The Supreme Court’s decision requiring unanimous verdicts in state criminal trials was a historic moment for constitutional law. One of the few remaining rights under the Bill of Rights left discretionary to the states was finally “incorporated” as a constitutional requirement. Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch declared that state systems allowing non-unanimous verdicts are now “relegated to the dustbin of history.” In his concurring opinion, Brett Kavanaugh joined in sweeping away the prior 1972 ruling in Apodaca v. Oregon. It was difficult not to conclude that the two justices had another case in mind that was argued the same year that Apodaca was published: Roe v. Wade. If Roe is the next case to be “relegated to the dustbin of history,” it would likely fall (or more likely be diminished) by the same analysis laid out by the two Trump appointees – and notably followed by key liberal justices.
The decision in Ramos v. Louisiana has as much to do with the doctrine of stare decisis as it did the Sixth Amendment. Stare decisis (or “Let the decision stand”) is a doctrine requiring the respect for precedent so that courts do not lightly or regularly overturn case law. In this case, the two justices grabbled over 120 years of case law and specifically the 1972 opinion in Apodaca v. Oregon. Gorsuch stressed that “The doctrine of stare decisis does not mean, of course, that the Court should never overrule erroneous precedents.
It is a proposition with which some of us have long agreed, particularly in constitutional cases. The maintenance of a precedent that a justice believes is constitutionally flawed would seem to contradict the oath of every justice to faithfully interpret the Constitution.
The opinions read like an awkward conversation where the participants are discussing Ramos but thinking Roe. In both of their confirmation hearings, both justices were accused of being anti-Roe and Democratic senators demanded that they assured them that they would not vote to undermine Roe on the basis of stare decisis. Both justices repeated the standard mantra about the importance of precedence and not lightly overturning such “settled law.”
This opinion had all of the honesty and directness known only to the confirmed as opposed to the merely nominated. Writing for the majority (with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer), Gorsuch correctly noted that every member of the Court has easily shed the limitations of the doctrine when they had a fifth vote to do so. The fact is that stare decisis is a principle that is honor primarily in dissent. Gorsuch pointedly observed that “All Justices now on this Court agree that it is sometimes appropriate for the Court to overrule erroneous decisions. Indeed, in just the last few Terms, every current Member of this Court has voted to overrule multiple constitutional precedents.” He goes on to dismiss the hold of the doctrine as “an inexorable command” and suggests that textual not traditional rationales should sustain constitutional interpretations.
For his part, Kavanaugh directly referenced the decision while also repeating the warning that “as the Court has often stated and repeats today, stare decisis is not an ‘inexorable command.’” Kavanaugh noted that significant parts of Roe v. Wade were already overturned in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and that the Court “expressly overruled two other important abortion precedents.” He then laid out three elements to be used in overturning long-standing cases like Apodaca, including whether the decision was “not just wrong, but grievously or egregiously wrong?”
Kavanaugh notably recognized that overturning some wrongly decided precedent would still cause “significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences.” That is supportive of Roe and would be in line with his comments during confirmation. However, he added that it was sometime possible to preserve a case while “narrowing the precedent.” That is precisely what many pro-life advocates have sought to do in chipping away at Roe along its edges. Roe is supported by an overwhelming percentage of Americans and some conservatives like Chief Justice John Roberts (and possibly Kavanaugh) could get sticker shock before buying into a outright Ramos-like decision. Instead, they could reduce Roe to a nub with a series of exceptions for state restrictions.
However, it was Gorsuch’s opinion that should be more unnerving for pro-choice advocates. Gorsuch noted that his colleagues had no qualms about overturning the 1972 precedent in that case. It begs the question of why a 1973 precedent should be anymore sacrosanct in terms of stare decisis.
Roe is clearly more accepted, engrained, and important than was Apodaca. Only two states – Louisiana and Oregon – allowed for 10-2 verdicts. Roe is the foundation for a long line of cases. However, Roe also exposes the hypocrisy not only on the Court but Congress over stare decisis. Democratic senators voted against both Gorsuch and Kavanaugh because of their failure to promise not to overturn or gut Roe v. Wade.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Ca.) stated that it was not enough for nominees to merely “profess loyalty to precedent” when asked about Roe. Senators insisted that, absent such an express guarantee on abortion rights, the nominees had not shown sufficient commitment to stare decisis. However, the same Democratic senators in the same hearings called for the overturning of precedent with which they disagreed from District of Columbia v. Heller (recognizing the individual right to bear arms) to Citizens United v. FEC (recognizing free speech rights in corporations in federal elections). Senators have also called for overturning Janus v. AFSCME (in allowing nonunion members to refuse to pay union dues). Likewise, these same senators celebrated (as did I) when the Supreme Court overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, a case upholding the criminalization of homosexual relations.
Democratic senators like Feinstein has tried to justify their demand for pre-confirmation pledges on Roe by calling it “superprecedent” because of its importance to women and core privacy interests. Of course, gun rights advocates view Heller as “superprecedent” under the Second Amendment. The distinction is raw and obvious. Roe is “superprecedent” because it is right while Heller has no precedential value because it is wrong. The plain fact is that there is no such thing as “superprecedence” any more than there are “superjustices” whose votes count more on outcomes. There is just precedent and the evolving view of its validity.
In both 2016 and 2020, Democratic presidential candidate pledged to appoint justices to overturn cases like Citizen’s United, not only dispensing with stare decisis but actually promising to appoint justices who would dispense with stare decisis – on select cases – to secure confirmation.
With their opinions, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh may have created the perfect Nag’s Head light. The North Carolina beach town derives its name from the practice of tying a light around the neck of a horse to lure ships to their doom. Thinking the light was a ship in deep water, the ships would unwittingly sail into the shore rocks where they would be stripped of their cargo. Ramos could prove the light that lured liberal justices to the rocks for Roe. The fact that Ramos was handed down when Roe was being argued only magnified its potential significance. They succeeded in pulling liberal justices into rocky swallow water where Roe could lose all or much of its precedential hold.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified at the confirmation hearing of Justice Neil Gorsuch and teaches a course on the Constitution and the Supreme Court.
