3 ms·

Because of different interpretations of the constitution. What do you believe constitutes a reasonable health regulation?

fastball 6y ago
Whatever you can pass as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.
- krapp 6y ago
  But in Roe V. Wade, SCOTUS already determined that abortion rights don't violate the constitution. Why do you believe a constitutional amendment is necessary for a right already determined to be constitutional?
  - fennecfoxen 6y ago
    It is possible that this was decided in error. The reasoning referred to it using fuzzy terms about “emanations” and “penumbras” from the fourth amendment, and the right thus found is not clearly stated by the text of the law (let alone the intent of those who wrote it). The late RBG sorta thought it was trash as an opinion. An explicit constitutional amendment would establish it much more firmly, and would be impeccably legitimate in precisely the way Roe isn’t. These are very desirable properties if you value democracy, or if you wish to establish things more permanently.
    - krapp 6y ago
      I don't know that RGB thought it was trash as an opinion. She believed in a woman's right to an abortion, but also believed the basis for the decision in Roe V Wade was weak and its scope made it vulnerable to attack (and she was correct in hindsight.) From what I read, she believed a stronger argument could have been made from the equal protection clause rather than right to privacy. But she certainly believed the underlying right was valid. But let's be honest - almost no one opposing Roe V. Wade does so on the grounds that the argument from the fourth amendment is weak, they argue primarily from religious grounds that pregnant women fundamentally do not have the right to terminate, as they consider such to be an act of murder in nearly all, or all cases. The crux of the matter regarding abortion for most people has never really been a legalistic one but a metaphysical and often religious one - the rights of the unborn versus the rights of a woman's autonomy over her body. While I would hope that Republicans who drape themselves in Christian piety and refer to themselves as pro-life in order to imply that their opponents are pro-death, and who have made an existential pillar out of repealing Roe V. Wade for forty years, would stack the courts with judges who would consider the matter without undue bias, I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with,and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.
      - fennecfoxen 6y ago
        > I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with, and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter. I regret that your post has derailed this conversation into a sectarian display of othering, aversion, and moralization. No further productive exchanges on the topic will be found here. I will instead note that when we treat our ideological opponents as respectable people who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time (so to speak) it is not because we expect that our enemies will reap the benefits of this respect. It is for our own sake that we ought do this.
        krapp 6y ago
        I never claimed anyone was incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, merely that a political party acts with political motives. That the Republican Party has sought the repeal of Roe V. Wade since the decision was made, and that the primary impetus behind that is religious, rather than legalistic, is so obvious that it should be banal. They literally campaign on getting justices in to repeal Roe V. Wade. Yet you've suddenly turned defensive and accused me of moralizing and condescending simply by mentioning it. It probably is best to table this. It's futile to even try to have a decent political conversation here anyway.

fastball 6y ago

Whatever you can pass as long as it doesn't violate the constitution.

krapp 6y ago
But in Roe V. Wade, SCOTUS already determined that abortion rights don't violate the constitution. Why do you believe a constitutional amendment is necessary for a right already determined to be constitutional?
- fennecfoxen 6y ago
  It is possible that this was decided in error. The reasoning referred to it using fuzzy terms about “emanations” and “penumbras” from the fourth amendment, and the right thus found is not clearly stated by the text of the law (let alone the intent of those who wrote it). The late RBG sorta thought it was trash as an opinion. An explicit constitutional amendment would establish it much more firmly, and would be impeccably legitimate in precisely the way Roe isn’t. These are very desirable properties if you value democracy, or if you wish to establish things more permanently.
  - krapp 6y ago
    I don't know that RGB thought it was trash as an opinion. She believed in a woman's right to an abortion, but also believed the basis for the decision in Roe V Wade was weak and its scope made it vulnerable to attack (and she was correct in hindsight.) From what I read, she believed a stronger argument could have been made from the equal protection clause rather than right to privacy. But she certainly believed the underlying right was valid. But let's be honest - almost no one opposing Roe V. Wade does so on the grounds that the argument from the fourth amendment is weak, they argue primarily from religious grounds that pregnant women fundamentally do not have the right to terminate, as they consider such to be an act of murder in nearly all, or all cases. The crux of the matter regarding abortion for most people has never really been a legalistic one but a metaphysical and often religious one - the rights of the unborn versus the rights of a woman's autonomy over her body. While I would hope that Republicans who drape themselves in Christian piety and refer to themselves as pro-life in order to imply that their opponents are pro-death, and who have made an existential pillar out of repealing Roe V. Wade for forty years, would stack the courts with judges who would consider the matter without undue bias, I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with,and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter.
    - fennecfoxen 6y ago
      > I suspect that bias is the intent for stacking the court to begin with, and that the actual constitutional validity of the decision isn't meant to matter. I regret that your post has derailed this conversation into a sectarian display of othering, aversion, and moralization. No further productive exchanges on the topic will be found here. I will instead note that when we treat our ideological opponents as respectable people who are capable of walking and chewing gum at the same time (so to speak) it is not because we expect that our enemies will reap the benefits of this respect. It is for our own sake that we ought do this.
      - krapp 6y ago
        I never claimed anyone was incapable of walking and chewing gum at the same time, merely that a political party acts with political motives. That the Republican Party has sought the repeal of Roe V. Wade since the decision was made, and that the primary impetus behind that is religious, rather than legalistic, is so obvious that it should be banal. They literally campaign on getting justices in to repeal Roe V. Wade. Yet you've suddenly turned defensive and accused me of moralizing and condescending simply by mentioning it. It probably is best to table this. It's futile to even try to have a decent political conversation here anyway.