The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter of women's right to choose.

[Razoo]

NBC: “Sixty-six percent of adults say they don’t believe the Supreme Court should overturn the decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide.” Better yet why not let each woman make her own decision regarding her own health care? That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. It’s been nearly 50 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade case protected the right to safe abortion, and Trump and the GOP remain hell-bent on controlling women’s bodies. These rights are more threatened than ever now that Trump has announced right-wing extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his replacement for RBG. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. ss This ruling would go against the will of the people. Our best hope lies in the American public increasing their demand that the right to choose is protected. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. Do you support Roe v. Wade? You bet I do. Those who don't believe in abortion should never have one...... simple as that. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. ​

 

[NotreDame]

NBC: “Sixty-six percent of adults say they don’t believe the Supreme Court should overturn the decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide.” Better yet why not let each woman make her own decision regarding her own health care? That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. It’s been nearly 50 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade case protected the right to safe abortion, and Trump and the GOP remain hell-bent on controlling women’s bodies. These rights are more threatened than ever now that Trump has announced right-wing extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his replacement for RBG. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. ss This ruling would go against the will of the people. Our best hope lies in the American public increasing their demand that the right to choose is protected. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. Do you support Roe v. Wade? You bet I do. Those who don't believe in abortion should never have one...... simple as that. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. ​

An irony of ironies. Your complaint mirrors the conservatives’ theme about Roe but reversed, which is a small number of judges created a right out of thin air in the Due Process Clause.

SCOTUS, the small number of judges, created such a right by resorting to a textual interpretation of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment that isn’t supported by the plain text or historical meaning of Due Process.

And a popularity contest to determine whether the Court should decide and issue and how is untenable. What the Constitution says or a law says is determined by the text and the evidence pertaining to its meaning. Popularity contests are for legislatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[independentusa]

NBC: “Sixty-six percent of adults say they don’t believe the Supreme Court should overturn the decision that established a woman’s right to an abortion nationwide.” Better yet why not let each woman make her own decision regarding her own health care? That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. It’s been nearly 50 years since the landmark Roe v. Wade case protected the right to safe abortion, and Trump and the GOP remain hell-bent on controlling women’s bodies. These rights are more threatened than ever now that Trump has announced right-wing extremist Judge Amy Coney Barrett as his replacement for RBG. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. That's right a small number of judges should not go against a woman's right to choose. ss This ruling would go against the will of the people. Our best hope lies in the American public increasing their demand that the right to choose is protected. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. Do you support Roe v. Wade? You bet I do. Those who don't believe in abortion should never have one...... simple as that. The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter. ​

The GOP has never cared about what the majority wants, only what their base wants. that is why Trump is so popular with them. Look at gun background checks. A vast majority of Americans want them and yet the GOP bows to the evere smallere base that is against any kind of gun control.

 

[independentusa]

An irony of ironies. Your complaint mirrors the conservatives’ theme about Roe but reversed, which is a small number of judges created a right out of thin air in the Due Process Clause.

SCOTUS, the small number of judges, created such a right by resorting to a textual interpretation of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment that isn’t supported by the plain text or historical meaning of Due Process.

And a popularity contest to determine whether the Court should decide and issue and how is untenable. What the Constitution says or a law says is determined by the text and the evidence pertaining to its meaning. Popularity contests are for legislatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

DO you support Citizens United? There is nothing in the Constitution or the original authors of the constitution that suggests that they considered money speech and that Corporations should have the same rights as citizens, but a few justices decided that both were true. Even many conservatives said it with Roe were the Two worst decisions ever. YOu can not think one was decided right because you agree with the decision without knowing the other was as bad or worse.

 

[NotreDame]

DO you support Citizens United? There is nothing in the Constitution or the original authors of the constitution that suggests that they considered money speech and that Corporations should have the same rights as citizens, but a few justices decided that both were true. Even many conservatives said it with Roe were the Two worst decisions ever. YOu can not think one was decided right because you agree with the decision without knowing the other was as bad or worse.

First problem. Your premise “money is speech” is false. Citizens United did not determine “money is speech.”

Second, Citizens United is rooted in the text and history of the Free Speech clause. Speech by a group of people, and speech through and by a corporation, such as spending money to create a political movie deriding a candidate, is collective speech, and is consistent with the text and historical evidence of the free speech clause. Collective and/or group speech was practiced and cherished when the Free Speech clause was drafted, proposed, and ratified.

