6 ms·

>Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. In the US, a ruling like this(ironic to say right now) is so much more ironclad than a law

>Not a priority according to democratic politicians. Not a priority. In the US, a ruling like this(ironic to say right now) is so much more ironclad than a law is in general, if people are going to come after it. Legal challenge after legal challenge slowly boils laws away until you have so many exceptions about portions of a law specifically struck down that the whole thing doesn't even make sense anymore. And of course, any time Republicans controlled the House/Senate they'd probably do something with it, just like every time a Republican is elected President they stop giving monetary support to organizations GMOs that provide abortion services in foreign countries. You can't really have laws about "controversial" things for very long.

mvdwoord 4y ago
This was overturned no? So is this now also more ironclad? And the whole point of elections and politics and lawmaking is to keep up with changing culture and norms? I see your point in practicality, but are they mutually exclusive?
- tablespoon 4y ago
  >> In the US, a ruling like this(ironic to say right now) is so much more ironclad than a law is in general, if people are going to come after it. > This was overturned no? So is this now also more ironclad? Roe v. Wade was basically a backdoor constitutional amendment where seven judges bypassed the actual process for amending the constitution (and also ran ahead of the legislatures in all but a handful of states). The recent Dobbs opinion just nullifies that amendment. A lot of people seem to think that, since the constitution is so hard to amend through the prescribed process, they should be able to use the courts to get the amendments they want. The problem with that is that it explicitly politicized the court, burning up its legitimacy in the process. We're seeing the later stages of that (the next step is something to undermine the court's independence, like court packing or mass impeachment). It also foolishly relied on a fantasy that only one side could abuse the court in this way, and the other side would forever remain helpless.
  - falcolas 4y ago
    > they should be able to use the courts to get the amendments they want The court makes tens to hundreds of interpretations of case law and its interaction with the constitution every year. They've generated thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages of interpretations and case law over the years. And it's worth noting that rights not explicitly enumerated in the constitution are still rights protected by the constitution. The current SC just disagrees with the previous SC's decision on what those un-enumerated rights are. EDIT: Side note - the court wasn't even being asked to overturn Roe v Wade - they took that upon themselves. All that was being contested was a state's ability to limit abortions beyond the first trimester (something commonly allowed as part of the "balance" between states rights and women's rights built upon RvW). Highly sus that they decided to take this on with such an unrelated court case.
    - tablespoon 4y ago
      > And it's worth noting that rights not explicitly enumerated in the constitution are still rights protected by the constitution. The current SC just disagrees with the previous SC's decision on what those un-enumerated rights are. I think your phrasing there is awkward. Which rights? All imaginable ones? (you probably should have said "some rights" to block this inprepretation) Rights with specific kinds of historical precedence? Novel rights "our" faction wishes were there and that "our" judges can read into it through deliberate effort? Reading novel rights into the constitution is the kind of backdoor amendment I was referring to. > All that was being contested was a state's ability to limit abortions beyond the first trimester (something commonly allowed as part of the "balance" between states rights and women's rights built upon RvW). No, I don't think that's actually what happened. IIRC, it could have chosen to resolve it that way, but the parties turned the case into a challenge about Roe v. Wade itself in their arguments, which gave an opening for a broader ruling.
      - falcolas 4y ago
        FWIW, my wording is based on the constitution. specifically, Amendment 9, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So what rights are those? That's up to the courts and lawmakers to decide. And they have. Folks disagree with the choices they made and the justifications they gave. For example, I disagree that a right which has been in place for 50 years, with millions of women exercising that right yearly, is somehow not part of the US' social and moral fabric. But since the founders didn't do it (debatable, there were laws allowing abortions on the books at the founding of the US), it's OK to take that right away. > the parties actually turned into into a challenge about Roe v. Wade itself The SCOTUS did that. As noted in Roberts' concurring opinion (which was still one of the 4 votes against), this specific case could have been solved without tearing down the RvW ruling. "... the State never argued that we should grant review for that purpose [overturning RvW]." "The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system—regardless of how you view those cases. A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case."
- falcolas 4y ago
  It lasted 50 years, and helped provide the framework for many other privacy related protections, which the current supreme court is now dismantling, basically because they can. Many other privacy related rulings, including those for mixed-race marriages and rights to contraception, where built partially upon RvW. One thing the RvW ruling had that a law wouldn't is a reluctance for most supreme courts to overturn it, since an interpretation exists and now helps form the basis for laws in the US. There's a specific name for this codified reluctance that I don't know at the moment. This is one of the things that the 4 "no" votes openly criticize the majority opinion for. "We're overturning it because we want to," is a short version of the majority's opinion on that. Ironically, it's court-based interpretations of the constitution that have been performed over the years also help provide the very case law that the SC uses to do the overturning. As one Tiktok creator pointed out, the constitution can fit in a pretty small booklet. The interpretations and the case law built off those interpretations fill thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages.

