5 ms·

It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect. The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. I happen to think abortion shou

It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect. The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. I happen to think abortion should be legal. I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution, while simultaneously arguing for severely restricting and even eliminating a specifically enumerated right to bear arms, that they’re operating in complete bad faith, and don’t really care about the constitution except when convenient. Change needs to be secured by convincing others of its necessity, not by appealing to authority to force others to behave or believe what you think they should. The courts have been abused as an end-run around democratic change for too long now. I’m glad to see a serious bit of legislation from the bench rolled back. This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out.

lovich 4y ago
> …when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution… Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. > This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out. What part of this ruling makes that outcome happen?
- wilsonnb3 4y ago
  > Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. That is not what the 9th amendment says. It just says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically laying out some rights does not mean that you lack all rights not laid out explicitly. So no, it is not assumed that you have a right if it is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is just explicitly stated that you may have that right. The 10th amendment then kicks all of those rights to the states rather than the federal government.
  - lovich 4y ago
    >That is not what the 9th amendment says. It just says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically laying out some rights does not mean that you lack all rights not laid out explicitly. You are interpreting it in complete contradiction to the text. You are literally construing the fact that some rights are enumerated and abortion isn't as a reason why you don't have a right to an abortion >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
    - bhupy 4y ago
      >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This just means that the absence of an enumerated right doesn't imply that the right is totally absent. I.e. the fact that the Constitution doesn't outline a right to sell heroin doesn't mean that heroin is by default illegal; it's just left to the States (and the people) to decide what to do with it. But importantly, just because the Constitution doesn't outline a right to sell heroin, one does not have a Constitutional right to sell heroin — that's absurd. It's still something that can be decided upon by the legislatures.
a_shovel 4y ago
This comment could easily be adapted into a form letter to oppose the majority of Supreme-Court-decided expansions of civil rights of the past century.
31835843 4y ago
>I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution The Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of laws isn’t in the Constitution. You’re describing a judicial philosophy (textualism) as if it were law, or some sacred edict from above. It’s not. You’re pretending the “democratic process” isn’t broken. It is. Remember: the legislature could have banned abortion outright, at any time. We didn’t need the courts to do that. It would just take an amendment to the Constitution. Remember: a majority of people in the US want abortion to be legal. The court overruled that based on its own fetish for textualism. It’s great that you want people to talk to each other. In the mean time, women will die.
perrygeo 4y ago
> The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. What new legislation is required beyond the 4th and 9th amendments? Along with decades of legal precedent, these ALREADY protect US citizen's medical rights sufficiently. Yet the court saw fit to ignore them, effectively saying that a) we are no longer secure in our persons from unreasonable search if the state says so and b) rights retained by the people (but not explicitly in the constitution) can be denied by any legislature. This is a radical departure from our current legal structure, a complete re-interpretation of the constitution undertaken by activist judges behind closed doors in direct opposition to precedent and their public oaths - "That's it" doesn't begin to cover it.
barfingclouds 4y ago
We don’t need a bunch of old people/old men having these pseudo intellectual conversations about the healthcare of 17 year old girls. There doesn’t need to be these long paragraphs. Church and state need to be separated. Pro life people literally are enacting laws based on religious beliefs. The simple answer is if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Leave the health and safety of the rest of the population up to themselves.

lovich 4y ago

> …when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution… Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. > This will force people to talk to each other. To convince each other. To work together. That’s ultimately a healthier outcome, even if things are a little worse while we figure things out. What part of this ruling makes that outcome happen?

wilsonnb3 4y ago
> Bud there’s a whole amendment about how if it’s not mentioned in the constitution it’s assumed you have the right. That is not what the 9th amendment says. It just says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically laying out some rights does not mean that you lack all rights not laid out explicitly. So no, it is not assumed that you have a right if it is not mentioned in the Constitution. It is just explicitly stated that you may have that right. The 10th amendment then kicks all of those rights to the states rather than the federal government.
- lovich 4y ago
  >That is not what the 9th amendment says. It just says that the Constitution and Bill of Rights specifically laying out some rights does not mean that you lack all rights not laid out explicitly. You are interpreting it in complete contradiction to the text. You are literally construing the fact that some rights are enumerated and abortion isn't as a reason why you don't have a right to an abortion >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
  - bhupy 4y ago
    >The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. This just means that the absence of an enumerated right doesn't imply that the right is totally absent. I.e. the fact that the Constitution doesn't outline a right to sell heroin doesn't mean that heroin is by default illegal; it's just left to the States (and the people) to decide what to do with it. But importantly, just because the Constitution doesn't outline a right to sell heroin, one does not have a Constitutional right to sell heroin — that's absurd. It's still something that can be decided upon by the legislatures.

a_shovel 4y ago

This comment could easily be adapted into a form letter to oppose the majority of Supreme-Court-decided expansions of civil rights of the past century.

31835843 4y ago

>I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution The Supreme Court ruling on the Constitutionality of laws isn’t in the Constitution. You’re describing a judicial philosophy (textualism) as if it were law, or some sacred edict from above. It’s not. You’re pretending the “democratic process” isn’t broken. It is. Remember: the legislature could have banned abortion outright, at any time. We didn’t need the courts to do that. It would just take an amendment to the Constitution. Remember: a majority of people in the US want abortion to be legal. The court overruled that based on its own fetish for textualism. It’s great that you want people to talk to each other. In the mean time, women will die.

perrygeo 4y ago

> The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. What new legislation is required beyond the 4th and 9th amendments? Along with decades of legal precedent, these ALREADY protect US citizen's medical rights sufficiently. Yet the court saw fit to ignore them, effectively saying that a) we are no longer secure in our persons from unreasonable search if the state says so and b) rights retained by the people (but not explicitly in the constitution) can be denied by any legislature. This is a radical departure from our current legal structure, a complete re-interpretation of the constitution undertaken by activist judges behind closed doors in direct opposition to precedent and their public oaths - "That's it" doesn't begin to cover it.

barfingclouds 4y ago

We don’t need a bunch of old people/old men having these pseudo intellectual conversations about the healthcare of 17 year old girls. There doesn’t need to be these long paragraphs. Church and state need to be separated. Pro life people literally are enacting laws based on religious beliefs. The simple answer is if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Leave the health and safety of the rest of the population up to themselves.