10 ms·

Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, and today's decision corrected that. Even

Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, and today's decision corrected that. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! The real tragedy here is that it took 50 years for this egregiously bad ruling to be thrown out. And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights.

MattGrommes 4y ago
There's no way to interpret the Constitution without "inventing rights" since time moves forward. The founders knew we had progress so they built in ways of accounting for that such as the 9th amendment. The problem only comes when people ignore progress and ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with to dismantle rights they don't like.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I think we just have different definitions of "inventing rights" because I pretty much agree with everything else you said.
padjo 4y ago
Thomas’s concurrence specifically says those precedents should be revisited.
saghm 4y ago
> today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned Thomas's opinion pretty specifically cited some of those other cases. It wasn't joined by all the others who voted with him, but then again, Kavanaugh claimed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" during his confirmation hearing, which clearly doesn't seem to be what he's saying now. I'm not surprised that this is his real view, and I won't be in a few years if suddenly he also votes against some of those other rulings.
- Beltiras 4y ago
  It turns out that the justices spoke very carefully and nothing they said precluded them from making a decision like this. Dishonest, yes. Perjury, no.
  - mattnewton 4y ago
    It’s not like perjury is enforceable at that level anymore anyways. I’m not a lawyer but I am not so sure he was even that careful in a legal sense. I think he was mostly saying things to not give a sound byte to opponents who would block his nomination like Bork. The conservatives who backed his nomination know the game and what he was put on the court to rule on, they don’t need to be told again. Enough to wink at it. There isn’t any actual legal teeth there anymore as far as I can tell. Countless examples of presidents, justices, etc walking past perjury charges.
  - saghm 4y ago
    Yeah, I certainly wasn't trying to say that they committed a crime or anything; I'm just saying I'm skeptical of the claim that there's no intent to overturn those other cases mentioned just because most of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade didn't explicitly state it at this time.
altcognito 4y ago
> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist Bodily autonomy is not a constitutional right, but self defense is? > Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! A misrepresentation of what RBG was getting at. She was very much of the opinion that legislatively it should have been codified as a right. She's right, but it's pie in the sky, as much as her desire to be replaced by a woman President. > today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. Thomas specifically called out those decisions as being up for review. Alito mentioned it in his leaked opinion. (it may have been bargained out of the opinion, or maybe he chose not to be explicit as to not raise pressure in the political sphere, which seems likely given the nature of this court) Four of the justices who voted against Roe today within the past decade are on the record as saying that this was settled law. They are liars, and people are right to mistrust the court.
- StanislavPetrov 4y ago
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - rat87 4y ago
    The constitution is quite explicit that the rights it protects are not limited to those explicitly listed I don't see what antivax has to do with anything
  - 10x-dev 4y ago
    Your rights end where my rights begin. It's only a knot if your brain doesn't care for other people.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      This is such a nonsense talking point. No right that you have compels any other private citizen to do anything. You do, however, have plenty of rights that prevent people from doing things to you. And no, you don't get twist it around and say that people have to do something to prevent them from doing something to you. Sorry.
mattnewton 4y ago
> Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. Actual that’s what all these cases were about. Roe v Wade- some states wanted to treat abortion as murder and control women’s bodily autonomy. Lawrence was about keeping sodomy laws which could be used to legally discriminate against gay people. Griselwald is clearly about social views on contraception. > egregiously bad ruling to be thrown out. And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. The main opinion did not rule this out, or if I did I absolutely missed it. Thomas’ solo concurring opinion calls these cases out by name as worthy of reconsideration by the court - “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” It’s hard to take this argument seriously at all. It feels like you are not paying attention, saying everything is fine while the 14th amendment is on fire.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  > as worthy of reconsideration He went further than that, he explicitly called them out as "errors in need of correction".
dlisboa 4y ago
The US Constitution is so thin and void of specifics that many modern ideas can be considered "unconstitutional". To interpret that is by definition inventing rights where it's not written down.
31835843 4y ago
> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist Nothing in the constitution says this is a problem.
outside1234 4y ago
But then they invented a right to concealed carry when the constitution only talks about militias and muskets? I'm not sure your point carries.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  The Constitution doesn't "only talk" about militias, and doesn't mention muskets (or any other specific type of arms) at all. Indeed, muskets weren't even "state of the art" when the Constitution was written, so a belief that the Founders were only referring to them would definitely seem to be mistaken. To me (and six Supreme Court Justices) the Constitution says you have the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (firearms) and because of this, laws that put an undue burden on this right are unconstitutional.
nindalf 4y ago
> And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. Oh you read the whole judgement? Perhaps you missed this nugget on page 118 > For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Are you going to amend your comment now?
- Rebelgecko 4y ago
  If that's not from the majority opinion, how much does it actually matter?
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Thomas wasn't part of the majority? He wrote a concurring opinion - he agrees with the main decision and went out of his way to further explain his thoughts, including that he disagrees with any of the rights created under the auspices of due process. But, he conveniently left Loving v Virginia off the list, which was also decided (partially) on due process grounds - I guess he's not quite so sure about his principles that he'd blow up his own marriage.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      He also lives in DC, so even if he did rule that the states have the right to criminalize interracial marriages, HIS is unlikely to be affected.
      - alistairSH 4y ago
        Nope, he and Ginny live in VA.
  - paulmd 4y ago
    quite a bit, the votes are likely there to overturn those things as well. what thomas did is a little gauche, the court generally avoids opining on cases that aren't actually in front of them because the facts and specifics of the case matter, but, yeah, the votes are probably there, thomas just likes to say the quiet part out loud. who do you think is going to vote against it? thomas, who has outright stated he's a yes? kavanaugh, who said roe was "settled law"? Barrett, the actual handmaiden cultist? Alito?
MrMan 4y ago
rights not already enumerated are not invented - the burden is to argue why a right should be curtailed or not recognized
rat87 4y ago
They are. The constitution explicitly stated that rights outside of those explicitly listed exist. The right to chose is one of those rights. There was nothing wrong with the ruling except that the supreme court majority personally disliked it
- esyir 4y ago
  So why do I not have the right to X, where X is some random thing I want that doesn't violate the other rights? Simply going "Oh, there are more rights" isn't a good answer. I'm pro-choice myself, but Roe vs Wade was terrible legislation, and is a fantastic example of tactical victory, strategic defeat.
  - evan_ 4y ago
    In the case you laid out you do have the right to X.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
alangibson 4y ago
You don't understand how law is made. Legislation is only one source of law. Others include judicial rulings, customs and expert testimony accepted by a court.
- jaywalk 4y ago
  I understand how law is made quite well, which is why I specifically said that Roe invented a "Constitutional right" and not a "law." Of course, for the last 50 years Roe was part of our law. Now it's not, because it was determined that the Constitutional right it was based on doesn't actually exist.
908B64B197 4y ago
> The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights. This. All this controversy could end right now by simple having congress... pass a law. That's what they are supposed (and paid) to do. Maybe if they spent less time trading stocks...
- ajross 4y ago
  Sigh, not this. The bill of rights explicitly says that there are other rights not enumerated in the constitution that exist and (presumably) need to be enforced. The whole idea of Strict Construction flies right in the face of the obvious text of the ninth amendment. Really, why is the ninth amendment even there if it's supposed to be ignored?
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    Who is ignoring it? The court explained in great detail why the right to abortion is not an unenumerated right.
    - ajross 4y ago
      No, they actually did exactly the opposite. They had to splice in a paragraph explaining how, despite all the logic in the piece seemingly being applicable to any such Strict Constructionalist argument, they really, really don't mean it and this is "only" about abortion, because... reasons, basically. It's like they put a pinkie swear into the opinion because they knew the ants nest they were stepping in. What we actually saw was the end of stare decisis. Any excuse is good enough now. For almost three hundred years, the court only overruled itself in areas of overwhelming public consensus. Now? It's just politics, man.
