4 ms·

I think it’s totally fair to respond to this in multiple ways. Legal and economic repercussions are important discussions. So is the practical impact to women.

I think it’s totally fair to respond to this in multiple ways. Legal and economic repercussions are important discussions. So is the practical impact to women. There is no reason to belittle people for considering various aspects of this ruling.

feet 4y ago
The impact on women, the human impact, should come before everything else But of course the slave owning framers of the constitution didn't care about that, considering the whole slave thing, so the federalist society judges that have been placed on the supreme court won't either
- hellojesus 4y ago
  I would argue that legal consistency should be the priority. The legal argument is simple: - The Constitution enumerates federal powers. - Abortion is not enumerated federally (Article 1 Section 8) - 10th Ammendment states that anything not explicitly enumerated to the federal gov or explicitly denied to the States is the legal territory of the States This reversal doesn't ban abortion across the US. It returns the decision to the states, where it should be legally. If we want a federal solution, we need an ammendment. This is exactly the same as how prohibition required an ammendment to ban alcohol. Emotions, morals, etc., while important for driving the end result, still must comply with the legal system.
  - jyrkesh 4y ago
    > This is exactly the same as how prohibition required an ammendment [sic] to ban alcohol. Can't wait for SCOTUS to apply the same logic to drug prohibition, which is also not at all an enumerated federal power (assuming the same logic that alcohol regulation isn't one either).
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Agreed! I just finished writing a comment to someone else specifically stating that Schedule 1 drugs should be handed the same result as R v. W just got!
    - feet 4y ago
      Great point! The CSA and DEA are unconstitutional, when will the supreme court declare it as such? Oh they won't, because they're activist judges with an agenda not some impartial arbiter of the constitution
      - hellojesus 4y ago
        Totally agree! Though the one point I will make is that the federal government is enumerated the power to regulate interstate commerce, so while they can't ban the substances, they could make it illegal to transport them over state lines. Such is the reason you still can't take mj from one legal state to the next.
        feet 4y ago
        You're right they do, but the whole thing has been a giant way to shit on the fourth amendment and attack people that those in power don't like. We should still be able to have bodily autonomy and consume whatever substance we want. Just like women should have bodily autonomy and not be forced to carry pregnancies against their will
  - maybelsyrup 4y ago
    > Emotions, morals, etc., while important for driving the end result, still must comply with the legal system. This is exactly backwards
    - feet 4y ago
      Yea, the legal system did not make humans. We made it to serve us and our purposes but now its being used to stifle the populace and profit off those less fortunate
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      It's not backwards. I'm arguing that those things should drive policy and laws, but we can't implement contradictory laws, and we can't just ignore existing laws when making new ones. Instead we need to revise, rescind, or modify laws in compliance with existing ones. Otherwise there is no point to having laws to begin with.
  - iostream24 4y ago
    You conveniently ignore the 9th amendment in your incorrect analysis. The 9th amendment literally stands your conclusion on its head.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      I'm not convinced. The 9th is hard for me to interpret because of its purposeful vagueness. But we do have some notes from judges such as the following: As Justice Scalia observed, “the [ Ninth Amendment’s] refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-current-doctrine#fn5amd9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/n... IMO, Congress should attack this from a Constitutional ammendment which makes its legality clear: abortions cannot be outlawed. Anything else is just another ticking time bomb, especially something contingent on a 9th ammendment interpretation. Edit: after rereading the 1st ammendment, the wording of an ammendment should be consistent, so something like, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the seeking or procedure of abortion." Thinking more on the 9th, one would have to consider the right to destroy an unborn person, not just the right to bodily autonomy. This becomes a moral or philosophical exercise, perhaps. With the 14th ammendment, it now becomes a question of personhood, which I don't believe the Constitution defines. So I think I am content with my request for an ammendment and not 9th Ammendment guesswork. Final edit: Turns out we have prior rulings that state that the 9th ammendment does not cover assisted suicide, which may be applicable to the case (potentially Person definition pending). Washington v Glucksberg https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/
      - iostream24 4y ago
        [dead]