Here is the opinion: Ramos v. Louisiana
“I don’t see that consensus happening anytime soon.”
We’ve got fifty States, let each decide for itself…as per the Constitution. No national consensus is required.
The problem with the “state’s rights” argument is that it didn’t work in the civil rights era, back when Deep South states were highly discriminatory towards blacks, whereas progressive states were not. A person’s fundamental rights shouldn’t be up to the whims of who gets elected this year. Either the government can force a woman into nine-months of state servitude, using her body to bear a person that she doesn’t want, or it can’t. That’s the constitutional issue. It will likely put more female voters in the Biden camp, unfortunately, because Trump appears dead-set against women’s autonomy.
Either the government can force a woman into nine-months of state servitude, using her body to bear a person that she doesn’t want, or it can’t.
Either a woman can hire a perverted OBGYN to soak her unborn child in caustic brine, or she can’t. When she can’t, civilization is advanced. When people like you pretend an ordinary part of the life cycle – pregnancy – is ‘state servitude’ and when human beings are disposable per what princess ‘wants’, civilization is decaying.
back when Deep South states were highly discriminatory towards blacks, whereas progressive states were not.
Trying to rewrite history? What political party was in control of those racist, deep south governments?
Either the government can force a woman into nine-months of state servitude, using her body to bear a person that she doesn’t want, or it can’t.
The constitutional issue is whether the government has a duty to secure the natural right of life of innocent human beings. They should determine the right to choose ends after the choice is made that led to the pregnancy. After that, it’s a a life and no one should have the right to terminate an innocent human life.
Americans Favoring Total Abortion Ban..
Has Rarely Risen Above 20%
Only about 1 in 5 Americans actually wants a total ban on abortions. That percentage has been relatively consistent for many years. Those seeking total abortion bans are clearly a small minority and do NOT represent mainstream opinion.
Therefore it is perverse that defenders of women’s reproductive rights have to live in constant fear that the court’s conservative majority may revoke a woman’s right to choose. Theoretically this debate should have ended long ago. But the debate persists only because our system of government favors less populous states.
As noted recently on these threads, 75% of all Americans live the the 20 most populous states. Which means the 30 smallest states account for only 25% of the total population. Yet that 25% controls 60% of the U.S. Senate; allowing them a totally disproportionate voice in national policy. One could argue this amounts to a tyranny of the minority.
The Electoral College system amplifies this tyranny of the minority. California has more people that the 20 smallest states combined. Yet those 20 smallest states have 86 Electoral College votes. That’s 2 more than California and New York’s combined total of 84. New York, for the record, is America’s 4th most populous state.
The Electoral College system and design of the U.S. Senate are the primary reason Abortion has remained a contentious issue for so long. It explains why that 20% of the people wanting abortion banned have been able to keep this issue boiling so long. One could argue, in fact, that the court’s conservative majority exists only ‘because’ our system favors minority rule.
4 of the 5 conservative justices were appointed by presidents who won Electoral College-Only victories (Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh). This conservative majority is quite arguably an aberration distorting the people’s will. They honestly DO NOT represent mainstream America.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx
If you list a precise menu of circumstances where people favor or oppose legal abortion, you find two things:
1. The population favoring the current legal regime, when the respondents are presented with its implications brass tacks, is < 5% of the toal.
2. About 70% of the population is willing to ban abortions bar stated exceptions. The stated exceptions account for no more than 5% of all abortions.
3. The notion that abortion is a constitutional right is still humbug. Let's see what democratic decision making gets you. It's what your side has been frothing at the mouth to avoid for nearly 50 years.
Absurd, if you look at that Gallup link, Americans favoring at least ‘partial’ access to abortion is around 80% versus the 20% wanting total ban.
Therefore it is totally impossible to argue that those wanting a total ban speak for anyone but themselves. They are, as I noted, only one fifth of the population.
Paint Chips, it is your kind of stupidity that keeps the argument going post Roe vs Wade. The left keeps using it as a wedge and political issue hoping to hamstring the right with the few that wish a total ban on abortion. Had the left adhered to the decision without complaint and stretching the envelope the opposition would have mostly evaporated. The problem is those with more moderate beliefs recognize you for what you are, a baby killer, and that keeps the discussion going so that more and more people become active against baby killers and those that lack a moral compass.
How sadly typical of Turley is today’s post. After gushing praise for Gorsuch, he ends with the reference to Nags Head: yeah, by suckering the more-liberal minded justices into agreeing that the Constitution requires verdicts in criminal cases to be unanimous (which only affects 2 states: Louisiana and Oregon), now Gorsuch and Kavanaugh can get down to business doing the job they were appointed to do, which Trump and McConnell bragged they’d do: overturn Roe v. Wade. Turley actually chortles that they got away with parroting the usual line about stare decisis. Turley, as usual, criticizes Democrats for having an agenda but not Republicans.
Turley’s now familiar litany of deflecting anything about Trump’s incompetence is very clear. Wait for it, Hillary and Hunter stories are coming.
Whatever your opinion of abortion, Roe was a tortured and terribly reasoned opinion. It roughly tracked the ancient position that abortion was permissible until the “quickening” (i.e. viability) but couldn’t acknowledge the religious roots of the idea. It needs to be revisited to shore up the reasoning with the added benefit of making liberal heads explode.
“the ancient position that abortion was permissible until the “quickening”…”
Mespo, though I have asked to have it verified I heard that some Jewish tradition is to permit abortion until one can hear the heartbeat. I never found the exact source.
https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-fetus-in-jewish-law/
Thank you for the article, but I don’t think it answers the question. The question is about abortion and whether or not there was a specific period where such a question’s answer changed. The article doesn’t address that.
