Page 42 of 49 FirstFirst ... 32383940414243444546 ... LastLast
Results 616 to 630 of 727

Thread: SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

  1. #616 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We all know that. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution become constitutional law (not statutory law).
    You are arguing something we know already and nobody suggested anything to the contrary.



    We have long established your lack of knowledge about constitutional issues.

    If you do not think the Constitution was changed (through court interpretation) you have not read Roe. It used the right to privacy created by Griswold to make abortion protected by that same right to privacy. Roe became constitutional law when it issued that decision. It did not become "a law" but became part of the Constitution through court interpretation which is the "law of the land"--you know, the "settled law" they all talked about.

    "Settled law" can be changed. At one time Plessy (1896) was settled law until it was overturned in 1954. Nobody passed a law to overturn Plessy; instread, the court changed it through constitutional interpretation which is known as constitutional law.

    The precedent they used to make that decision was Griswold, Society of Sisters, etc. Precedent can be used to make new constitutional law.
    exactly, Im not happy about losing the (implied) right to privacy

  2. #617 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
    NO, it isn't.

    The system has never, until the Roberts Court, worked in this context where the personal beliefs of the justices form as the basis of their decisions.
    That is one of the dumbest things you have ever said--and that says a lot.

    You think the justices who ruled in favor of segregation or to overturn segregation were not influenced by their personal beliefs? What law changed that would have changed their opinion?

    Or requiring students to salute the flag and reversing themselves three years later?

    Or upholding laws making sodomy illegal (between same sex or even opposite sex couples) and then reversing that decision were not influenced by their own personal beliefs? What law changed?

    You don't understand basic constitutional law as you made clear when you said government can prohibit Nazi or Confederate flags, symbols, and uniforms.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Flash For This Post:

    Earl (05-05-2022)

  4. #618 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    That is one of the dumbest things you have ever said--and that says a lot.

    You think the justices who ruled in favor of segregation or to overturn segregation were not influenced by their personal beliefs? What law changed that would have changed their opinion?

    Or requiring students to salute the flag and reversing themselves three years later?

    Or upholding laws making sodomy illegal (between same sex or even opposite sex couples) and then reversing that decision were not influenced by their own personal beliefs? What law changed?

    You don't understand basic constitutional law as you made clear when you said government can prohibit Nazi or Confederate flags, symbols, and uniforms.
    all good stuff
    No one (except that idiot) is saying judges dont have a judicial philosophy or even their own ideas
    what matters is if they're rulings are passing Constitutional muster

    However in Roe's case it's not based on text (implied right to privacy) but it is based on the American tradition of bodily autonomy - it's a basic right to personal liberty I would argue

    I dont think implied rights are inferior, (rights are rights) but they are more subject to change
    based on superceding other interpretations

    And I think stare decisis as well as the fact turning it back to the states does limit the 14th as well
    SCOTUS should have been ruling on state restrictions, not just eliminating that right

  5. #619 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    exactly, Im not happy about losing the (implied) right to privacy
    They did not strike down the right to privacy but only as it applied to abortion. The draft made it clear it does not threaten all the other privacy rights.

    "Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bfbpaOW-AhsxF0

  6. #620 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    They did not strike down the right to privacy but only as it applied to abortion. The draft made it clear it does not threaten all the other privacy rights.

    "Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bfbpaOW-AhsxF0
    so they say
    and this CASE doesnt strike it down,
    but it certainly conceptually weakens it and can be used as a basis for future eliminations

  7. #621 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    so they say
    and this CASE doesnt strike it down,
    but it certainly conceptually weakens it and can be used as a basis for future eliminations
    Most of those other privacy rights have not been controversial or challenged; therefore, they are not in question.

    It would be political suicide to strike down the privacy right for parents to make educational choices for their children, obtaining contraceptives, the right to reside with relatives, the right not to be sterilized without their consent, the right to engage in private, con*sensual sexual acts, or interracial marriage.

    I haven't heard any groups calling for the elimination of any of these rights. I think you are creating unnecessary fear.

  8. #622 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    Most of those other privacy rights have not been controversial or challenged; therefore, they are not in question.

    It would be political suicide to strike down the privacy right for parents to make educational choices for their children, obtaining contraceptives, the right to reside with relatives, the right not to be sterilized without their consent, the right to engage in private, con*sensual sexual acts, or interracial marriage.

    I haven't heard any groups calling for the elimination of any of these rights. I think you are creating unnecessary fear.
    Im talking about other bodily autonomy cases, also the 4th has been weakened in general and this doesnt help
    The vaxx mandate was a perfect example - fortunately Biden over-reached and it was an EZ knockdon because he used OSHA
    or invasive drug testing ( which is pretty much institutionalized - but gawd knows where they go next)

    it can even go to genetics....nothing good comes from any of this

  9. #623 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    However in Roe's case it's not based on text (implied right to privacy) but it is based on the American tradition of bodily autonomy - it's a basic right to personal liberty I would argue.
    Yes, I would want my state to keep abortion legal. Would you include the right to use drugs as part of this bodily autonomy?

