SCOTUS and Roe v Wade

[wolfsgirl]

Actually, it is the Fourth Amendment that provides our right to privacy. The Due Process clause in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments ensures that our life, liberty and property cannot be taken without due process of law first, and has absolutely nothing to do with abortions.

Wouldn't a womans liberty to decide for herself if she wishes to remain pregnant fall under liberty?

 

[Rawley]

Can an illegal immigrant who becomes impregnated in the US declare her fetus an American citizen before she is deported?

Nope. 14th explicitly says "born"

 

[aociswundumho]

Rights are protected by the constitution. The right for a woman to determine what she wants to do with her body is a protected right. Just like your right not to be vaccinated.

If there were true the government would not arrest and imprison her for injecting heroin into her own body, or for using other politically incorrect drugs.

 

[Rawley]

I have read the constitution. Where does it say that abortion is murder.

It doesn't say a thing about abortion.

 

[aociswundumho]

Indeed. The Supreme Court has ruled and affirmed that its Due Process Clause provides a right for a "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's right to choose whether or not to have an abortion.

If there is a right to privacy, then it would apply to all of your personal information including keeping your banking and financial records private from the government. Sounds good to me.

 

[HikerGuy83]

I have read the constitution. Where does it say that abortion is murder.

 

[TobyOne]

There's your problem right there: CNN reports. Kavanaugh said Roe was "settled law". That doesn't mean it cant be overturned. Cnn also reports that Roe "Enshrined abortion as a constitutional Right" which it did not.

Lesson: Dont listen to CNN or you will become - or already are - ignorant.

When Justice Brett Kavanaugh was facing tough questions during his 2018 confirmation battle, I didn't like him then. I dislike him even more now because, along with everything else, he is a liar. Kavanaugh lied to the Senate, and he lied to the American people.

During his confirmation hearing, he teed off on the Senators, showing uncontrolled anger. He didn't have sombre restraint required of a Supreme Court justice ... or any judge for that matter.

When the matter of abortion rights became an issue in the hearing, time and time again Kavanaugh espoused the importance of precedent and their "precedent on precedent."

CNN reports, "Speaking more broadly, Kavanaugh at the time described the circumstances that the justices overturn precedent as "rare" and said that a court majority's disagreement with a prior ruling was, by itself, not enough to overturn it (the prior ruling)."

Kavanaugh was lying to get confirmed.

CNN continues, "His questions and comments Wednesday suggested he is inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion. Mississippi wants to reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion, leaving the question of whether abortion can be banned by the states.

"The statements Kavanaugh made about Roe and precedent in 2018 were key to him securing the support of Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who favors abortion rights and who provided the pivotal vote for confirming Kavanaugh to the high court."

On October 6, 2018, the Senate voted 50–48 to confirm Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"She claimed at the time that Kavanaugh had privately told her that Roe v. Wade was "settled law," while pointing to his public remarks about precedent to explain why she was supporting his confirmation," CNN.

Collins is a simple-minded, gullible Senator who pays little attention to what is happening outside of her little world.

Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President Donald Trump, who promised during the 2016 campaign to pick justices who would "automatically" overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

[jnug]

Think about what is going on.
If a mad man goes into a hospital and kills a tiny premature baby he goes to jail for murder.
If an abortion "doctor" kills thousands of babies much bigger than that, he retires a millionairre.
The only difference is that the premature baby was wanted and the thousands weren't.
What kind of barbaric society goes around killing people who aren't wanted?
Good luck trying to imagine anything more cruel than chopping a baby to pieces.
And the Democratic Party has the nerve to market themselves as the champions of the weakest and most vulnerable in society. I can't imagine anything else that rises to that level of hypocrisy.

You are arguing Viability as the standard for the legal term of abortion in Roa and in Casey. The argument against using viability is "the advances made in Medicine since Roe and Casey".

In point of fact NOTHING has changed since the original SC Roe and Casey opinions. Viability of the fetus is still the most sensible and rock steady means to determine a term for Abortion and everything else including what is in the Mississippi standard is arbitrary as hell. The viability standard in Roe and Casey has nothing to do with medical advances as the specific ruling is based on viability of a fetus without medical assistance. In other words it does not matter what medical advances have been made in the past 50 or so years. Viability may not be a standard you like but its rock solid. There is nothing mushy or arbitrary about it.

That was a piss poor argument made by Mississippi both in the briefs filed and in oral argument today. The kicker in Mississippi having made such a poor argument and getting steamrolled in the process by the arguments of the opposition is that Robert's efforts to insist that the Court was not politicized will simply wilt as soon as this SC rules in favor of Mississippi. Kavanaugh will likely be the 5th vote needed to give Mississippi a win here and from that moment forward, Roberts arguments about the SC not being highly politicized goes out the window.

A shame to see it go. I have steadfastly offered that the SC is not more politicized than it has been in the past and a Majority opinion for Mississippi in this case makes a mockery of that position. Some of the most right wing SC Justices in modern history have voted to support Roe and then Casey and now THIS Court, the Roberts Court is set to turn that on its ear. In other words, this Court's Right Wing Justices are far far far Right Radicalized Justices.

Goodbye SC. Hate to see you go. For those wondering, we are not headed to a Civil War. We are headed toward Anarchy.

 

[NotreDame]

When Justice Brett Kavanaugh was facing tough questions during his 2018 confirmation battle, I didn't like him then. I dislike him even more now because, along with everything else, he is a liar. Kavanaugh lied to the Senate, and he lied to the American people.

During his confirmation hearing, he teed off on the Senators, showing uncontrolled anger. He didn't have sombre restraint required of a Supreme Court justice ... or any judge for that matter.

When the matter of abortion rights became an issue in the hearing, time and time again Kavanaugh espoused the importance of precedent and their "precedent on precedent."

CNN reports, "Speaking more broadly, Kavanaugh at the time described the circumstances that the justices overturn precedent as "rare" and said that a court majority's disagreement with a prior ruling was, by itself, not enough to overturn it (the prior ruling)."

Kavanaugh was lying to get confirmed.

CNN continues, "His questions and comments Wednesday suggested he is inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion. Mississippi wants to reverse Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision enshrining a constitutional right to an abortion, leaving the question of whether abortion can be banned by the states.

"The statements Kavanaugh made about Roe and precedent in 2018 were key to him securing the support of Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who favors abortion rights and who provided the pivotal vote for confirming Kavanaugh to the high court."

On October 6, 2018, the Senate voted 50–48 to confirm Kavanaugh's nomination to the Supreme Court.

"She claimed at the time that Kavanaugh had privately told her that Roe v. Wade was "settled law," while pointing to his public remarks about precedent to explain why she was supporting his confirmation," CNN.

Collins is a simple-minded, gullible Senator who pays little attention to what is happening outside of her little world.

Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court by then-President Donald Trump, who promised during the 2016 campaign to pick justices who would "automatically" overturn Roe v. Wade.

Reading his remarks carefully, where is the lie?

 

[gbg3]

I have read the constitution. Where does it say that abortion is murder.

It doesn't. It doesn't address abortion at all, does it?

 

[roguenuke]

Justice Thomas asked a very interesting question: ” Does a mother have a right to ingest drugs and harm a pre-viable baby? Can the state bring child neglect charges against the mother? “

The pregnant woman should have a right to ingest anything legal, drugs, alcohol, sushi, etc, that she could ingest while not pregnant. No, she should not be brought up on charges for doing that. Especially not if it is minor. Caffeine, alcohol, cigarettes, and so many more things can harm an unborn. Women should not be forced to not only carry a pregnancy to term, but give up so many things in her life, her freedoms for that pregnancy, especially if she didn't want to stay pregnant in the first place.

Now, illegal drugs should send a woman to rehab and given info about her choices and the potential effects on the future baby if born, as well as her options.

 

[jnug]

It doesn't. It doesn't address abortion at all, does it?

Which has nothing to do with anything. The SC makes dozens and dozens of rulings regarding issues not covered in the Constitution. That is a moot argument. The Court rules on "Constitutionality" not what is specifically written into the Constitution.

 

[NotreDame]

It would appear that the conservative Supreme Court justices are going to decide that the state controls a woman's health, not the woman herself and her doctor.

It's called fascism.

Exaggeration isn’t a persuasive argument.

 

[gbg3]

Wouldn't a womans liberty to decide for herself if she wishes to remain pregnant fall under liberty?

Liberty was certainly the argument of the liberal justices today. We'll learn the outcome next June/July.

 

[NotreDame]

Which has nothing to do with anything. The SC makes dozens and dozens of rulings regarding issues not covered in the Constitution. That is a moot argument. The Court rules on "Constitutionality" not what is specifically written into the Constitution.

How does a court “rule on Constitutionality” without addressing “what is specifically written in the Constitution”? That is truly an impossibility I think but go ahead and elucidate how I’m wrong, and how exactly a court deciding constitutionality does so without consulting what is written in the constitution?

 

[gbg3]

Which has nothing to do with anything. The SC makes dozens and dozens of rulings regarding issues not covered in the Constitution. That is a moot argument. The Court rules on "Constitutionality" not what is specifically written into the Constitution.

It has everything to do with the comment/question Citizen posed and I quoted and addressed.

 

[roguenuke]

How does a court “rule on Constitutionality” without addressing “what is specifically written in the Constitution”? That is truly an impossibility I think but go ahead and elucidate how I’m wrong, and how exactly a court deciding constitutionality does so without consulting what is written in the constitution?

We have an Amendment (or two in fact) that specifically state that not all rights are specifically addressed by the Constitution but that this does not mean the people (or states) do not have them, which gives a whole lot of leeway for rights for individuals.

 

[NotreDame]

Rights are protected by the constitution. The right for a woman to determine what she wants to do with her body is a protected right. Just like your right not to be vaccinated.

Where in the Constitution is such a right protected? That’s the question and a issue in the Mississippi case.

 

[jnug]

How does a court “rule on Constitutionality” without addressing “what is specifically written in the Constitution”? That is truly an impossibility I think but go ahead and elucidate how I’m wrong, and how exactly a court deciding constitutionality does so without consulting what is written in the constitution?

By offering OPINIONS regarding what the Constitution would have offered to a specific circumstance had the writers of the Constitution decided to address said specific circumstance.

This is why the Right was forced to drop the term Originalism to define a particular jurisprudence standard and adopt the term Textualism. Originalism is simply a laughably absurd legal concept that fell hard once it became obvious that the Originalists had their pants down around their ankles. .

 

[jnug]

Liberty was certainly the argument of the liberal justices today. We'll learn the outcome next June/July.

Not so much. I did not see Liberty as central to the opposition to Mississippi. The Rights of a Woman to control her own body was certainly in play.

Here is a question:
When will women actually be considered legally to be on equal footing with men in this country? If for example there was a law that said all men must be circumcised, and could not have control over their own bodies in that regard, how far do you think even that would get in this country as trivial as it would be when compared to the decision to carry a pregnancy to term for a woman? Here, I will answer it for you, there would be rioting in the streets.

But of course I am sure we have posters in this forum who would opine, "women legally equal to men in this country......you can't be serious".

 

[NotreDame]

We have an Amendment (or two in fact) that specifically state that not all rights are specifically addressed by the Constitution but that this does not mean the people (or states) do not have them, which gives a whole lot of leeway for rights for individuals.

Yeah, it’s called the 9th Amendment, and the 9th amendment, and the BOR, were originally limits only on federal power. Which means, originally, states could pass laws violating free speech, search and seizure, jury trials, without violating those rights originally protected by the Constitution.

Now, reliance upon the 9th amendment poses a few questions. First, is the 9th incorporated onto the states? If so, does the 9th operate in the same manner as the 9th did when the 9th originally limited only federal power? Is the decision to obtain an abortion an unenumerated right in the 9th? If yes, is that incorporated onto the states?

I have my own opinions and answers but I’m interested reading your thoughts.

 

[jnug]

Yeah, it’s called the 9th Amendment, and the 9th amendment, and the BOR, were originally limits only on federal power. Which means, originally, states could pass laws violating free speech, search and seizure, jury trials, without violating those rights originally protected by the Constitution.