Quoting from the article: “Turning to talmudic sources, the Mishnah asserts the following: “If a woman is having difficulty in giving birth [and her life is in danger], one cuts up the fetus within her womb and extracts it limb by limb, because her life takes precedence over that of the fetus.”
The above quote tells us that there was a problem regarding abortion. If the fetus at the time was not considered to be more than fluids and cells to easily be discarded like nails and hair the question of cutting up the baby wouldn’t be considered much different than the removal of an arrow from the body. Would the same thing be written substituting the word arrow for fetus?
Nothing he ever posts has any depth. It’s all vapid crap, gotcha when they’re not and hit-&-run manure that not even his wife tolerates, so he comes here to make us squirm but we laugh
a tortured soul
Anonymous the Stupid, did you pick up a temporary alias or are we hearing from one of the many mental midgets that populate your immediate family? Maybe this is a different one of your family members you haven’t yet met.
@PP @ 7:37 PM
+10
I guess Anonymous the Stupid is confirming a genetic link to PP.
I guess on a second read of the posts involved even with a polite explanation you still were too dim to understand why you were off target. Take note how you couldn’t respond with anything but a citation and had no ability to follow-up.
Loon-alert @ 8:57.
Anonymous the Stupid, another banal repetitive response.
“…another banal repetitive response.”
just what one would expect from Allan
he doesn’t have much to offer, as most of us know
“just what one would expect from Allan”
Let us see where all of this with Anonymoyus the Stupid started. I thanked the Brianless Wonder for the article and explained why I didn’t think it answered the question. Was the Brainless Wonder able to deal with the response after I had thanked Brainless? Of course not because Brainless is too Stupid to communicate in a decent fashion.
Here was my statement to Brainless.
“Thank you for the article, but I don’t think it answers the question. The question is about abortion and whether or not there was a specific period where such a question’s answer changed. The article doesn’t address that.”
Here’s a primer on the history of abortion teachings in the RCC:
https://theoutline.com/post/8536/catholic-history-abortion-brigid?zd=1&zi=pe2kjtcg
Mespo, thank you very much. A wonderful article on the subject that clarifies the Catholic history on abortion. IMO societal interaction leads to better basic law, codified or not, than the imposition of law on the masses by leaders that last only a short period of time. This article told me a lot I didn’t not know about abortion and the RCC while confirming many of my previously held beliefs.
My assumption is that you are a Catholic. How does the changing world of abortion provided by the Catholic hierarchy impact you?
(One day I will have to tell you of a Jewish man I know who married a woman just about ready to take her vows in the late 1960.’s. The problem was she would only be married in a Church by a Catholic Priest and the Church would only permit them to marry if the man signed that the children would be brought up Catholic which he refused to do.)
Mesopo: A more “tortured and terribly reasoned opinion” was Brown v. Board of Education which cited speculative studies regarding black children’s self-esteem and other sociological and psychological nonsense not found anywhere in the Constitution.
Derek, you’re an empty puppet
Derek:
Though couched as an equal protection case, the court was citing legislative and policy reasons in its decision. They were arguably legislating but that was no anomaly in the Warren Court. Warren’s was a sociology opinion with some law sprinkled in. Too bad, he could have reached it on legal grounds – if he disregarded all notions of federalism.
We should put recall for state delegates to the national congress back on their list and then all the term limits people can get out and do the job right for term limits which will much harder this time around. It passed in1998 and got shot down as unconstitutional because the amendment process wasn’t used. Lack of recall however is a state issue. So far 17 free states have it and 33 slave states do not.
Roe v Wade:Going,going…gone. Nino would be tickled.
I meant to say the Court believed that until the baby was viable the state had no compelling interest in protecting it and they used six months as the date when that compelling interest kicked in. No fetus is viable at 3 months.
“ No fetus is viable at 3 months”
Nor are any trauma patients, those who have had a sudden heart attack, stroke, aortic aneurysm, stab to heart, collapsed lung, burn victims, and COVID elderly patients – no more ventilator for you Senior Citizen. You are not viable!”
Honest Lawyer is not too bright. By the way, if you have a pacemaker…sorry not viable. Pull the leads on that ticker
Michael Esposito………..HL is not too bright? Well that will come as a surprise to the Supreme Court of Texas, who cite his law books and Law Review articles in their decisions.
Successful citizens like many here, including HL, make it possible for your non profit pet projects to exist.
did you pull the leads out on his ticker, Cindy? he is not viable without it and following “his law books & Law Review articles” reasoning, pull the leads….now
I help keep him alive with my taxes, sweetheart.
you’re welcome
don’t forget to pull out the leads
Anonymous………….Some of the happiest moments in my life occur when I have no idea what-the-hell you’re talking about.
Good one, Cindy 🤣🤣🤣
Derek👍
Cindy:
“Some of the happiest moments in my life occur when I have no idea what-the-hell you’re talking about.”
****************
With that condition, then we are happy all the time. I suspect HLM has forgotten more law that Mikey will ever know. I hope people don’t confuse the two of us.
Mespo or is it Mark. That lessens the confusion. I am glad you clarified that you are not Mike Esposito though I assumed so based on a tremendous difference in what was being said.
Mespo…….You are too kind! No, I knew it couldn’t possibly be you, but thank you for heads up anyway!
Nutter @ 7:41 PM.
“make it possible for your non profit pet projects to exist.”
wow. that was nasty. Take a bow, Cindy. You showed Mike how not-viable your marriage is.
CBraunstein………..Aw shucks. Do you mean that, or is it just the Cheetos talkin’?
