Community >> View Thread
1 2 3  >> All
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
Author
atrimus


Location: Saint Louis, MO
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 2,479


https://www.politico.com/news/2022/05/02/supreme-court-abortion-draft-opinion-00029473

At this point it’s hard to be surprised (or even shocked) by much of anything happening in the US anymore. And it’s downright absurd to lament how passing Roe v Wade divided the country … as if overturning it isn’t gonna be more divisive.



Posted with Apple iPhone
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Somewhat ironically, it seems like there is going to be a nationwide push now to ban all abortions at the federal level. Which would turn the states rights aspect on its head that most of these groups have pushed for decades.

If the reasoning that has been released is accurate, it also indicates that things like the decisions legalizing sodimy and gay marriage are also potentially on the chopping block according to Alito and the court majority. Also potentially birth control, as I would imagine those are the next culture war court cases and with a very conservative majority they are likely to fall since this group has a very narrow view of the Constitution when it suits them.

I know judicial activism is usually defined as decisions you do not agree with but that would potentially allow major intrusions and just sort of continues a wish list of priorities for some groups at the detriment of many others.

It is a shame for sure and it is probably going to get worse. Although historically the Supreme Court has mostly helped those with power and in power as opposed to common people. So it is hardly surprising either.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Would be Watcher


Location: Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



This is so sad. How did it get there?



Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Visitor


Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 2,931



    Quote:

    This is so sad. How did it get there?


Isn't it obvious? The Republican Party owns this.




Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,518


Conservatives won't be satisfied until abortion is banned entirely. I'm not be knee jerk anti-conservative either. This is just intrinsic to their basic values. I think a national ban will be far MORE difficult, perhaps even to the point of unfeasibility, but that's certainly the goal.


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake

P.S. and I very much agree btw that the history of the SCOTUS is that it's been more often regressive than otherwise, and what a surprise that a group of unaccountable legal minds immune to political pressure would find themselves out the other side of the interests of the people.


Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,518


By triangulating the center (the Clinton way) taking for granted the like and the working class on the basis that "they have nowhere else to go" has found that it can less and less count on these groups to build a popular coalition. Abandoning populist economic policies while doubling down on culture war super ego scolding leaves them entirely weak and unable to accumulate popular support. Pair that with the fact that Republicans are generally better at cynical, byzantine legal maneuvers; the Republicans have a more coherent political narrative (however fictitious and ignorant); and Republican have an easier mandate to fulfill: prevent the public sector from functioning and "own the libs." Basically the New Democratic party as exemplified by Carter, Clinton, and Obama has been an utter failure at almost every level and is finally running aground. Now we're in the stage where it will either reform itself (because of confrontations by the electorate most likely) in time to save its own viability... or it will continue to lose until its inevitable restructuring. The speed of this, imo is generally based on the speed at which the terminal mass of liberal voters properly identifies the Democratic leadership and their political philosophy as the primary reason for the party's failure. That's my take at least.


cheers,
---the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
The Mandarin


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,102


If I could thumbs up your post I would.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 99.0 on Windows 10
Visitor


Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 2,931


Thanks for your reply. Now here's my take:

The Republican Party has manifested itself into the anti-democracy party with no competent policies of governance. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, never-ending fear mongering boogey-man culture wars are what they have been reduced to at this point. Why would the RNC decide to boycott future Presidential debates unless you have no convincing policies, no meaningful solutions to real problems that Americans want to hear and be debated? No, instead they are banning books and even more absurd, "MATH books", stating they are critical race theory ideologies to somehow indoctrinate youths is beyond idiotic. But this is the Republican Party who's enacting these measures, no one else. The same party which now states the attack on the Capitol and events that lead to it as "legitimate political discourse?" WTF? The Don't Say Gay Bill, anti-LGBTQ measures, and now attacking institutions with swift punishing legislation upon institutions that disagree with them without regard to ramifications (Disney) shows their willingness to use them as an example to others that would challenge their authority.

Now we have, if true, the attack on a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion (Roe vs. Wade that has stood since 1973) is downright scary to say the least. Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow anyone individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion. Same thing happened in Texas. If Roe is weakened or overturned, states will be more emboldened to enact this type of law and even worse prohibit women from being able to travel to exercise what they believe (and has been for decades), their right to choose for themselves.

What's next? Outlawing birth control? Same-sex marriage? Interracial marriage?

If you don't fit the category of being straight, White, and Christian then we will silence your voice one way or the other.

We shall see. In a bizarre way, I hope the SCOTUS does overturn Roe vs. Wade to unite and energize democrats, progressives, liberals, moderates, etc., to say enough is enough. Clarence Thomas tainting of the court certainly doesn't help the credibility of the court, now does it? I won't even get into the outright lies Mark Meadows, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Sean Hannity, other politicians, associates, etc., who have been completely busted on tape and text messages contradicting their oral statements. Many of them refusing to testify to the 1/6th committee. What's to hide? Why not do your part to come forward and tell what you know? We shall see. There's more evidence coming soon to support, what we already know. An orchestrated national coup attempt to overturn an legitimate election will be released in public hearings coming in June.

Yeah, just the tip of the iceberg here, but that's my take. ;\)



Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Visitor


Member Since: Sun Jul 30, 2017
Posts: 2,931



    Quote:
    Conservatives won't be satisfied until abortion is banned entirely. I'm not be knee jerk anti-conservative either. This is just intrinsic to their basic values. I think a national ban will be far MORE difficult, perhaps even to the point of unfeasibility, but that's certainly the goal.



