4 ms·

Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in t

Highly intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined that states can’t ban abortions. Other equally intelligent legal experts in the form of Supreme Court justices determined otherwise. Both sets of people wrote cogent opinions in support of their position. What is one to make of these facts? The Constitution says what you want it to say and you can write a well written, well reasoned argument supporting what you want it to say. Our Constitution, in reality, is much more than the words written in it. It’s morphed due to judicial precedent over the course of 200 or so years.

boxed 3y ago
It's more fundamental than that even. The constitution is in fact powerless without people. That's it. If you don't have the people there's nothing the constitution can do about it. Might is right, in that dead people don't get to decide anything. If the next generation growing up decided to not respect Congress, then in a generation the entire institution would cease.
rayiner 3y ago
The point of comparison to European constitutions is that their highly intelligent people are smarter about what they’re willing to make up out of thin air. European constitutions have way more meat on them out of which to read in a right of abortion than ours.
- skhunted 3y ago
  And people much more versed on the law than you and I (I know you are a lawyer) believe it wasn’t made “up out of thin air”. You didn’t understand the point I made. Your opinion and whether or not abortion in the U.S. is a constitutional right is not objectively the correct one. Well meaning experts with more expertise than you disagree with your characterization.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    When Roe was decided, a liberal law professor stated that it is “bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. That’s why over the decades the defense of Roe has largely been reduced to the assertion that it’s precedent. It’s the left’s Lochner. Invoking “experts” is unavailing because those experts are not speaking within the scope of their expertise. Their assertions are in the realm of moral philosophy, not law. It’s a religious edict within the church of secular humanism.
    - skhunted 3y ago
      It is ironic that you don’t understand the point made given what the topic is about. Your logic is badly flawed. You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise than you can give a well reasoned opinion contrary to what you have stated.
      - rayiner 3y ago
        > You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
        skhunted 3y ago
        Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. Your response to my so called argument from authority is to...wait for it....appeal to an authority. That is quite ironic! I did not argue form authority but because I was not advancing the idea that abortion is a constitutional right. I was advancing the idea that there are experts who think it is. And experts who think otherwise. But it is not a logical fallacy to use the opinions of an expert in their area of expertise. You know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics and in a discussion about quantum mechanics it is valid to defer to what an expert says on that topic. Indeed, the court system understands the value of expert testimony for good reason. They know that using an expert in their area of expertise is valid and carries weight. Of course that does not mean experts are always right. Just means they know more than you. None of this is germane to the point I made. I was not arguing from authority. I was talking about what I originally wrote versus what you replied with. Read what I originally wrote. Your point made no sense unless you can show that it is universally agreed by judges (or other experts in law) that there is no constitutional basis for a right to an abortion.

boxed 3y ago

It's more fundamental than that even. The constitution is in fact powerless without people. That's it. If you don't have the people there's nothing the constitution can do about it. Might is right, in that dead people don't get to decide anything. If the next generation growing up decided to not respect Congress, then in a generation the entire institution would cease.

rayiner 3y ago

The point of comparison to European constitutions is that their highly intelligent people are smarter about what they’re willing to make up out of thin air. European constitutions have way more meat on them out of which to read in a right of abortion than ours.

skhunted 3y ago
And people much more versed on the law than you and I (I know you are a lawyer) believe it wasn’t made “up out of thin air”. You didn’t understand the point I made. Your opinion and whether or not abortion in the U.S. is a constitutional right is not objectively the correct one. Well meaning experts with more expertise than you disagree with your characterization.
- rayiner 3y ago
  When Roe was decided, a liberal law professor stated that it is “bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.” Hardly anyone defend’s Roe’s original reasoning anymore, because it makes no sense. That’s why over the decades the defense of Roe has largely been reduced to the assertion that it’s precedent. It’s the left’s Lochner. Invoking “experts” is unavailing because those experts are not speaking within the scope of their expertise. Their assertions are in the realm of moral philosophy, not law. It’s a religious edict within the church of secular humanism.
  - skhunted 3y ago
    It is ironic that you don’t understand the point made given what the topic is about. Your logic is badly flawed. You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise than you can give a well reasoned opinion contrary to what you have stated.
    - rayiner 3y ago
      > You have not shown that no one with equal or more knowledge and expertise https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
      - skhunted 3y ago
        Your reasoning skills are quite lacking. Your response to my so called argument from authority is to...wait for it....appeal to an authority. That is quite ironic! I did not argue form authority but because I was not advancing the idea that abortion is a constitutional right. I was advancing the idea that there are experts who think it is. And experts who think otherwise. But it is not a logical fallacy to use the opinions of an expert in their area of expertise. You know virtually nothing about quantum mechanics and in a discussion about quantum mechanics it is valid to defer to what an expert says on that topic. Indeed, the court system understands the value of expert testimony for good reason. They know that using an expert in their area of expertise is valid and carries weight. Of course that does not mean experts are always right. Just means they know more than you. None of this is germane to the point I made. I was not arguing from authority. I was talking about what I originally wrote versus what you replied with. Read what I originally wrote. Your point made no sense unless you can show that it is universally agreed by judges (or other experts in law) that there is no constitutional basis for a right to an abortion.