The interesting distinction between Ramos and Roe is that, in Ramos, the Court removed from the states (i.e., Louisiana and Oregon) the allowance of non-unanimous convictions. (Not really the right; the non-unanimous jury verdict of conviction impeded a defendant’s rights, according to the majority, which was probably unconcerned with acquittals based on 10-2 votes, which affect only the prosecution). If Roe were overturned, abortion issues would be returned to the states, whence (pre-1973) they came. In effect, an overturning would be a renunciation that the Constitution either establishes or protects the right to have an abortion.
The principle of stare decisis does not apply equally to precedent that is almost 40 years old and with numerous lesser cases decided based on it and “precedent” like Heller and CU that are about 10 years old. However, if that is the “deal”, bring it.
Heller is consistent with the only other significant case from SCOTUS considering the Second amendment, US v Miller. 307 US 174 (1939), which said that a sawed off shotgun under 18″ barrel is not a “militia weapon” so it was not protected from regulation and taxation under the National Firearms Act.
It did NOT say that there was no personal right under the Second amendment, which is the baldfaced lie that gun control advocates have advanced many times. In fact it accepts the obvious meaning of the Second Amendment that not only a state right was being protected but also an individual right. The discussion mainly takes notice of the fact that the word “militia” essentially meant all the able bodied male citizens at the time the amendment was passed, who COULD be called forth by states, not only those who HAD BEEN. Essentially the idea that it was an individual right was confirmed, it was just that the sawed off shotgun was not the type of weapon concerned.
So while Heller is a newer more precise precedent, it did not read anything new into the relevant constitutional texts at all.
In this way., Heller is different than Roe, which relied on the 9th amendment, which text says nothing specific about abortions.
That interpretation of Miller was Scalia’s, but vigorously opposed in Steven’s dissent which noted that contemporaneously with the writing of the Constitution, Vermont and Pennsylvania had included citizen self defense and hunting in their rights and that numerous lower case rulings over the previous 200 years constituted stare decisis now overturned by the activist right wing wing of the court.
Trust me, Scalia is in the mainstream of legal scholarship on his interpretation, and Stevens was dated. Stevens was lagging back behind Scalia by decades. That’s ok, Stevens was how old when his clerks wrote this for him? What, 90? 91?
Lagging behind in grammar, too! What do you think “people” means in the First amendment? That is the first and most basic thing to notice. It does not only reference states but also “the people.” that means individuals just like that sacred writ the first amendment.
I could give you a raft of citations and scholarly works to prove it but I suspect you would not bother to change your viewpoint so I won’t bother. The text speaks for itself well enough. Awkward phrasing, archaic structure, but clearly understandable.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
That’s the second amendment. Now show me in the 9th amendment where it says abortion. Or anything at all about healthy care for that matter. I am not saying the 9th amendment has no meaning; but many scholars and jurists have said exactly that. Too vague to have binding legal content. I guess that was my point in contrasting it to the Second Amendment.
I think the 9th amendment can have some substantive content, but it might also have been stretched too thin. I don’t really feel a burning need to overturn Roe, that is not my issue of concern. I will let smarter folks than me figure that one out. But by contrast, Heller’s take on the Second Amendment is a far easier read.
Again, I remember in law school when liberals used to be able to admit such things, and were open about not caring too much about restrictive textual readings in any circumstance. These days, liberals are more fake than they used to be.
Speaking of archaic, if the 2nd Amendment read “A tri-corner hat being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” it would be just as relevant. Given that elsewhere in the Constitution the Congress and President have the responsibility to fund and train the militia and the authority to command it, have you been called up? I haven’t. Maybe Scalia was.
If you don’t want to own a gun, then don’t buy one. I think that is a good idea FOR YOU! By all means, go about unarmed! Maybe you can visit an inner city neighborhood at night and buy groceries and liquor too! And fill up your car! And jog! By all means go there, and go there unarmed! Please! I am begging you!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeaky, Since black women have 40% of all abortions in the U.S., overturning Roe v. Wade will result in a substantial increase in the population of super-predators among us. Have fun with your new friends!
That thesis was promoted by an economist at the University of Chicago. It’s been discredited.
Details and proof, please.
Derek C, are you actually Derek Black? If so beware, as your minders at SPLC may find out that you’ve run off script since your repentance! lol
Kurtz – I don’t know who Derek Black is, but I view the SPLC (and most likely anyone associated with it) as a bunch of grifters who outlived whatever usefulness they may have once had many, many moons ago.
You still havent read Miller V US have you Book.
The militia is not the army. It is not even the National Guard which is integral to the Army.
it is the armed citizenry. Goes back to King Alfred’s fyrd. That’s in the opinion too. Try reading it before you mock me with tricorner hats. Rifled barrels at the time were in use among the citizens and rifled barrels are today. We aren’t limited to muskets nor are we limited to blackpowder.
The SCOTUS limits us by saying it doesnt include short barreled shotguns. OK! I am not arguing against Miller I am saying please go read it first and try to understand. Thank you.
Kurtz, the militias is as archaic as the tri-corner hat. That’s the point. No, it is not the armed citizenry which since the Revolutionary War – when GW hated them – has never been funded, trained, or under the direction of the President. You know, like it says in the Constitution. You’re not in it. I’m not in it.
er, Book, militia is not archaic, it is a term defined in federal law.
presently I am too old for it, but not back when I used to care a lot more about this subject than i do now.
we are (or were) part of the “unorganized” militia. see below
10 U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
———————————————————
Now please read US V Miller before you double down on this losing proposition again
Im sure many did not like the “fyrd” including the farmers who were pressed into service, but when they stood in the shield wall against the danes, they surely helped.
