3 ms·

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.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajross 4y ago
    Not really. Roe was one of a bunch of decisions of that era making findings of "civil rights". In particular, and libertarians like to forget this part, the core finding is actually based on the fourth amendment, and it says that no matter how firm it may believe the moral argument may be, the government doesn't have the right to decide for someone what medical procedures should be possible within her own body. I genuinely don't understand all the HN libertarians lining up on the site of Government Power here. This is absolutely a libertarian issue. Is it just knee-jerk tribalism? Have you guys all decided you don't really care so much about individual rights? Or is it just that you don't have a uterus and are disinclined to align yourself with those who do?
    - rufus_foreman 4y ago
      Us guys? I'm not a libertarian. Go find a libertarian to argue with. Abortion is murder, life in prison for violators, no exceptions.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      All the libertarians have become nrx tradcath dominionists since ca. 2015, try to keep up.

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.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 4y ago
  Not really. Roe was one of a bunch of decisions of that era making findings of "civil rights". In particular, and libertarians like to forget this part, the core finding is actually based on the fourth amendment, and it says that no matter how firm it may believe the moral argument may be, the government doesn't have the right to decide for someone what medical procedures should be possible within her own body. I genuinely don't understand all the HN libertarians lining up on the site of Government Power here. This is absolutely a libertarian issue. Is it just knee-jerk tribalism? Have you guys all decided you don't really care so much about individual rights? Or is it just that you don't have a uterus and are disinclined to align yourself with those who do?
  - rufus_foreman 4y ago
    Us guys? I'm not a libertarian. Go find a libertarian to argue with. Abortion is murder, life in prison for violators, no exceptions.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    All the libertarians have become nrx tradcath dominionists since ca. 2015, try to keep up.