• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Has Justice Alito shown a light on where the right wingers on the court are headed to? (1 Viewer)

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,304
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He basically says that Roe is gone because it was not enumerated directly in the constitution. So will the right wingers choose those cases that fit their right wing and religious agenda and strike down federal laws that fit that agenda. Gays, mixed race marriages, and gay marriages are not mentioned directly in the constitution, so that could be a start, but there could be many more areas they may reach decisions on that will limit or end citizens rights they now have that could end with this court. Can you think of other rights that are not enumerated in the constitution that could be overturned by this right wing controlled court?
 
He basically says that Roe is gone because it was not enumerated directly in the constitution.

Where do you get this from? Clearly not from a reading of the draft decision.

Here let me help you with a link to the draft:


One issue discussed is how those prior decisions on abortion are not actually founded in the Constitution.

But that is not the only thing SCOTUS looks at.

It also reviews legal history, legislative history among the States, and also the disussions and debates that created Constitutional Amendments to show what they were meant to protect/represent.

The rest of your post is just hyperbole, and not worthy of a response.
 
Last edited:
Where do you get this from? Clearly not from a reading of the draft decision.

Here let me help you with a link to the draft:


One issue discussed is how those prior decisions on abortion are not actually founded in the Constitution.

But that is not the only thing SCOTUS looks at.

It also reviews legal history, legislative history among the States, and most especially the disussions and debates that created Constitutional Amendments to show what they were meant to protect/represent.

The rest of your post is just hyperbole, and not worthy of a response.
No, all that stuff is supposedly supporting documentation for his conclusion that the right to abortion isn't enumerated in the constitution.
 
No, all that stuff is supposedly supporting documentation for his conclusion that the right to abortion isn't enumerated in the constitution.
It’s a result looking for support and not the other way around.
 
He basically says that Roe is gone because it was not enumerated directly in the constitution.

That is not what he said.

This is like the third thread you've started based on some variation of hysteria:

So will the right wingers choose those cases that fit their right wing and religious agenda and strike down federal laws that fit that agenda. Gays, mixed race marriages, and gay marriages are not mentioned directly in the constitution, so that could be a start, but there could be many more areas they may reach decisions on that will limit or end citizens rights they now have that could end with this court. Can you think of other rights that are not enumerated in the constitution that could be overturned by this right wing controlled court?

Are you okay, man?

If this is stressing you out... walk away for a few days. Sometimes I gotta - it can make all the difference in the world to your cortisol levels :)
 
Where do you get this from? Clearly not from a reading of the draft decision.

Here let me help you with a link to the draft:


One issue discussed is how those prior decisions on abortion are not actually founded in the Constitution.

But that is not the only thing SCOTUS looks at.

It also reviews legal history, legislative history among the States, and also the disussions and debates that created Constitutional Amendments to show what they were meant to protect/represent.

The rest of your post is just hyperbole, and not worthy of a response.
No, no no - he's on to us.

Next we are coming for the rock and roll music all those youngsters are snorting marijuana to.
 
It’s a result looking for support and not the other way around.

Actually it was a review of how the two decisions it seeks to overturn had no actual support.

The "Roe v Wade" court was seeking ways to enact "judicial law" and were pretty ill-founded in their "interpretations."

I say this as a long-time supporter of Pro-Choice, which I think States can easily legislate if their citizens wish it to be so.

If Roe v. Wade has that much support, I expect all but the most "religious" segments of the nation will act to get laws passed State by State.
 
Yes, according to the leaked draft of the SCOTUS decision. The SCOTUS, as part of the federal judicial branch, is not a law making body. In order to declare a law unconstitutional, one must cite elements from the Constitution to justify that finding.

The round about way that the Roe (and Casey) opinions came forth is logically very troubling. They started with the Giswold v. Connecticut decision on a ban of contraceptives (which was based on the invention of a “right to privacy”), then decided that abortion was really ‘just like’ a contraceptive (which, in fact, it is not). They then proceeded to add a stage of fetal development (trimester) compromise based on elapsed time after conception allowing the states the option of restricting (or even banning?) abortion in the third (final) trimester. Obviously, you can’t logically consider abortion to be (or even be like) a contraceptive, because abortions can only happen after successful conception.
 
Last edited:
He basically says that Roe is gone because it was not enumerated directly in the constitution. So will the right wingers choose those cases that fit their right wing and religious agenda and strike down federal laws that fit that agenda. Gays, mixed race marriages, and gay marriages are not mentioned directly in the constitution, so that could be a start, but there could be many more areas they may reach decisions on that will limit or end citizens rights they now have that could end with this court. Can you think of other rights that are not enumerated in the constitution that could be overturned by this right wing controlled court?
Fact is abortion is not in the Constitution - SCOTUS had to create "Prenumbras and eminencies to invent that right. Those other you listed come directly fro the "equal justice for all". Which is the Constitutional principle - "Separate but equal" has already been abolished.
 
He basically says that Roe is gone because it was not enumerated directly in the constitution. So will the right wingers choose those cases that fit their right wing and religious agenda and strike down federal laws that fit that agenda. Gays, mixed race marriages, and gay marriages are not mentioned directly in the constitution, so that could be a start, but there could be many more areas they may reach decisions on that will limit or end citizens rights they now have that could end with this court. Can you think of other rights that are not enumerated in the constitution that could be overturned by this right wing controlled court?
The right to marriage, travel and presumption of innocence are three I can think of off the top of my head.

Do Republicans know about the 9th amendment?
 
Fact is abortion is not in the Constitution - SCOTUS had to create "Prenumbras and eminencies to invent that right. Those other you listed come directly fro the "equal justice for all". Which is the Constitutional principle - "Separate but equal" has already been abolished.
Neither is that money equals free speech, it also was a right made up by the court. You do realize that in this decision, Alito based it partly on an English judge who put women to death for being witches and said that men could not rape their wives.
 
He basically says that Roe is gone because it was not enumerated directly in the constitution. So will the right wingers choose those cases that fit their right wing and religious agenda and strike down federal laws that fit that agenda. Gays, mixed race marriages, and gay marriages are not mentioned directly in the constitution, so that could be a start, but there could be many more areas they may reach decisions on that will limit or end citizens rights they now have that could end with this court. Can you think of other rights that are not enumerated in the constitution that could be overturned by this right wing controlled court?
I got one. Big with extreme right wingers.

Parental rights.

Scream it from the rooftops, extremies. It ain't there.
 
Neither is that money equals free speech, it also was a right made up by the court. You do realize that in this decision, Alito based it partly on an English judge who put women to death for being witches and said that men could not rape their wives.
You do realize you're spewing the most idiotic nonsense imaginable?
 
I'm not going to get too far into slippery slope territory, but here's how I see it. Overturning Roe v Wade shows the right that they have a very right leaning court to work with. Do we really think that states won't start test cases to try to overturn decisions on things like contraception and gay marriage? I doubt that they'll just say, "Welp, Roe v Wade is toast, and we got what we wanted. Enough with that. Time to get on with our lives."
 
The question becomes how reactionary this court will be if laws continue to be challenged.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom