3 ms·

> In Roe, the court didn't write a law saying abortion was legal. It struck down laws stating that it was illegal. That's an important difference. I don't get

> In Roe, the court didn't write a law saying abortion was legal. It struck down laws stating that it was illegal. That's an important difference. I don't get it - this seems like sophistry. Isn't the end result the same, i.e. nationally permitting abortion? > It's also worth remembering that there was never a realistic chance of a nationwide right to abortion being passed through congress. There are a few reasons for it. Only about 15% of the country is against abortions in all circumstances, but they're a loud minority. Similarly, 20-30% of American are pro-choice under any circumstance. But the majority of Americans support abortion only in certain circumstances, and they tend not to care as much about it. [1] Isn't this how the system is designed to work? And if that's not desired, why not change the system instead? "The SCOTUS gets to make the rules" only works about half of the time, and it seems mostly like a matter of dumb luck as for when it does and doesn't. Using the courts to enforce uncodified abortion rights is like using a shoe to beat a nail in; it's pointlessly brutal, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. I get that it may be expedient for a specific purpose, but why do people celebrate it as a good system in the abstract?

falcolas 4y ago
FWIW, most rights you and I have are not codified in the constitution. That doesn't mean those rights don't exist. This whole debacle is two SCOTUS arguing over whether privacy, and thus bodily autonomy, is one of those rights. Ultimately the constitution is a, relative to the case law and interpretations the SCOTUS has generated from it, miniscule document.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  Are there some other (non-politically controversial, not subject to heavy litigation) well-known uncodified rights in the USA? I don't live in the USA, so certainly none of my rights are codified there.
StewardMcOy 4y ago
> I don't get it - this seems like sophistry. Isn't the end result the same, i.e. nationally permitting abortion? I'd argue whether or not this is sophistry depends on how you view rights. If you only have rights when the government grants you rights, then yes, this is sophistry. Taking this to the extreme, however, one could main the claim that people are not allowed to do do innocuous actions like jumping jacks unless the government legislates that it's allowed. However, if you instead take the more reasonable position that individuals have all rights except those curtailed by the government for the sake of maintaining a stable social contract, then it's not sophistry. In Roe, the court ruled that the right to an abortion, within certain limitations, is not one of the rights that governments can curtail.
StewardMcOy 4y ago
> Isn't this how the system is designed to work? And if that's not desired, why not change the system instead? "The SCOTUS gets to make the rules" only works about half of the time, and it seems mostly like a matter of dumb luck as for when it does and doesn't. Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Unfortunately, the compromises (i.e. slavery) that lead to the constitution are no longer relevant, but we are left with a system that is difficult to change specifically to protect those compromises. > Using the courts to enforce uncodified abortion rights is like using a shoe to beat a nail in; it's pointlessly brutal, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. I get that it may be expedient for a specific purpose, but why do people celebrate it as a good system in the abstract? It's not a good system, and people don't celebrate it as such. Pretty much everyone recognizes that lifetime appointments of un-elected individuals to the supreme court has serious drawbacks. But it's the only way to preserve rights within the current system, and people would prefer that to another civil war.
- heartbeats 4y ago
  > Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? If only the Democratic states participate, then the necessary consensus to make serious changes (e.g. European-style parliamentary democracy) would be much easier; the Republicans would maybe also tolerate it, given that it would allow them to introduce the laws that they wanted to. How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going?
  - dragonwriter 4y ago

falcolas 4y ago

FWIW, most rights you and I have are not codified in the constitution. That doesn't mean those rights don't exist. This whole debacle is two SCOTUS arguing over whether privacy, and thus bodily autonomy, is one of those rights. Ultimately the constitution is a, relative to the case law and interpretations the SCOTUS has generated from it, miniscule document.

heartbeats 4y ago
Are there some other (non-politically controversial, not subject to heavy litigation) well-known uncodified rights in the USA? I don't live in the USA, so certainly none of my rights are codified there.

StewardMcOy 4y ago

> I don't get it - this seems like sophistry. Isn't the end result the same, i.e. nationally permitting abortion? I'd argue whether or not this is sophistry depends on how you view rights. If you only have rights when the government grants you rights, then yes, this is sophistry. Taking this to the extreme, however, one could main the claim that people are not allowed to do do innocuous actions like jumping jacks unless the government legislates that it's allowed. However, if you instead take the more reasonable position that individuals have all rights except those curtailed by the government for the sake of maintaining a stable social contract, then it's not sophistry. In Roe, the court ruled that the right to an abortion, within certain limitations, is not one of the rights that governments can curtail.

StewardMcOy 4y ago

> Isn't this how the system is designed to work? And if that's not desired, why not change the system instead? "The SCOTUS gets to make the rules" only works about half of the time, and it seems mostly like a matter of dumb luck as for when it does and doesn't. Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Unfortunately, the compromises (i.e. slavery) that lead to the constitution are no longer relevant, but we are left with a system that is difficult to change specifically to protect those compromises. > Using the courts to enforce uncodified abortion rights is like using a shoe to beat a nail in; it's pointlessly brutal, and makes a mockery of the rule of law. I get that it may be expedient for a specific purpose, but why do people celebrate it as a good system in the abstract? It's not a good system, and people don't celebrate it as such. Pretty much everyone recognizes that lifetime appointments of un-elected individuals to the supreme court has serious drawbacks. But it's the only way to preserve rights within the current system, and people would prefer that to another civil war.

heartbeats 4y ago
> Yes, this is how the system is designed to work. It's a bad system, but the system cannot be fundamentally changed in an environment much short of political unanimity. The biggest changes to the system only came after a civil war. > No system is perfect. The founding fathers did as good a job as they could at the time, but no system can work well without fundamental rethinking forever. Why not rethink it, then? I understand that there was a civil war before, but doesn't secession make way more sense now? If only the Democratic states participate, then the necessary consensus to make serious changes (e.g. European-style parliamentary democracy) would be much easier; the Republicans would maybe also tolerate it, given that it would allow them to introduce the laws that they wanted to. How are you going to keep your country together with the way things are currently going?
- dragonwriter 4y ago