1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Tebow to appear in Focus on the Family commercial during SB XLIV

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Herbert Anchovy, Jan 16, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Right. All of that is right.

    But it doesn't change the fact that if someone feels that it's not the federal government's job to prop up impoverished children and families, that doesn't mean that they don't care about the children after they are born. It doesn't make them a hypocrite for being pro-life.

    What you've done is argued, quite convincingly, why their policy belief is flawed.

    On the other hand, I could say that you made a "slippery slope" argument, which is flawed, as well, because the law has shown itself quite adept at drawing lines.
     
  2. Point of Order

    Point of Order Active Member

    http://www.crosswalk.com/news/religiontoday/11625327/

    In 1985 Pam Tebow and her husband were Christian missionaries in the Philippines. Wanting to expand their family, they prayed for "Timmy" by name before she became pregnant. Pam fell into a coma just prior to the pregnancy after contracting amoebic dysentery, a bacteria transmitted through contaminated drinking water, and took a series of strong medications to treat her illness. Doctors later found those medications caused the fetus to be "irreversibly" damaged. They strongly urged Pam to abort her fifth child.

    Declining the advice of her doctors, Pam gave birth August 14, 1987 to a healthy son without the devastating disabilities her physicians predicted.
     
  3. Crash

    Crash Active Member

    Waylon, forgive my ignorance of how the SCOTUS works exactly, but generally speaking, how would a case start to end up overturning RvW?

    I'm not clear on how a case that would ultimately challenge RvW in the SCOTUS would start in a local court.
     
  4. The way it worked in 1992 when they tried to overturn it is that someone started a test case challenging some Pennsylvania statutory restrictions on abortion, such as spousal notification and parental notification/permission and a 24-hour waiting period. So it'll likely start like that, a challenge to a statutory restriction that overreaches the state's rights to limit abortions under Roe v. Wade. It would move up the federal court chain until it got to the Supreme Court, at which time the Court would rule that Roe was wrongly decided and the following factors are why they don't feel compelled to follow stare decisis in this case.
     
  5. Crash

    Crash Active Member

    Gotcha. Thanks.

    I guess that's fairly obvious. I just went through it last night and this morning and couldn't figure out the starting point.
     
  6. Basically, the person who is a party to the suit must be directly affected by the law. Other than First Amendment cases, you can't bring suit hypothetically on a constitutional issue. Tim Tebow or James Dobson couldn't just challenge Roe v. Wade in court and appeal it to the Supreme Court to see what they thought. That's why the justices who go through the confirmation process always answer that they can't answer a direct question about something like Roe without the facts of a particular case in front of them. They aren't being evasive. That's how it actually has to proceed.

    Of course, they find ways to fudge it a bit. This is where the "activism" charges often arise, as in Citizens United when Roberts used this narrow case as a launching pad for a broad change in the law. But he still needed the triggering mechanism of an actual case with actual affected parties.
     
  7. Magic In The Night

    Magic In The Night Active Member


    Or, of course, there is my favorite case of all time, Bush v. Gore, where the justices held that this was basically a one-time-only thing that would have no precedent or effect on any other cases for all time.
     
  8. Ashy Larry

    Ashy Larry Active Member

    That's what they wrote.....but it's been surely been cited since, most recently in the Norm Coleman/Al Franken election.
     
  9. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member



    This guy has stolen from Villarreal's one-act play.

    (Nice startup weight set in the background.)
     
  10. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    "Get over it".

    -- Jersey Guido
     
  11. YankeeFan

    YankeeFan Well-Known Member

     
  12. fishhack2009

    fishhack2009 Active Member

    Wrong link, YF.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page