SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade

[Flash]

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.

 

[dukkha]

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

 

[Flash]

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.[SUP]12

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nw6xan7nsaF5QnKGiVGJWC-rwUx4wkFbfbpaOW-AhsxF0[/SUP]

 

[Flash]

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.

 

[dukkha]

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

 

[Flash]

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).

 

[LV426]

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.

 

[LV426]

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?

 

[LV426]

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...

 

[LV426]

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.

 

[dukkha]

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).

yes that's it. Interstate Commerce can be used for virtually any product - even taxation like upholding Obamacare by Roberts
But I wonder if Congress can pass a statutory law (say use the 14th as a basis) to enshrine "abortion rights"

It devolves back to the state now because there is no federal law (reliance on Roe instead)
but what's to stop Congress from passing such a law that upholds Roe's tenets?

 

[LV426]

That is one of the dumbest things you have ever said--and that says a lot.

The job of a SCOTUS justice is to determine the Constitutionality of laws, not the personal belief in the morality of them.

Your thinking is really fucking juvenile and wrong.

You think the justices who ruled in favor of segregation or to overturn segregation were not influenced by their personal beliefs?

Have you read the decision in Brown v. Board?

Before opening your big, fat fucking mouth any further, why don't you read that decision and see that it was made not from personal tastes but from the basis of Constitutional law?

Fucking lazy as always.

What law changed that would have changed their opinion?

Read the Brown decision, you flipping idiot.

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

WHY did they reverse themselves? You think it was all done because of personal tastes and not because of Constitutional Law.

You'll never know that because you're too fucking lazy to read the decisions you're talking about abstractly.

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?

READ THE DECISIONS.

All the answers to your stupid questions are there.

You just can't be fuckin' lazy about it.

 

[Flash]

No, they become precedent.

Only Congress can write laws.

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.

It set precedent which must be followed by lower courts and is usually recognized in subsequent SC opinions.

If the SC rules states cannot prohibit abortion for the first trimester, that sets precedent which lower courts must follow because it is now constitutional law.

We know only Congress can write laws but the Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" which must be followed.

If Roe was not constitutional law no state would have to follow its rulings and people would not be complaining or happy because it might be overturned. People were not upset over precedent but over constitutional law.

 

[Flash]

Flash, does the Constitution grant the Supreme Court the power to write and enact laws?

It gives them the power to interpret the Constitution (judicial review) which determines law. The Constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means.

Actually, the Constitution does not say the court can interpret it, the Supreme Court gave itself that power in Marbury v. Madison.

You are confusing statutory law with constitutional law.

 

[Flash]

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...

The Constitution changes through amendment, court decision, and custom and usage.

Roe did not write a new law but changed the interpretation of the Constitution. If it did not create new constitutional law then Roe was not binding on anything.

 

[Flash]

The job of a SCOTUS justice is to determine the Constitutionality of laws, not the personal belief in the morality of them.

Your thinking is really fucking juvenile and wrong.

Have you read the decision in Brown v. Board?

Before opening your big, fat fucking mouth any further, why don't you read that decision and see that it was made not from personal tastes but from the basis of Constitutional law?

Fucking lazy as always.

Read the Brown decision, you flipping idiot.

WHY did they reverse themselves? You think it was all done because of personal tastes and not because of Constitutional Law.

You'll never know that because you're too fucking lazy to read the decisions you're talking about abstractly.


READ THE DECISIONS.

All the answers to your stupid questions are there.

You just can't be fuckin' lazy about it.

What constitutional law changed between the time the Court ruled separate but equal was constitutional and the time it overturned that decision and ruled it was not constitutional?

The SC created new constitutional law when it overturned Plessy. If Plessy was precedent, why wasn't that precedent followed in Brown v. Board? Brown v. Board overturned Plessy and the precedent it created.

The Supreme Court hears very few cases each session that interprets the constitutionality of laws.

 

[Flash]

yes that's it. Interstate Commerce can be used for virtually any product - even taxation like upholding Obamacare by Roberts
But I wonder if Congress can pass a statutory law (say use the 14th as a basis) to enshrine "abortion rights"

It devolves back to the state now because there is no federal law (reliance on Roe instead)
but what's to stop Congress from passing such a law that upholds Roe's tenets?

The House did pass such a law but it stalled in the Senate. That would further increase federal power at the expense of the states.

 

[LV426]

It set precedent which must be followed by lower courts and is usually recognized in subsequent SC opinions. .

Right, but that doesn't magically turn it into a law.

It sets precedent.

Precedent is not law.

Only Congress can write laws.

If Roe was not constitutional law no state would have to follow its rulings and people would not be complaining or happy because it might be overturned.

Again, Roe isn't a law.

It is a decision that set precedent.

There is no "Roe Law" on the books and there never has been.

People were not upset over precedent but over constitutional law.

What are you talking about?

 

[LV426]

It gives them the power to interpret the Constitution (judicial review) which determines law.

No, determines the Constitutionality of laws.

SCOTUS doesn't determine law, they determine whether or not the law is Constitutional.

You are confusing statutory law with constitutional law.

In this context, there is no law that SCOTUS writes or creates.

All they do is set precedent, and those precedents should be followed unless there is a Constitutional reason they should not be.

 

[LV426]

The Constitution changes through amendment, court decision, and custom and usage.

NO!

The only way the Constitution can be changed is through the amendment process.

What the courts do is set precedent based on Constitutionality.

But precedent, as we know, is fungible.

Roe did not write a new law but changed the interpretation of the Constitution.

Right, and another term for that is "setting precedent".