7 ms·

The roe v Wade decision seemed to follow a similar pattern with the conservative opinion being about how there isn't really a basis for a constitutional right t

The roe v Wade decision seemed to follow a similar pattern with the conservative opinion being about how there isn't really a basis for a constitutional right to an abortion up to viability (seems true) and the liberal dissenting opinion was about how the decision was going to be bad for women (also true) and how this opens up the floodgates to reversing a lot of other important supreme court decisions ( not sure how true that is)

TylerE 4y ago
I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?
- bashinator 4y ago
  Why stop at “grow”? I don’t see why the federal government should have any say over in what chemicals I might want to purchase or manufacture.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    There is a bit of a your fist/my face issue. I don’t want my neighbor operating a meth lab in his shed or building an atomic pile.
    - bashinator 4y ago
      Devil's advocate: (I won't take on the atomic pile question since we're talking about consumables) Operating a meth lab is dangerous _because_ it's illegal. If it were regulated and licensed, it would be no more dangerous than say operating an 18-wheel rig.
      - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
        Your comparison only holds if the rig is filled with the dangerous constituent chemicals, which are also regulated by government.
        bashinator 4y ago
        Exactly. Regulated, not banned.
- tablespoon 4y ago
  > I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards? My bet? "Interstate commerce."
  - giantg2 4y ago
    Yep. They can prevent growing your own wheat (in large quantity) because it impacts interstate wheat markets. You can literally bend this to apply to anything on that logic.
  - TylerE 4y ago
    Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state. No, according to the Supreme Court, it's interstate commerce if a butterfly bats its wings and the resulting hurricane causes someone to buy a raincoat in another state. IIRC, the actual case involved someone growing wheat their own land that they didn't even plan to sell. But since wheat was sold in interstate commerce, the court said any activity involving involving wheat could be regulated as interstate commerce.
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich says otherwise. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 > The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.
    - quickthrowman 4y ago
      Incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
- giantg2 4y ago
  I've had a similar thought process. We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, but not for practically anything else (a couple other things, but some of them were also bizarre. Like how can you have privacy over who you marry if you're required to get a license before hand and they can still ban some classes/conditions but not others). If it is a right, it should apply universally. If not, then we need to start creating those rights in the constitution (where it requires larger agreement and isn't as easy to overturn). But maybe I'm crazy.
  - cronix 4y ago
    > We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, RBG didn't see it that way. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights." https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...
- EricDeb 4y ago
  And this is where their hypocrisy will show because they will absolutely find a way to allow the DEA to remain
- tick_tock_tick 4y ago
  Consumption isn't illegal just possession.
  - gernb 4y ago
    Seriously curious. If I consume somthing, don't I now posses it (it's in my body) or didn't I have to posses it for at least a moment (in order to consume it) I'm just curious in what ways this distinction would play out. I can see if "consuming" was illegal and "possession" was not logically works but it's harder to see how "consuming" is legal and "possession" is not doesn't effectively make "consuming" also illegal.
- baggy_trough 4y ago
  Nothing whatsoever. That's why most of what the federal government does is unlawful.
specialist 4y ago
More specifically, the dissenting opinion argues that the right to abortion logically follows from all the prior rights granted to women, eg own property, voting, divorce.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  It's my understanding it's argued the right to an abortion is given from the 14th amendment. I didn't really see anything from the dissenting opinion about how the right to an abortion is given by women's right to voting, property or divorce (?).
  - specialist 4y ago
    How could they have been more explicit? From the dissent (emphasis mine): JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting. For half a century, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions. ... Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a woman confronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonable limits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, with all the life-transforming consequences that act involves. And in thus safeguarding each woman’s reproductive freedom, the Constitution also protected “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in [this Nation’s] economic and social life.”. But no longer. As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare. Some women, especially women of means, will find ways around the State’s assertion of power. Others—those without money or childcare or the ability to take time off from work—will not be so fortunate. Maybe they will try an un- safe method of abortion, and come to physical harm, or even die. Maybe they will undergo pregnancy and have a child, but at significant personal or familial cost. At the least, they will incur the cost of losing control of their lives. The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all. ... The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.
scarface74 4y ago
Is there a constitutional right to marry someone of another race? (Loving vs Virginia). Is there a constitutional right for gay people to get married (Obergefell vs Hodges)? Is there a constitutional right to buy contraceptive? Guess which two of those Thomas wants to revisit and the one he probably doesn’t?