My mention of King Alfred’s fyrd (militia) is not specious– it’s a specific antecedent cited in US v Miller
I now share our Glorious Anglo Saxon heritage with our fellow Americans reading this page, leaving you with this old saying: “Wyrd bið ful aræd”
on to Alfred of Wessex’s “unorganized militia”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fyrd
A fyrd (Old English pronunciation: [ˈfyrd]) was a type of early Anglo-Saxon army that was mobilised from freemen to defend their shire, or from selected representatives to join a royal expedition. Service in the fyrd was usually of short duration and participants were expected to provide their own arms and provisions. The composition of the fyrd evolved over the years, particularly as a reaction to raids and invasions by the Vikings. The system of defence and conscription was reorganised during the reign of Alfred the Great, who set up 33 fortified towns (or burhs) in his kingdom of Wessex. The amount of taxation required to maintain each town was laid down in a document known as the Burghal Hidage. Each lord had his individual holding of land assessed in hides. Based on his land holding, he had to contribute men and arms to maintain and defend the burhs. Non-compliance with this requirement could lead to severe penalties.
Ultimately the fyrd consisted of a nucleus of experienced soldiers that would be supplemented by ordinary villagers and farmers from the shires who would accompany their lords.
The Germanic rulers in early medieval Britain relied upon the infantry supplied by a regional levy, or fyrd[1] and it was upon this system that the military power of the several kingdoms of early Anglo-Saxon England depended.[1] In Anglo Saxon documents military service might be expressed as fyrd-faru, fyrd-foereld, fyrd-socne, or simply fyrd. The fyrd was a local militia in the Anglo-Saxon shire, in which all freemen had to serve. Those who refused military service were subject to fines or loss of their land.[2] According to the laws of Ine:
If a nobleman who holds land neglects military service, he shall pay 120 shillings and forfeit his land; a nobleman who holds no land shall pay 60 shillings; a commoner shall pay a fine of 30 shillings for neglecting military service.[3]
It was the responsibility of the shire fyrd to deal with local raids. The king could call up the national militia to defend the kingdom, however in the case of hit and run raids, particularly by Vikings, problems with communication and raising supplies meant that the national militia could not be mustered quickly enough so was rarely summoned.
Historians are divided about the people who were part of the fyrd. Was it the body of peasants as distinct from the thegns and mercenaries? Was it the peasants and thegns together? Or was it a combination of all three? Initially the force probably would have been entirely infantry. However, from Alfred’s time there would have been a force of mounted infantry, who could gallop swiftly to any trouble spot, dismount, and drive off any raiding force.[1][4] Also, after Alfred’s reorganisation there were two elements to his army. The first known as the select-fyrd was, most likely, a strictly royal force of mounted infantry consisting mainly of thegns and their retainers supported by earls and reeves. The second would be the local militia or general-fyrd responsible for the defence of the shire and borough district and would consist of freemen, such as small tenant farmers and their local thegns and reeves. In the 11th century the infantry was strengthened by the addition of an elite force of housecarls.[5][6] More recent research, however, suggests that there was only a select-fyrd, in which the mounted element was provided by Wessex.[7]
The Old English term that the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle uses for the Danish Army is “here”; Ine of Wessex in his law code, issued in about 694, provides a definition of “here” as “an invading army or raiding party containing more than thirty-five men”, yet the terms “here” and “fyrd” are used interchangeably in later sources in respect of the English militia.[1][8]
Tenants in Anglo-Saxon England had a threefold obligation based on their landholding; the so-called ‘common burdens’ of military service, fortress work, and bridge repair. Even when a landholder was granted exemptions from other royal services, these three duties were reserved. An example of this is in a charter of 858 where Æthelberht of Kent made an exchange of land with his thegn Wulflaf. It stipulates that Wulflaf’s land should be free of all royal services and secular burdens except military service, the building of bridges, and fortress work.[2][9][10]
According to Cnut’s laws:
If anybody neglects the repair of fortresses or bridges or military service, he shall pay 120s. as compensation to the king in districts under the English law, and the amount fixed by existing regulations in the Danelaw…[2]
Organisation
See also: Anglo-Saxon military organisation
England had suffered raids by the Vikings from the late 8th century onwards, initially mainly on monasteries.[11] The first monastery to be raided was in 793 at Lindisfarne, off the north east coast, with the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle describing the Vikings as heathen men.[12] The raiding continued on and off until the 860s, when instead of raiding the Vikings changed their tactics and sent a great army to invade England. This army was described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a “Great Heathen Army”.[13] The Danes were eventually defeated by Alfred the Great at the Battle of Edington in 878. This was followed closely by what was described by Asser as the Treaty of Wedmore, under which England was divided up between the Anglo-Saxons of Wessex and the Vikings.[14][15] However, there continued to be a threat by another Danish army that was active on the continent. The rampaging Viking army on the continent encouraged Alfred to protect his Kingdom of Wessex. He built a navy, reorganised the army, established a cavalry, and set up a system of fortified towns known as burhs.[16][17]
Each element of the system was meant to remedy defects in the West Saxon military establishment exposed by Viking raids and invasions. If under the existing system he could not assemble forces quickly enough to intercept mobile Viking raiders, the obvious answer was to have a standing field force. If this entailed transforming the West Saxon fyrd from a sporadic levy of king’s men and their retinues into a mounted standing army, so be it. If his kingdom lacked strongpoints to impede the progress of an enemy army, he would build them. If the enemy struck from the sea, he would counter them with his own naval power. To maintain the burhs, and the standing army, he set up a system of taxation and conscription that is recorded in a document, now known as the Burghal Hidage; thirty three fortified towns are listed along with their taxable value (known as hides)). Characteristically, all of Alfred’s innovations were firmly rooted in traditional West Saxon practice, drawing as they did upon the three ‘common burdens’ that all holders of bookland and royal loanland owed the Crown. Where Alfred revealed his genius was in designing the field force and burhs to be parts of a coherent military system.[18][19]
Anon – check your state constitution. Either you or Kurtz or both you and Kurtz could by part of your state militia. Now, I have aged out of Arizona’s militia, but I was a part of it for many years.
The discussion seemed to move to a higher level and then enter Anon.
