5 ms·

Yes, there is a not-unreasonable purely legal argument for overturning. Yes, it would be to the benefit of all if this was better understood. But, patently, tha

Yes, there is a not-unreasonable purely legal argument for overturning. Yes, it would be to the benefit of all if this was better understood. But, patently, that does not obviate the practical consequences for individuals, which is much more obvious and just as true. Focusing on those consequences is not misleading. Americans reasonably feel extremely strongly about this. When a perceived right is forcefully taken away by one's state, the legal argument for or against the federal mechanism that was preventing that takes a back seat, to put it mildly.

drooby 4y ago
"forcefully" taken away? The legal argument never takes back seat. This is a nation ruled by law.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  No nation is ruled by law, they're all ruled by people. Certain people on the supreme court decided to take a right away that's been in place for 50 years. Due to the current dynamics of the political system, they could have handed down the decision with just "because we say so" and it wouldn't have changed a thing. Legal argument was always a back seat to the end goal.
  - drooby 4y ago
    Roe was essentially established in the first place because liberal justices said "because we say so". And now we have the current justices saying "no, that's not how this system works" (and I highly recommend reading their opinion, its not 'because we say so'). Even RBJ has agreed that Roe was a faulty decision. If you are against "If we say so" rule of government, you might like this supreme court opinion. There is plenty of precedent for overruling constitutional decisions. From a legal perspective this is not new, see Brown v Board overruling Plessy v Ferg.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      In case it wasn't lost, this isn't a theoretical academic exercise. This effects real actual people. So no, I might not like this supreme court opinion.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - jaybrendansmith 4y ago
      Really? So you hand wave the consequences of the change as "because we say so?". At the time of the ruling, it was obvious. You cannot legislate something you cannot see, and you cannot see that someone is or is not pregnant. This change undermines patient privacy laws, HIPAA, and many other foundational decisions. It's going to create more bizarre impacts than you or I can imagine, like woman being examined by court order for evidence of an abortion, and other woman taken in for questioning about the help they provided their friend. It's an ugly, uncomfortable, and clearly insane decision. It will ultimately be overturned if we still have a republic in a few years. Their opinion is garbage.
      - danielrpa 4y ago
        The media narrative is incredibly dishonest. I support both the right for abortions with certain limitations AND Dobbs. They are not contradictory. One thing is the Supreme Court pushing down an extreme view of abortion rights down every state's throat, while another is letting the states and Congress debate and decide the nuances of how we protect both the rights of the mother and the unborn child.
      - bhupy 4y ago
        > You cannot legislate something you cannot see There’s nothing in the Constitution that comports with this philosophy. You can’t “see” gay conversion therapy or whatever physical characteristic such therapy aims to target, and yet it’s eminently reasonable (and most would agree Constitutional) for State legislatures to outlaw its practice. I’m as pro-choice as anyone else, but it’s pretty clear that the Constitution has always been mum on the subject. Sometimes things can be good and important, but not currently a Constitutional right.
  - rayiner 4y ago
    But they didn’t. They issued a well reasoned decision that is undeniably correct if you even believe a little bit that the Constitution is written law like other laws, and not a vehicle for elites to impose their values on the public. And the result of the decision does not ban abortion, but returns it to the democratic process, which is the case in nearly every other developed country.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
rayiner 4y ago
> When a perceived right is forcefully taken away by one's state, the legal argument for or against the federal mechanism that was preventing that takes a back seat, to put it mildly. To be clear, the “right” only came into existence because the Supreme Court in the 1970s conjured it out of thin air. Several other high courts in advanced democracies took up the abortion question around that time. None found a legal right to abortion. Most found it to be an issue for the legislature. Germany found abortion to violate the Basic Law’s Right to Life (and that precedent still stands!)
- Tomte 4y ago
  Germany's legal doctrine on that is complicated. In theory it's completely illegal, but doesn't lead to prosecution when obeying some limits (you need to get counseled, only in the first 12 weeks etc.). But if abortion were truly a violation of law (not to speak of the Basic Law) it would necessarily open the perpetrator to acts of self-defense (or self-defense of others, not sure about the English phrase). But our Constitution Court specifically ruled that "other-defense" is not applicable, even when the abortion violates the 12 week limit. It's just as political here as over there in America. And the legislative and courts are also muddling through. Side note: on the very same day Roe v. Wade was overturned the German parliament legalized advertising for/informing about abortions (depending on who you ask).

drooby 4y ago

"forcefully" taken away? The legal argument never takes back seat. This is a nation ruled by law.