    Quote:

    cheers,
    ---the late great Donald Blake



    Quote:
    P.S. and I very much agree btw that the history of the SCOTUS is that it's been more often regressive than otherwise, and what a surprise that a group of unaccountable legal minds immune to political pressure would find themselves out the other side of the interests of the people.


Well said.




Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Late Great Donald Blake 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 7,518


IF liberals aren't willing to do the sufficient self reflection or to confront the growing weakness and contradiction endemic to their party's leadership.

cheers,
--- the late great Donald Blake


Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.41 on Linux
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Conservatives won't be satisfied until abortion is banned entirely. I'm not be knee jerk anti-conservative either. This is just intrinsic to their basic values. I think a national ban will be far MORE difficult, perhaps even to the point of unfeasibility, but that's certainly the goal.


It is true. I mean that seems the intention anyway.

I am no lawyer either but the couple I listened to on podcasts and read their opinions of it were pretty appauled by some of the rational.

Although the long and short of it is that SCOTUS's logic can often be..."we do what we want" and then come up with a reason. I am sure one can find sourcing in legal history for nearly any opinion.


    Quote:

    cheers,
    ---the late great Donald Blake



    Quote:
    P.S. and I very much agree btw that the history of the SCOTUS is that it's been more often regressive than otherwise, and what a surprise that a group of unaccountable legal minds immune to political pressure would find themselves out the other side of the interests of the people.


In some ways the logic made some sense, at least on paper. But in reality it ignores that these are people.

Honestly, the only way that the current system appears to work is if you had a group of superhuman people up there. As everything is self imposed, meaning nothing is ever really done.

It is just odd to me that the court has been successfully marked as too liberal when progressive policies that would be more inclusionary are the exception and not the norm.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.41 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    By triangulating the center (the Clinton way) taking for granted the like and the working class on the basis that "they have nowhere else to go" has found that it can less and less count on these groups to build a popular coalition. Abandoning populist economic policies while doubling down on culture war super ego scolding leaves them entirely weak and unable to accumulate popular support. Pair that with the fact that Republicans are generally better at cynical, byzantine legal maneuvers; the Republicans have a more coherent political narrative (however fictitious and ignorant); and Republican have an easier mandate to fulfill: prevent the public sector from functioning and "own the libs." Basically the New Democratic party as exemplified by Carter, Clinton, and Obama has been an utter failure at almost every level and is finally running aground. Now we're in the stage where it will either reform itself (because of confrontations by the electorate most likely) in time to save its own viability... or it will continue to lose until its inevitable restructuring. The speed of this, imo is generally based on the speed at which the terminal mass of liberal voters properly identifies the Democratic leadership and their political philosophy as the primary reason for the party's failure. That's my take at least.


I agree with this, although it is a function of both the Republican party being the way it is and not having a coherent opposing party against it.

I think one could also highlight that the way of American politics divided into two parties leaves an unfortunate choice. Here are your two sides, if you vote for anything else you are throwing your vote away and at this point if you have leanings one way or another you are more likely than not to return home to roost than not when it all comes together.

The GOP is without question better at messaging, PR and so on. It also seems that their base has been primed to seemingly be angry and rise up more frequently and long ago accepted perpetual expanding culture wars. Their legal strategies to me are partly based on cleverness and partly on success of putting in judges that are willing to accept them as well.

Really, this sort of political system is sort of doomed to failure at some point. Even with a competent Democratic party I would speculate that many people would still support the GOP although maybe there would be moderation in the party as opposed to gradual drift towards true authoritarianism.

Add to that, the democratic party as such, like you pointed out, has never really done anything to address much of the core issues at play (neoliberalism and what stems from it) and have sort of raced along the core tenants, although in general they have at least paid more lip service to the right thing than the GOP.

The GOP is also better at using political power to reinforce their own power. After retaking state governments they solidified power with gerrymandering, voting restrictions and so on. Not unique to the GOP, but they are currently more guilty of it in a way that dilutes actual democratic process while seeming to push for the system being undone.

All the while the Dems are too inept to do much about it and are hamstrung by members of their own party.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.41 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I agree with that as well, but another challenge is simply that the GOP has done a good job of entrenching their power when they get into place.

I mean what does it take to win back some of these state governments at this point?

I have seen studies where even winning the House requires winning by like 6 points in a national election.

Even if there was great leadership it would be hard to win back much other than a chip away sort of strategy.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.41 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    Thanks for your reply. Now here's my take:



    Quote:
    The Republican Party has manifested itself into the anti-democracy party with no competent policies of governance. Gerrymandering, voter suppression, never-ending fear mongering boogey-man culture wars are what they have been reduced to at this point. Why would the RNC decide to boycott future Presidential debates unless you have no convincing policies, no meaningful solutions to real problems that Americans want to hear and be debated? No, instead they are banning books and even more absurd, "MATH books", stating they are critical race theory ideologies to somehow indoctrinate youths is beyond idiotic. But this is the Republican Party who's enacting these measures, no one else. The same party which now states the attack on the Capitol and events that lead to it as "legitimate political discourse?" WTF? The Don't Say Gay Bill, anti-LGBTQ measures, and now attacking institutions with swift punishing legislation upon institutions that disagree with them without regard to ramifications (Disney) shows their willingness to use them as an example to others that would challenge their authority.