      - rufus_foreman 4y ago
        Sorry dude, that's not how it went down. Roe v. Wade was originally decided on politics, man.
ajross 4y ago
> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, So did the ninth amendment, FWIW: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Appelate courts decide on what a "right" is. That's arguably their most important function. Huge, huge chunks of modern constitutional law are based on subjects not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution doesn't speak about miscegenation laws, or miranda rights, etc... Yet those are still "rights" that you'd be awfully horrified to have destroyed, right? This argument doesn't really work, basically. The argument you're making is, if you really think about it, not what you actually want.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  miranda rights I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday. <sad trombone>
  - ajross 4y ago
    No, you still have the right to remain silent. You still have the right to an attorney. They removed (rather, neutered) the notification requirement; the police aren't required to tell you your rights. That's bad, but not remotely as bad as legalizing forced interrogation without representation.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Exactly, there is no miranda right (miranda being the notification of your right to remain silent and obtain an attorney). And there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. So, you better hope your lawyer can have anything you say suppressed before trial.
      - jaywalk 4y ago
        > there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you still have the right to an attorney. The police still have to stop questioning you when you invoke these rights. Literally the only thing that changed was the notification requirement. That's it.
sarlalian 4y ago
Thankfully the founders had some thoughts on "inventing rights". "Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Bodily autonomy is more complex than just womb to birth. So, at what age is a mother no longer required to use their body to provide life for a child? ie. If a 4 year old needs a blood transfusion, can the state force the mother to provide their blood for their child? What about a kidney transplant? When does the states interest in the potential life of a child end? Bodily autonomy aside, since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy, and was part of the foundations of many other precedents and laws, is HIPA still valid? What is the new line between medical privacy rights and free speech rights. .
- jaywalk 4y ago
  > since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy And it got thrown out for precisely this reason. Although cocaine can be prescribed in very limited circumstances, my doctor cannot just write me a prescription for cocaine. That's a "medical privacy" issue too, right? > is HIPA still valid? Don't be absurd.
  - sarlalian 4y ago
    The privacy portions of HIPA were a balanced between a persons right to privacy vs a persons rights to free speech. Much of the foundations of a right to medical privacy is based on Rowe V. Wade. Without a right to medical privacy, HIPA could be an unconstitutional constraint on medical personnel's rights to free speech. I'm not being absurd, the second order consequences of this ruling are going to be vast.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      First of all, it's HIPAA. Second, I think you have a very deep misunderstanding of how all of this works. HIPAA is not in any danger whatsoever, and really has nothing to do with Roe.
- ameister14 4y ago
FireBeyond 4y ago
Explain this: "The right to abortion is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and therefore does not exist." "The right to _purchase_ firearms is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but somehow must also exist, because how could you bear arms without it?" The sad reality is that this shit is all just twisted to convenience. Why did Thomas exclude interracial marriage as a state decision, while calling out same-sex marriage as being a state decision? Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"?
- seanp2k2 4y ago
  They treat it like the Bible and interpret it to fit their opinions. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
- fallingknife 4y ago
  Tbf when they said that they meant reviewed and updated as in actually amended.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    Oh, absolutely. Not "creatively interpreted by SCOTUS in lieu thereof."
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      The entire point of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, as laid out in the Constitution. Roe was a "creative" interpretation. Upholding the 2nd Amendment is far from that.
      - FireBeyond 4y ago
        I get that. But not "interpret in lieu of meaningful review". Look at 4A. It's gone to SCOTUS a huge number of times. But no review has ever taken place of it.