In Allan’s mind: “The discussion seemed to move to a higher level…”
ROTFLMAO
Anonymous the Stupid, it is good to laugh even when you don’t know what you are laughing at. Discussions occur at all level, even at the level of Stupid where you reside. Maybe one day you too can rise to a higher level but it seems we will have to wait a long time.
btb: the 2nd amendment wasn’t put there so that people could go hunting. It was put there to defend against a run-away federal government. By the way, I have no problem with the right to abortion in the first trimester. It’s a shame your mother didn’t avail herself of the right.
MofoKnows – I am against pro-active abortion, however I am for retro-active abortion.
“I think the 9th amendment can have some substantive content, but it might also have been stretched too thin.”
I don’t think many know the Ninth Amendment exists. All one has to do is look at the politics behind Wilson and FDR.
Professor, “Democratic senators like Feinstein has (have)….their”
If they state into the decision in Row and over turn it then they need to ask Congress for a stimulator package to provide rubbers for all Americans and migrants over the age of one.
Anyone who puts a hole in the rubber should be sent to concentration camps. Korematsu. If you get sent to Korea then sue.
I meant “stare” into ..
When does life begin?
If you’re driving from New York to California, does your trip begin when you start your car in New York or does it begin when you get to Kansas CIty…..or Denver…..or when you get to Los Angeles?
At the risk of disturbing the fierce brain power at work here, I’d just interject that said trip begins with arrival at the destination. All previous activity was travel.
If you don’t want the trip to begin, don’t do the travel.
Brilliant! And using that logic, chocolate milk must come from brown cows.
OLLY – finding out where chocolate milk actually comes from put me right off it. 😉
😏
That’s the sort of logic humans always live by. Ha!
Indeed! Science has evolved since 1973. Moreover, many who wish to protect Roe v. Wade have never even read the decision. It seems to me that it is inappropriate for a senator to attempt to extract promises from judicial candidates during the confirmation process.
The problem isn’t with the original Roe decision. The problem is what the right to an abortion has become. And let’s remember that while RBG believed in the right to abort she thought Roe was the wrong way to get there.
Now, what if a mother desperately wanted a baby with blue eyes and the ability to determine eye color in the womb existed. Should that woman be allowed to abort the baby because tests determined the eye color to be something other than blue?
MofoKnows – bad cases make bad law. Roe was a bad case, hence bad law. The Court magicked a privacy right to abortion where none existed.
You know, I just had a clever thought! Instead of phrasing it as “tossing Roe v. Wade into the trashcan” – why not talk about ending abortions as EVOLVING!
You know like how all the liberals EVOLVED on queer marriages and queer “rights” in general. They can now choose to EVOLVE on abortions!
Dang! I am sooo proud of myself!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
The simple are so easily entertained, clearly.
Darn straight Roe should go into the dustbin of history. In fact, there should be an amendment added to the constitution IMHO preventing abortion except where the mother’s life is in danger, and maybe rape is involved.
I think the availability of abortion is what keeps men and women from growing up. We have become an immature nation of narcissistic twerps with bad tattoos and gross body piercings.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
One wonders what her Squeekiness, Gruel Repeater, smokes before breakfast to produce such nastiness. Whatever, it robs the brain and paralyzes the senses, so stop already.
Uh, nastiness is killing babies. Even hardened criminals in prison hate other prisoners who have killed or molested children. I have to think killing a baby is even worse than shooting a 10 year old kid, so where does that put the pro-abortion crowd???
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Masturbation should be illegal then, too. Except in the case where a person’s life is in danger. Decided on the basis of what old white guys think appropriate, of course.
Or right wing death squads.
If masturbation was illegal, I somehow see you moving to Japan or something on the next flight out.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Baby killer.
And you’re right… I do enjoy staining the ceiling from time to time. Especially when my friend watches.
And the next flight out might be a long time from now. Just saying.
Doesn’t the Bible say that man “shall not spill his seed upon the ground?” In other words, he shall not masturbate and waste those precious seeds of life. Based on that biblical prohibition, we learned in Catholic school that the only biblically sanctioned justification for sex was when it was engaged in for the express purpose of procreation. Accordingly, masturbation (by males) should be outlawed, and a national Wank Patrol created to enforce the law.
Accordingly, masturbation (by males) should be outlawed,
Thanks for the non sequitur. Been an education.
“ and a national Wank Patrol created to enforce the law.”
Naturally you wish to be Wank Tzar.
predictable
That assumes Peter has a 🍆 and 💩for brains
I know he doesn’t have any brains, but he may have an eggplant.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky – you may presume too much. 😉
” but he may have an eggplant.” (I think refering to Paint Chips)
More likely the ‘Uganda Pea’ variety of eggplant. Along with lacking stature it is very bitter.
Hmm, I’m not following your logic. How is an abortion equivalent to masturbastion? Actually, wouldn’t banning masturbation be more equivalent to banning menstruation?
Try again?
Masturbation destroys potential life. “Man shall not spill his seed upon the ground.” Menstruation is not the same, as that is involuntary. Females will menstruate without any effort on their part. But intentional masturbation by males destroys life-containing seed (sperm) which should be released only for the purpose of procreation. Sperm contains DNA and is a basic life source, which even the ancients understood and called it “seed.”
Derek C – if I remember my biology class correctly, with each menstruation a certain amount of irreplaceable female eggs are sloughed out of the woman’s body. Women have a finite number of eggs, men seem to have an infinite or close to infinite number of sperm.
Hence, women are wasting their precious eggs when they have their periods. Men waste nothing when they masturbate. BTW, the Bible is not a science manual.
Paul they say excessive emissions lower your vitality. Sperm are abundant, not infinite.
This is the belief among both boxing coaches and taoist monks dating back to antiquity,.
Scientists say there is no evidence it depletes testosterone.
But most fighters still abstain before a big match.
Derek is not “on top of” the Onan story. Onan refused the ancient tribal duty of seeding his brother’s widow. Another strange story from the Bible and best not to make too much out of it.