I agree, but not sure much can be done. More people than one would care to think about are at the least ok with this and in some of these locations between gerrymandering, voting restrictions and other things it would take massive swings for Dems to ever retake power.

So, the GOP can claim vast public support despite not really winning the most votes in the end. It is just the nature of the beast.

And most conservative voters thing the 2020 election was stolen and that is a rallying cry for them now. If anything, it just encourages them at the state levels to no certify if a democrat wins again and base it on false claims.

It does not matter in some cases what the populace may or may not want.


    Quote:
    Now we have, if true, the attack on a woman's constitutional right to choose an abortion (Roe vs. Wade that has stood since 1973) is downright scary to say the least. Lawmakers in Missouri weighed legislation early this year that would allow anyone individuals to sue anyone helping a patient cross state lines for an abortion. Same thing happened in Texas. If Roe is weakened or overturned, states will be more emboldened to enact this type of law and even worse prohibit women from being able to travel to exercise what they believe (and has been for decades), their right to choose for themselves.


I did not realize the Texas one was accross state lines, I thought it was civil lawsuits for getting an abortion in state. I have major problems with this sort of legal reasoning and at least SCOTUS seemed skeptical of it to a point.

I mean using the same sort of logic and process one could attack any Constitutional right, so long as you could not tie it down to a member of the state to sue. I doubt they would be ok with it for something like gun control or anything like that in the end. Or if it were legal to sue religion organizations for violating the law with political speech sort of stuff. Although that would not happen.

I think the idea that one state can go after a person for what they do in another state is weird. It is almost like the Fugitive Slave act situation. For many states laws are similar but in this there is going to be a patchwork of places. Does the power of one state span the country. Seems like it should be no, particularly with the current SCOTUS taking a when convenient states rights situation and the state sovereignty dogma they hold to but I would not put it past them.


    Quote:
    What's next? Outlawing birth control? Same-sex marriage? Interracial marriage?


I mean those cases are coming. Some legislatures in Michigan already brought up birth control. And many pro-life folks look at many forms of birth control as abortion drugs or technology.

Same-sex marriage is for sure on the chopping block.

Interracial marriage has been in place long enough where it is probably ok, but the others are targets of the religious right, sodomy laws are probably at risk as well.


    Quote:
    If you don't fit the category of being straight, White, and Christian then we will silence your voice one way or the other.


Yes, and more likely than not will be successful.

Consider this SCOTUS ruled that fairly moderate COVID restrictions in California were unConstitutional because churches could not congregate in person.

All while the same restrictions were applied to religious and non-religious organizations equally. Normally, that means it is fine so long as there is a legitimate public interest in the action and it is applied in a secular manner to all.

Not with this court, anything you do to a religious body is high scrutiny and will more often than not break for them. We will probably see alot of religious carve outs for questionable things.


    Quote:
    We shall see. In a bizarre way, I hope the SCOTUS does overturn Roe vs. Wade to unite and energize democrats, progressives, liberals, moderates, etc., to say enough is enough. Clarence Thomas tainting of the court certainly doesn't help the credibility of the court, now does it? I won't even get into the outright lies Mark Meadows, Marjorie Taylor Greene, Sean Hannity, other politicians, associates, etc., who have been completely busted on tape and text messages contradicting their oral statements. Many of them refusing to testify to the 1/6th committee. What's to hide? Why not do your part to come forward and tell what you know? We shall see. There's more evidence coming soon to support, what we already know. An orchestrated national coup attempt to overturn an legitimate election will be released in public hearings coming in June.


It may or may not. I mean I would hope it would, but support for such things is fragmented. Most people support Roe and do not want it to go but most have different thoughts on what it says at all and what they think shoule be allowed or not. All the GOP has to do is confuse the issue and they are probably ok.

Abortion is also rarer now than ever before. Partly because access to birth control and so on. Which is great and I think what everybody wants, but the difference is that pro-life folks want it to never be ok. Pro-choice folks are not pro-abortion as much as it is a woman's business. And for the vast majority of women it is due to medical reasons. And others are carrying the children of rapists and so on, but I guess they have to give birth to them because all lives are sacred, but the state will not help you at all. In fact you will be called lazy.


    Quote:
    Yeah, just the tip of the iceberg here, but that's my take. ;\)


Oh it is, but to me it is going to get worse before it gets any better at all. Just based on political entrenchment.

We are not going to just seem women rise up in huge numbers. Not until something like birth control or similar is directly attacked. It would need to be something that most use.

Roe has been accepted as fact but it is not something that most people think about that often, but I hope that I am wrong and it will help stem the tied some for the midterms.

That said, given gerrymandering alone it is likely that the Dems lose the house. I think it was fairly balanced, but Florida's recent efforts alone got rid of two or three democratic leaning districts and added 4 GOP ones. Which with other factors is more than enough without a wave election.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.41 on Windows 10
Unstable Molecule


Location: Calgary, AB Canada
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 3,108


This post is mostly about the failures of the Democratic party, but the Democrats in general oppose overturning Roe V Wade. Don't the Republicans have an intrinsic responsibility to be better people and support better policies, regardless of the state of their opposing party?