MattGrommes 4y ago

There's no way to interpret the Constitution without "inventing rights" since time moves forward. The founders knew we had progress so they built in ways of accounting for that such as the 9th amendment. The problem only comes when people ignore progress and ignore the parts of the Constitution they don't agree with to dismantle rights they don't like.

jaywalk 4y ago
I think we just have different definitions of "inventing rights" because I pretty much agree with everything else you said.

padjo 4y ago

Thomas’s concurrence specifically says those precedents should be revisited.

saghm 4y ago

> today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned Thomas's opinion pretty specifically cited some of those other cases. It wasn't joined by all the others who voted with him, but then again, Kavanaugh claimed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" during his confirmation hearing, which clearly doesn't seem to be what he's saying now. I'm not surprised that this is his real view, and I won't be in a few years if suddenly he also votes against some of those other rulings.

Beltiras 4y ago
It turns out that the justices spoke very carefully and nothing they said precluded them from making a decision like this. Dishonest, yes. Perjury, no.
- mattnewton 4y ago
  It’s not like perjury is enforceable at that level anymore anyways. I’m not a lawyer but I am not so sure he was even that careful in a legal sense. I think he was mostly saying things to not give a sound byte to opponents who would block his nomination like Bork. The conservatives who backed his nomination know the game and what he was put on the court to rule on, they don’t need to be told again. Enough to wink at it. There isn’t any actual legal teeth there anymore as far as I can tell. Countless examples of presidents, justices, etc walking past perjury charges.
- saghm 4y ago
  Yeah, I certainly wasn't trying to say that they committed a crime or anything; I'm just saying I'm skeptical of the claim that there's no intent to overturn those other cases mentioned just because most of the justices who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade didn't explicitly state it at this time.

altcognito 4y ago

> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist Bodily autonomy is not a constitutional right, but self defense is? > Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg was on record saying that the decision was flawed! A misrepresentation of what RBG was getting at. She was very much of the opinion that legislatively it should have been codified as a right. She's right, but it's pie in the sky, as much as her desire to be replaced by a woman President. > today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. Thomas specifically called out those decisions as being up for review. Alito mentioned it in his leaked opinion. (it may have been bargained out of the opinion, or maybe he chose not to be explicit as to not raise pressure in the political sphere, which seems likely given the nature of this court) Four of the justices who voted against Roe today within the past decade are on the record as saying that this was settled law. They are liars, and people are right to mistrust the court.

StanislavPetrov 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rat87 4y ago
  The constitution is quite explicit that the rights it protects are not limited to those explicitly listed I don't see what antivax has to do with anything
- 10x-dev 4y ago
  Your rights end where my rights begin. It's only a knot if your brain doesn't care for other people.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    This is such a nonsense talking point. No right that you have compels any other private citizen to do anything. You do, however, have plenty of rights that prevent people from doing things to you. And no, you don't get twist it around and say that people have to do something to prevent them from doing something to you. Sorry.

mattnewton 4y ago

> Nobody is enforcing social views on anybody. Actual that’s what all these cases were about. Roe v Wade- some states wanted to treat abortion as murder and control women’s bodily autonomy. Lawrence was about keeping sodomy laws which could be used to legally discriminate against gay people. Griselwald is clearly about social views on contraception. > egregiously bad ruling to be thrown out. And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. The main opinion did not rule this out, or if I did I absolutely missed it. Thomas’ solo concurring opinion calls these cases out by name as worthy of reconsideration by the court - “In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” It’s hard to take this argument seriously at all. It feels like you are not paying attention, saying everything is fine while the 14th amendment is on fire.

FireBeyond 4y ago
> as worthy of reconsideration He went further than that, he explicitly called them out as "errors in need of correction".

dlisboa 4y ago

The US Constitution is so thin and void of specifics that many modern ideas can be considered "unconstitutional". To interpret that is by definition inventing rights where it's not written down.

31835843 4y ago

> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist Nothing in the constitution says this is a problem.

outside1234 4y ago

But then they invented a right to concealed carry when the constitution only talks about militias and muskets? I'm not sure your point carries.

jaywalk 4y ago
The Constitution doesn't "only talk" about militias, and doesn't mention muskets (or any other specific type of arms) at all. Indeed, muskets weren't even "state of the art" when the Constitution was written, so a belief that the Founders were only referring to them would definitely seem to be mistaken. To me (and six Supreme Court Justices) the Constitution says you have the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (firearms) and because of this, laws that put an undue burden on this right are unconstitutional.

nindalf 4y ago

> And despite your fear mongering, today's decision went out of it's way to say that it is not meant to apply to any of those other issues that you mentioned. Oh you read the whole judgement? Perhaps you missed this nugget on page 118 > For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell. Are you going to amend your comment now?

