4 ms·

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 no

by 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.
    - bhupy 4y ago
      > There's nothing in the constitution about oh so many things. That's exactly the point; and those "oh so many things" are left to the States. > Perhaps a constitutional amendment that gives people their privacy back is in order? Perhaps, I'd be supportive of something like that! > "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 absent by default. The fact that the Constitution doesn't outline a right to drive a car (or consume heroin) doesn't mean that driving a car or consuming heroin is by default illegal; it's just left to the States (and the people) to decide what to do with those things. But (importantly), just because the Constitution doesn't outline a right to consume heroin, the 9th Amendment does not confer a Constitutional right to consume heroin — that would be absurd. It's still something that can be decided upon by the legislatures, and if a legislature decided to outlaw the consumption of heroin, you can't point to the Constitution to invalidate such laws. > 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. I agree with the normative assessment that the right of a woman's privacy and control of her own life/happiness is primary (at least up to a certain point in the pregnancy); I'm pro-choice. That said, the fact that people may use their own religious views to come to a different conclusion and pass laws to that effect is NOT a violation of the separation of church and state. All "separation of church and state" means is that there's no official state religion, and policymaking isn't delegated to the clergy without democratic input — that's it. To illustrate with an example, it doesn't really matter that (historically) the majority of people derived their beliefs on the morality of assault/murder from the Ten Commandments, the fact that murder is illegal is not a violation of the separation of church and state. > 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. Except this belief is not exclusively religious. There are plenty of atheists that are pro-life, and similarly believe that (at least after a certain point of a pregnancy) the right of the unborn child should be balanced with the right of the mother.

by drooby 4y ago

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.
  - bhupy 4y ago
    > There's nothing in the constitution about oh so many things. That's exactly the point; and those "oh so many things" are left to the States. > Perhaps a constitutional amendment that gives people their privacy back is in order? Perhaps, I'd be supportive of something like that! > "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 absent by default. The fact that the Constitution doesn't outline a right to drive a car (or consume heroin) doesn't mean that driving a car or consuming heroin is by default illegal; it's just left to the States (and the people) to decide what to do with those things. But (importantly), just because the Constitution doesn't outline a right to consume heroin, the 9th Amendment does not confer a Constitutional right to consume heroin — that would be absurd. It's still something that can be decided upon by the legislatures, and if a legislature decided to outlaw the consumption of heroin, you can't point to the Constitution to invalidate such laws. > 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. I agree with the normative assessment that the right of a woman's privacy and control of her own life/happiness is primary (at least up to a certain point in the pregnancy); I'm pro-choice. That said, the fact that people may use their own religious views to come to a different conclusion and pass laws to that effect is NOT a violation of the separation of church and state. All "separation of church and state" means is that there's no official state religion, and policymaking isn't delegated to the clergy without democratic input — that's it. To illustrate with an example, it doesn't really matter that (historically) the majority of people derived their beliefs on the morality of assault/murder from the Ten Commandments, the fact that murder is illegal is not a violation of the separation of church and state. > 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. Except this belief is not exclusively religious. There are plenty of atheists that are pro-life, and similarly believe that (at least after a certain point of a pregnancy) the right of the unborn child should be balanced with the right of the mother.