MKinney-Korelin Review Wednesday

press play symbol to listen
Jim thinks that the aortion issue will go back to the state level
    May 04, 2022 04:28 PM

    AL & Jimmy ! The Ukraine is the Western World ! NEW VIETNAM !

      May 04, 2022 04:44 PM

      Hi Franky , You could well be right . This thing could go on for years , as long as the US , & it’s puppets in Europe keep sending weapons to Ukraine….. At the end of the day the only winners , will be the American MIC , & the bankers who fund them……. It’s a a fecking evil, & sad world that we live in today.

        May 04, 2022 04:51 PM

        It”s . YES ! irishtony ! With a medical tyranny irish ! to control are freedom of moving !

    May 04, 2022 04:24 PM

    Hi AL/Jim…. good chat. For what it is worth …. IMO … Life starts at conception , not at birth. Also if a healthy living human is aborted befor birth , then that is murder. imo. I also know that there are times when a pregent women can face a life threating situation by carrying on with the birth. Then should that women’s baby be aborted to save the mother, or shoud the mother be allowed to die , to maybe save the unborn child, thus risking the death of both of them ….. I really dont know the answer to that.

      May 04, 2022 04:50 PM

      I agree with you Irish. The only scientific deduction one can make is that life begins proximate to conception……..specifically when the new DNA is created.

      But, I could argue that rights do not necessarily occur with the creation of life, but at birth, or at viability.
      The beginning of rights is for society to decide.
      (If you say rights begin with creation of life, then you have a problem with damage or death of fetus caused by the mother. Should a later born child, if it had rights at creation, be able to sue for damage to that life e.g. deformities caused by drugs like thalidomide.)
      Abortion will always involve a balancing of rights not only of the mother (and possibly the father) AND the unborn baby.

    May 04, 2022 04:37 PM

    I am not an attorney, nor have I played one on TV.

    I wish to point out, however, under normal principles of stare decisis that SCOTUS has every right (if not duty) to re-examine the logic behind the judgement of Roe V. Wade.
    Based as it is on the supposed Constitutional right to “Medical privacy”, I find the logic flawed.


      May 04, 2022 04:53 PM

      Hi CFS …. Logical moral values. Do they still exsist in the world we live in today ?

        May 04, 2022 04:11 PM

        A civilization can only exist over long periods of time when based on mutually accepted legal and moral values.
        Unfortunately much of media has been captured by a left lunatic fringe, but this is not a majority and will pass.

      May 04, 2022 04:03 PM

      The leaked Alito abortion memo came with almost 100 pages of accompanying material. Justice Alito deserves his writings to be read.

      On page 15 he writes:
      “The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision.”

      Yes, not even implicitly.

      This has nothing to do with whether one’s policy preferences are “pro-life” or “pro-choice” or some mix of the two. This has everything to do with how our constitutional system is supposed to work. The Constitution’s list of rights and protections is explicit. Even if it is not exhaustive, it contains no grant of broad authority for justices to create whatever new, so-called “rights” their own sensibilities demand. In addition to rights expressly listed in the Constitution, the only other ones that are inviolable are those (quoting prior Supreme Court cases) “deeply rooted in this nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the [very] concept of ordered liberty.”

      And yes, those strictures are meaningful, rather than open to broad interpretation. There are legitimate methods of historical and legal inquiry to determine which “rights” are both deeply rooted and obviously implicit.
      Later Justice Alito writes:
      Roe was so poorly reasoned that subsequent “pro-choice” Supreme Court decisions have jettisoned all of it — both its reasoning and its practical applications. All that remains is a shell around the idea that abortion is a right. But even in reaffirming that right, Casey created an entirely new justification for it. Later court rulings further modified (and in many cases abandoned) Casey’s arguments, too.

      In sum, not even those who say abortion is a constitutional right can settle among themselves why it is such a right or what provisions of the Constitution actually protect it. That’s because, as written, it manifestly does not.

      I have probably butchered a precis of Ailto’s 100 pages, but hopefully given main points.

    May 04, 2022 04:28 PM
    May 04, 2022 04:30 PM


    May the fourth be with you.

    May 04, 2022 04:00 PM
    May 05, 2022 05:54 AM