    The draft has a good discussion of this issue regarding the (lack of) history on efforts to legalize abortion.

    "These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history.


    What sharply distinguishes the abortion right from the rights recognized in the cases on which Roe and Casey rely is something that both those decisions acknowledged: Abor*tion destroys what those decisions call “potential life” and what the law at issue in this case regards as the life of an “unborn human being.” None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite.12

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...bfbpaOW-AhsxF0

  10. #624 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    Im talking about other bodily autonomy cases, also the 4th has been weakened in general and this doesnt help
    The vaxx mandate was a perfect example - fortunately Biden over-reached and it was an EZ knockdon because he used OSHA
    or invasive drug testing ( which is pretty much institutionalized - but gawd knows where they go next)

    it can even go to genetics....nothing good comes from any of this
    States have long had the authority to require vaccinations (school) for health purposes under the 10th Amendment police powers.

  11. #625 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    43,479
    Thanks
    12,574
    Thanked 23,756 Times in 16,563 Posts
    Groans
    249
    Groaned 1,622 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    States have long had the authority to require vaccinations (school) for health purposes under the 10th Amendment police powers.
    i know.. not talking about that
    creeping powers of the federal government.. if it aint OSHA they'll try something else

    I dont know if you realize it - but "federalism" has been reduced to an afterthought

  12. #626 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    20,718
    Thanks
    1,054
    Thanked 5,660 Times in 4,439 Posts
    Groans
    296
    Groaned 184 Times in 180 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dukkha View Post
    i know.. not talking about that
    creeping powers of the federal government.. if it aint OSHA they'll try something else

    I dont know if you realize it - but "federalism" has been reduced to an afterthought
    The reversal of Roe would strengthen federalism. It is more than an afterthought but, yes, I agree it is weakened. Republicans and Democrats would like Congress to pass laws allowing or prohibiting abortion which they do not have the authority to do (the House already passed it). The court already upheld the federal marijuana laws, so abortion might be a similar issue (interstate commerce).

  13. #627 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We all know that. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution become constitutional law (not statutory law)..
    No, they become precedent.

    Only Congress can write laws.


    You are arguing something we know already and nobody suggested anything to the contrary.
    But you don't know that because you think SCOTUS wrote Roe into law, when it merely set precedent.

    The Nazi judges didn't erase or write a new law, they tossed precedent.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  14. #628 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    We have long established your lack of knowledge about constitutional issues..
    Flash, does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the power to write and enact laws?
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  15. #629 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    If you do not think the Constitution was changed (through court interpretation) you have not read Roe.
    Look at that parenthetical...that's a goalpost shift.

    And no, the Constitution was not changed...it can only be changed by amendment, not by SCOTUS decisions.

    What SCOTUS decided in 1970 set precedent, it didn't write a new law.

    Jesus fucking Christ...
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


  16. #630 | Top
    Join Date
    Jun 2018
    Location
    Dirty South
    Posts
    63,304
    Thanks
    6,234
    Thanked 13,410 Times in 10,039 Posts
    Groans
    2
    Groaned 2,947 Times in 2,728 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flash View Post
    It used the right to privacy created by Griswold to make abortion protected by that same right to privacy..
    Therefore, if the right to privacy no longer is precedent for abortion, then it isn't for Griswold and birth control either.

    Alito trying to Bush v. Gore this decision isn't going to stand to historical scrutiny.


    Roe became constitutional law when it issued that decision.
    NO!

    NO!

    NO!

    It became precedent because Congress is the only entity that can create laws.

    Your thinking that SCOTUS has the power to write laws is completely fucked. Unless you can point to anywhere in the Constitution that grants it that power. Can you do that? Of course not.


    It did not become "a law" but became part of the Constitution through court interpretation which is the "law of the land"--you know, the "settled law" they all talked about.
    The precedent was set by the decision that the right to privacy extends to abortion, but that is not a law.

    That's why Congress must pass a federal law codifying the legality of abortion.

    That's the only way around this decision.
    When I die, turn me into a brick and use me to cave in the skull of a fascist


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 9
    Last Post: 03-14-2021, 08:49 AM
  2. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-06-2021, 06:42 AM
  3. Replies: 16
    Last Post: 03-05-2021, 10:08 AM
  4. Replies: 42
    Last Post: 10-26-2020, 10:40 AM
  5. Queen Lateetha's entire SOTU "response" leaked
    By Legion in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-05-2019, 06:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •