5 ms·

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

by drooby 4y ago

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.
      - jaybrendansmith 4y ago
        There's nothing in the constitution about oh so many things. Perhaps a constitutional amendment that gives people their privacy back is in order? But I believe the Constitution does say something about "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It stands to reason (in Roe) that, unless someone's religion (separation of church and state?) believes a life begins before birth, the right of a woman's privacy and control of her own life and happiness is primary. Any other logic, as in Dobbs, is superseding her right to privacy, life, and happiness, with the religious belief in the life of an unborn child. Sadly, we used to believe in logic and the enlightenment, back in the 70s. Now we are no more enlightened than the Holy Roman Empire.
- 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]

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

by drooby 4y ago

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

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.
    - jaybrendansmith 4y ago
      There's nothing in the constitution about oh so many things. Perhaps a constitutional amendment that gives people their privacy back is in order? But I believe the Constitution does say something about "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It stands to reason (in Roe) that, unless someone's religion (separation of church and state?) believes a life begins before birth, the right of a woman's privacy and control of her own life and happiness is primary. Any other logic, as in Dobbs, is superseding her right to privacy, life, and happiness, with the religious belief in the life of an unborn child. Sadly, we used to believe in logic and the enlightenment, back in the 70s. Now we are no more enlightened than the Holy Roman Empire.
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]