So, you have picked a poor example. Yet, even if you somehow get around to finding a parallel decision, it doesn’t matter, because some other bad decision doesn’t make another bad decision a right decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NewfieMom]

The Supreme Court should not be interfering on this matter.​

Women became complacent. Modern women never believed anything like this could happen. I often found it frustrating to be the most radical feminist speaking about an issue. Not that I consider myself a radical feminist! But I lived before there was a women's rights movement. The Supreme Court was our saviour with Roe v. Wade. Before that a woman had to find a state that allowed abortions if she needed one. And before any states allowed them she had to fly to Puerto Rico.

 

[Irredentist]

An irony of ironies. Your complaint mirrors the conservatives’ theme about Roe but reversed, which is a small number of judges created a right out of thin air in the Due Process Clause.

SCOTUS, the small number of judges, created such a right by resorting to a textual interpretation of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment that isn’t supported by the plain text or historical meaning of Due Process.

And a popularity contest to determine whether the Court should decide and issue and how is untenable. What the Constitution says or a law says is determined by the text and the evidence pertaining to its meaning. Popularity contests are for legislatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you use force to restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion, aren't you by definition depriving her of liberty?

 

[BlueTex]

An irony of ironies. Your complaint mirrors the conservatives’ theme about Roe but reversed, which is a small number of judges created a right out of thin air in the Due Process Clause.

SCOTUS, the small number of judges, created such a right by resorting to a textual interpretation of the Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment that isn’t supported by the plain text or historical meaning of Due Process.

And a popularity contest to determine whether the Court should decide and issue and how is untenable. What the Constitution says or a law says is determined by the text and the evidence pertaining to its meaning. Popularity contests are for legislatures.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They "created" this right about 7 years after they "created" a right to marital privacy.. It's merely an extension of that right that then went on to be applied in a number of areas of intimate matters. Is there a state interest in controlling intimate matters like contraception and homosexuality? You can't separate the right to privacy in Roe from these other privacy rights...

 

[NotreDame]

If you use force to restrict a woman's ability to have an abortion, aren't you by definition depriving her of liberty?

Not under the Due Process Clause. “Due Process” means something specific, and the plain text says liberty can be taken away with Due Process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irredentist]

Not under the Due Process Clause. “Due Process” means something specific, and the plain text says liberty can be taken away with Due Process.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, then what is the appropriate due process for determining when a woman can be compelled not to have an abortion?

 

[joluoto]

They won't overturn Roe v Wade because then they lose the honey pot of promising to for sure overturn Roe v Wade this time.

 

[NotreDame]

They "created" this right about 7 years after they "created" a right to marital privacy.. It's merely an extension of that right that then went on to be applied in a number of areas of intimate matters. Is there a state interest in controlling intimate matters like contraception and homosexuality? You can't separate the right to privacy in Roe from these other privacy rights...

I think my position is clear, the meaning of the Due Process Clause does not textually or hsirocially support anything the Court has said regarding abortion, marriage, etcetera, as a privacy rights under notions of liberty in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment.

And your reply is susceptible to the criticism the entire notion of a right to privacy the state cannot infringe upon doesn’t exist in the plain text or historical evidence of the Due Process Clause. The fact it originated before Roe doesn’t ameliorate the criticism those rights are made up by the Court as the meaning of Due Process doesn’t support the Court’s interpretation.

If those rights exist, they’d have to find refuge under some other clause in the Constitution.

And the Court has refused previously to extend the right to privacy to homosexuality, see Bowers v Hardwick. The Court has also refused a right of privacy of a terminally ill patient to seek and obtain a physician’s assistance in suicide, although they can kill themselves by refusing medical assistance.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlueTex]

The right actually originated in Griswold. Bowers v Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas... And what did Lawrence v. Texas hold.... a right to privacy... Wanna try again?

 

[NotreDame]

Ok, then what is the appropriate due process for determining when a woman can be compelled not to have an abortion?

Do you have any idea what Due Process means? That phrase and it’s meaning was developed in English law several centuries before the 5th and 14th Amendments were conceived. Due Process did not mean a liberty the states couldn’t take away. The plain text says liberty can be taken away so long as due process is given.

Due Process refers to procedural steps. A good example, in the criminal context, is a criminal charge against a defendant, a fair and impartial jury trial if requested, an impartial judge, before a guilty verdict can be reached and a judge takes the defendant’s liberty away.