mvdwoord 4y ago

This was overturned no? So is this now also more ironclad? And the whole point of elections and politics and lawmaking is to keep up with changing culture and norms? I see your point in practicality, but are they mutually exclusive?

tablespoon 4y ago
>> In the US, a ruling like this(ironic to say right now) is so much more ironclad than a law is in general, if people are going to come after it. > This was overturned no? So is this now also more ironclad? Roe v. Wade was basically a backdoor constitutional amendment where seven judges bypassed the actual process for amending the constitution (and also ran ahead of the legislatures in all but a handful of states). The recent Dobbs opinion just nullifies that amendment. A lot of people seem to think that, since the constitution is so hard to amend through the prescribed process, they should be able to use the courts to get the amendments they want. The problem with that is that it explicitly politicized the court, burning up its legitimacy in the process. We're seeing the later stages of that (the next step is something to undermine the court's independence, like court packing or mass impeachment). It also foolishly relied on a fantasy that only one side could abuse the court in this way, and the other side would forever remain helpless.
- falcolas 4y ago
  > they should be able to use the courts to get the amendments they want The court makes tens to hundreds of interpretations of case law and its interaction with the constitution every year. They've generated thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages of interpretations and case law over the years. And it's worth noting that rights not explicitly enumerated in the constitution are still rights protected by the constitution. The current SC just disagrees with the previous SC's decision on what those un-enumerated rights are. EDIT: Side note - the court wasn't even being asked to overturn Roe v Wade - they took that upon themselves. All that was being contested was a state's ability to limit abortions beyond the first trimester (something commonly allowed as part of the "balance" between states rights and women's rights built upon RvW). Highly sus that they decided to take this on with such an unrelated court case.
  - tablespoon 4y ago
    > And it's worth noting that rights not explicitly enumerated in the constitution are still rights protected by the constitution. The current SC just disagrees with the previous SC's decision on what those un-enumerated rights are. I think your phrasing there is awkward. Which rights? All imaginable ones? (you probably should have said "some rights" to block this inprepretation) Rights with specific kinds of historical precedence? Novel rights "our" faction wishes were there and that "our" judges can read into it through deliberate effort? Reading novel rights into the constitution is the kind of backdoor amendment I was referring to. > All that was being contested was a state's ability to limit abortions beyond the first trimester (something commonly allowed as part of the "balance" between states rights and women's rights built upon RvW). No, I don't think that's actually what happened. IIRC, it could have chosen to resolve it that way, but the parties turned the case into a challenge about Roe v. Wade itself in their arguments, which gave an opening for a broader ruling.
    - falcolas 4y ago
      FWIW, my wording is based on the constitution. specifically, Amendment 9, which states: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." So what rights are those? That's up to the courts and lawmakers to decide. And they have. Folks disagree with the choices they made and the justifications they gave. For example, I disagree that a right which has been in place for 50 years, with millions of women exercising that right yearly, is somehow not part of the US' social and moral fabric. But since the founders didn't do it (debatable, there were laws allowing abortions on the books at the founding of the US), it's OK to take that right away. > the parties actually turned into into a challenge about Roe v. Wade itself The SCOTUS did that. As noted in Roberts' concurring opinion (which was still one of the 4 votes against), this specific case could have been solved without tearing down the RvW ruling. "... the State never argued that we should grant review for that purpose [overturning RvW]." "The Court’s decision to overrule Roe and Casey is a serious jolt to the legal system—regardless of how you view those cases. A narrower decision rejecting the misguided viability line would be markedly less unsettling, and nothing more is needed to decide this case."
falcolas 4y ago
It lasted 50 years, and helped provide the framework for many other privacy related protections, which the current supreme court is now dismantling, basically because they can. Many other privacy related rulings, including those for mixed-race marriages and rights to contraception, where built partially upon RvW. One thing the RvW ruling had that a law wouldn't is a reluctance for most supreme courts to overturn it, since an interpretation exists and now helps form the basis for laws in the US. There's a specific name for this codified reluctance that I don't know at the moment. This is one of the things that the 4 "no" votes openly criticize the majority opinion for. "We're overturning it because we want to," is a short version of the majority's opinion on that. Ironically, it's court-based interpretations of the constitution that have been performed over the years also help provide the very case law that the SC uses to do the overturning. As one Tiktok creator pointed out, the constitution can fit in a pretty small booklet. The interpretations and the case law built off those interpretations fill thousands, if not tens of thousands, of pages.