Your despised non-source wiki gives a full explanation:
“After Onan’s brother Er was slain by God, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty to his brother by entering into a levirate marriage with his brother’s widow Tamar to give her offspring. Religion professor Tikva Frymer-Kensky has pointed out the economic repercussions of a levirate marriage: any son born to Tamar would be deemed the heir of the deceased Er, and able to claim the firstborn’s double share of inheritance. However, if Er were childless, or only had daughters, Onan would have inherited as the oldest surviving son.[3]
When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before his orgasm[4] and “spilled his seed [or semen] on the ground”, since any child born would not legally be considered his heir.[5] The next statement in the Bible says that Onan did evil and that God slew him.[6]”
Mr Kurtz – this is a myth put to its death bed by a female Australian swimmer who got laid before every gold medal she won. Since then, studies have been done in other fields besides boxing and they all show it makes no difference.
Masturbation destroys potential life.
Not necessarily. Capture it in a container and hand it to the lab technician for In Vitro fertilization. The exact opposite of what you asserted. Abortion destroys life that already exists. .
Menstruation is not the same, as that is involuntary.
Ever hear of nocturnal emissions?
Yes, of course I’ve heard of N.E., which is why I referenced distinguished voluntary from involuntary. If a male voluntarily chooses to masturbate, he is destroying his seed, which is a basic building block of life. So if your religious views compel you to respect life at its most elemental, basic forms, you should be opposed to male masturbation as well as abortion. Otherwise you’re just a hypocrite.
I’ll try this again, as you conveniently skipped this point.
Masturbation destroys potential life.
Not necessarily. Capture it in a container and hand it to the lab technician for In Vitro fertilization. The exact opposite of what you asserted. Abortion destroys life that already exists.
Prove you aren’t Paint Chips new alias.
You are doing no favors to your “side”
Capture it in a container?
No more Alex Jones for you
Prove that you aren’t a bitter old sailor.
This sounds like Paint Chips.
Hahaha, some major nut cases on this blog. Prove you’re not somebody else….Olly, prove you’re not a 🥕.
Well that didn’t take long for you to flinch. That’s typical when lies are challenged.
You don’t know how In Vitro or Intrauterine insemination works?
“Masturbation destroys potential life. “Man shall not spill his seed upon the ground.” ”
Even the quote does not claim that sperm by itself is a living organism.
“Since sperm can have life of its own outside the body, each sperm is really an independent single-celled organism – like a living amoeba, but differing in locomotion and lifestyle.” BBC Science Focus Magazine; sciencefocus.com.
Dereck a flower can live in my vase for a long time but eventually independent or not dies if it cannot reproduce. I am sure a sperm or an egg can live in an appropriate vial for a time as well. They can even be frozen. So can most any other tissue but we don’t say they are alive in the sense of what is considered a living organsm.. An amoeba is alive and and has a mechanism for reproduction.
Well, as a resident of a small island that was in the “salvaging” business once upon a time with its false lighthouses strategically placed to ground ships…, (in fact there is a row of hawthorne trees sweeping over the center of the island from one such wreck) I’m more than a bit intrigued with the metaphor…
I also choose to hope that the Ramos decision was more of a head fake than hint of things to come…, something along the lines of ‘well, we’ll get close with this case so we don’t have to go all in and take out the true hot potato case later on’ kind of a hang.
But I’m not a lawyer, so my legal speculations are from way back in the cheap seats. What I do know is this: the public health reality of taking out Roe vs. Wade would lead to the conditions existing previous to the decision: women of financial means will be able to travel to states that provide healthy abortion conditions and practices while those who can’t have to roll the dice in their home states (unless they run into hospital staff like my mom who were willing to pool their own money with other sympathetic staff to send women to NY for safe conditions). It’s as simple as that…
It basically breaks down into anti abortion forces getting traction in states sympathetic to their concerns, unsanitary conditions taking hold with the result of rampant infections, lost revenue to states that will continue to provide sanitary conditions, and the poor taking it on the chin in yet another way. Also, the staggering hypocrisy of anti abortion leaning politicians shipping their daughters to pro choice states when the proper services are required.
So for the enraged anti abortion voices on this blog, let’s just keep the discussion within the realm of how public health conditions relate to the law rather than the aggrieved “baby killer” rhetoric you’re so capable of hurling out there. Because if you truly believe the baby killer analogy you’d have never masturbated in your life because you’ve killed more babies than any woman getting an abortion did. If life begins at conception as you say, let’s track conception back all the way to where it truly begins>> a thought. If you’ve considered playing your male role in a woman’s pregnancy and then decided against it…, you’ve made a pro choice decision.
There…, that should whip up the mutants.
Yeah, let’s leave out the “baby killer” rhetoric because it is sooo much easier to talk about killing babies if you can avoid having to actually talk about what you are doing.
I am reading a fascinating book called Eichmann Interrogated right now. It is transcripts from the archives of the Israeli Police. Eichmann talks about killing Jews in that way – sort of skirting what they were doing and putting it off onto government policies and regulations.
So much more antiseptic that way, and Eichmann did not have to look at himself as a horrible human being.
Same here with abortion. Why do you think liberals, like that professor in California there was a story here about, go so apesh!t when pro-life protesters pass out photos of dead baby parts.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
I agree. That sounds like a fascinating and insightful book. About Eichmann.
Except that Eichmann was talking about real people; fully formed independent thinking adults, not fetuses. The radical right thinks calling a fetus a “baby” somehow advances their argument, but thinking people can discern the difference. Maybe if we called fetuses “teenagers” we would be more okay about aborting them, HaHaHaHa.
Except that Eichmann was talking about real people; fully formed independent thinking adults, not fetuses.
Fetuses are quite real even if inconvenient to liberal psychopaths.
