Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong. (1 Viewer)

[Bodi]

The Supreme Court isn’t always right, even though it has a lot of power. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is a modern example of how the Court can make mistakes, just like it did in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In Plessy, the Court said racial segregation was okay, but that was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Both cases show that the Supreme Court can get things wrong, and its decisions can be changed later.

Just because something is decided by the Supreme Court doesn’t mean it’s automatically right, like with Dobbs. This is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy, where people assume the Court is always correct. The Plessy decision was eventually corrected by Brown, and the same could happen with Dobbs if society decides it’s wrong. The Court’s power doesn’t mean its decisions can’t be challenged.

 

[Lursa]

I've written that several times and no one ever bothers to really examine it. It may not be right but IMO it's worth discussing.

Roe V Wade created an enumerated 9th Amendment right for women to have a much safer medical procedure, which some states denied them.​

​

The Const and SCOTUS, nor any federal court decision, do not recognize any rights for the unborn, so there was no legal foundation to deny women a much safer procedure when pregnancy/childbirth were a much higher risk to our right to life, and to our health, our "security of the person" right in the 4th A to bodily autonomy, and self-determination.​

​

What is the legal foundation to deny women the safer procedure? Dobbs states " That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.” link​

​

When in our traditions and Nation's history have we denied safer medical treatment to persons? What about it disrupts the concept of ordered liberty? It does the opposite, it imposes restrictions on women's freedom to access a safer medical procedure. (Neither RvW nor Dobbs address protections for the unborn...which have no fed rights to protect.)​

​

This list of 9th A rights, pre-Dobbs, shows:​

--right to an abortion based on right to privacy[ii].​

--right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]​

​

The 2nd one still remains. So it should still be legal to have an elective abortion. Dobb's is bullshit.​

 

[eman623]

No one argues that the court gets it right all the time. And that from time to time the court needs to overturn precedent. Like Brown overturning Plessy.

But in this case, Dobbs is the correction, to Roe.

 

[Lursa]

No one argues that the court gets it right all the time. And that from time to time the court needs to overturn precedent. Like Brown overturning Plessy.

But in this case, Dobbs is the correction, to Roe.

I'd agree that Roe wasnt "enough." It didnt go far enough, it didnt even use the other Const amendments that it could have for its foundation. RBG and others have said as much. That doesnt mean Dobbs is right tho. How is Dobbs correct? And just saying "it returned it to the states" isnt the answer. See my post for some foundation for why.

 

[Bok Tuklo]

The SCOTUS is a partisan super-legislature. It is not a neutral arbiter of law. Saying it is "wrong" is saying you disagree with a political decision it made.

 

[Gordy327]

No one argues that the court gets it right all the time. And that from time to time the court needs to overturn precedent. Like Brown overturning Plessy.

But in this case, Dobbs is the correction, to Roe.

How is Dobbs correct? It can easily be argued that it is wrong.

 

[quip]

I've written that several times and no one ever bothers to really examine it. It may not be right but IMO it's worth discussing.

Roe V Wade created an enumerated 9th Amendment right for women to have a much safer medical procedure, which some states denied them.​

SCOTUS ruled that abortion was a retained right under the auspices of the 9th.

 

[eman623]

I'd agree that Roe wasnt "enough." It didnt go far enough, it didnt even use the other Const amendments that it could have for its foundation. RBG and others have said as much. That doesnt mean Dobbs is right tho. How is Dobbs correct? And just saying "it returned it to the states" isnt the answer. See my post for some foundation for why.

You #2 post is not accurate. The Roe decision was not based on the 9th amendment. You are probably thinking of Griswold

 

[quip]

You #2 post is not accurate. The Roe decision was not based on the 9th amendment. You are probably thinking of Griswold

Well, wrong. Primarily the 9th and 14th.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.​

Source

 

[eman623]

Well, wrong. Primarily the 9th and 14th.

The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.​

Source

That was not the SCOTUS.

 

[quip]

That was not the SCOTUS.

It was upheld.

 

[eman623]

How is Dobbs correct? It can easily be argued that it is wrong.

It could be argued that Plessy was correct. In fact it was argued exactly that way right up until it wasn't.

But I didn't say it was correct. I said it was the correction. A subtle difference, but relevant.

I will say it is also correct. But my personal opinion is not the topic of this thread.

 

[eman623]

It was upheld.

Not that part. The SCOTUS decision was based on the 14A, not the 9A.

 

[quip]

Not that part. The SCOTUS decision was based on the 14A, not the 9A.

FFS

Did you not read the source?

Drawing on the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court said that the Constitution protects an individual’s “zones of privacy.”​

 

[eman623]

FFS

Did you not read the source?

Drawing on the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments, the Court said that the Constitution protects an individual’s “zones of privacy.”​

From the decision:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."

The Scotus decided it was the XIV. Not the IX.

 

[quip]

From the decision:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."

The Scotus decided it was the XIV. Not the IX.

And?
Either was sufficient by the eye of SCOTUS.

 

[eman623]

And?
Either was sufficient by the eye of SCOTUS.

And yet they did not include it in the basis of their decision.

 

[quip]

And yet they did not include it in the basis of their decision.

That's exactly what the did. They incorporated precedents such as Griswold into the ruling for establishing the right to privacy as interpreted by the 9th.

 

[Gordy327]

It could be argued that Plessy was correct. In fact it was argued exactly that way right up until it wasn't.

But I didn't say it was correct. I said it was the correction. A subtle difference, but relevant.

I will say it is also correct. But my personal opinion is not the topic of this thread.

The difference is, Dobbs enables the states to restrict rights and autonomy. The same reason why abortion went before the SCOTUS with Roe.

 

[eman623]

That's exactly what the did. They incorporated precedents such as Griswold into the ruling for establishing the right to privacy as interpreted by the 9th.

Bored now. The text of the decision refutes you. I need add nothing more to it.

 

[quip]

Bored now. The text of the decision refutes you. I need add nothing more to it.

Was that a tapping sound I heard?

 

[Lursa]

You #2 post is not accurate. The Roe decision was not based on the 9th amendment. You are probably thinking of Griswold

I said it recognized it as a 9th Amendment right and linked to it. Correct?

 

[Lursa]

SCOTUS ruled that abortion was a retained right under the auspices of the 9th.

Yes...is that significantly different from what I wrote?

 

[quip]

Yes...is that significantly different from what I wrote?

Yes.

 

[Lursa]

From the decision:

"This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether to terminate her pregnancy."

The Scotus decided it was the XIV. Not the IX.

That does not exclude the prior statements in the decision focusing on other amendments as well.