4 ms·

And given Roe v Wade, a so called by the Catholic majority “settled decision”, has been reverted, all the evidence suggests it will rule in their favour. If th

And given Roe v Wade, a so called by the Catholic majority “settled decision”, has been reverted, all the evidence suggests it will rule in their favour. If the SC can’t protect a freedom as fundamental as person’s bodily autonomy and integrity, they will do nothing here.

xupybd 4y ago
While I understand your point I think that ruling came down to the technicalities of constitutional law. It should not be up to the judicial branch to make laws only interpret them. If there is a problem with the law congress needs to fix it.
- krapp 4y ago
  Whether the supreme court is making up laws or merely interpreting the constitution seems to depend on whether one agrees with their decisions.
  - xupybd 4y ago
    They over reach in every political direction. That is a problem as if they're stacked left or right they'll unfairly bias the system.
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk. The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger. I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?utm_source=sillychillly https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...
  - nathanaldensr 4y ago
    Again, the Supreme Court's role is not to cause or avoid social outcomes; it's to rule on the constitutionality of law. To suggest otherwise is confirming that you believe in an activist court--as long as it suits you, of course.
    - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
      Fair enough, let that be the purpose of the SC as envisioned by the founding fathers. Does the evidence suggest that the SC is filling that role and is not an activist court?
bodiekane 4y ago
[flagged]
- PartiallyTyped 4y ago
  I am not going to entertain a strawman by a throwaway account. If you wish to discuss this properly, log in to your main account, and attempt to communicate your argument without a strawman. To help you, I did not claim that the bodily autonomy and integrity of a __child__ should not be protected.

xupybd 4y ago

While I understand your point I think that ruling came down to the technicalities of constitutional law. It should not be up to the judicial branch to make laws only interpret them. If there is a problem with the law congress needs to fix it.

krapp 4y ago
Whether the supreme court is making up laws or merely interpreting the constitution seems to depend on whether one agrees with their decisions.
- xupybd 4y ago
  They over reach in every political direction. That is a problem as if they're stacked left or right they'll unfairly bias the system.
PartiallyTyped 4y ago
While I agree with your interpretation of the responsibilities of the SC, my problem is with the course of action taken by the justices. The SC did not have to change the ruling, but the majority chose to do so, with full knowledge that a repeal would trigger laws that put the health and livelihood of conscious, living and breathing citizens at risk. The SC gave a metaphorical loaded gun to certain states, allowing them to aim and shoot at bystanders, at people who can not get out of the way (= i.e. have an out of state abortion), and in the process enact economic violence towards its own citizens [1] and put their life in danger. I am not expressing that the states are not at fault, I am expressing that the SC could have simply not taken any course of action given that they had previously expressed that it is a settled matter. [1] https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?utm_source=sillychillly https://www.epi.org/publication/economics-of-abortion-bans/?...
- nathanaldensr 4y ago
  Again, the Supreme Court's role is not to cause or avoid social outcomes; it's to rule on the constitutionality of law. To suggest otherwise is confirming that you believe in an activist court--as long as it suits you, of course.
  - PartiallyTyped 4y ago
    Fair enough, let that be the purpose of the SC as envisioned by the founding fathers. Does the evidence suggest that the SC is filling that role and is not an activist court?

bodiekane 4y ago

[flagged]

PartiallyTyped 4y ago
I am not going to entertain a strawman by a throwaway account. If you wish to discuss this properly, log in to your main account, and attempt to communicate your argument without a strawman. To help you, I did not claim that the bodily autonomy and integrity of a __child__ should not be protected.