Fetuses are real fetuses. They’re not real people. They’re not fully formed, independent human beings. Duh 🙄
If what you say was true then pre term delivery would only lead to death. But what you like to call ‘The Fetus’ is fully formed much earlier and can almost instantaneously become an infant.
Even post birth, infants are by definition not fully formed, independent human beings. Scientific arguments have been made to prove human beings aren’t fully developed until 25 years of age. Some never fully develop. Using your reasoning, it is only an issue of majority rule legally preventing post birth abortion.
Olly, in discussion some of Peter Singer’s crowd believe that there might be a right to abortion until the child can care for him or herself.
We are on that disgusting trajectory.
“What I do know is this: the public health reality of taking out Roe vs. Wade would lead to the conditions existing previous to the decision: ”
I thought there was real feelings in your above opinion except for the hyperbole. I don’t see the evidence for the above statement. Will abortion ever end or things go back to what they were? I highly doubt that no matter what decision the Supreme Court makes, even if the Supreme Court cancelled Roe v. Wade and said it was not a federal issue. Technologies have changed so the ease of abortion has increased. That ease has also corrupted our morals and the way we perceive each other. Both extremes need to be careful.
I’d mostly agree with your sentiment there, Allan. And think it’s solid justification for leaving Roe alone.
And think it’s solid justification for leaving Roe alone.
The terms ‘solid’ and ‘justification’ do not mean what you fancy they mean.
And what do I “fancy” they mean?
“The terms…do not mean what you fancy they mean.”
It’s one of her pet phrases. And she’ll likely not give you an answer.
Seems the trope ish, cliche ish sort, yes.
Neither extreme will leave Roe alone. It doesn’t even belong in a discussion involving the federal government but here it is. That was a big mistake.
It has been pointed out by both Robert Bork and Bernard Nathanson that the ‘conditions existing previous’ refers to a social myth. Bork pointed out that there was no year in the decades prior to 1973 in which deaths from septicemia and the like derived from illegal abortion exceeded 400 women. Nathanson said that when he was in the business of promoting abortion, he and his confederates pulled out of their rear end a contention that 10,000 women a year were dying from illegal abortion. He said, decades later, that this was a self-conscious lie.
Though your numbers sound in the range I don’t know that the issue of mortality and morbidity should be the determining factor in this discussion. For sure, almost on demand abortion has caused tremendous harm to our society.
“ There…, that should whip up the mutants.”
Chelsea Clinton objects to you dragging her into this discussion
See Robert Bork’s remarks in 1987. Stare decisis should be consequential in the interpretation and construction of statutory law, which can be readily modified if legislatures dislike how the language of the law has been treated by courts. The nature of constitutional law – for which modes of amendment are cumbersome – renders erroneous rulings more injurious to the body politic and thus vitiates the value of stare decisis.
Bork followed up his remarks in oral testimony with a discussion in a trade book published in 1989. Stare decisis in constitutional law in his treatment should be applied only as a means of reconciling case law and embedded institutions of social life. His example was the issuance of paper money. He maintained that you could make a case (though not a slam dunk case) that Congress was not in Article I granted a franchise to issue paper money and that only specie is legitimate legal tender in the realm. He said, though, that any judge who attempted via judicial ukase to invalidate the stock of paper money would not be a meticulous interpreter of the law; he would be a madman.
With that in mind, suggest that stare decisis should protect the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, the Federal Reserve, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and unemployment compensation. Every other dubious bit of case law would be fair game for toasting.
As for Roe v Wade and Doe v. Bolton and every decision citing one or the other, they are travesties on substantive and procedural grounds. Sweeping these away will allow for a grand bit of social reform in the states where the horror is not so embedded in the culture.
Arguments for federalism.
I think Roe was wrongly decided, so everything that is done to sweep it into the dustbin of history is fine with me.
“Dustbin of history” is just a trite phrase. History is important.
Derek C. – would “footnote of history” make you feel better.
The entirety of Roe was based on old science and needs be revisited, not on the right to privacy but the concept of when life begins and at that beginning all rights endowed by the creator become manifest in our constitutional safeguard. With science, we now know that there are 3 humans involved in the discussion, no longer just the woman and her doctor.
We knew perfectly well in 1973 that the unborn child is a child. For effect, the odious Mr. “Justice” Blackmun pretended to not know. Oh, there is also the sire of that child. Roe represented the zenith of feminist ‘thinking’, wherein observation of human relations is filtered through the assumption that women have options, while men have obligations.
Of course, all of that is the concern of state legislatures making use of the general police power. The only question that mattered in Roe and Doe was whether or not the Constitution prohibited the states from exercising their police power in this matter. The answer is: of course it doesn’t. Liberals have spent 47 years lying for effect about this.
Alma– “Old science” to me is the problem with Roe. As you note, among other things, Roe was based on the then medical understanding of viability and a determination that because the fetus was not considered viable during the first three months, a woman should have total freedom to choose an abortion. Today, because of advances in medicine, viability exists earlier than three months and so the analytical framework of Roe no longer is valid. That alone should be a sound reason to revisit the decision and its precedential value.
Reconsidering Roe should not shock abortion proponents because it seems that many of them, including leaders in the Democrat party, long ago rejected the Roe Court’s analysis of and attempt to balance competing interests and moved instead to a form of absolutism under which any woman can have an abortion at any time, and if the baby survives the abortion attempt, she should have a right to kill it. Even if a majority of Americans agreed with this shockingly immoral claim, that should have no bearing on proper constitutional analysis since a fundamental tenet of our Constitution is the protection of individuals against the “tyranny of the majority.”
I also agree with you that the right to “privacy” is not a sound basis for any abortion “right.” In order to resolve the Constitutional question of abortion, the Court would have to reach a consensus on when life begins because once that consensus is reached, any person’s right to an abortion must yield to the dominant Constitutional right of the baby to that life. I don’t see that consensus happening anytime soon.