feet 4y ago

The impact on women, the human impact, should come before everything else But of course the slave owning framers of the constitution didn't care about that, considering the whole slave thing, so the federalist society judges that have been placed on the supreme court won't either

hellojesus 4y ago
I would argue that legal consistency should be the priority. The legal argument is simple: - The Constitution enumerates federal powers. - Abortion is not enumerated federally (Article 1 Section 8) - 10th Ammendment states that anything not explicitly enumerated to the federal gov or explicitly denied to the States is the legal territory of the States This reversal doesn't ban abortion across the US. It returns the decision to the states, where it should be legally. If we want a federal solution, we need an ammendment. This is exactly the same as how prohibition required an ammendment to ban alcohol. Emotions, morals, etc., while important for driving the end result, still must comply with the legal system.
- jyrkesh 4y ago
  > This is exactly the same as how prohibition required an ammendment [sic] to ban alcohol. Can't wait for SCOTUS to apply the same logic to drug prohibition, which is also not at all an enumerated federal power (assuming the same logic that alcohol regulation isn't one either).
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    Agreed! I just finished writing a comment to someone else specifically stating that Schedule 1 drugs should be handed the same result as R v. W just got!
  - feet 4y ago
    Great point! The CSA and DEA are unconstitutional, when will the supreme court declare it as such? Oh they won't, because they're activist judges with an agenda not some impartial arbiter of the constitution
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      Totally agree! Though the one point I will make is that the federal government is enumerated the power to regulate interstate commerce, so while they can't ban the substances, they could make it illegal to transport them over state lines. Such is the reason you still can't take mj from one legal state to the next.
      - feet 4y ago
        You're right they do, but the whole thing has been a giant way to shit on the fourth amendment and attack people that those in power don't like. We should still be able to have bodily autonomy and consume whatever substance we want. Just like women should have bodily autonomy and not be forced to carry pregnancies against their will
- maybelsyrup 4y ago
  > Emotions, morals, etc., while important for driving the end result, still must comply with the legal system. This is exactly backwards
  - feet 4y ago
    Yea, the legal system did not make humans. We made it to serve us and our purposes but now its being used to stifle the populace and profit off those less fortunate
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    It's not backwards. I'm arguing that those things should drive policy and laws, but we can't implement contradictory laws, and we can't just ignore existing laws when making new ones. Instead we need to revise, rescind, or modify laws in compliance with existing ones. Otherwise there is no point to having laws to begin with.
- iostream24 4y ago
  You conveniently ignore the 9th amendment in your incorrect analysis. The 9th amendment literally stands your conclusion on its head.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    I'm not convinced. The 9th is hard for me to interpret because of its purposeful vagueness. But we do have some notes from judges such as the following: As Justice Scalia observed, “the [ Ninth Amendment’s] refusal to ‘deny or disparage’ other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even further removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges’ list against laws duly enacted by the people.” https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-current-doctrine#fn5amd9 https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/n... IMO, Congress should attack this from a Constitutional ammendment which makes its legality clear: abortions cannot be outlawed. Anything else is just another ticking time bomb, especially something contingent on a 9th ammendment interpretation. Edit: after rereading the 1st ammendment, the wording of an ammendment should be consistent, so something like, "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the seeking or procedure of abortion." Thinking more on the 9th, one would have to consider the right to destroy an unborn person, not just the right to bodily autonomy. This becomes a moral or philosophical exercise, perhaps. With the 14th ammendment, it now becomes a question of personhood, which I don't believe the Constitution defines. So I think I am content with my request for an ammendment and not 9th Ammendment guesswork. Final edit: Turns out we have prior rulings that state that the 9th ammendment does not cover assisted suicide, which may be applicable to the case (potentially Person definition pending). Washington v Glucksberg https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/
    - iostream24 4y ago
      [dead]