8 ms·

I looked through the comments of the person you're replying to and they didn't say anything about Roe. There are all sorts of uncharitable assumptions I could m

I looked through the comments of the person you're replying to and they didn't say anything about Roe. There are all sorts of uncharitable assumptions I could make about what you might or might not believe based on your political party that'd be similarly out of line. Please stop it.

rayiner 2y ago
Is it “uncharitable” to assume that someone thinks Roe is how judges should decide cases? Because if so, fair enough. My point was not to attack this person individually so you’re right I shouldn’t have worded it in those terms. My point was that virtually everyone who thinks the current Supreme Court is “unqualified” also likely thinks “emanations from penumbras” are constitutional law. It’s like listening to anti-vaxxers talk about the qualifications of doctors.
- pyuser583 2y ago
  When I studied politics as an undergraduate, my insanely liberal professors said: “Roe was a terribly decided decision. It was sloppy legal reasoning, and overall pretty embarrassing. That was rectified by Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.” Almost everyone agrees with you on the emanations of penumbras. Nobody wants that. It was rectified by Casey in 1992. Roe also claimed abortion was a right because doctors should not worry about the law. Women didn’t have a right to abortion at all. Doctors did. That was fixed by Casey in 1992, and probably a bit early. Roe hasn’t been the defining law on abortion since 1992 because so many people, pro-choicers especially, regarded it as very flawed. You are attacking straw men. Please stop.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    Casey was eloquently written, but relied on Roe for the existence of the underlying abortion right, without offering a more rigorous foundation. It still ultimately rests on Griswold’s “emanations from penumbras.” Casey was the start of the self-licking ice cream cone the abortion right eventually became—asserted to exist because it was said to exist by a precedent nobody could defend.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
  You’re repeating emanations from penumbras because it sounds ridiculous - but unnumerated rights is what’s actually being discussed.
  - rayiner 2y ago
    You’re talking about the ninth amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That says that the list of rights enumerated in the constitution is non-exhaustive. That just means that rights can exist in other places besides the Constitution. But if you want to say there is such a right, you have to identify that right in some other source. But the “emanations from penumbras” language isn’t referring to a non-enumerated right found somewhere else. It’s saying that the privacy right originates in the “emanations from penumbras” of the constitution. So it’s saying the constitution itself creates that right.
    - selimthegrim 2y ago
      So say we had an abortion decision decided as RBG wanted it based on the privileges or immunities clause (as per Reva Siegel) You would still oppose that because it’s at the federal level?

rayiner 2y ago

Is it “uncharitable” to assume that someone thinks Roe is how judges should decide cases? Because if so, fair enough. My point was not to attack this person individually so you’re right I shouldn’t have worded it in those terms. My point was that virtually everyone who thinks the current Supreme Court is “unqualified” also likely thinks “emanations from penumbras” are constitutional law. It’s like listening to anti-vaxxers talk about the qualifications of doctors.

pyuser583 2y ago
When I studied politics as an undergraduate, my insanely liberal professors said: “Roe was a terribly decided decision. It was sloppy legal reasoning, and overall pretty embarrassing. That was rectified by Planned Parenthood v Casey in 1992.” Almost everyone agrees with you on the emanations of penumbras. Nobody wants that. It was rectified by Casey in 1992. Roe also claimed abortion was a right because doctors should not worry about the law. Women didn’t have a right to abortion at all. Doctors did. That was fixed by Casey in 1992, and probably a bit early. Roe hasn’t been the defining law on abortion since 1992 because so many people, pro-choicers especially, regarded it as very flawed. You are attacking straw men. Please stop.
- rayiner 2y ago
  Casey was eloquently written, but relied on Roe for the existence of the underlying abortion right, without offering a more rigorous foundation. It still ultimately rests on Griswold’s “emanations from penumbras.” Casey was the start of the self-licking ice cream cone the abortion right eventually became—asserted to exist because it was said to exist by a precedent nobody could defend.
Red_Leaves_Flyy 2y ago
You’re repeating emanations from penumbras because it sounds ridiculous - but unnumerated rights is what’s actually being discussed.
- rayiner 2y ago
  You’re talking about the ninth amendment: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” That says that the list of rights enumerated in the constitution is non-exhaustive. That just means that rights can exist in other places besides the Constitution. But if you want to say there is such a right, you have to identify that right in some other source. But the “emanations from penumbras” language isn’t referring to a non-enumerated right found somewhere else. It’s saying that the privacy right originates in the “emanations from penumbras” of the constitution. So it’s saying the constitution itself creates that right.
  - selimthegrim 2y ago
    So say we had an abortion decision decided as RBG wanted it based on the privileges or immunities clause (as per Reva Siegel) You would still oppose that because it’s at the federal level?