• 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!

I dont agree with the Supreme Court, but they have a point...

The Supreme Court did not rule that abortion was exclusively a state issue. They simply ruled that it was not up to each individual woman to decide, at any stage in the pregnancy. As I said in my earlier post, the federal government can make the decision to ban or allow abortion nationwide. So no, it is not just left up to the abortion law in each state.

I don't understand your last question. Educate you on the filibuster?
You are mistaken, as the Supreme Court pointed out. The federal government has no authority with regard to abortion and therefore are specifically prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from enacting any law on the subject - either way.

The powers of the federal government are defined by the US Constitution. If the US Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power, then they don't have it. Which is why the Supreme Court returned the bad 1973 decision in Roe back to the States. Only the States have the constitutional authority to regulate abortion, not the federal government.
 
You wrote: "it is not just left up to the abortion law in each state."
If abortion is not left up to each state to decide, then who gets to decide if it is legal not? Are you avoiding acknowledging that each state controls whether abortions can be done in a particular state?

No. Not educate me on the elimination of the filibuster.
Should Congress try to codify Roe v Wade as a federal law ? Can they succeed?
This Supreme Court decision means that abortion can never be federal law. By overturning Roe the Supreme Court is stating that it is unconstitutional for the federal government to be involved in abortion at any level. So any law that Congress' attempts to enact will automatically be considered unconstitutional.

By the way, Sen. Reed was constitutionally correct to abolish the filibuster with regard to the appointment of Supreme Court justices. The US Constitution requires the Senate to either give their consent or reject the Supreme Court nominee. Which negates the possibility of a filibuster, a decision by the Senate is constitutionally required.
 
Recall the response to the Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision, though.... SCOTUS ruled that segregated public schools were unconstitutional, and then Virginia engaged in massive resistance and closed all of the public schools rather than desegregate them. I've got no illusions that if abortion is ever reinstated as an individual right again that we're going to be faced with the same intensity of feeling among some States and the administrative powers of those states will be marshalled against abortion in the way you describe and the way Virginia used it's powers to combat desegregation. No doubts there whatsoever.

But before we get to that, the people have got to win back the right. It's no use worrying about the ramifications we ought to be worrying about the edifications, don't you think?
This isn't an issue of segregation this is an issue of the states controlling a medical procedure and the abortion carve out. Some states will go over the top one way and other states will go over the top the other. There is a middle ground, but it may take decades to get there, but presumably once we do, then there it is likely to stay likely as a Constitutional Amendment, not in the halls of the Supreme Court. If people want to be edified, then they should pursue that themselves, not through the will of government.
 
I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

I can at least understand and acknowledge the point you're trying to make. The problem I have is that this Court went full-on activist. They didn't just overturn one case; previous justices had 50 years to see how 'wrong' Roe v Wade was. In fact, previous justices overturned *parts* of Roe v Wade - the original trimester framework, for example, was reversed and not that long after the original decision. There were a few other minor tweaks to it as well, but the core of Roe v Wade - abortion as a fundamentally personal matter of choice - had been examined in multiple cases, and it had been upheld. Moreover, in the case they looked at, Mississippi wasn't even trying to ban abortion or get Roe v Wade overturned - that wasn't their basis for suing. They just wanted to ban abortion after, what, 15 weeks?

It was the justices who went out of their way to overturn Roe v Wade. On their own. Because they operated with the fundamental belief that they, and they alone, had the power to do what they did. They did not write a Supreme Court decision; they absolutely legislated and withdrew privacy rights from the bench. And they're not done. Clarence Thomas basically said as much in encouraging challenges to other issues, including gay rights. Curiously, he made no mention of inter-racial marriage, which states at one time claimed they had the power to stop. Like I said, this court makes up its own standards as it goes along, applying them as they see fit, and if you can't see how dangerous that is, I can't help you. Guess we'll just have to find out when our rights are taken away by states and the federal government, one by one, with their highly selective stamp of approval of course.
 
Didn't the SC leave it for the states to decide whether abortions should be allowed in states? If that decision is not left exclusively to each state, then whose decision is it to allow a woman to choose to terminate a living being in the womb?
Is it not left up to the abortion law in each state?
No they did not specifically return it to the States but rather to "the people's elected representatives". The justices are very, very careful of the words they use. If the meant States they would have said the States but they didn't. They said "It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."
 
It is untrue that this has to be an amendment to create the protection or the right. See 1973-2022.
I never claimed that an amendment was needed for protections or rights, your terrible reading comprehension is at it again.

My point is that if you want to have a right that cannot be infringed upon, then you must put it in the Constitution. It's what the 2nd Amendment did for gun rights.

Where is our right to travel around the US listed in the Constitution?

Silly stawman, but I'll play:

- it's covered in the Privileges and Immunities clause.
- It's not being contested, unlike gun rights and abortion.

I disagree. I think it can be resolved by establishing two basic facts in Constitutional law.... 1) What is the criteria for deciding upon the legitimacy of a 9th Amendment right? ; and 2) What is the criteria for deciding which 10th Amendment reserved powers properly belong to the people?

If we can nail down those two questions, then we will have a solid piece of ground to base a lasting decision, one way or the other. Until they are decided, though, then we're going to continue to have all of this ungrounded political battling. It's like playing football on a hill. One side is always going to up and one side is always going to be down. We need the level playing field to get a real decision.
Using the interpretation strategy is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Every legal scholar these days will tell you that the 9th Amendment is considered irrelevant because its too nebulous/vague- not enough on the details. So to even use that as a hill to fight on means youve already lost the war. The 10th amendment is also on pretty shaky ground.

All you have to do is look at the 2nd Amendment and see what the advantages are when the actual subject matter is mentioned specifically in the Constitution.

Tyranny is tyranny. Just because it's local doesn't make it better.

There was a whole Civil War fought over "states rights" to oppress. There was an entire Civil rights movement that was created to resist tyranny at the state level.

Dobbs was essentially overturning an individual right and handing it over so states could take it away.

That's not a pro-freedom or pro-liberty take no matter what mental gymnastics you perform to try and pretend it's so.
Sorry but I disagree- what SCOTUS did was not rule against women's right to abortion, they simply bowed out of the whole issue because its not specifically written in the Constitution. If you want those rights to be secured then get an amendment.
 
You're preaching to the choir there. I agree that people have a right to privacy according to the 9th Amendment and that right covers access to abortion. Problem is that you're never going to convince the present Supreme Court that such a right - or any unenumerated right - exists in practice. Absolutely they'll agree that unenumerated rights exist in principle... but as they say, there's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip.

10th Amendment reserved powers of the people, however, are harder to explain away. Sure, SCOTUS will probably arbitrarily give them to the State, as we have seen in this case... but we need to find a means of holding their feet to the fire and force them to explain why so personal and intimate a decision as to whether or not a woman carries a baby to term is more properly a reserved power of the State and not of her own accord, as a reserved power of the people. If it is not the latter, then what reserved power could so be construed as belong to the people?
...you're never going to convince the 'this' Supreme Court... I agree for now.

It's all bullshite. Using their 'historical significance' test it looks like they would consider overturning 'forced service' type laws as well.
 
I never claimed that an amendment was needed for protections or rights, your terrible reading comprehension is at it again.

My point is that if you want to have a right that cannot be infringed upon, then you must put it in the Constitution. It's what the 2nd Amendment did for gun rights.



Silly stawman, but I'll play:

- it's covered in the Privileges and Immunities clause.
- It's not being contested, unlike gun rights and abortion.


Using the interpretation strategy is what got us in this mess in the first place.

Every legal scholar these days will tell you that the 9th Amendment is considered irrelevant because its too nebulous/vague- not enough on the details. So to even use that as a hill to fight on means youve already lost the war. The 10th amendment is also on pretty shaky ground.