Rebelgecko 4y ago
If that's not from the majority opinion, how much does it actually matter?
- alistairSH 4y ago
  Thomas wasn't part of the majority? He wrote a concurring opinion - he agrees with the main decision and went out of his way to further explain his thoughts, including that he disagrees with any of the rights created under the auspices of due process. But, he conveniently left Loving v Virginia off the list, which was also decided (partially) on due process grounds - I guess he's not quite so sure about his principles that he'd blow up his own marriage.
  - FireBeyond 4y ago
    He also lives in DC, so even if he did rule that the states have the right to criminalize interracial marriages, HIS is unlikely to be affected.
    - alistairSH 4y ago
      Nope, he and Ginny live in VA.
- paulmd 4y ago
  quite a bit, the votes are likely there to overturn those things as well. what thomas did is a little gauche, the court generally avoids opining on cases that aren't actually in front of them because the facts and specifics of the case matter, but, yeah, the votes are probably there, thomas just likes to say the quiet part out loud. who do you think is going to vote against it? thomas, who has outright stated he's a yes? kavanaugh, who said roe was "settled law"? Barrett, the actual handmaiden cultist? Alito?

MrMan 4y ago

rights not already enumerated are not invented - the burden is to argue why a right should be curtailed or not recognized

rat87 4y ago

They are. The constitution explicitly stated that rights outside of those explicitly listed exist. The right to chose is one of those rights. There was nothing wrong with the ruling except that the supreme court majority personally disliked it

esyir 4y ago
So why do I not have the right to X, where X is some random thing I want that doesn't violate the other rights? Simply going "Oh, there are more rights" isn't a good answer. I'm pro-choice myself, but Roe vs Wade was terrible legislation, and is a fantastic example of tactical victory, strategic defeat.
- evan_ 4y ago
  In the case you laid out you do have the right to X.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

alangibson 4y ago

You don't understand how law is made. Legislation is only one source of law. Others include judicial rulings, customs and expert testimony accepted by a court.

jaywalk 4y ago
I understand how law is made quite well, which is why I specifically said that Roe invented a "Constitutional right" and not a "law." Of course, for the last 50 years Roe was part of our law. Now it's not, because it was determined that the Constitutional right it was based on doesn't actually exist.

908B64B197 4y ago

> The Supreme Court's job is to interpret the Constitution, not to invent rights. This. All this controversy could end right now by simple having congress... pass a law. That's what they are supposed (and paid) to do. Maybe if they spent less time trading stocks...

ajross 4y ago
Sigh, not this. The bill of rights explicitly says that there are other rights not enumerated in the constitution that exist and (presumably) need to be enforced. The whole idea of Strict Construction flies right in the face of the obvious text of the ninth amendment. Really, why is the ninth amendment even there if it's supposed to be ignored?
- rufus_foreman 4y ago
  Who is ignoring it? The court explained in great detail why the right to abortion is not an unenumerated right.
  - ajross 4y ago
    No, they actually did exactly the opposite. They had to splice in a paragraph explaining how, despite all the logic in the piece seemingly being applicable to any such Strict Constructionalist argument, they really, really don't mean it and this is "only" about abortion, because... reasons, basically. It's like they put a pinkie swear into the opinion because they knew the ants nest they were stepping in. What we actually saw was the end of stare decisis. Any excuse is good enough now. For almost three hundred years, the court only overruled itself in areas of overwhelming public consensus. Now? It's just politics, man.
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      Sorry dude, that's not how it went down. Roe v. Wade was originally decided on politics, man.