Due Process for restricting liberty, such as a state law prohibiting consumption of alcohol below a certain age, or criminalizing the possession and use of drugs, or criminalizing possession of kiddie porn, is a validly enacted statue by a legislature. As Justice Scalia rightly observed, “By its (Due Process Clause) inescapable terms, it only guarantees process. Property can be taken by the state; liberty can be taken, even life can be taken; but not without the process that our traditions require, notably a validly enacted law and a fair trial.” A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,” pg. 24

When it comes to taking property, there isn’t any sacrosanct property, like with liberty, the State cannot take, same with “life,” and the same is logically true for “liberty” in the Due Process Clause. The Court’s jurisprudence asserting there is a sacrosanct liberty interest in the Due Process Clause that receives heightened protection isn’t consistent with the plain text or historical evidence.

If those rights exist, they do not exist in the Due Process Clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irredentist]

Do you have any idea what Due Process means? That phrase and it’s meaning was developed in English law several centuries before the 5th and 14th Amendments were conceived. Due Process did not mean a liberty the states couldn’t take away. The plain text says liberty can be taken away so long as due process is given.

Due Process refers to procedural steps. A good example, in the criminal context, is a criminal charge against a defendant, a fair and impartial jury trial if requested, an impartial judge, before a guilty verdict can be reached and a judge takes the defendant’s liberty away.

Due Process for restricting liberty, such as a state law prohibiting consumption of alcohol below a certain age, or criminalizing the possession and use of drugs, or criminalizing possession of kiddie porn, is a validly enacted statue by a legislature. As Justice Scalia rightly observed, “By its (Due Process Clause) inescapable terms, it only guarantees process. Property can be taken by the state; liberty can be taken, even life can be taken; but not without the process that our traditions require, notably a validly enacted law and a fair trial.” A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law,” pg. 24

When it comes to taking property, there isn’t any sacrosanct property, like with liberty, the State cannot take, same with “life,” and the same is logically true for “liberty” in the Due Process Clause. The Court’s jurisprudence asserting there is a sacrosanct liberty interest in the Due Process Clause that receives heightened protection isn’t consistent with the plain text or historical evidence.

If those rights exist, they do not exist in the Due Process Clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But the Supreme Court has never said that the right to an abortion is absolute, or "sacrosanct". On the contrary, states are permitted to pass laws restricting abortion, provided they are subject to "strict scrutiny."

This means that they must

1. be necessary to a "compelling state interest"

2. be "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and

3. use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.

This is the due process which the supreme court has determined applies to abortion. Does this standard seem unfair to you?

 

[independentusa]

First problem. Your premise “money is speech” is false. Citizens United did not determine “money is speech.”

Second, Citizens United is rooted in the text and history of the Free Speech clause. Speech by a group of people, and speech through and by a corporation, such as spending money to create a political movie deriding a candidate, is collective speech, and is consistent with the text and historical evidence of the free speech clause. Collective and/or group speech was practiced and cherished when the Free Speech clause was drafted, proposed, and ratified.

So, you have picked a poor example. Yet, even if you somehow get around to finding a parallel decision, it doesn’t matter, because some other bad decision doesn’t make another bad decision a right decision.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually, it is rooted in the same thing you say what is wrong with Roe, interpretations of parts of the constitution. First, where in the text of the First amendment does it say that money is free speech. I have read the constitution and had to take high school course in oit to graduate, but never saw those word there. The idea that money is like free speech is exactly the same as Roe, an interpretation of the wording of the constitution. It has more history behind it than Roe, but it is an interpretation. And the idea that corporations are given the same rights as citizens, that is way out in right field. I do not see anything in the constitution that gives corporations that right and your idea of collective or group free speech is just as far out. In both cases involved in Citizens, it is all based as is Roe, on interpretations of the constitution. You can not get around that fact and it is a FACT. I consider both decisions to be wrongly decided as if you are an originalist or a strict interpretationist you can not really believe in Citizens or Roe. That is why many conservative constitutional scholars at the time complained about both when they were decided

 

[NotreDame]

The right actually originated in Griswold. Bowers v Hardwick was overturned by Lawrence v. Texas... And what did Lawrence v. Texas hold.... a right to privacy... Wanna try again?

