3 ms·

>> This is exactly the point for me. Roe V Wade embraced a court that decided that judges could/should legislate (that is, make new laws) rather then enforce th

>> This is exactly the point for me. Roe V Wade embraced a court that decided that judges could/should legislate (that is, make new laws) rather then enforce the text of existing laws. > Weird because the courts striking down laws as unconstitutional is literally their job description. Not really, because the question is actually "what makes something unconstitutional." Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? > Equal protection under the law would be my first pick for constitutional protection of abortion. There are very few life threatening things that the law compels men to do. Yet the law can compel a women to carry a fetus to term against her will? That frankly doesn't make any sense. The law doesn't say that men are permitted to get abortions but women aren't, and the law clearly must be able to regulate things that one sex is incapable of doing (e.g. penetrative rape, and please don't waste time trying to argue the illustration instead of the point). Also, I believe most, if not all, anti-abortion laws apply to people other than the woman getting the abortion.

kennywinker 4y ago
> Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? I mean that’s what every ruling is. The court exists because the text isn’t clear. No text is clear enough to handle reality. There are always exceptions, shifting definitions, changing technology. No document can be the full representative of its meaning - a system of rules based on documents will always have a layer of interpretation built on top of it
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? > I mean that’s what every ruling is. No, it clearly isn't. If it was, you might as well abolish the other branches of government, because the government is really an oligarchy of judges. > The court exists because the text isn’t clear. No text is clear enough to handle reality. There are always exceptions, shifting definitions, changing technology. No document can be the full representative of its meaning - a system of rules based on documents will always have a layer of interpretation built on top of it That's true, but only to a point. Take it too far, and you are just using an oligarchy of judges to bypass the legislative process.

kennywinker 4y ago

> Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? I mean that’s what every ruling is. The court exists because the text isn’t clear. No text is clear enough to handle reality. There are always exceptions, shifting definitions, changing technology. No document can be the full representative of its meaning - a system of rules based on documents will always have a layer of interpretation built on top of it

tablespoon 4y ago
>> Should the standard be "we nine unelecteds don't like it, and can read whatever we want into text that is actually silent on the issue"? > I mean that’s what every ruling is. No, it clearly isn't. If it was, you might as well abolish the other branches of government, because the government is really an oligarchy of judges. > The court exists because the text isn’t clear. No text is clear enough to handle reality. There are always exceptions, shifting definitions, changing technology. No document can be the full representative of its meaning - a system of rules based on documents will always have a layer of interpretation built on top of it That's true, but only to a point. Take it too far, and you are just using an oligarchy of judges to bypass the legislative process.