In talk.abortion, Chris
<reddd@juno.com>
wrote
on Fri, 20 Jun 2003 09:44:25 -0700
<XRGIa.77033$%42.42922@fed1read06>:
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
> message news:enias-8ki.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> In talk.abortion, Chris
>> <reddd@juno.com>
>> wrote
>> on Thu, 19 Jun 2003 08:50:59 -0700
>> <HZkIa.76194$%42.69745@fed1read06>:
>> >
>> > "The Ghost In The Machine" <ewill@sirius.athghost7038suus.net> wrote in
>> > message news:a2r8s-0fi.ln1@lexi2.athghost7038suus.net...
>> >> In talk.abortion, Chris
>> >> <reddd@juno.com>
>> >> wrote
>> >> on Wed, 18 Jun 2003 20:54:37 -0700
>> >> <9uaIa.76130$%42.7331@fed1read06>:
>> >> >
>> >> > "Pat Winstanley" <ng_wisy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> >> > news:MPG.195aeeffc900c34a98a27d@News.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> >> >> In article <ahl1fvg5i67eo70qm63fvrfs01tv9jnscl@4ax.com>,
>> >> >> nospaming@attbi.com says...
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: "Jane Roe" Wants Abortions Banned! Abortions Harm
>> > Women!
>> >> > She Wants Case Overturned! She Has that right! Abortion = baby murder
>> >> >> > From: DTJ <nospaming@attbi.com>
>> >> >> > Newsgroups: talk.abortion, alt.abortion, alt.politics.bush,
>> >> > alt.politics.clinton, alt.politics
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Wed, 18 Jun 2003 06:38:26 +0100, Pat Winstanley
>> >> >> > <ng_wisy@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > >> Correct. The SCOTUS illegally made law.
>> >> >> > >> The case in question was
>> >> >> > >> about whether a particular state law was valid,
>> >> >> > >> and Roe V. Wade went
>> >> >> > >> beyond deciding that issue, and instead made new law.
>> >> >> > >
>> >> >> > >No it didn't.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Yes it did
>> >> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Then prove it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Off you go... show exactly what *law* the SCOTUS made
>> >> >> in this respect
>> >> >
>> >> > I would say that if one commits an act which
>> >> > results in fines/imprisonment or other loss of
>> >> > freedom BEFORE SCOTUS made their ruling, and then
>> >> > commits the same act AFTER their ruling with no
>> >> > fines/imprisonment due to the ruling, then a law
>> >> > has been made.
>> >>
>> >> Interesting notion. Are you saying that the repeal
>> >> of a law is also a law? I suppose a case could be
>> >> made for that (Amendment XVIII, Amendment XXI) but
>> >> the Supreme Court makes a *lot* of laws that way
>> >> in that case, by striking down unConstitutional ones.
>> >>
>> >> Is this a problem, or merely an issue in this particular case because
>> >> you liked the Texas statutes (requiring 5-year imprisonment for
>> >> a doctor performing an abortion, among other things) struck down?
>> >
>> > I didn't follow your question. Perhaps it's rhetorical.
>>
>> Perhaps.
>>
>> You are (apparently) claiming that 410 U.S. 113 (aka
>> Roe vs. Wade) made law. Please cite the law. I'm
>> assuming it's a federal public law.
>
> I think it was you a while back, but not certain, who said
> the decision was case law.

All significant decisions (the SC doesn't always rule on
cases brought before it) make case law. Should we
abolish the SC, then? It's making laws, by your logic.

>
>>
>> (I can cite the statutes it struck down -- it's mentioned in the
>> decision. Not sure if that's the same, or not.)
>
> It is, because repealing a law is the same thing as making a law.
> The ultimate determiner as to whether or not a law exists is the
> repurcussions one suffers for breaking such law.

So what repercussions are there for someone (who?) breaking the
case law established by 410 U.S. 113?

Please clarify.

[rest snipped]

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
It's still legal to go .sigless.