Wanna try again? Usually being cocky is reserved for people who know what they’re talking about. You don’t. Not only are you anemic in knowledge in this area, you’ve also side stepped the issues I’ve raised.

The notion of privacy “actually originated” many years before Griswold, my little wannabe legal prodigy.

The Court in Roe traces the history of “privacy” and it extended pass Griswold.

As Roe rightly noted in tracing its history, “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” The Court went on to cite to another case, among others, decided in 1928 of Olmstead v United States.

As it pertains to a right of privacy in the 14th Amendment within the word of “liberty” in the Due Process Clause, the Court rightly traces it to, not Griswold, but a case decided in 1924 of Meyer v Nebraska. “[O]r in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska.”

So, maybe you need to try again at figuring out what the hell you’re talking about.

Next, you commented with the “extension” of a right to privacy mantra and I provided a case where it wasn’t extended in Bowers v Hardwick. Observe, I said the Court “previously” had refused to extend it, I didn’t claim it was good law. My point was to cite to an occasion when they didn’t. So, you aren’t scoring any points by citing to Lawrence. I’m well aware of Lawrence v Texas, it was decided while I was in law school, but the point was the Court didn’t originally extend it.

The fact Bowers was overturned over a decade and some change later doesn’t change the fact that right to privacy was not extended by the Court in 1986, a point that sailed eight over your head. The fact the Court first decided not to recognize the right to privacy in Bowers to only be overturned in Lawrence just illustrates the abritrariness of the Court, another point you missed. It went right over your head because you couldn’t be bothered to follow the dialogue as you were too obsessed with trying score cheap points.

And the Court refused to find a right to privacy for a terminally ill person wanting suicide and seeking medical assistance, just adding to the arbitrariness.

Finally, all of what you said ignores the issue the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause doesn’t support those liberty interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

Actually, it is rooted in the same thing you say what is wrong with Roe, interpretations of parts of the constitution. First, where in the text of the First amendment does it say that money is free speech. I have read the constitution and had to take high school course in oit to graduate, but never saw those word there. The idea that money is like free speech is exactly the same as Roe, an interpretation of the wording of the constitution. It has more history behind it than Roe, but it is an interpretation. And the idea that corporations are given the same rights as citizens, that is way out in right field. I do not see anything in the constitution that gives corporations that right and your idea of collective or group free speech is just as far out. In both cases involved in Citizens, it is all based as is Roe, on interpretations of the constitution. You can not get around that fact and it is a FACT. I consider both decisions to be wrongly decided as if you are an originalist or a strict interpretationist you can not really believe in Citizens or Roe. That is why many conservative constitutional scholars at the time complained about both when they were decided

Until you can correctly understand Citizens United, you will continue to make the same poor argument.

First, where in the text of the First amendment does it say that money is free speech.

Citizens United did not say, Hold, or claim “money is speech.” So, asking “where in the text of the First Amendment does it say that money is free speech” is futile.

Until you can correct this error, we have nothing to discuss.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

But the Supreme Court has never said that the right to an abortion is absolute, or "sacrosanct". On the contrary, states are permitted to pass laws restricting abortion, provided they are subject to "strict scrutiny."

This means that they must

1. be necessary to a "compelling state interest"

2. be "narrowly tailored" to achieving this compelling purpose; and

3. use the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose.

This is the due process which the supreme court has determined applies to abortion. Does this standard seem unfair to you?

But the Supreme Court has never said that the right to an abortion is absolute

Never said it did. So, you can dispense with this part.

or "sacrosanct".

To the contrary, they have. Not all liberty interests receive the protection of “strict scrutiny.” Only certain liberty interests do.

This is the due process which the supreme court has determined applies to abortion.

This misses the point. The plain text and historical evidence doesn’t support the Court’s claim of “due process.” Which is to say the Court conjured up certain liberty interests for heightened protection and fabricated what’s necessary to take way the liberty, i.e., judicial law making from the bench.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BlueTex]

Wanna try again? Usually being ****y is reserved for people who know what they’re talking about. You don’t. Not only are you anemic in knowledge in this area, you’ve also side stepped the issues I’ve raised.

The notion of privacy “actually originated” many years before Griswold, my little wannabe legal prodigy.

The Court in Roe traces the history of “privacy” and it extended pass Griswold.

As Roe rightly noted in tracing its history, “The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution.” The Court went on to cite to another case, among others, decided in 1928 of Olmstead v United States.

