What would your honest reaction be ?

Honestly? It would be “On what basis? Show me your reasons.” Note, that isn’t me saying it shouldn’t be revisited, only that if it is to be then the reasons for doing so should be stated so we can discuss them.

It certainly isn’t me saying “OMG! You’re an activist conservative!!! I knew it. We was lied to. Toldja this would happen!!!!!”

Silly Duros, don’t you know? The Cold War never ended for Republicans, just sane people.

As was explained to Zython innumerable times, abortion need not be murder, if the law says it is not murder.

True. However, the anti-choice side continuously equates it to murder, so them pushing for, say, a fine, is dishonest at best.

Then, within a few days of his appointment, he announces , “I think it’s time we revisited Roe v Wade.

What would your honest reaction be ?

And it can require you to quit smoking if you’re doing so in a restaurant. You may choose to ignore that requirement, but it is a still a requirement.

You are right when note the Law can say whatever it wants to about how Corporations are to be treated. And, as has been pointed out several times, there is nothing wrong with someone saying that we should revisit how they are currently being treated.

Settle down. The Law, more often than not, tells us what might happen to us if we commit certain acts. It rarely tells us what to do.

The Law can impose a fine if you smoke in a restaurant; it cannot require you to quit smoking.

As was explained to Zython innumerable times, abortion need not be murder, if the law says it is not murder.

And, the Law can say whatever it wants to about how Corporations are to be treated, after appropriate legislation is passed.

I’ll have to say that that’s a view of the law, which by definition is a collection of rules which state what right and wrong, that I’ve never seen before.

I actually had a conversation once with a person who honestly, seriously could not understand why people on the other side of the world didn’t fall off into space. It was impossible to try to explain gravity to them because they just didn’t get how that basic fact of reality worked.

Don’t know why I’m suddenly reminded of that conversation….

The what, now?

Further, I see the law this way :

Are you familiar with Venn diagrams?

Fine, imagine the events in question surrounding a shooting are the “Universe”.

The Prosecutor’s version of the story might be Circle A. The Defendant’s story might be Circle B.

The Jury hears both sides and decides which parts of each side they believe, and that is the area where the Circles A and B overlap.

Therefore, in my opinion, Justice, i.e., the Law has nothing to do with right or wrong, fair or unfair, true or untrue.

There is a group in California getting ready for a California Constitutional amendment, that says the following; “Only a natural person [of the State of California] may donate to an individual running for local, state, or federal office.” I believe this would be supported by Sotomayor based on her argument, G_D knows, the Unions, Corporations and other non-natural entities will hate this one.

[added by Impaler]

I brought up the 3/5ths compromise in response to your statement that something shouldn’t be changed or even reconsidered because it’s been a particular way for a long time. (“On what grounds would someone consider that the 14th Amendment might not include Corporations, when to this day, it has?”)

Things in the Constitution have changed over the years. The institution and repeal of abolition would be the most clear example of that but there are many others, such as the 14th Amendment superseding the 3/5ths clause. As Southern Quaker just pointed out, Supreme Court decisions have been reversed and revised many times as thinking changes and/or mistakes are recognized.

To argue that things should remain a particular way just because “to this day, it has” is an empty argument on it’s face.

And that is the point I was making, in direct response to your statement. It would be nice if you would actually respond to what I said and not try to drag things off to some unrelated tangent.

Wha-huh?

The Law isn’t a group of rules that we’re all to play by? If someone breaks these rules (laws) we’ve all agreed to follow then nobody should call “Foul!”?

Frank, are you actually an anarchist?

Think of it this way: What if horses were counted for purposes of representation in Wyoming? Would that be fair?

Actually, if you give it a moment’s thought, it was the numerical balance that was being maintained, and this was an attempt at saying slaves deserved representation.

S Q: I wasn’t really intent on arguing the merits of the argument. What I was driving at was that, after all that blather about how she wasn’t really a liberal, she steps up to the plate for her first at bat, and bats lefty.

The court has been known to make its mistakes in the past, such as the horrible Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson decisions. I presume you believe that Roe v. Wade was also a horrible decision, and should be overturned.

How are those decisions any different than Sotomayor suggesting that “There could be an argument made that that was the court’s error to start with…[imbuing] a creature of state law with human characteristics.” And why her suggestion “amending the Constitution from the bench?”

In fact, we have been over this ground before with that abortion fiasco. “The Law” is not a Rule Book for playing the game of life, where all the participants have to play by certain rules, or the referee calls a foul.

Chew on this for a while :

http://www.iep.utm.edu/law-phil/

No, but it would indicate you conceding that the Supreme Court made an an error the first time, and that what Sotomayor is doing is correcting said error.

Jaim, stop calling me names! You sound like one of those crazy people that meander around the streets, far from home and hopelessly insane, that have no concept of the real world.

Oh, wait! That IS you!

Quaker: I know you can parse a question and answer like nobody’s business, but he did say it in the body of the decision. Don’t throw in the clerk, like he overheard a bar conversation.

Was there ever a case that hinged on whether or not a corporation was a person? I don’t know.

Can you say there never wasn’t?

You claimed the 14th Amendment gave the rights of people to corporations.

You are a dumbfuck. It says nothing about corporations.