All you have to do is look at the 2nd Amendment and see what the advantages are when the actual subject matter is mentioned specifically in the Constitution.


Sorry but I disagree- what SCOTUS did was not rule against women's right to abortion, they simply bowed out of the whole issue because its not specifically written in the Constitution. If you want those rights to be secured then get an amendment.
My reading comprehension or your writing clarity?
"The only way this can be resolved is when abortion is specifically added to the Constitution, and that can only be done via an amendment."

All of our rights may be infringed upon. Name one that is absolute.

Privileges and Immunities refers to actions by the states. Where is our right to travel around the country? It is unenumerated.

"Every legal scholar these days will tell you that the 9th Amendment is considered irrelevant because its too nebulous/vague- not enough on the details" Source it. You don't think the second is vague?

And for maybe the 100th time, what is Constitutional does not have to be in the Constitution. Political parties role in elections for example.
 
No they did not specifically return it to the States but rather to "the people's elected representatives". The justices are very, very careful of the words they use. If the meant States they would have said the States but they didn't. They said "It is time to heed the constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives."
OK. I know words matter.
"the people's elected representatives" are the representatives elected in each of the 50 states, right?
So the SC is saying to those people (the state representatives), "you elected representatives should decide whether your state should allow abortions to take place".
Did I get that right? Or is there more word-smithing required in order to reach an understanding with those still furious over the overturning of Roe v Wade.
 
OK. I know words matter.
"the people's elected representatives" are the representatives elected in each of the 50 states, right?
So the SC is saying to those people (the state representatives), "you elected representatives should decide whether your state should allow abortions to take place".
Did I get that right? Or is there more word-smithing required in order to reach an understanding with those still furious over the overturning of Roe v Wade.
As are the people elected to represent citizens at the federal level. No word-smithing required.....
 
As are the people elected to represent citizens at the federal level. No word-smithing required.....
Fine. Let's see if they can find some way to codify Roe v Wade at the federal level - without killing the filibuster and coercing Manchin and Sinema.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PoS
Fine. Let's see if they can find some way to codify Roe v Wade at the federal level - without killing the filibuster and coercing Manchin and Sinema.

It's rather easy actually. We just arrange a discrete dinner date between Manchin and Sinema, and let love take its toll.
 
OK. I know words matter.
"the people's elected representatives" are the representatives elected in each of the 50 states, right?
So the SC is saying to those people (the state representatives), "you elected representatives should decide whether your state should allow abortions to take place".
Did I get that right? Or is there more word-smithing required in order to reach an understanding with those still furious over the overturning of Roe v Wade.

Sorry, but the 10th amendment has more "word smithing" in it than that.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

I'll be honest. The word smithing there is beyond me. If they meant "to the states each and every one" then they should have phrased the whole thing better. Like:

The powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to the People, except as delegated by the Constitution to the states.

But that's not what it says, is it? There's a poison word "respectively" which can only be resolved by the courts.

And the current court could strip all powers from the people, delegating them to the states "respectively" or to the federal government, however it chooses. This most precious amendment, to all believers in the liberty of the People, is poisoned at its root by just one word.

Frankly, the US would be better off with no constitution at all. Just adopt the British common law, and give up this pretense of being the "most free" country. It's absurd anyway when the US has the greatest percentage of legally un-free citizens. The overcrowded prisons cry out "we are over-governed" while the poor children cry out "we are under-governed". Just face it, the constitution is a crock of shit.
 
I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.
Do you disagree with Lawrence v. Texas then?
 
Well, I think its a matter of perspective, what would you rather have? State tyranny or nationwide tyranny? I would choose the former because its limited to that one state.
Roe v. Wade limited the power of the government at all levels.
 
Under the 10th Amendment, reserved powers aren't exclusively held by the States.... they are also held by the people.