"It is not our abilities that show what we truly are. It is our choices." – Albus Dumbledore
Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.75 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Both you and LGDB are right. The Republican Party is now an extremist party of anger and hate that embraces conspiracy theories and disbelieves science. They will do anything to win and keeping Garland from even coming up for a vote almost a year out from the election while simultaneously and hypocritically rushing Barrett through with a month before the election has resulted in the Supreme Court's awful reputation and terrible decisions. The Democrats are inept at communicating and governing and recognizing where their faults lie and so are having a hard time stopping the crazies.





How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Happy Hogan 

Manager

Location: Northern Virginia
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,441




    Quote:
    By triangulating the center (the Clinton way) taking for granted the like and the working class on the basis that "they have nowhere else to go" has found that it can less and less count on these groups to build a popular coalition. Abandoning populist economic policies while doubling down on culture war super ego scolding leaves them entirely weak and unable to accumulate popular support. Pair that with the fact that Republicans are generally better at cynical, byzantine legal maneuvers; the Republicans have a more coherent political narrative (however fictitious and ignorant); and Republican have an easier mandate to fulfill: prevent the public sector from functioning and "own the libs." Basically the New Democratic party as exemplified by Carter, Clinton, and Obama has been an utter failure at almost every level and is finally running aground. Now we're in the stage where it will either reform itself (because of confrontations by the electorate most likely) in time to save its own viability... or it will continue to lose until its inevitable restructuring. The speed of this, imo is generally based on the speed at which the terminal mass of liberal voters properly identifies the Democratic leadership and their political philosophy as the primary reason for the party's failure. That's my take at least.



    Quote:

    cheers,
    ---the late great Donald Blake


I consider myself liberal leaning, but lately as far as culture wars go, both in my personal life and on social media most of the people telling ME that I am either obligated to patronize somebody or else obligated to cancel somebody; are liberals.

This is something I can't blame on Carter, Clinton, or Obama, or the Democratic Party.






The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021


I happen to be in favor of overturning Roe vs. Wade, but not because of pro-life or pro-choice considerations. Roe vs. Wade should not have happened in the first place. The Constitution neither upholds nor denies (a) a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy; (b) the fetus's right to life; (c) the woman's right to refuse to undergo a medical procedure; (d) the proposition that the foregoing are none of society's business; or (e) the proposition that the state has no compelling interest in the continuance or termination of any pregnancy. On all of this, the Constitution is silent. Where the Constitution is silent, the Supreme Court should likewise be silent. These questions should be decided by Congress or by the state legislatures. It's even questionable whether Congress should have any say. Consider this, from the Bill of Rights:

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


If Roe vs. Wade is overturned, then what is contemplated in Amendment X is what will happen. What the Framers planned for is what will happen.




Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


That is not what Roe v. Wade did.

It did not give the right to have an abortion, it ruled that the right was already in the constitution, under the right to privacy.

That right was not given, the ruling is that it was already present. It is the same logic used for interracial marriage. The right already exists, the states were infringing on already existing rights.

The Supreme Court doe not give rights, it determines what rights already exist. They have done that ever since they told us that is what they do in 1803.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 99.0 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Exactly. I was just about to post a similar response.




How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
zvelf


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


I concur that the far left has been very irresponsible in pushing cancel culture, and Democrats in general are facing the backlash. However, Republicans have picked up on the tactic and are getting even more extreme by trying to cancel everyone anti-Trump in their party while also banning books and legislating away education they don't like.




How to make an entrance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=49xWJJvpjzI
Posted with Google Chrome 100.0.4896.127 on Windows 10
Happy Hogan 

Manager

Location: Northern Virginia
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 4,441




    Quote:
    I concur that the far left has been very irresponsible in pushing cancel culture, and Democrats in general are facing the backlash. However, Republicans have picked up on the tactic and are getting even more extreme by trying to cancel everyone anti-Trump in their party while also banning books and legislating away education they don't like.


Yes, it feels more and more like my only two choices are a Republican Party filled with crazy people that I don't want to have anything to do with, or a Democratic Party filled with very judgemental people who act very much like they don't want to have anything to do with me!

What I blame Donald Trump and his ilk for on the right, I DON'T blame leaders in the Democratic Party, but it has too many people who aren't listening to me anyway, so what am I supposed to do?





The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    That is not what Roe v. Wade did.



    Quote:
    It did not give the right to have an abortion, it ruled that the right was already in the constitution, under the right to privacy.



Ruling that something is true does not make it true. A ruling can be false, and in this case, it was. The right to privacy isn't there. Here are the two Amendments that have been proposed as asserting that right. The first is this one:


Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Read that paragraph with an honest eye toward identifying what the Framers had in mind, and you'll conclude they were intent on protecting American citizens from illegal search and seizure on the part of their government. Nothing more. Which makes sense, because the main fear at the time of ratification was federal government overreach.


Here's the second:


Amendment XIV

Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Where is any mention of anything like privacy? (There is more to say on this Amendment, which I'll get to in a moment, but for now, please just focus on privacy.) What this paragraph does is protect American citizens from (a) being killed, imprisoned, enslaved, or robbed by their state government without due process of law; or (b) from having any of their Constitutional rights violated by their state government; or (c) from being protected differently from anyone else under the laws of their state. What I've labeled "(a)" is not about privacy. What I've labeled "(b)" would only be about privacy if privacy was protected elsewhere in the Constitution, which it isn't. What I've labeled "(c)" would only be about privacy if there were some special group in America which historically had enjoyed a right to privacy, and such was not the case until Roe vs. Wade invented this right on behalf of women - and we can't use Roe vs. Wade to justify Roe vs. Wade.

There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Not yet. If we want one - and I think we do - we need to put it in there, via the Amendment process.

Now, as I promised, there is more to say on Amendment XIV. It prohibits the states from enslaving their citizens without due process of law. One could argue that preventing a woman from getting an abortion is enslavement. THAT is the right argument to pursue. Not some nonsense about privacy. However, we need to clarify something. The paragraph only prohibits the states from enslaving someone without due process of law. This implies that if the state enacted a law through its legislature that laid out a formal process of when and how a person could be enslaved, Amendment XIV would be satisfied. HOWEVER! The prior Amendment precludes that!


AMENDMENT XIII

Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



So there you go. Argue that prohibiting abortion is enslavement. You could win the debate.

But for some reason, Roe vs. Wade didn't take that approach. Maybe because a reading like that would also prohibit military conscription. If you can't tell a woman she has to have a baby, because that would be involuntary servitude, then you can't tell a man he has to go to war and maybe die, since that, too, would be involuntary servitude. It's that pesky "equal protection of the laws" provision in Amendment IV (see above). Now of course you could distinguish between the two in the Constitution, but you would have to actually write that in. You would have to do an Amendment that clarifies your intent.

And make no mistake: the federal government will not surrender its power to conscript military troops at will.



    Quote:
    The Supreme Court doe not give rights, it determines what rights already exist. They have done that ever since they told us that is what they do in 1803.



And they can err. When they err, they have in effect created a right out of thin air.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


My disclaimer before we get into it is that I am not a lawyer and only know what I read and hear. Which would, of course, mean I am limited in not always knowing what I do not know.

However, let's get into it a bit.


    Quote:

      Quote:
      That is not what Roe v. Wade did.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        It did not give the right to have an abortion, it ruled that the right was already in the constitution, under the right to privacy.



    Quote:

    Ruling that something is true does not make it true. A ruling can be false, and in this case, it was. The right to privacy isn't there. Here are the two Amendments that have been proposed as asserting that right. The first is this one:


It depends on what you mean by isn't there. There is not a specific statement of "praviacy", but it is indicated as something the Founders were interested in. Although even the term Fouder's to me is oversimplified. They were not a monolith and they had major disagreements at every stage of this. Other than that they needed a document better than the Articles of Confederation and that Washington should oversee it.


    Quote:

    Amendment IV



    Quote:
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.



    Quote:
    Read that paragraph with an honest eye toward identifying what the Framers had in mind, and you'll conclude they were intent on protecting American citizens from illegal search and seizure on the part of their government. Nothing more. Which makes sense, because the main fear at the time of ratification was federal government overreach.


Sure, but considering there are four or five Amendments that do cover the right to privacy it is something that was considered.

They enumerated specific ones, but the not quartering soldiers is a privacy thing, the first amednment covers it and so on and so forth. The ones that make some statement on it would be 1, 3, 4 and 9. Then 14. They do not specifically cover the abortion issue but they highlight things like the importance of private ownership of various things including home, beliefs, person and possessions and then life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.


    Quote:

    Here's the second:



    Quote:

    Amendment XIV



    Quote:
    Section 1.



    Quote:
    All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.



    Quote:

    Where is any mention of anything like privacy? (There is more to say on this Amendment, which I'll get to in a moment, but for now, please just focus on privacy.) What this paragraph does is protect American citizens from (a) being killed, imprisoned, enslaved, or robbed by their state government without due process of law; or (b) from having any of their Constitutional rights violated by their state government; or (c) from being protected differently from anyone else under the laws of their state. What I've labeled "(a)" is not about privacy. What I've labeled "(b)" would only be about privacy if privacy was protected elsewhere in the Constitution, which it isn't. What I've labeled "(c)" would only be about privacy if there were some special group in America which historically had enjoyed a right to privacy, and such was not the case until Roe vs. Wade invented this right on behalf of women - and we can't use Roe vs. Wade to justify Roe vs. Wade.

    There is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Not yet. If we want one - and I think we do - we need to put it in there, via the Amendment process.


The Amendments listed cover privacy. They just cover specific kinds of it. So do others. The first protects a persons right to their own religious beliefs (which could fairly be called private to them). The third amendment says that people cannot be forced to quarter troops in their private residence. The fourth says that the government cannot pester a person without cause (which establishes a privacy right within the home unless their is cause) and also establishes one for the person in a similar vein (you cannot just be arrested for no reason).

The 14th Amendment is more complicated. It is one of the reconstruction Amendments and in its original context it is mostly meant to deal with that but it does include additional rights to all persons within it that were not specifically enermated before.

That is why they are often called the unenumerated rights. Which is a blanket term for many rights that we now enjoy and has been the basis for many such rules that may have never come to be otherwise.

Many of which have been upheld from the SCOTUS in cases ranging from 1923 to present day. So, not particularly novel to the 1973 decision.


    Quote:
    Now, as I promised, there is more to say on Amendment XIV. It prohibits the states from enslaving their citizens without due process of law. One could argue that preventing a woman from getting an abortion is enslavement. THAT is the right argument to pursue. Not some nonsense about privacy. However, we need to clarify something. The paragraph only prohibits the states from enslaving someone without due process of law. This implies that if the state enacted a law through its legislature that laid out a formal process of when and how a person could be enslaved, Amendment XIV would be satisfied. HOWEVER! The prior Amendment precludes that!


I mean it does that and more because of the following passage...

"nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"

Those are fairly broad terms.

To one extent or another the privacy rights read into the liberty part of that were upheld or defined in Griswold vs Connecticut (1965), Stanely vs Georgia (1969), Ravin vs State (1975), Kelly vs Johnson (1976), Moore vs East Cleveland (1977) etc.

The point is most of those is either the direct sort of right being discussed or extrapolation of other rights listed.

And it honestly depends a bit on how far you want to go in a situation and how literal you want to be with textualism as far as I can tell. As these sorts of rights stemming from it have been used for various cases.


    Quote:

    AMENDMENT XIII



    Quote:
    Section 1.
    Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.



    Quote:
    Section 2.
    Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.



    Quote:

    So there you go. Argue that prohibiting abortion is enslavement. You could win the debate.


I do not think you would with the current court but that is me. I do not think it falls well under enslavement.


    Quote:
    But for some reason, Roe vs. Wade didn't take that approach. Maybe because a reading like that would also prohibit military conscription. If you can't tell a woman she has to have a baby, because that would be involuntary servitude, then you can't tell a man he has to go to war and maybe die, since that, too, would be involuntary servitude. It's that pesky "equal protection of the laws" provision in Amendment IV (see above). Now of course you could distinguish between the two in the Constitution, but you would have to actually write that in. You would have to do an Amendment that clarifies your intent.


Why would it take that approach? I mean you could argue that women were enslaved, but they were not specifically being enslaved. Pre Roe there was a patchwork, but more states were restrictive.

It would take a fairly loose definition of enslavement.


    Quote:
    And make no mistake: the federal government will not surrender its power to conscript military troops at will.



    Quote:


      Quote:
      The Supreme Court doe not give rights, it determines what rights already exist. They have done that ever since they told us that is what they do in 1803.



    Quote:

    And they can err. When they err, they have in effect created a right out of thin air.


They didn't pull it out of thin air though. I mean you can disagree with it and others can too, but it all depends on what sort of legal camp you want to come down in when determining these things.

If you are a literalist, originalist and textualist (which I am honestly skeptical of to some extentjust because it is used as convenient by the courts) than the word is not in there I guess, but there are underpinnings everywhere.

There were even legal writings on it more less summarized as "the right to be left alone".

There were several things the Court said that are informative to its choices and understanding and the reason for its ruling and I will put some excerpts here.

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or ... in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."

Further, the court said that having unwanted children "may force upon the woman a distressful life and future" in addition to listing pyschological harm and medical harms among others.

"A State may properly assert important interests in safeguarding health, maintaining medical standards, and in protecting potential life. At some point in pregnancy, these respective interests become sufficiently compelling to sustain regulation of the factors that govern the abortion decision. ... We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

It is therefore clear that the court did not view this as an absolute right, but one in the vein of what one would expect for a medical procedure.

Which bodily autonomy (which a right to privacy would also fall under) would at least partly be covered under the 4th, 8th and 14th Amendment (and common law). And this has been upheld by the Court, particularly with the 14th Amendment despite it not directly covering such things in relation to medicine. I believe even some of the rules to strike down vaccine rules fell under this.

What I am getting at is the right to privacy was not created for abortion rights and has been part of the legal system for quite some time despite not being specifically stated. Given how many Amendments reference it in some form or fashion it seems clear that it is there, but to what capacity is less clear.


I am supportive of an Amendment for numerous things, so a court cannot just change composition and interprutation and then undo something that has been accepted for decades, but that is not going to happen. And the danger is the rights to various other things are on nearly the same legal footing using the right to privacy or right to be left along ramework as the ground work.


My uneducated opinion though. And there is obvious disagreement within the legal profession but I am also of the mind that SCOTUS on the whole has done more harm than good over its history with its interpretations protecting those in power and letting them do as they wish at the expense of normal citizens and something needs to be done about that. As several Amendments over the decades were purposefully read wrong and not even in the spirit of what was intended.







Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:
    This post is mostly about the failures of the Democratic party, but the Democrats in general oppose overturning Roe V Wade. Don't the Republicans have an intrinsic responsibility to be better people and support better policies, regardless of the state of their opposing party?


One would hope so, but that is not the direction that they have taken.

I think it is more disturbing that they win so often (numerous reasons) but a large number of people support their sort of message and the regressive views that they push.

That is THE major problem to me but undercutting all of that is that we have two real options in the US and if you vote for the Dems than you hope they would fix some of the problems, but they often do not.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008


Sure, although I agree it is less of a problem that indicated. At least in general. It has been weaponized at this point by the GOP to being the main issue of the day and so on.

I also do not really think it is that unique to one party, although liberals do deserve quite a bit of credit for it.

And the term itself to be is about as useful as folks yelling CRT at this point. It is meaningless and can mean whatever you want it to on a political level.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Silver Surfer


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

    Ruling that something is true does not make it true


That is EXACTLY what it means.

The case I mentioned before form 1803... Maybury v. Madison, is what established the Supreme Court's role as interrupting the Constitution.

That means what ever they ruling is legal reality. Whther it is good or bad, it is legal reality.

Since the legal system is based on the conpet of precident, especially when applied to the highest sourt in teh land.


