently based on your party_agenda). The Constitution is the Constitution regardless of political party_positions. That's all that bugs me... when we get partisanship and politically motivated split-decisions from the court.

    They don't have to agree with ME.. but they need to agree with the Constitution.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 8:44 a.m.

    "Do you believe the justices were divinely inspired when they legalized the killing of unborn?"

    First of all, if the Constitution is inspired and it helped to create the Supreme Court, then you must respect the 3rd branch of our government. Even if you disagree with their rulings.

    Secondly, they didn't legalize the killing of the unborn. They legalized the CHOICE. Last I checked, God gave us free agency... To do many good things. Serve and love. But with that agency comes the agency even kill.

    What gives you the right to take that person's free agency away? Why must conservatives, who hate big government, constantly monitor our bedrooms? What does it matter to you? Why do you want to force a mother to have a child even if she was raped or health in danger?

    Lastly, to borrow a line from you folks and to show how ridiculous your gun argument was... Won't the people who want abortion get one anyway? If new laws and regulations won't prevent folks from getting guns then why would it stop someone from having an abortion?

    Ohhhhh repubs, your arguments are so entertaining! Watching you go around in circles!

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 24, 2013 8:43 a.m.

    "a spokesman for Romney on Monday said the former Massachusetts governor agrees with Obama that the individual mandate is a penalty or a fine, rather than a tax."

    Perhaps Obama was speaking his opinion? Regardless, in reality, it accomplishes the same thing regardless of whether it was a penalty or a tax. It only matter in respect to the court challenge.

    Semantics, Mountainman. You are making (continually) a big deal out of very little.

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    @ Maverick. Who told you the Supreme Court follows the divinely inspired Constitution? Do you believe the justices were divinely inspired when they legalized the killing of unborn?

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    June 24, 2013 8:29 a.m.

    I find it so interesting that those who supposedly revere the Constitution as being divinely inspired have so much hatred and disdain for the Supreme Court. I guess it's only divinely inspired when it rules your way?

  • Mountanman Hayden, ID
    June 24, 2013 8:21 a.m.

    Obama told us again and again Obamacare was not a tax! The SCOTUS ruled that it was indeed a tax. Who did the high court rule against in that case, Obama or the taxpayers?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    June 24, 2013 8:10 a.m.

    How about we accept whatever rulings they hand down and move on.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    June 24, 2013 8:00 a.m.

    It would appear through the eye of history, the Supreme Court has gotten it right most of the time. There are a few black eyes, such as Dred Scot or Plessy v Ferguson, but overall they have been mostly correct.

    Let's hope this session does not prove to be an exception.

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    June 24, 2013 7:47 a.m.

    This shouldn't be controversial at all. It's quite clearly spelled out in the US Constitution.

    DOMA violates Article 4 Section 2 of the US constitution:

    "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States."

    Prop 8 & Utah's Amendment 3 (and similar amendments in other states) violate Amendment 14 of the US Constitution:

    "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"