• 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!

Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

Lursa said:
How so?
Click to expand...
The 9th (retained rights of the people) was ratified for the precise reason that individuals would interpret the non-enumeration of rights as to deny such rights. The forefathers knew that the rights specifically enumerated and protected by the Constitution, were not (nor able to be) exhaustive.

So, no, RvW did not "create a enumerated right." Rather it ruled - as a retained (non-enumerated) right - the right of privacy, by way of precedent.

The lack of enumeration for abortion is the anti-choicer's go-to argument simply because they don't understand the 9th. That's why it's important to clearly understand it.

More
 
quip said:
The 9th (retained rights of the people) was ratified for the precise reason that individuals would interpret the non-enumeration of rights as to deny such rights. The forefathers knew that the rights specifically enumerated and protected by the Constitution, were not (nor able to be) exhaustive.

So, no, RvW did not "create a enumerated right." Rather it ruled - as a retained (non-enumerated) right - the right of privacy, by way of precedent.

The lack of enumeration for abortion is the anti-choicer's go-to argument simply because they don't understand the 9th. That's why it's important to clearly understand it.

More
Click to expand...

I normally write "recognized" instead of "created" and did so in the next post. Sometimes I'm in a hurry. They did indeed recognize it as a right.
 
Bodi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Here you go again, you made the same kind of post in the gun debate folder!

Let's get this straight, just because you say something is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong.
 
DebateChallenge said:
Maybe you understand now why people don't take you seriously, or maybe you don't understand and never will, that wouldn't surprise me.
Click to expand...

What don't I understand? That people don't take me seriously or that I don't understand and never will?
 
DebateChallenge said:
Click to expand...


Now maybe you can actually debate instead of just lashing out with insults.

Here you go again:

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.

Please... .begin
 
Bodi said:
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.
Click to expand...

By your logic, what little there is, you could just as easily say that Roe was wrong and Dobbs was right.
 
Noodlegawd said:
By your logic, what little there is, you could just as easily say that Roe was wrong and Dobbs was right.
Click to expand...

Except one is about promoting women's rights and the other is about oppressing women's rights.
 
Bodi said:
Except one is about promoting women's rights and the other is about oppressing women's rights.
Click to expand...

Wrong again. They're both about interpreting and applying the Constitution, and nothing more.
 
Noodlegawd said:
Wrong again. One supports states' rights (i.e., democracy), and the other oppresses them.
Click to expand...

LOL.. I say women's rights and you say State's rights? 😂 🌻 😂

Anything else?
 
Bodi said:
LOL.. I say women's rights and you say State's rights? 😂 🌻 😂

Anything else?
Click to expand...

Yeah, states have a lot of women in them, and they get to vote too.
 
Noodlegawd said:
Wrong again. They're both about interpreting and applying the Constitution, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

I think one thing people should keep in mind is that Dobbs, in "applying the Constitution", clearly found that states may enable the killing of the unborn with no due process. "Murdering babies" as many pro-life believe.

The bench clearly decided that the unborn have no rights to be protected...they are not "persons" who are protected by the Constitution and have their rights recognized.
 
Bodi said:
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.
Click to expand...
Setting aside completely the value of precedent in jurisprudence, it is remarkable to me that SCOTUS would abandon the concept of fundamental, universal, or over-arching right of body autonomy for women and relegate abortion decisions to states. The universality of speech, religious freedom, press, and due process do not depend upon states to protect and interpret or we would have variations in book banning, press censorship and religious intolerance throughout the country.
 
Lursa said:
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.​
Click to expand...
No it did not create an enumerated 9th Amendment. Laws can be changed by court decision or other legislation. Amendments require a new amendment (at least currently) to be changed.
 
mrjurrs said:
No it did not create an enumerated 9th Amendment. Laws can be changed by court decision or other legislation. Amendments require a new amendment (at least currently) to be changed.
Click to expand...

I fixed my earlier error elsewhere...rights are not created, they are recognized. That said, I provided the link to the source that said it was a 9th Amendment right, not amendment. And it was overturned by the Dobbs decision which unfortunately, is a legitimate process. It was not a "law".
 
Lursa said:
I fixed my earlier error elsewhere...rights are not created, they are recognized. That said, I provided the link to the source that said it was a 9th Amendment right, not amendment. And it was overturned by the Dobbs decision which unfortunately, is a legitimate process. It was not a "law".
Click to expand...
That's why I included court decision my post.

Honestly, I feel you are just playing semantics with your 'rights' position. You believe North Koreans have free speech. I say they don't because the North Korean executive does not allow it.

Do you really have something you cannot use?
 
mrjurrs said:
That's why I included court decision my post.
Click to expand...

THe court decision changed (removed) a right.

mrjurrs said:
Honestly, I feel you are just playing semantics with your 'rights' position.
Click to expand...

Please be specific on what you think I mean or believe?

mrjurrs said:
You believe North Koreans have free speech. I say they don't because the North Korean executive does not allow it.
Click to expand...

??? No idea what you're talking about.

mrjurrs said:
Do you really have something you cannot use?
Click to expand...

??? No idea what you're talking about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom