The Current Supreme Court and Circumcision

Discussion in 'The Healthy Penis' started by Northland, Mar 26, 2010.

  1. Northland

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    6,082
    Likes Received:
    4
    Something I read here: http://www.lpsg.org/2673677-post2345.html got me to thinking. What if, a lawyer, or group of lawyers managed a class action law suit against the medical industry due to the unlawful intrusion upon the body of males at birth by senseless, needless circumcisions?

    Clearly, if this is done, there will likely be appeals and more appeals and it may well wend its way up the ladder and then the steps of The Supreme Court. Now, given the current roster of Judges, I wonder how would they rule?

    I am aware that the Judges are supposed to make their decisions based entirely on law; however, we know from the past, they often bring personal experience into it. So, let us look at our current men and women on the bench.

    John Roberts- born in 1955 Buffalo New York has a look which says, I'm clean because I was cut, hard call, his fellow Bufflalonian, Tim Russert was not cut. He has two adopted children which may be coincidence or may speak to an inability to perform sexually. Vote=Unknown

    Antonin Scalia- I am fairly certain he is is uncircumcised born in Trenton 1931, Catholic, he has a look that says, NO to circumcision. Vote=No to parents having the right to circumcising their son.

    Ruth Bader Ginsberg- being Jewish, she may be tired of seeing her people being subjected to this. She is fair minded, and will see the senselessness of cutting, her personal experience will be the realization that the Jewish Circs have become more severe over the years, which makes her mad. Vote=No to circumcising.

    Samuel Alito- born 1950 and in Trenton same as Scalia and Catholic same as Scalia, he has seen both sides; sees men are happy when left intact. Vote=No to circumcising.

    Stephen Breyer- Jewish, filled with happy memories of childhood, he smiles and says it's not a problem and people need to grow up. Besides, he's Jewish and got no choice so why should other boys get a choice? Vote=Yes, it's okay for parents to make this decision.

    Anthony Kennedy- Catholic born b 1936 Sacramento. From a mixed background growing up when cuts were becoming more common, he always felt it was inconsistant with the freedom the country was supposed to have. Vote=No to parents having the right to circumcise the son at birth.


    Sonia Sotomayor- born 1954 Bronx, Hispanic roots say no to the cut; she really doesn't care and has heard the President was cut and he gave her her job so she decides to vote=Yes.

    John Paul Stevens= born in 1920 he has the smug look which says I still have my skin suckers. Vote=Yes. (he is also sadistic, elderly and no longer thinking clearly)

    Clarence Thomas- born in 1938 Georgia at a time when being poor, in the south and black meant no cutting. Being a weirdo he may have gotten cut to blend in and now thinks all men should. Maybe Anita Hill can proviide an answer. In the end, vote=No to the parents having the right.



    5 will vote that the parents are in violation of the rights of the child, 3 will vote it doesn't violate, and Roberts remains an unknown at this time. )the Roberts vote doesn't matter, since the majority is for ending the RIC) In the end, parents will be forbidden, legally, to have their son circumcised and the doctors will need to generate their golf course and yacht money another way.
     
    #1 Northland, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  2. SparkyNYC

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    1,008
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    1
    As an attorney, I can safely tell u that none of the conservative judges would DARE read a 14th amendment right to privacy into this, least they would b forced to read one into abortion. ....plus despite ur assumption the Jewish justices are the ones most concerned with individual rights. ...there's also a standing issue... is the "medical industry" really the correct defendant here?
     
  3. JTalbain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    5
    I think that it would be a vote that would be more overwhelming than you think Northland. The Supreme Court tends to rule along lines that encourage equality, and there are extremely distinct connections between circumcision and 14th Amendment rights. If logic is chief in pretty much any justice's thinking, and they are looking at the laws and precedents currently on the books, they would vote it down.

    I don't even think that freedom of religion would be an issue in this matter. Some Jews or Muslims may claim that their First Amendment Rights are being violated, but some factions of Jews don't even see circumcision as necessary anymore. Additionally, the rite could still be performed later in life if the individual wished it. And when you get right down to it, Supreme Court Justices, and judges in general, tend to be pragmatic, ruling along lines that indicate the greatest good for the greatest number. No matter how you slice it, there are more males in the US than Jews or Muslims.

    The conservative judges would be safe on abortion if the 14th amendment is involved. If they believe the fetus is a person too, than it also has first amendment rights to life, and is protected under the Constitution.

    I do agree though that the Medical Industry might not be the correct defendant. I would think that the AMA and AAP would be more appropriate, since they provide the medical opinions upon which most doctors/hospitals base their policies and most parents base their decision. They have failed to ever indicate circumcision as being even possibly innately harmful in the face of information which indicates so and multitudes of men attempting to restore their foreskins. They have said that cultural traditions should be taken into consideration when deciding, basically meaning "It's okay to do it, because it is done". As I've said before, it is not their place to provide cultural commentary instead of medical opinion based on facts and studies. The AMA and AAP could be held accountable for failing to provide accurate information to the public.
     
    #3 JTalbain, Mar 26, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2010
  4. B_quietguy

    B_quietguy New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,286
    Likes Received:
    5
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    Uh, Northland, you might be too quick to judge judges here.

    Just because a judge is Jewish or Catholic doesn't mean they will automatically vote one way or another. Ever hear or nonpracticing Catholics or secular Jews?

    Also the issues related to circumcision are so new to the US legal (as in no case law yet, and no legislative actions yet) that I doubt anyone can predict how specific judges will decide a case. The case might get decided at a lower court or even a state court on a technicality and therefore never make it any higher.
     
  5. B_dxjnorto

    B_dxjnorto New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest U.S.
    Current state laws which are simply ignored:

    California Penal Code (a). A physical injury inflicted by other than accidental means on a child. (P.C. 11165.6).

    Utah Code Section 76-5-109. Child abuse. (H) any injury that creates a permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the function of a bodily member, limb, or organ. (2) Any person who inflicts upon a child serious physical injury or, having the care or custody of such child, causes or permits another to inflict serious physical injury upon a child is guilty of an offense as follows: (a) if done intentionally or knowingly, the offense is a felony of the second degree.
     
  6. sargon20

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    11,385
    Likes Received:
    2,123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Atlantis
    huuuum...the usual suspects obsessing over the usual. why don't you all launch a 24 hour cable network on circumcision? it certainly would be hard to fill each day up with programming.:redface:
     
  7. JTalbain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    5
    If the consistency of your posts are any indication, we can be guaranteed at least one regular viewer. :tongue:
     
  8. SirConcis

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2007
    Messages:
    1,909
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    30
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    1- I was one told by a few americans that they had been circumcised because they were catholics. (aka: that is what their parents used as an excuse to explain the deed to them).
    So just because a judge is catholic doesn't make him uncut.

    2- The Jewish judges would protect their own religion's right to its rituals. The right of the parents to choose their son's religion is probably as important as the right of the son to choose his penis style.

    3- Because most circumcisions were done at a time where there was agreement on the *medical* advantages of circumcision, I don't think that the Court would agree to any sanction against the doctors or parents since those decisions were made at a time where there was concesnus that it was not only beneficial but also recommended.

    4- Even today, despite the anti-circ's use of the word "mutilation", there is no recommendation AGAINST circumcision. The AMA simply states that there aren't *enough* reasons to recommend widespread circumcision. It doesn't state that circumcision is harmful. So the Court couldn't judge that parents who have their sons circumcised are harming their children.

    The religion argument can be thorny though. Why would be it OK for the jewish and muslim religions to be allowed to circumcise their boys according to their tradidtions while some other religion would not be allowed to circumcised their girls. In other words, there are limits to how fdar a religion can go with its rituals. How and where is that limit defined ? I don't know.

    Considering that the USA governmnet has always been unable to say "no" to anything Israel demands because of the jewish vote being considered very important in the USA, I doubt very much that any USA government would allow the supreme court to prevent americans jews from practising their religion.
     
  9. B_dxjnorto

    B_dxjnorto New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2006
    Messages:
    7,319
    Likes Received:
    21
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Southwest U.S.
    Until RIC stops, I put U.S. doctors in the same pot with Catholic priests. Some of them should not have access to little boys.
     
  10. karldergrosse

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    1,898
    Likes Received:
    42
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Near the Great Smoky Mountains
    3. No, of course there could be no retroactive punishment. A ban would apply only to future transgressions. But do keep an eye on organizations such as Attorneys for the Rights of the Child (www.arclaw.org) ; they are opposing some past circumutilations in today's courts.

    4. Certainly the AMA as an organization is not going to recommend against circumutilation, nor even breathe a word about its being harmful or even occasionally fatal (a responsibly estimated 117 American deaths directly as a sequela of the atrocity in 2007 alone). Butchering baby boys is a veritable gold mine for them--quick, easy, indifferent crushing, cutting, ripping, slicing, removing a precious, irreplaceable part of an infant's body (generally without the expense even of anesthetic) brings in a steady, fantastically rich income stream for those with more greed than conscience. (There are, to be sure, a number of honorable doctors who put ethics and humanitarianism above profit...ones who heed their oath: first, do no harm; the infant himself is the patient, not his parents.) But regardless of the AMA, the euphemistically termed circumcision patently is mutilation. Bloody butchery by any other name is still bloody butchery. And the courts? Who knows about them, though if the judges have any integrity at all, and heed their own oath, they will not let the AMA sell them a bill of goods that a glaring medieval atrocity is a beneficent act of kindness. (But please note that I said IF...!)

