5 ms·

Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitu

Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. But, conservative justices clearly had a bone to pick there, despite obvious conflict with the words of the constitution. For some reason. There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. Slavery and Dred Scott come to mind, and although I'm sure there's plenty examples peppered in from other parts of the grand political spectrum, it's never been a well kept secret that the conservative M.O. is noticeably bolder and shameless in almost all regards, its major strength actually being in its willingness to use every tool at its disposal with minimal concern for blowback or legitimacy. The recent state law strike down coming across as highly ironic (but probably not to conservatives since it achieves the actual goal not of ethics or consistency, but of simple victory) because so much of what conservatives got away with for decades directly defying the constitutional rights was based heavily on the concept of state's rights. Like informal slavery/servitude after the war, or keeping your elections nice and extremely predictable until that awful civil rights movement. "Textbook" has nothing to do with this, or any of the wild departure of rulings being made in recent times. It's all very, VERY simple strategy: use what you have; dismantle what you can; build defenses where you can; you're in this for the Party.

infamia 4y ago
> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. I'm not sure why you would say that. The late Justice Ginsberg was a frequent critic of Roe as case law (despite being an ardent advocate of abortion) and thought the fundamental reasoning used in Roe was defective. [0] Roe was roundly criticized from jurists from both the left and the right on a number of fronts. It was bad law that ruled broadly on a highly divisive topic. Some folks strongly agreed with the outcome, so it became a third rail. Overturning precedents like Roe, while controversial, is healthy and gives us the opportunity to replace it with something on more firm legal footing. [0] = https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...
hellojesus 4y ago
It's interesting you say these things because it's exactly how the right views the left, and it's exactly what they say about them! Just an observation, and an interesting one. > Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. This is not at all true. Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion. While religion may influence worldview, the fundamental abortion question comes down to the fact that the Constitution does not define when a person becomes a Person. I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers. This EPA decision, however, I think is wrong, because the major question doctrine cannot be consistently applied and is constitutionally baseless so far as I can tell. Edit: forgot to write: > There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. I imagine everyone thinks this about some things. I agree with your assessments of bad precedents above, but conservatives aren't the only ones that do this. FDR threatened to pack the court to get his way with the New Deal and the Wager Act, which included things I believe are unconstitutional such as Social Security, Minimum Wage, Medicare, etc.
- sangnoir 4y ago
  > Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion. How many Jews are currently Supreme Court justices?
  - 0x7E3 4y ago
    Two.
    - schadenfriend 4y ago
      One, Elena Kagan.
      - 4y ago

infamia 4y ago

> Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. I'm not sure why you would say that. The late Justice Ginsberg was a frequent critic of Roe as case law (despite being an ardent advocate of abortion) and thought the fundamental reasoning used in Roe was defective. [0] Roe was roundly criticized from jurists from both the left and the right on a number of fronts. It was bad law that ruled broadly on a highly divisive topic. Some folks strongly agreed with the outcome, so it became a third rail. Overturning precedents like Roe, while controversial, is healthy and gives us the opportunity to replace it with something on more firm legal footing. [0] = https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/05/06/ruth-bader...

hellojesus 4y ago

It's interesting you say these things because it's exactly how the right views the left, and it's exactly what they say about them! Just an observation, and an interesting one. > Well it's always seemed pretty cut and dry that the whole "abortion" controversy is largely a religious crusade and that anyone pretending to favor the constitution would call it mixing church and state. This is not at all true. Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion. While religion may influence worldview, the fundamental abortion question comes down to the fact that the Constitution does not define when a person becomes a Person. I think the recent legal ruling was proper because of the specific omission of abortion in the enumeration of federal powers. This EPA decision, however, I think is wrong, because the major question doctrine cannot be consistently applied and is constitutionally baseless so far as I can tell. Edit: forgot to write: > There's a long and storied history of things being in conflict with the constitution and justices simply not caring. I imagine everyone thinks this about some things. I agree with your assessments of bad precedents above, but conservatives aren't the only ones that do this. FDR threatened to pack the court to get his way with the New Deal and the Wager Act, which included things I believe are unconstitutional such as Social Security, Minimum Wage, Medicare, etc.

sangnoir 4y ago
> Yes, there are lots of Christians that don't support abortion. Yet, there are many Jews that do and specifically cite their religion. How many Jews are currently Supreme Court justices?
- 0x7E3 4y ago
  Two.
  - schadenfriend 4y ago
    One, Elena Kagan.
    - 4y ago