    Quote:
    Read that paragraph with an honest eye toward identifying what the Framers had in mind, and you'll conclude they were intent on protecting American citizens from illegal search and seizure on the part of their government. Nothing more. Which makes sense, because the main fear at the time of ratification was federal government overreach.


What the framers wanted is immaterial, because.. AGAIN... Marbury v. Madison stated the Supreme Court job was to interrupt the Constitution.

The right to privacy was first coined in 1965, and has been used in many Supreme Court Rulings..in including Loving v. Virginia.

BEFORE you mention the framers again... that case was in 1803. The "Madison" in the case is James Madison, a then future president, and framer of the contribution.

Despite the contribution not mentioning that as the Supreme Court's job, he and all the other framers did not try to reverse that as the role of the Court.

So... they clearly had no problem with the Supreme Court being in charge of interpretation aka deciding meaning of... the constitution. Also, adding elements to the Federal government not specifically stated.

I think only the legal precedent matters because, you know... time moves forward, but if you need the Framers, Whatever they think of the ruling, they supported this power of the court

By the way, the constitutional does not mention about the court at all.


Also, since Right to Privacy was established by the Court in 1965, and almost 60 years later no one has ever stated a desire to overturn it, it is perfectly fair to use as legal precedent.



By the Way, since you seem to be so keen on the framers, I assume you are against the US having a standing Army. The COntiution actually spells put that the US is not supposed to raise anarmy for more than two years.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 12:

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;


Seems to me we have had a standing army for WAY more than two years.



    Quote:
    And make no mistake: the federal government will not surrender its power to conscript military troops at will.


Yeah, the Warren Court already ruled that the US had that right... the same court that ruled on right to privacy.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 99.0 on Windows 10
JS


Member Since: Thu Oct 29, 2009


You're claiming the Democratic Party is being judgemental, but in saying that, it sounds to me like you're being pretty judgemental yourself. Maybe you fit in better than you think. And you know what? That's fine. It's just opinions. Nothing wrong with that. You can have your opinions, and so can others. But you know, you are talking about a large group of people based on the actions of only some. Just something to keep in mind.

But really, you shouldn't make voting decisions based on that. You should vote for the candidate who will do the things you want done, and won't do things you don't want done.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 100.0 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:
    Sure, but considering there are four or five Amendments that do cover the right to privacy it is something that was considered.



    Quote:
    They enumerated specific ones, but the not quartering soldiers is a privacy thing, the first amednment covers it and so on and so forth. The ones that make some statement on it would be 1, 3, 4 and 9. Then 14. They do not specifically cover the abortion issue but they highlight things like the importance of private ownership of various things including home, beliefs, person and possessions and then life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.



First, it seems clear you're using "privacy" to mean "freedom from interference by the state." This is the definition Roe v. Wade proponents typically apply. I'll run with it.

Now, the argument you - and other Roe v. Wade proponents - wish to put forward seems to be this: "The Constitution establishes several particular ways in which the state may not interfere with its citizens, so therefore the Constitution may be construed as establishing a general protection of its citizens against interference by the state."

This is an example of inductive reasoning - arguing from the specific to the general - and as such must be tested against reality. Does the Constitution establish a general protection of its citizens against interference by the state?

Well, let's see. Does it protect its citizens from the state's interference with (1) their decision as to how fast to drive their car? - (2) their decision as to whether to fight for the state? - (3) their decision as to whether to contribute financially to the state? - (4) their decision as to whether to drive while drinking alcohol? - (5) their decision as to whether to pay for sex? - (6) their decision as to whether to gamble wherever and whenever they choose? - (7) their decision as to whether to purchase narcotics?

The answer is no in every case. Why is the answer no? Because the Constitution doesn't list these as protected rights to non-interference.

Yet somehow a woman's right to be protected from the state's interference with her decision as to whether to terminate her pregnancy is Constitutionally protected, even though the Constitution doesn't say so.

Understand: I'm not debating whether the Constitution should protect women from this state interference. I'm debating whether it does. I say it doesn't, because it doesn't say so, and in at least seven other instances, not saying so is sufficient to preclude such protection.



    Quote:
    Many of which have been upheld from the SCOTUS in cases ranging from 1923 to present day. So, not particularly novel to the 1973 decision.



Every time SCOTUS did this, they erred.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
The Avenger


Location: New Jersey
Member Since: Thu Dec 02, 2021



    Quote:

      Quote:

      Ruling that something is true does not make it true


    That is EXACTLY what it means.



    Quote:
    The case I mentioned before form 1803... Maybury v. Madison, is what established the Supreme Court's role as interrupting the Constitution.



    Quote:
    That means what ever they ruling is legal reality. Whether it is good or bad, it is legal reality.



    Quote:
    Since the legal system is based on the conpet of precident, especially when applied to the highest court in the land.



What you're saying is that the Supreme Court has the unassailable prerogative to rule however they want on whatever they want, with no restrictive principle of any kind, and with no way to ever be in error. Consider what that could mean in practice. Your argument transforms these nine individuals into gods.

It has to be possible for us to tell SCOTUS they're wrong. There has to be a restrictive principle by which we can identify error. We can't allow stare decisis to eternally enshrine the arbitrary whims of nine masters of the universe. They have to be accountable to some principle, and it can't be simply stare decisis, because that would mean they're accountable ONLY to their previous arbitrary whims.



Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
bd2999 

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Sure, but considering there are four or five Amendments that do cover the right to privacy it is something that was considered.

      Quote:

        Quote:
        They enumerated specific ones, but the not quartering soldiers is a privacy thing, the first amednment covers it and so on and so forth. The ones that make some statement on it would be 1, 3, 4 and 9. Then 14. They do not specifically cover the abortion issue but they highlight things like the importance of private ownership of various things including home, beliefs, person and possessions and then life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.



    Quote:

    First, it seems clear you're using "privacy" to mean "freedom from interference by the state." This is the definition Roe v. Wade proponents typically apply. I'll run with it.



    Quote:
    Now, the argument you - and other Roe v. Wade proponents - wish to put forward seems to be this: "The Constitution establishes several particular ways in which the state may not interfere with its citizens, so therefore the Constitution may be construed as establishing a general protection of its citizens against interference by the state."


Sure, but I think you missed my point that this line of reasoning predates Roe.


    Quote:
    This is an example of inductive reasoning - arguing from the specific to the general - and as such must be tested against reality. Does the Constitution establish a general protection of its citizens against interference by the state?


In most cases one would assume so. I mean the Constitution is a fairly short document but fairly complex legal matters have been sorted through using the text available and extrapolating. The main difference is who is doing it.


    Quote:
    Well, let's see. Does it protect its citizens from the state's interference with (1) their decision as to how fast to drive their car? - (2) their decision as to whether to fight for the state? - (3) their decision as to whether to contribute financially to the state? - (4) their decision as to whether to drive while drinking alcohol? - (5) their decision as to whether to pay for sex? - (6) their decision as to whether to gamble wherever and whenever they choose? - (7) their decision as to whether to purchase narcotics?



    Quote:
    The answer is no in every case. Why is the answer no? Because the Constitution doesn't list these as protected rights to non-interference.


Except none of this really matters. Even in the rulings in question it has never been ruled that privacy as such is an absolute right.

The question that would be proper is does a person have a Constitutional right to govern their own medical care? It is not explicitly stated anywhere in the Constitution but in most cases it is ruled that a person has a legal and ethical basis for governing their own medical care.

IMO, it falls under that more than anything. Which has been read into the 14th Amendments clause.


    Quote:
    Yet somehow a woman's right to be protected from the state's interference with her decision as to whether to terminate her pregnancy is Constitutionally protected, even though the Constitution doesn't say so.


I would say the right to make your own medical decisions is a different set of rights than speed limits. Which as you know would not have been in the radar of the Constitutions writers. AT least the original ones.


    Quote:
    Understand: I'm not debating whether the Constitution should protect women from this state interference. I'm debating whether it does. I say it doesn't, because it doesn't say so, and in at least seven other instances, not saying so is sufficient to preclude such protection.


And I think that is too literal, but that is what I think and it does not matter.

To me it falls under the general rights to bodily autonomy that would fall under life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It hits on all three of those in the 14th Amendment.

One could also it falls under other Amendments. I agree it is not specifically stated, but if we do not consider the right to liberty or life to be Constitutionally protected things than it undercuts the whole notion of the Constitution to me.

All of that said, my personel preference would be to modify the Amendment process to make it easier to pass the things so that Courts would not have to interprut and reinterprut the situation.

I mean Clarence Thomas alone has indicated that women as stated do not have some Constitutional rights that are not enumerated, even though they can easily be read in. The Equal Rights Amendment or something like it could be passed but there are alot of things not specifically said in the Constitution but are included.


    Quote:


      Quote:
      Many of which have been upheld from the SCOTUS in cases ranging from 1923 to present day. So, not particularly novel to the 1973 decision.



    Quote:

    Every time SCOTUS did this, they erred.


In your opinion.

However, one also has to square that if such things were the foundation of various rights for going on 60 years than jumping in and saying they were all wrong and pulling the rug out leaves alot of people exposed for fairly petty reasons that amount to "well technically". At least in my view.

In a perfect world these things would be spelled out in Amendments but if left to that I imagine it would be a very long time before gay people could marry or in many cases even interracial couples as you would be waiting for the people to figure out the "right thing" which may or may not ever happen.

And in principle it is the Court's job to protect the population equivalently, even if they have not always done it even when it is explicitly stated. Like the marriage example, to me marriage is not really covered at all in the Constitution but given that the federal and state governments give numerous benefits to the status it seemed clear to me that not giving those to others is a violation under a couple of different Amendments. Even if the privacy one, or the umbrella of it was sort of used as the framework for it. If it were merely a religious institution than it would not necessitate anything of the kind. IMO.

Let's just say that I still do not really agree with your reasoning but will agree that it is the simplest way to go about things but to me it is also the one with the most danger to it. As some areas of the Constitution are vague by nature.

For instantce one would think Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce is pretty clear, but not always. Various members of the current court have happily limited that power even when it is clear when it is spelled out.

Other areas needing details would be counting voters and things like citizenship. It seems clear, but there are movements that try to push things like that and may well succeed eventually regardless of the text or logical reasoning from the text in the first place.

To me, the medical right to make your own choices unless it impacts others directly seems like it is something protected under the 14th Amendment's text and potentially a few others even though things like medicine and medical body autonomy are only alluded to at best.






Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Google Chrome 101.0.4951.54 on Windows 10
1 2 3  >> All

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software