As it pertains to a right of privacy in the 14th Amendment within the word of “liberty” in the Due Process Clause, the Court rightly traces it to, not Griswold, but a case decided in 1924 of Meyer v Nebraska. “[O]r in the concept of liberty guaranteed by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, see Meyer v. Nebraska.”

So, maybe you need to try again at figuring out what the hell you’re talking about.

Next, you commented with the “extension” of a right to privacy mantra and I provided a case where it wasn’t extended in Bowers v Hardwick. Observe, I said the Court “previously” had refused to extend it, I didn’t claim it was good law. My point was to cite to an occasion when they didn’t. So, you aren’t scoring any points by citing to Lawrence. I’m well aware of Lawrence v Texas, it was decided while I was in law school, but the point was the Court didn’t originally extend it.

The fact Bowers was overturned over a decade and some change later doesn’t change the fact that right to privacy was not extended by the Court in 1986, a point that sailed eight over your head. The fact the Court first decided not to recognize the right to privacy in Bowers to only be overturned in Lawrence just illustrates the abritrariness of the Court, another point you missed. It went right over your head because you couldn’t be bothered to follow the dialogue as you were too obsessed with trying score cheap points.

And the Court refused to find a right to privacy for a terminally ill person wanting suicide and seeking medical assistance, just adding to the arbitrariness.

Finally, all of what you said ignores the issue the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause doesn’t support those liberty interests.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s amusing to claim there is no right to privacy and the. Trace it’s history back over 100 years..


Let us know when a court decides it no longer exists

 

[Irredentist]

Never said it did. So, you can dispense with this part.



To the contrary, they have. Not all liberty interests receive the protection of “strict scrutiny.” Only certain liberty interests do.



This misses the point. The plain text and historical evidence doesn’t support the Court’s claim of “due process.” Which is to say the Court conjured up certain liberty interests for heightened protection and fabricated what’s necessary to take way the liberty, i.e., judicial law making from the bench.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is correct, the Supreme Court determined that abortion is a fundemantal liberty, and that any law restricting abortion must be subject to strict scrutiny. You may disagree with this interpretation, but that does not make it illegitimate. Plain text and historical reading are not the only legitimate ways to interpret the constitution.

 

[NotreDame]

It’s amusing to claim there is no right to privacy and the. Trace it’s history back over 100 years..


Let us know when a court decides it no longer exists

It’s amusing after how many exchanges now you can’t figure out my argument.

I didn’t claim “there is no right to privacy.” That’s your Strawman. Let me know when you are capable of actually discussing the issue. It’s puzzlingly you can’t, when I explicitly told you the damn issue myself.

You have nothing at the moment but a strawman argument, butchering historical case law, not following the issues, just to name a few.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Logical1]

A woman and the man have a right to chose to be responsible and not get the woman pregnant if they dont want a baby. They can go to the drug store and find probably 10 ways not to get pregnant. Or go to a doctor and find two ways more!!!!

 

[NotreDame]

That is correct, the Supreme Court determined that abortion is a fundemantal liberty, and that any law restricting abortion must be subject to strict scrutiny. You may disagree with this interpretation, but that does not make it illegitimate. Plain text and historical reading are not the only legitimate ways to interpret the constitution.

Yes, I know it is correct when I said “sacrosanct.” I know the subject matter rather well.

And to the contrary, plain text is the “only legitimate way.” The plain text is the law! Laws exist in writing for a reason, to fix its meaning. Judges aren’t free to apply any meaning they want to a law, to ignore the text or historical meaning rooted in the evidence, or conjure up any meaning they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Irredentist]

Yes, I know it is correct when I said “sacrosanct.” I know the subject matter rather well.

And to the contrary, plain text is the “only legitimate way.” The plain text is the law! Laws exist in writing for a reason, to fix its meaning. Judges aren’t free to apply any meaning they want to a law, to ignore the text or historical meaning rooted in the evidence, or conjure up any meaning they want.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Of course Judges are free to interpret the meaning of the Law! That's literally their job. Have you never heard of judicial precedent before? Judges actually base their decisions off of the way previous judges have ruled on the same law, NOT simply by reading the text of the law. Judicial precedent has equal weight to the law itself, because the law MUST be consistent.

The reading of the right to privacy, and abortion, into the due process clause did not happen in a vacuum. It happened because judicial precedent had already broadened the interpretation of the due process clause.