• 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!

The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

NatMorton

NatMorton

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 15, 2020
Messages
51,659
Reaction score
26,751
Location
Greater Boston Area
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
www.thenation.com

The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

A new book argues that the Constitution is best understood as a document calling for the unashamed struggle for equality.
www.thenation.com www.thenation.com

This is one of those articles you don't need to read much of to get a sense of what it's about. So with that in mind, I'll only speak to the opening line:

With the catastrophic recent term of the Supreme Court finally concluded, it can no longer be denied that the judiciary is firmly under the thumb of the conservative movement.
Click to expand...

... and , of course, the first case cited as an example of the pressure placed by the "conservative movement thumb" was Dobbs v Jackson.

This argument is, in a word, ridiculous. Let us understand how Dobbs is fundamentally different than Roe.

Roe decided the matter. It imposed a legal standard for abortion rights on all 50 states: no state could prohibit abortion before the third trimester, even if there was overwhelming political support for a different standard in any (or all) of those states.

Had the Dobbs majority taken the same approach as the Roe majority, i.e. had Dobbs imposed the will of the "conservative movement" as this author contends, then the decision would have moved Roe's viability standard to some earlier stage of development, maybe week 8, maybe conception. But Dobbs didn't do that. Dobbs literally sets no standard and returns the matter entirely to the electorate.

It is far more accurate to say that Roe was the political will of the "liberal movement." Dobbs, conversely, is apolitical. It does not attempt to decide the matter and instead leaves it to voters.
 
What's also interesting is the title of the piece: The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution.

Think about how the Constitution was ratified and how it's meant to be altered. It requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. In other words, and literally, only a super majority of Americans control the Constitution.

Yet this author wants a minority of citizens (Democrats) to "take back" the nation's highest law.

Telling.
 
NatMorton said:
Riveting analysis, really.
Click to expand...

Spare me your copy + pasted platitudes.

The Court's decision that they can carve out specific rights and abilities from citizens under the guise that the circumstances are "unique" should be problematic to anyone with common sense, but since it accomplished the right wing goal of overturning Roe V Wade, there is predictably zero expressions of concern from conservatives.
 
NatMorton said:
What's also interesting is the title of the piece: The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution.

Think about how the Constitution was ratified and how it's meant to be altered. It requires two-thirds of Congress and three-fourths of the states. In other words, and literally, only a super majority of Americans control the Constitution.

Yet this author wants a minority of citizens (Democrats) to "take back" the nation's highest law.

Telling.
Click to expand...

When the Constitution was written, was it intended that its rights and liberties to be guaranteed to all Americans of every race, ethnicity, gender and creed?
 
Jredbaron96 said:
When the Constitution was written, was it intended that its rights and liberties to be guaranteed to all Americans of every race, ethnicity, gender and creed?
Click to expand...
Not to mention that the current SCOTUS is attempting to reinterpret the establishment clause essentially remove it for their preferred view of Christian Utopianism.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
No it isn't.
Click to expand...

That is true, but this SCOTUS majority allowed each state legislature to decide that clearly political matter. RvW (and later CvPP) did the opposite and declared that a SCOTUS majority could make that clearly political decision nationwide. There is no mention of abortion (or any elective medical procedure), trimesters or fetal viability in the Constitution.
 
NatMorton said:
www.thenation.com

The Left Needs to Take Back the Constitution

A new book argues that the Constitution is best understood as a document calling for the unashamed struggle for equality.
www.thenation.com www.thenation.com

This is one of those articles you don't need to read much of to get a sense of what it's about. So with that in mind, I'll only speak to the opening line:



... and , of course, the first case cited as an example of the pressure placed by the "conservative movement thumb" was Dobbs v Jackson.

This argument is, in a word, ridiculous. Let us understand how Dobbs is fundamentally different than Roe.

Roe decided the matter. It imposed a legal standard for abortion rights on all 50 states: no state could prohibit abortion before the third trimester, even if there was overwhelming political support for a different standard in any (or all) of those states.

Had the Dobbs majority taken the same approach as the Roe majority, i.e. had Dobbs imposed the will of the "conservative movement" as this author contends, then the decision would have moved Roe's viability standard to some earlier stage of development, maybe week 8, maybe conception. But Dobbs didn't do that. Dobbs literally sets no standard and returns the matter entirely to the electorate.

It is far more accurate to say that Roe was the political will of the "liberal movement." Dobbs, conversely, is apolitical. It does not attempt to decide the matter and instead leaves it to voters.
Click to expand...

If the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education using the same criteria the present-day Supreme Court decided Dobbs - let the States decide - don't you think we'd still have segregated school systems in the South to this day?
 
Cordelier said:
If the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education using the same criteria the present-day Supreme Court decided Dobbs - let the States decide - don't you think we'd still have segregated school systems in the South to this day?
Click to expand...

The 14A did not make all matters federal.
 
Jredbaron96 said:
The Court's decision that they can carve out specific rights and abilities from citizens under the guise that the circumstances are "unique" should be problematic to anyone with common sense
Click to expand...
That should be problematic for anyone who values representative government. The Court lacks the authority to amend the Constitution, and there are no two ways about it.
 
Cordelier said:
If the Supreme Court had decided Brown v. Board of Education using the same criteria the present-day Supreme Court decided Dobbs - let the States decide - don't you think we'd still have segregated school systems in the South to this day?
Click to expand...

Instead you have them in the north. Here in New England, progressives have cleverly figured out how to legally segregate public schools in states which are completely controlled by Democrats.
 
NatMorton said:
That should be problematic for anyone who values representative government.
Click to expand...

Yet no conservative has voiced concern over the Dobbs ruling.

NatMorton said:
No, just white males
Click to expand...

And that's precisely why their opinion and intents stopped being relevant the day they stopped being active members of our political process.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom