Reproductive Health Issues at the Sotomayor Hearing - Day 2

[g1942transient]

Wow! Sad!

[reginaDexant]

Come on Ameria, this woman believes in gun controll, abortion, sodomy, seizure of private property, and a foreign law governing our laws. That is what the Declaration was all about, we are independent of foreign law, our rights do not come from the Constitution, our rights are God given, period. They are unalienable, among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Without the right to life, no liberty, without liberty, no happiness.

[jenessa1018]

I really appreciate how she continually refers to court cases and how she can only answer the questions based on state regulations.  It shows that she's clearly more concerned with following the laws and judicial precedents than letting her personal opinion interfere with her rulings. She seems to portray blind justice, let's hope she lives up to it

[byjove23]

Sotomayer is wrong. Viability is a major consideration. The "undue burden" test applies only to pre-viable babies.

[jenessa1018]

not according to the courts, which was what she was referring to. she's talking about the legal issue, not the moral issue

[byjove23]

No, you are absolutely wrong. Please, go read Casey v. Planned Parenthood. In that case, the Supreme Court held that pre-viability, a state may regulate abortion if the regulation does not pose an "undue burden" on the right to an abortion; post-viability, however, a state may completely prohibit abortion subject to a health expectation..

That is the LAW.

[jenessa1018]

you're right that undue burden only applies pre-viability, but I still fail to see where she said something which was incorrect. She never said that viability does or does not matter, only that she can't know if it will matter in a particular case until she looks at the entire case. an extra week of viability created by technology may not be the same in the eyes of the court, new information might lead her to overturn the precedent, the state law might be unconstitutional regardless, etc.

[jenessa1018]

also, at least to my (admittedly limited) knowledge, the decision just removed the trimester as being the strict deadline of viability, they didn't explicitly state that at week x the baby is viable. therefore, if 21 weeks is the new standard for viability, the court need not comment. If there is a disagreement on whether or not a 21 week fetus is viable, the court will hear arguments and comment on whether it's viable.

[jenessa1018]

theoretically, they should never again have to talk about whether viability matters, they already said it matters. To hear Sonia talk it seems that she, like the judges in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, agrees that precedents can't be overturned just because you want to, it can only happen in the presence of new information or new precedents. If that is the case, no one need worry that she will try to throw out the viability aspect of that particular precedent

[byjove23]

Yes, courts will hear agreements because viability has been made a question of factual importance by the court. Viability is - in part - related to technology. Therefore, technological advancements are important.

[jenessa1018]

she's saying that she can't know if it will matter because she doesn't know all the details of this particular hypothetical case, basically that all cases are unique and their nuances may effect whether viability or technology matters. one could certainly interpret this as a dodge of answering the question, but it certainly can't be interpreted as just wrong. there could certainly be a case in which viability and technology doesn't matter because of a particular, unforeseeable circumstance

[byjove23]

She implies that viability is irrelevant to any analysis. That IS wrong. In fact, whether a regulation affects pre- or post- viability babies is a PRIMARY consideration in determining the legality of abortion regulations because that determination dictates what test is used to judge the regulation.

[jenessa1018]

could you please provide the quote which you think implies this. I think she implied that it may or may not matter, i never interpreted anything she said as clearly implying any feelings one way or another on it. She basically refused to answer the question for the whole video based on the repeated idea that all cases are unique.

also, why do u think viability is any more important than any of the other precedents used in abortion cases? that's only one aspect of one court case

[byjove23]

"Should viability, should technology, at anytime, be considered . . ."

" . . . thats not a question that the court reaches out to answer."

That is flatly wrong as you admitted below. Viability determines what test applies. It is a question the court reaches out to answer.

[jenessa1018]

idk i think that's a little less clear than you are claiming. i'm sure she knows about that court case and understands that it is a possible consideration of the many possible considerations. The way i interpreted what she said there was that the court does not seek to answer moral questions (should questions) I highly doubt she meant that the court doesn't consider viability, i think it's a big misunderstanding

[byjove23]

She clearly implies that the "undue burden" test applies throughout pregnancy. That is an incorrect view. (See especially 7:00 to end.)

[xylin3]

Where did you graduate Law school ?

[byjove23]

What's your point?

[xylin3]

That you probably didn't, and she knows more about the Law than you could ever hope to.

who are you to say she is wrong ?

[byjove23]

Actually, I do have a law degree.

Despite that fact, it is certainly true that Judge Sotomayor knows more about the law than I do.

However, in this particular case, she was simply wrong.

[xylin3]

I doubt it.

It depends on the case.

Decisions in law are based on cases and the question before you, not by how you feel that day.

In the end it doesnt matter, she will be on the supreme court and ruling on cases by this time next year.

[byjove23]

Cases are decided by applying the unique facts of the case with the RULE OF LAW. Sotomayer mistakes the LAW. The LAW does not change from case to case.