    The "religion argument" is not "thorny" at all. Like the AMA, many religionists will rant and rave that their "sacred beliefs" are being trampled upon. But their right to their cruel, primitive beliefs stops where the torture and mutilation of infants begin. Parents have the religious right to disfigure themselves in any way they choose, but human rights say that they cannot deny their children (male or female) the inherent right to their entire body..... As Walt Whitman chanted, "If anything is sacred the human body is sacred." Selah.
     
    #10 karldergrosse, Mar 28, 2010
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2010
  11. JTalbain

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    1,812
    Likes Received:
    5
    Good post, SirConcis. the ratio of legitimate discussion to raving bullshit on these threads are sadly quite low.
    My mother was unsure on this. It's a common question among Christians as to whether or not the Old Testament is to be observed. Some letters from the apostles strike down circumcision in particular as unnecessary, whereas papal decree has actually declared it a mortal sin to circumcise. Pharsea: The People of God.
    Of course, here the biggest point is that the parents can choose the religion for him when he is younger, but when he is an adult, he can choose to change. It's also worth noting that the time period might be changed without truly denying freedom of religion. It might be an acceptable compromise to deny circumcision only to minors, in which case circumcision would end up changing culturally from an initiation rite to a rite of passage. This way, those upon whom the procedure would be performed have a say in the matter. I'm sure there would still be lots of pressure from traditional parents which would coerce many people still dependent on them at age 18, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
    Totally agree here. In fact, I think if any legislation came out which banned circumcision in one form or in its entirety, one clause in the law should be complete legal and civil protection for all those who performed the procedure prior to the passage of the bill. If they're gonna make it illegal, just get it over and done with and move on.
    This is one of the major sticking points I have with the AMA; they're cherry picking their studies. They rely mostly on American studies, which often weren't the best science, relying heavily on surveys and subjective opinion rather than observable biological phenomena. Then they refuse to acknowledge the British studies performed, which have consistently noted that circumcision causes some sexual impairment. To top it off, the AMA and CDC were recently considering using the African studies, which were about as incomplete and poorly performed as is possible, because it legitimized circumcision as a prevention for HIV, despite all evidence to the contrary in our own country.
    The Supreme Court makes many decisions which are politically inconvenient. Also, short of stepping down, Supreme Court Justices are in for life. They never have to worry about politics or reelection. They can choose to worry about such things, but they, more than any President or Congressman, have a free pass to follow their moral compass without political reprecussions.

    I suppose one situation which could lead to male circumcision being declared only legal for religious purposes, whereas FGM would still be illegal is the observable fact that FGM is more extreme. Whereas circumcision only removes the foreskin, FGM often removes all the external genitalia from a girl, depriving them of any sexual pleasure for life. I think that even this would be eventually struck down, but it could happen.
     
  12. I have Foreskin

    I have Foreskin New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2009
    Messages:
    45
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Here
    I'd like to see the circumcision issue brought to the supreme court, just because it'll be in the news and maybe it'll make more parents think before letting the doctors cut their kids dicks half off.

    And then they vote that no one gets cut in the USA EVER. Period.
    :smile:
     
  13. Northland

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2007
    Messages:
    6,082
    Likes Received:
    4
    In light of the current S.F. proposal re: circumcision maybe this isn't as far fetched as many first beleved.
     
  14. mandoman

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2008
    Messages:
    3,539
    Likes Received:
    123
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    MA
    Northland's calls are the purest of pure speculation.
    Here's some logic for you. I was born at the same hospital as Steve Carrell. I'm uncircumcised, so he must be.
    Antonio Sabato is Hispanic, so he must be uncut. (He's circumcised).

    If this was going to go to the Supreme Court, someone would have brought it up because of the sexism.
    Federal law protects girls from genital cutting. Why would someone not have brought that to the Supreme Court in the intervening 14 years, as denying equal protection to both genders under the law?
    If you listen to the blogging about San Francisco's decision, half of it seems to be saying "are you shitting me? the government has far overstepped its boundaries (forgetting the Federal law regarding girls)". The other half seems to be saying, "about fucking time". Once more, the US is in a highly polarized situation. I don't see much chance of the Supremes stepping on that flaming bag of dog shit. Do you?
     
Draft saved Draft deleted