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
No nation is ruled by law, they're all ruled by people. Certain people on the supreme court decided to take a right away that's been in place for 50 years. Due to the current dynamics of the political system, they could have handed down the decision with just "because we say so" and it wouldn't have changed a thing. Legal argument was always a back seat to the end goal.
- drooby 4y ago
  Roe was essentially established in the first place because liberal justices said "because we say so". And now we have the current justices saying "no, that's not how this system works" (and I highly recommend reading their opinion, its not 'because we say so'). Even RBJ has agreed that Roe was a faulty decision. If you are against "If we say so" rule of government, you might like this supreme court opinion. There is plenty of precedent for overruling constitutional decisions. From a legal perspective this is not new, see Brown v Board overruling Plessy v Ferg.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    In case it wasn't lost, this isn't a theoretical academic exercise. This effects real actual people. So no, I might not like this supreme court opinion.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - jaybrendansmith 4y ago
    Really? So you hand wave the consequences of the change as "because we say so?". At the time of the ruling, it was obvious. You cannot legislate something you cannot see, and you cannot see that someone is or is not pregnant. This change undermines patient privacy laws, HIPAA, and many other foundational decisions. It's going to create more bizarre impacts than you or I can imagine, like woman being examined by court order for evidence of an abortion, and other woman taken in for questioning about the help they provided their friend. It's an ugly, uncomfortable, and clearly insane decision. It will ultimately be overturned if we still have a republic in a few years. Their opinion is garbage.
    - danielrpa 4y ago
      The media narrative is incredibly dishonest. I support both the right for abortions with certain limitations AND Dobbs. They are not contradictory. One thing is the Supreme Court pushing down an extreme view of abortion rights down every state's throat, while another is letting the states and Congress debate and decide the nuances of how we protect both the rights of the mother and the unborn child.
    - bhupy 4y ago
      > You cannot legislate something you cannot see There’s nothing in the Constitution that comports with this philosophy. You can’t “see” gay conversion therapy or whatever physical characteristic such therapy aims to target, and yet it’s eminently reasonable (and most would agree Constitutional) for State legislatures to outlaw its practice. I’m as pro-choice as anyone else, but it’s pretty clear that the Constitution has always been mum on the subject. Sometimes things can be good and important, but not currently a Constitutional right.
- rayiner 4y ago
  But they didn’t. They issued a well reasoned decision that is undeniably correct if you even believe a little bit that the Constitution is written law like other laws, and not a vehicle for elites to impose their values on the public. And the result of the decision does not ban abortion, but returns it to the democratic process, which is the case in nearly every other developed country.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

rayiner 4y ago

> When a perceived right is forcefully taken away by one's state, the legal argument for or against the federal mechanism that was preventing that takes a back seat, to put it mildly. To be clear, the “right” only came into existence because the Supreme Court in the 1970s conjured it out of thin air. Several other high courts in advanced democracies took up the abortion question around that time. None found a legal right to abortion. Most found it to be an issue for the legislature. Germany found abortion to violate the Basic Law’s Right to Life (and that precedent still stands!)

Tomte 4y ago
Germany's legal doctrine on that is complicated. In theory it's completely illegal, but doesn't lead to prosecution when obeying some limits (you need to get counseled, only in the first 12 weeks etc.). But if abortion were truly a violation of law (not to speak of the Basic Law) it would necessarily open the perpetrator to acts of self-defense (or self-defense of others, not sure about the English phrase). But our Constitution Court specifically ruled that "other-defense" is not applicable, even when the abortion violates the 12 week limit. It's just as political here as over there in America. And the legislative and courts are also muddling through. Side note: on the very same day Roe v. Wade was overturned the German parliament legalized advertising for/informing about abortions (depending on who you ask).