Now, reliance upon the 9th amendment poses a few questions. First, is the 9th incorporated onto the states? If so, does the 9th operate in the same manner as the 9th did when the 9th originally limited only federal power? Is the decision to obtain an abortion an unenumerated right in the 9th? If yes, is that incorporated onto the states?

I have my own opinions and answers but I’m interested reading your thoughts.

Is a woman ever to be considered the equal to a man in this country legally? This is the flaw in the Kavanaugh argument and the Mississippi argument. Going "back to a neutral position" regarding the issue of Abortion in this country is not neutral at all. It relegates woman to some legal status lower than men OBVIOUSLY.

This is also in part why considering only what is in the Constitution as fair game for SC is laughably absurd.
- where women considered the equal of men at the creation of the Constitution? NO. Would we be laughed off the planet at least in the civilized western world today if we offered that women were not the equal of men legally? YUP

 

[NotreDame]

By offering OPINIONS regarding what the Constitution would have offered to a specific circumstance had the writers of the Constitution decided to address said specific circumstance.

This is why the Right was forced to drop the term Originalism to define a particular jurisprudence standard and adopt the term Textualism. Originalism is simply a laughably absurd legal concept that fell hard once it became obvious that the Originalists had their pants down around their ankles. .

First, the Right has not “dropped” originalism. Originalism is very much alive and well. Second, your view of originalism is what is “laughable” and not based in fact or reality. Third, originalism and textualism are two separate approaches and both are relied upon by originalists, such as Scalia, Barnett, Gorsuch and others.

By offering OPINIONS regarding what the Constitution would have offered to a specific circumstance had the writers of the Constitution decided to address said specific circumstance.

Translation, speculate entirely or an educated guess as to what the writers would have intended to happen for a circumstance today. That is a poor approach, especially since the purpose of placing laws into writing is to make the law in writing paramount. What isn’t paramount in regrards to written law is the unwritten writer’s intent of how to address some circumstance today. Your approach subverts the very basis of this country, we are a national of laws, written laws, but instead we are a nation of Pythia’s in the Greek te one divining the intent of what dead people long ago would have done today. The dead people and their intent of what they would have done today isn’t law.

 

[roguenuke]

Yeah, it’s called the 9th Amendment, and the 9th amendment, and the BOR, were originally limits only on federal power. Which means, originally, states could pass laws violating free speech, search and seizure, jury trials, without violating those rights originally protected by the Constitution.

Now, reliance upon the 9th amendment poses a few questions. First, is the 9th incorporated onto the states? If so, does the 9th operate in the same manner as the 9th did when the 9th originally limited only federal power? Is the decision to obtain an abortion an unenumerated right in the 9th? If yes, is that incorporated onto the states?

I have my own opinions and answers but I’m interested reading your thoughts.

Yes, the 9th, all Amendments are incorporated onto the states, using the 14th. The 14th being put into place does not null the 9th Amendment or 10th for individual rights. The states must abide by the rights outlined in the Constitution to individuals as much as the Federal government has to.

 

[jnug]

First, the Right has not “dropped” originalism. Originalism is very much alive and well. Second, your view of originalism is what is “laughable” and not based in fact or reality. Third, originalism and textualism are two separate approaches and both are relied upon by originalists, such as Scalia, Barnett, Gorsuch and others.



Translation, speculate entirely or an educated guess as to what the writers would have intended to happen for a circumstance today. That is a poor approach, especially since the purpose of placing laws into writing is to make the law in writing paramount. What isn’t paramount in regrards to written law is the unwritten writer’s intent of how to address some circumstance today. Your approach subverts the very basis of this country, we are a national of laws, written laws, but instead we are a nation of Pythia’s in the Greek te one divining the intent of what dead people long ago would have done today. The dead people and their intent of what they would have done today isn’t law.

Stop....Originalism is dead and the current term of use is Textualism adopted by the Right when the Right figured out that Originalism was simply dead as a legal concept. Have you had your head stuck in the sand since then? Afraid to look are you? That said I am sure you can find many with their head stuck in the sand. You all probably ride horse and buggy as well.