TylerE 4y ago

I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards?

bashinator 4y ago
Why stop at “grow”? I don’t see why the federal government should have any say over in what chemicals I might want to purchase or manufacture.
- TylerE 4y ago
  There is a bit of a your fist/my face issue. I don’t want my neighbor operating a meth lab in his shed or building an atomic pile.
  - bashinator 4y ago
    Devil's advocate: (I won't take on the atomic pile question since we're talking about consumables) Operating a meth lab is dangerous _because_ it's illegal. If it were regulated and licensed, it would be no more dangerous than say operating an 18-wheel rig.
    - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
      Your comparison only holds if the rig is filled with the dangerous constituent chemicals, which are also regulated by government.
      - bashinator 4y ago
        Exactly. Regulated, not banned.
tablespoon 4y ago
> I’m waiting for the first lawsuit against the DEA. What in the constitution gives the right for the Fedwral Government to regulate what we voluntarily put in our bodies or grow in our back yards? My bet? "Interstate commerce."
- giantg2 4y ago
  Yep. They can prevent growing your own wheat (in large quantity) because it impacts interstate wheat markets. You can literally bend this to apply to anything on that logic.
- TylerE 4y ago
  Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > Doesn’t work if it’s produced, distributed, and consumed entirely in a single state. No, according to the Supreme Court, it's interstate commerce if a butterfly bats its wings and the resulting hurricane causes someone to buy a raincoat in another state. IIRC, the actual case involved someone growing wheat their own land that they didn't even plan to sell. But since wheat was sold in interstate commerce, the court said any activity involving involving wheat could be regulated as interstate commerce.
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich says otherwise. https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 https://www.oyez.org/cases/2004/03-1454 > The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market.
  - quickthrowman 4y ago
    Incorrect: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn
giantg2 4y ago
I've had a similar thought process. We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, but not for practically anything else (a couple other things, but some of them were also bizarre. Like how can you have privacy over who you marry if you're required to get a license before hand and they can still ban some classes/conditions but not others). If it is a right, it should apply universally. If not, then we need to start creating those rights in the constitution (where it requires larger agreement and isn't as easy to overturn). But maybe I'm crazy.
- cronix 4y ago
  > We had an implicit right to privacy for abortion, RBG didn't see it that way. “Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.” “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights." https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-offers-critique-roe-v-wade-during-law-school-visit https://www.law.uchicago.edu/news/justice-ruth-bader-ginsbur...
EricDeb 4y ago
And this is where their hypocrisy will show because they will absolutely find a way to allow the DEA to remain
tick_tock_tick 4y ago
Consumption isn't illegal just possession.
- gernb 4y ago
  Seriously curious. If I consume somthing, don't I now posses it (it's in my body) or didn't I have to posses it for at least a moment (in order to consume it) I'm just curious in what ways this distinction would play out. I can see if "consuming" was illegal and "possession" was not logically works but it's harder to see how "consuming" is legal and "possession" is not doesn't effectively make "consuming" also illegal.
baggy_trough 4y ago
Nothing whatsoever. That's why most of what the federal government does is unlawful.

specialist 4y ago

More specifically, the dissenting opinion argues that the right to abortion logically follows from all the prior rights granted to women, eg own property, voting, divorce.

JamesBarney 4y ago
It's my understanding it's argued the right to an abortion is given from the 14th amendment. I didn't really see anything from the dissenting opinion about how the right to an abortion is given by women's right to voting, property or divorce (?).
- specialist 4y ago
  How could they have been more explicit? From the dissent (emphasis mine): JUSTICE BREYER, JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR, and JUSTICE KAGAN, dissenting. For half a century, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, have protected the liberty and equality of women. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that the Constitution safeguards a woman’s right to decide for herself whether to bear a child. Roe held, and Casey reaffirmed, that in the first stages of pregnancy, the government could not make that choice for women. The government could not control a woman’s body or the course of a woman’s life: It could not determine what the woman’s future would be. Respecting a woman as an autonomous being, and granting her full equality, meant giving her substantial choice over this most personal and most consequential of all life decisions. ... Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens. Yesterday, the Constitution guaranteed that a woman confronted with an unplanned pregnancy could (within reasonable limits) make her own decision about whether to bear a child, with all the life-transforming consequences that act involves. And in thus safeguarding each woman’s reproductive freedom, the Constitution also protected “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in [this Nation’s] economic and social life.”. But no longer. As of today, this Court holds, a State can always force a woman to give birth, prohibiting even the earliest abortions. A State can thus transform what, when freely undertaken, is a wonder into what, when forced, may be a nightmare. Some women, especially women of means, will find ways around the State’s assertion of power. Others—those without money or childcare or the ability to take time off from work—will not be so fortunate. Maybe they will try an un- safe method of abortion, and come to physical harm, or even die. Maybe they will undergo pregnancy and have a child, but at significant personal or familial cost. At the least, they will incur the cost of losing control of their lives. The Constitution will, today’s majority holds, provide no shield, despite its guarantees of liberty and equality for all. ... The right Roe and Casey recognized does not stand alone. To the contrary, the Court has linked it for decades to other settled freedoms involving bodily integrity, familial relationships, and procreation. Most obviously, the right to terminate a pregnancy arose straight out of the right to purchase and use contraception. In turn, those rights led, more recently, to rights of same-sex intimacy and marriage. They are all part of the same constitutional fabric, protecting autonomous decisionmaking over the most personal of life decisions.

scarface74 4y ago

Is there a constitutional right to marry someone of another race? (Loving vs Virginia). Is there a constitutional right for gay people to get married (Obergefell vs Hodges)? Is there a constitutional right to buy contraceptive? Guess which two of those Thomas wants to revisit and the one he probably doesn’t?