ajross 4y ago

> The Roe decision invented a Constitutional right where one did not exist, So did the ninth amendment, FWIW: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Appelate courts decide on what a "right" is. That's arguably their most important function. Huge, huge chunks of modern constitutional law are based on subjects not enumerated in the constitution. The constitution doesn't speak about miscegenation laws, or miranda rights, etc... Yet those are still "rights" that you'd be awfully horrified to have destroyed, right? This argument doesn't really work, basically. The argument you're making is, if you really think about it, not what you actually want.

alistairSH 4y ago
miranda rights I have some bad news for you. SCOTUS blew that one up yesterday. <sad trombone>
- ajross 4y ago
  No, you still have the right to remain silent. You still have the right to an attorney. They removed (rather, neutered) the notification requirement; the police aren't required to tell you your rights. That's bad, but not remotely as bad as legalizing forced interrogation without representation.
  - alistairSH 4y ago
    Exactly, there is no miranda right (miranda being the notification of your right to remain silent and obtain an attorney). And there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. So, you better hope your lawyer can have anything you say suppressed before trial.
    - jaywalk 4y ago
      > there is, as of yesterday, no remedy for violations of your right to remain silent. Explain this, please. You still have the right to remain silent, you still have the right to an attorney. The police still have to stop questioning you when you invoke these rights. Literally the only thing that changed was the notification requirement. That's it.

sarlalian 4y ago

Thankfully the founders had some thoughts on "inventing rights". "Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Bodily autonomy is more complex than just womb to birth. So, at what age is a mother no longer required to use their body to provide life for a child? ie. If a 4 year old needs a blood transfusion, can the state force the mother to provide their blood for their child? What about a kidney transplant? When does the states interest in the potential life of a child end? Bodily autonomy aside, since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy, and was part of the foundations of many other precedents and laws, is HIPA still valid? What is the new line between medical privacy rights and free speech rights. .

jaywalk 4y ago
> since Rowe v. Wade was primarily a decision about medical privacy And it got thrown out for precisely this reason. Although cocaine can be prescribed in very limited circumstances, my doctor cannot just write me a prescription for cocaine. That's a "medical privacy" issue too, right? > is HIPA still valid? Don't be absurd.
- sarlalian 4y ago
  The privacy portions of HIPA were a balanced between a persons right to privacy vs a persons rights to free speech. Much of the foundations of a right to medical privacy is based on Rowe V. Wade. Without a right to medical privacy, HIPA could be an unconstitutional constraint on medical personnel's rights to free speech. I'm not being absurd, the second order consequences of this ruling are going to be vast.
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    First of all, it's HIPAA. Second, I think you have a very deep misunderstanding of how all of this works. HIPAA is not in any danger whatsoever, and really has nothing to do with Roe.
ameister14 4y ago

FireBeyond 4y ago

Explain this: "The right to abortion is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, and therefore does not exist." "The right to _purchase_ firearms is not explicitly defined in the Constitution, but somehow must also exist, because how could you bear arms without it?" The sad reality is that this shit is all just twisted to convenience. Why did Thomas exclude interracial marriage as a state decision, while calling out same-sex marriage as being a state decision? Why do several Supreme Court Justices state that they are originalists, and the Constitution is sacrosanct, when the people who wrote it said that it wasn't, and was to be "reviewed and updated to the needs of the times as a living document"?

seanp2k2 4y ago
They treat it like the Bible and interpret it to fit their opinions. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_civil_religion
fallingknife 4y ago
Tbf when they said that they meant reviewed and updated as in actually amended.
- FireBeyond 4y ago
  Oh, absolutely. Not "creatively interpreted by SCOTUS in lieu thereof."
  - jaywalk 4y ago
    The entire point of the SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution, as laid out in the Constitution. Roe was a "creative" interpretation. Upholding the 2nd Amendment is far from that.
    - FireBeyond 4y ago
      I get that. But not "interpret in lieu of meaningful review". Look at 4A. It's gone to SCOTUS a huge number of times. But no review has ever taken place of it.