"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,"這是要推翻Roe v Wade判例

來源: alwaysluck 2022-05-06 13:15:38 [] [博客] [舊帖] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀: 次 (8737 bytes)

"Roe was egregiously wrong from the start," 這是要推翻Roe v Wade判例draft中的第一句話

在參議會聽證會上,手按聖經對上帝宣誓過的大法官們,麵對全美直播下,紅口白牙地回答對Roe v Wade判例的看法:

怎麽現在變成“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start,"?他們這不是在玩弄法律嗎?還有什麽integrity?truth?decency?

Neil Gorsuch (2017):took the uncontroversial line that Roe is a precedent. Precedent is the "anchor of law," he said. "It is the starting place for a judge."

"I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the United States Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed," he said. "A good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other."

Brett Kavanaugh (2018):"It is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis," he said. "The Supreme Court has recognized the right to abortion since the 1973 Roe v. Wade case. It has reaffirmed it many times."

Samuel Alito (2006):"Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It was decided in 1973, so it has been on the books for a long time," he said. "It is a precedent that has now been on the books for several decades. It has been challenged. It has been reaffirmed. But it is an issue that is involved in litigation now at all levels."

Pressed by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on whether the issue of Roe had been settled by the court, Alito again refused to answer directly.

"It would be wrong for me to say to anybody who might be bringing any case before my court, 'If you bring your case before my court, I'm not even going to listen to you. I've made up my mind on this issue. I'm not going to read your brief. I'm not going to listen to your argument. I'm not going to discuss the issue with my colleagues. Go away — I've made up my mind,' "he said

詳情見以下link

https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/1096108319/roe-v-wade-alito-conservative-justices-confirmation-hearings

謝謝"未完的歌”提供的以上Link信息

所有跟帖: 

說是先例(precedent) 就代表以後不能推翻?這些嚴謹滴水不漏的大法官們不會那麽傻叫你們抓住把柄吧。哈哈。 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (1749 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 13:41:17

拜托你一字一句讀一下英文吧!這些如何與egregious wrong from the start 聯係起來?請解釋一下 -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (173 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 13:51:18

對啊,本身一直有爭議。所以在聽證會上謹慎的表達看法,現在要推翻了,當然明確說有問題了。。。 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 14:03:48

美國是判例法係,以先前案例判案。說Roe是先例,是anchor of law, 又reaffirmed, 你說什麽意思? -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (2167 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 14:21:45

你說呢,難道先例不能推翻嗎?為什麽這些法官麵對這些問題擇詞那麽謹慎,很多時候不正麵回答,你以為那麽容易叫你抓漏洞? -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (1503 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 14:49:58

先例是可以推翻, 但是在判決中占有極大的權重。如果需要推翻慎重的考慮, 何況Roe是經過幾十次判決反複認證過的法律。 -SwiperTheFox- 給 SwiperTheFox 發送悄悄話 SwiperTheFox 的博客首頁 (532 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:10:38

在聽證會上,為什麽他們不說和回避這是“super precedent." 你看不出來? -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:19:17

我聽不聽出來不是關鍵,關鍵他們是撒了謊, 比如Susan Collin 和 Murkowski 相信了他們, 投了讚成票 -SwiperTheFox- 給 SwiperTheFox 發送悄悄話 SwiperTheFox 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:29:51

不懂法就說別人撒謊,哈哈。 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:42:26

懂法的也都說大法官們沒有integrity和honesty -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 16:33:34

如果你思維更加嚴密一點,阿利托一直支持限製墮胎,理由是“憲法沒有保護墮胎權”。這本身隻是阿利托起草的草案。 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (866 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:16:13

知道跟你說的再明白也沒用:阿利托在聽證會上說: 以前反墮胎的言論是當時作為客戶律師的職責,作為法官,需要重新審視這個問題 -SwiperTheFox- 給 SwiperTheFox 發送悄悄話 SwiperTheFox 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 15:33:37

聽證會如何回答問題,太有技巧了。前些日子拜登提名的大法官人選拒絕定義“女人” ,理由是她不是生物學家 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (2802 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 16:16:27

按你的邏輯,憲法沒有提過女性的任何權利、沒有提過種族平權、沒有提過公民的隱私權… -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (747 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 16:06:03

你先把草稿看一遍,行不。至於墮胎是不是隱私權什麽什麽憲法問題,我們這些人是說不清的。否則就沒有阿利托的這個推翻的草案了 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 16:19:36

你整個邏輯都沒搞清楚。墮胎是不是憲法問題? -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (425 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 16:31:12

我最喜歡講邏輯了。當初引用修正案第14和修正案第9判的羅案,因為雙方意見不同,才加上了折中的按懷孕時間判決。 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (522 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 17:29:11

你的解釋就是,隻要大法官說的就是邏輯,盡管大法官的解釋也不合乎邏輯,嗬嗬! -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (0 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 18:14:22

我的邏輯是,這是一個在美國司法屆爭論了多年的案件。司法屆支持反對都有各自的理由,非你我這類非法律人士能簡單地判定對錯的 -未完的歌- 給 未完的歌 發送悄悄話 未完的歌 的博客首頁 (361 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 18:48:20

你把Roe v Wade案例好好分析過嗎?你對高院每一次reaffirm的結論都看過沒有? -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (447 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 19:44:47

你的回答也根本不是邏輯,還是視大法官結論為邏輯, -alwaysluck- 給 alwaysluck 發送悄悄話 alwaysluck 的博客首頁 (384 bytes) () 05/06/2022 postreply 19:48:37

請您先登陸,再發跟帖!

發現Adblock插件

如要繼續瀏覽
請支持本站 請務必在本站關閉/移除任何Adblock

關閉Adblock後 請點擊

請參考如何關閉Adblock/Adblock plus

安裝Adblock plus用戶請點擊瀏覽器圖標
選擇“Disable on www.wenxuecity.com”

安裝Adblock用戶請點擊圖標
選擇“don't run on pages on this domain”