So if a person doesn't have the power of dominion over their own body, then what reserved power could ever possibly be held to belong to the people rather than the State?
You just made the SCOTUS point for them; that's why they're throwing it all back down for the states and people to work out in the legislatures.
 
They ruled on a legal manner. Roe created a privacy right. Killing a baby is different than consenting homosexual adults.
I am sorry but that is simply not correct. Roe is based on having a right of privacy. If we do not have a right of privacy, then not only is Roe overturned, but as Justice Thomas wrote, every decision based on a right of privacy, including Lawrence v. Texas needs to be revisited. When one argues that Roe was wrongly decided, what they are arguing is that we do not have a right of privacy as that is what Roe is based on.
 
I am sorry but that is simply not correct. Roe is based on having a right of privacy. If we do not have a right of privacy, then not only is Roe overturned, but as Justice Thomas wrote, every decision based on a right of privacy, including Lawrence v. Texas needs to be revisited. When one argues that Roe was wrongly decided, what they are arguing is that we do not have a right of privacy as that is what Roe is based on.
So you're contending the Thomas disagreed with the decision. But that's not the problem. They made up a privacy right for that case out of nothing substantial. There was no basis, because it's not a privacy issue.
 
You are mistaken, as the Supreme Court pointed out. The federal government has no authority with regard to abortion and therefore are specifically prohibited by the Tenth Amendment from enacting any law on the subject - either way.

The powers of the federal government are defined by the US Constitution. If the US Constitution does not specifically grant Congress the power, then they don't have it. Which is why the Supreme Court returned the bad 1973 decision in Roe back to the States. Only the States have the constitutional authority to regulate abortion, not the federal government.
You are simply wrong about this. Dobbs absolutely did not strip the federal government of authority with regard to abortion. Dobbs has nothing to do with the Tenth Amendment or the powers of the federal government vs. the state government (nor did Roe, by the way). Dobbs was about whether there is an individual right to an abortion at any stage of pregnancy. The Supreme Court answered no to that question.

If you are so certain you are right, please quote the holding in Dobbs that says "the federal government has no authority with regard to abortion" as you claim.
 
I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?
Wrong, there are thousands of things that were not mentioned in the constitution because they largely did not exist or didn't matter at the time, but the Bill of Rights can still protect them.
The internet isn't in the constitution either, but clearly, our right to freedom of speech still applies to it.

Amendment IV​

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You have a right against unwarranted search and seizure. If the government has no right to search your body, they have no way of knowing that you are pregnant, and they have no way of knowing whether you remain pregnant.
The government has no right to even know you are pregnant. They have no right to know whether you've had a miscarriage, and no right to know what caused it. That is incredibly personal and private information that should never under any circumstances be made part of the public record.

If your wife or daughter had a miscarriage would you want that to be a part of the public record? Printed in the newspaper next to the speeding tickets? This is what the Supreme Court has just done. They have given states the right to access your medical records, make them part of the public record and prosecute you.
The supreme court basically just throughout HIPAA entirely.

Take vaccines for example. The State of California can now legally pass a law requiring everyone in the state to disclose their vaccination status, and if you are not sufficiently vaccinated California could legally arrest you for it.
 
So you're contending the Thomas disagreed with the decision. But that's not the problem. They made up a privacy right for that case out of nothing substantial. There was no basis, because it's not a privacy issue.
There's nothing made up about it at all. The Bill of Rights guarantees you a right to be secure in your persons against unwarranted search and seizure. You also cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
Any attempt to put in place a meaningful ban on abortion would radically violate both of these rights.
 
There's nothing made up about it at all. The Bill of Rights guarantees you a right to be secure in your persons against unwarranted search and seizure. You also cannot be compelled to testify against yourself.
Any attempt to put in place a meaningful ban on abortion would radically violate both of these rights.
When the life of a child is at issue, the state has an interest, and can act upon this under the law.
 
Back
Top Bottom