]W:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

[iguanaman]

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained​

At the heart of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminates the constitutional right to abortion, is Alito's objection that "the Constitution makes no mention of abortion." For Alito and the many legal conservatives who think like him, unenumerated constitutional rights are inherently suspect. When a court recognizes an unenumerated right, these conservatives say, that court is almost certainly guilty of judicial activism.

But this conservative mindset is at odds with constitutional text and history, both of which make clear that unenumerated rights are entitled to the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists.

Remember that when the Constitution was first ratified, it did not yet contain its famous first 10 amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. Those amendments arrived a few years later. They were added in response to the fierce criticism leveled against the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification on several grounds, one of which was that the document lacked a bill of rights, and therefore, in their view, left a number of key rights unprotected (because unmentioned).
The Federalists, who labored on behalf of the Constitution's ratification, rejected this argument. Why? Because, explained James Wilson, one of the leading figures at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, "if we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given." And the consequence of that, Wilson told the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, "is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."

James Iredell, a future justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made the same argument at the North Carolina Ratification Convention. "It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up," he said. That is "because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation." Furthermore, Iredell added, "it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."

James Madison, one of the principal architects of the new Constitution, closely followed this debate. On June 8, 1789, he gave a speech to Congress proposing the group of amendments that would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. While doing so, he directly addressed the Anti-Federalist/Federalist debate. "It has been observed also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration," he said, "and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." Madison acknowledged that "this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; But, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it."

Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alito...urning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

My question is this. Why did Alito use the "it's not in the Constitution" as the major reason why the court can take away a Constitutional right? Does he think we don't know about the 9th amendment or does he think it is wrong too? Do we really want a Justice who can't follow even the first 10 amendments?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained​

At the heart of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminates the constitutional right to abortion, is Alito's objection that "the Constitution makes no mention of abortion." For Alito and the many legal conservatives who think like him, unenumerated constitutional rights are inherently suspect. When a court recognizes an unenumerated right, these conservatives say, that court is almost certainly guilty of judicial activism.

But this conservative mindset is at odds with constitutional text and history, both of which make clear that unenumerated rights are entitled to the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists.

Remember that when the Constitution was first ratified, it did not yet contain its famous first 10 amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. Those amendments arrived a few years later. They were added in response to the fierce criticism leveled against the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification on several grounds, one of which was that the document lacked a bill of rights, and therefore, in their view, left a number of key rights unprotected (because unmentioned).
The Federalists, who labored on behalf of the Constitution's ratification, rejected this argument. Why? Because, explained James Wilson, one of the leading figures at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, "if we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given." And the consequence of that, Wilson told the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, "is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."

James Iredell, a future justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made the same argument at the North Carolina Ratification Convention. "It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up," he said. That is "because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation." Furthermore, Iredell added, "it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."

James Madison, one of the principal architects of the new Constitution, closely followed this debate. On June 8, 1789, he gave a speech to Congress proposing the group of amendments that would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. While doing so, he directly addressed the Anti-Federalist/Federalist debate. "It has been observed also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration," he said, "and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." Madison acknowledged that "this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; But, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it."

Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alito...urning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

My question is this. Why did Alito use the "it's not in the Constitution" as the major reason why the court can take away a Constitutional right? Does he think we don't know about the 9th amendment or does he think it is wrong too? Do we really want a Justice who can't follow even the first 10 amendments?

Shouldnt the ruling be challenged then?

 

[Glitch]

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained​

At the heart of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminates the constitutional right to abortion, is Alito's objection that "the Constitution makes no mention of abortion." For Alito and the many legal conservatives who think like him, unenumerated constitutional rights are inherently suspect. When a court recognizes an unenumerated right, these conservatives say, that court is almost certainly guilty of judicial activism.

But this conservative mindset is at odds with constitutional text and history, both of which make clear that unenumerated rights are entitled to the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists.

...

Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alito...urning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

My question is this. Why did Alito use the "it's not in the Constitution" as the major reason why the court can take away a Constitutional right? Does he think we don't know about the 9th amendment or does he think it is wrong too? Do we really want a Justice who can't follow even the first 10 amendments?

I disagree.

First and foremost, there is no "constitutional right to abortion" and there never has been.

Second, you obviously do not comprehend what "judicial activism" means. Judicial activism is when a judge/justice creates something new that never existed before, such as with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), or Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Conservative originalist judges/justices would undo the grievous unconstitutional errors the leftist activist judges/justices created.

You are simply unaware that this has been occurring for quite some time. The originalist conservative majority on the Supreme Court have been overturning the decisions created by activist judges/justices over the last 70 years. For example, United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) overturned the 53-year old activist leftist court creation under Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

No additional rights are acknowledged by the Ninth Amendment and it is judicial activism to create one where none existed. All this conservative originalist court did was correct an obvious mistake made by leftist activist judges/justices. The only thing that can be implied by the Ninth Amendment, in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment, is that the founders recognized individual sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment makes it very clear, if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a power, and the document does not prohibit that power to the States, then that power belongs exclusively to the States and/or the people respectively. The federal government is prohibited from becoming involved.

You can expect more leftist activist judge/justice decisions to fall in the future, as the current conservative originalist justices dismantle those unconstitutional leftist creations.

 

[iguanaman]

I disagree.

First and foremost, there is no "constitutional right to abortion" and there never has been.

Second, you obviously do not comprehend what "judicial activism" means. Judicial activism is when a judge/justice creates something new that never existed before, such as with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896), or Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973). Conservative originalist judges/justices would undo the grievous unconstitutional errors the active judges/justices created. President like this court has.

You are simply unaware that this has been occurring for quite some time. The originalist conservative majority on the Supreme Court have been overturning the decisions created by activist judges/justices over the last 70 years. For example, United States v. Alfonso D. Lopez, Jr., 514 U.S. 549 (1995) overturned the 53-year old activist leftist court creation under Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942).

No additional rights are acknowledged by the Ninth Amendment and it is judicial activism to create one where none existed. All this conservative originalist court did was correct an obvious mistake made by leftist activist judges/justices. The only thing that can be implied by the Ninth Amendment, in conjunction with the Tenth Amendment, is that the founders recognized individual sovereignty. The Tenth Amendment makes it very clear, if the US Constitution does not grant the federal government a power, and the document does not prohibit that power to the States, then that power belongs exclusively to the States and/or the people respectively. The federal government is prohibited from becoming involved.

You can expect more leftist activist judge/justice decisions fall in the future, as the current conservative originalist justices dismantle those unconstitutional leftist creations.

There are most certainly Constitutional rights that are not in the Constitution the framers made that perfectly clear. Virtually all our rights are NOT included in the bill of rights and saying otherwise is 17th century thinking that the framers denied with the 9th amendment which is EQUALLY as clear as the 10th. Additional rights can be inferred from other rights which is how the right to privacy was determined. Once granted they can never be deprived since by definition a Constitutional right is bestowed on the people not Federal or State Govts.

 

[Glitch]

There are most certainly Constitutional rights that are not in the Constitution the framers made that perfectly clear. Virtually all our rights are NOT included in the bill of rights and saying otherwise is 17th century thinking that the framers denied with the 9th amendment which is EQUALLY as clear as the 10th.

You obviously aren't thinking about what you post.

If it isn't in the US Constitution, then it cannot be a constitutional right by definition. It might be an individual right or an inherent right, but if it is not contained within the US Constitution then it cannot be a "constitutional right."

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a product of the late-18th century actually, not the 17th.

 

[iguanaman]

You obviously aren't thinking about what you post.

If it isn't in the US Constitution, then it cannot be a constitutional right by definition. It might be an individual right or an inherent right, but if it is not contained within the US Constitution then it cannot be a "constitutional right."

The US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are a product of the late-18th century actually, not the 17th.

You have the mentality of a 17th century monarchist and the magna Carta not the minds of our founders. They were quite advanced for their day. Since you seem to have the same learning disability as Alito here is what the 9th amendment says....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Does it say other rights retained by the State? No. The "others" refers to the OTHER Constitutional rights retained by the people that came about because the framers wanted to prevent the State or Federal Govt. from claiming any right not mentioned for themselves which would be tyranny. That is what the Supreme court is charged to do ...protect our rights by making them Constitutional rights. Otherwise we have tyranny. Get it now? This court is going backwards and it cannot continue.

 

[Paul191145]

You have the mentality of a 17th century monarchist and the magna Carta not the minds of our founders. They were quite advanced for their day. Since you seem to have the same learning disability as Alito here is what the 9th amendment says....

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Does it say other rights retained by the State? No. The "others" refers to the OTHER Constitutional rights retained by the people that came about because the framers wanted to prevent the State or Federal Govt. from claiming any right not mentioned for themselves which would be tyranny. That is what the Supreme court is charged to do ...protect our rights by making them Constitutional rights. Otherwise we have tyranny. Get it now? This court is going backwards and it cannot continue.

You are correct, that's what the 9th amendment says, but that means the rights/powers/authorities of the fed gov enumerated in the Constitution are supposed to be the limits on it, and other rights/powers/authorities are retained by the people.

BTW, have you considered the full text of the 5th amendment as it pertains to abortion? Please do, and consider that science still has not definitively determined "when life begins", as well as the weak argument of marginalizing the unborn by calling them mere fetuses et al, is just that. Just FYI, I've been an Atheist for decades and am approaching the subject from a Constitutional, logical, scientific perspective.

 

[fmw]

Shouldnt the ruling be challenged then?

Not in my, what was challenged was the R v W decision in the first place which had no constitutional basis. Abortion simply isn't a right. It doesn't fit the common description of a right. It is a privilege at best. The kind of right the 9th amendment is talking about would be something like the right to privacy. Privacy fits the parameters of a right and is one "reserved" by most people. It isn't enumerated in the constitution but most people view it (appropriately in my view) as a right.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Not in my, what was challenged was the R v W decision in the first place which had no constitutional basis. Abortion simply isn't a right. It doesn't fit the common description of a right. It is a privilege at best. The kind of right the 9th amendment is talking about would be something like the right to privacy. Privacy fits the parameters of a right and is one "reserved" by most people. It isn't enumerated in the constitution but most people view it (appropriately in my view) as a right.

The Roe decision was based on a personal right to privacy. It's overruling went against the 9th. Your ignorance is showing.

 

[fmw]

The Roe decision was based on a personal right to privacy. It's overruling went against the 9th. Your ignorance is showing.

When all else fails there is always insult.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The Constitution protects many more rights than it mentions, as James Madison explained​

At the heart of Justice Samuel Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturns Roe v. Wade (1973) and eliminates the constitutional right to abortion, is Alito's objection that "the Constitution makes no mention of abortion." For Alito and the many legal conservatives who think like him, unenumerated constitutional rights are inherently suspect. When a court recognizes an unenumerated right, these conservatives say, that court is almost certainly guilty of judicial activism.

But this conservative mindset is at odds with constitutional text and history, both of which make clear that unenumerated rights are entitled to the same respect as the small handful of rights that the Constitution specifically lists.

Remember that when the Constitution was first ratified, it did not yet contain its famous first 10 amendments, otherwise known as the Bill of Rights. Those amendments arrived a few years later. They were added in response to the fierce criticism leveled against the Constitution by the Anti-Federalists, who opposed ratification on several grounds, one of which was that the document lacked a bill of rights, and therefore, in their view, left a number of key rights unprotected (because unmentioned).
The Federalists, who labored on behalf of the Constitution's ratification, rejected this argument. Why? Because, explained James Wilson, one of the leading figures at the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, "if we attempt an enumeration, everything that is not enumerated is presumed to be given." And the consequence of that, Wilson told the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention, "is, that an imperfect enumeration would throw all implied power into the scale of the government; and the rights of the people would be rendered incomplete."

James Iredell, a future justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, made the same argument at the North Carolina Ratification Convention. "It would not only be useless, but dangerous, to enumerate a number of rights which are not intended to be given up," he said. That is "because it would be implying, in the strongest manner, that every right not included in the exception might be impaired by the government without usurpation." Furthermore, Iredell added, "it would be impossible to enumerate every one. Let anyone make what collection or enumeration of rights he pleases, I will immediately mention twenty or thirty more rights not contained in it."

James Madison, one of the principal architects of the new Constitution, closely followed this debate. On June 8, 1789, he gave a speech to Congress proposing the group of amendments that would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. While doing so, he directly addressed the Anti-Federalist/Federalist debate. "It has been observed also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration," he said, "and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure." Madison acknowledged that "this is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; But, I conceive, that may be guarded against. I have attempted it."

Madison's attempt became enshrined in the Constitution as the Ninth Amendment. Here is what it says: "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In short, unenumerated rights get the same respect as enumerated ones.

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alito...urning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/

My question is this. Why did Alito use the "it's not in the Constitution" as the major reason why the court can take away a Constitutional right? Does he think we don't know about the 9th amendment or does he think it is wrong too? Do we really want a Justice who can't follow even the first 10 amendments?

I’m sorry something went so wrong in life that the idea of more children is so offensive to yoy.

 

[iguanaman]

I’m sorry something went so wrong in life that the idea of more children is so offensive to yoy.

LOL There will not be more children but there will be more women maimed and killed by back alley butchers and homemade abortion attempts. Making abortion illegal does not stop women from seeking abortions. You and I know what you like about taking rights away from women and it is not more children.

Abortion rates go down when countries make it legal: report​

Countries with stricter abortion laws have higher abortion rates

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/heal...n-when-countries-make-it-legal-report-n858476

 

[JayDubya]

The way you read the 9th as an infinite grabbag of federal power is an insult to reason and sense, and claiming Madison would support infinite federal power is the civics equivalent of blasphemy.

Any concept of the 9th that lets the Supreme Court make up whatever it wants and enforce it deserves insult, as does anyone who promotes this heinous bootlicker authoritarian notion.

 

[Lursa]

The way you read the 9th as an infinite grabbag of federal power is an insult to reason and sense, and claiming Madison would support infinite federal power is the civics equivalent of blasphemy.

Any concept of the 9th that lets the Supreme Court make up whatever it wants and enforce it deserves insult, as does anyone who promotes this heinous bootlicker authoritarian notion.

How are individual rights a 'grab by federal power?' Here's a list of 9th A rights...I guess we have to remove abortion now, but hopefully not for long.

List of non-enumerated rights​

Amendment IX – Non-Enumerated Rights (1791) – System

system.uslegal.com

​

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

• right to choose and follow a profession[iii];​

• right to attend and report on criminal trials[iv];​

• right to receive equal protection not only from the states but also from the federal government[v];​

• right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime[vi];​

• right to associate with others[vii];​

• right to privacy[viii];​

• right to travel within the United States[ix];​

• right to marry or not to marry[x];​

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

• right to educate one’s children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state[xii];​

• right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii];​

• right to use the federal courts and other governmental institutions and to urge others to use these processes to protect their interests[xiv];​

• right to retain American citizenship, despite even criminal activities, until explicitly and voluntarily renouncing it[xv];​

Which of these is the federal govt imposing on people? It's pretty much the opposite...it's the fed govt protecting these individual rights.

 

[Lursa]

Shouldnt the ruling be challenged then?

When the laws are in place and enacted, I'm sure some will be. But they need cases to challenge and be brought to federal court.

 

[Lursa]

Not in my, what was challenged was the R v W decision in the first place which had no constitutional basis. Abortion simply isn't a right. It doesn't fit the common description of a right. It is a privilege at best. The kind of right the 9th amendment is talking about would be something like the right to privacy. Privacy fits the parameters of a right and is one "reserved" by most people. It isn't enumerated in the constitution but most people view it (appropriately in my view) as a right.

But there are other rights protected by amendments that could have been used, like 4th Amendment protecting "security of the person" (bodily autonomy) or more focus on due process. And when they create laws, that when enforced or in the protection of the unborn, violate women's Const rights, that's when we'll see challenge cases in federal courts.

 

[Lursa]

You are correct, that's what the 9th amendment says, but that means the rights/powers/authorities of the fed gov enumerated in the Constitution are supposed to be the limits on it, and other rights/powers/authorities are retained by the people.

BTW, have you considered the full text of the 5th amendment as it pertains to abortion? Please do, and consider that science still has not definitively determined "when life begins", as well as the weak argument of marginalizing the unborn by calling them mere fetuses et al, is just that. Just FYI, I've been an Atheist for decades and am approaching the subject from a Constitutional, logical, scientific perspective.

Yes, "science" knows exactly when an individual human life begins: at fertilization/implantation.

The thing that many pro-life people dont understand is that 'life' does not equal legal status. The Const, in the 14th A, clearly states it recognizes rights for born people and naturalized citizens. I'm not aware of any federal laws or decisions that recognize any rights for the unborn.

 

[Paul191145]

Yes, "science" knows exactly when an individual human life begins: at fertilization/implantation.

The thing that many pro-life people dont understand is that 'life' does not equal legal status. The Const, in the 14th A, clearly states it recognizes rights for born people and naturalized citizens. I'm not aware of any federal laws or decisions that recognize any rights for the unborn.

Simply because your chosen website claims to have something definitively determined does not make it inherently accepted by the entire scientific community. As for the 14th amendment, it in no way supersedes anything in the 5th amendment, but no, the unborn are not directly addressed, just like abortion and many other things, but LIFE, liberty and property are addressed in the 5th amendment. Marginalizing life with semantic language like "fetus", instead of "unborn human or person" is just that, an attempt to marginalize due to preconceived notions.

 

[Lursa]

Simply because your chosen website claims to have something definitively determined does not make it inherently accepted by the entire scientific community.

My degree also does. But feel free to post scientific sources that say otherwise.

Or...I guess you're wrong.

As for the 14th amendment, it in no way supersedes anything in the 5th amendment, but no, the unborn are not directly addressed,

The unborn are directly excluded.

just like abortion and many other things, but LIFE, liberty and property are addressed in the 5th amendment. Marginalizing life with semantic language like "fetus", instead of "unborn human or person" is just that, an attempt to marginalize due to preconceived notions.

Source anywhere in federal court decisions or laws where your claims are supported...where those things or any rights are recognized for the unborn.

 

[fmw]

But there are other rights protected by amendments that could have been used, like 4th Amendment protecting "security of the person" (bodily autonomy) or more focus on due process. And when they create laws, that when enforced or in the protection of the unborn, violate women's Const rights, that's when we'll see challenge cases in federal courts.

Perhaps I need to explain further. Nothing can be a right if it interferes with the rights of another. Those things that interfere are privileges or indulgences. Nobody is harmed or has a loss because you have free speech, for example. It is a right. Somebody has a life to lose in an abortion so it cannot be a right. Since the constitution says nothing about abortion, Roe V Wade was decided improperly according to the justices and millions of people as well. The decision changed nothing other than returning things to the states. I suspect the 10th amendment agreed.

So this is my advice. The supreme court decision isn't going to change. The solution for people who share your belief is to get a law passed in congress that allows federal "management" of abortion. That is the only way to get what you want and it is the way the constitution provides. The only other option is to lobby the state governments. That is also a constitutional method. Complaining about the decision can't change anything.

 

[Lursa]

Perhaps I need to explain further. Nothing can be a right if it interferes with the rights of another.

I suggest you read up on "The Balancing Principle" that judges, including SCOTUS, use.

And the unborn have no rights recognized, not in the Const and not in any federal decisions or laws I'm aware of.

The rest is TL;dr until/if you learn or acknowledge more, like on the Balancing Principle.

 

[fmw]

I suggest you read up on "The Balancing Principle" that judges, including SCOTUS, use.

And the unborn have no rights recognized, not in the Const and not in any federal decisions or laws I'm aware of.

The rest is TL;dr until/if you learn or acknowledge more, like on the Balancing Principle.

The definition of a right is common sense. How could it be a right to interfere with or hurt someone else? That the unborn have no legal rights tells me there is something missling from the law. Common sense again.

 

[Lursa]

The definition of a right is common sense. How could it be a right to interfere with or hurt someone else? That the unborn have no legal rights tells me there is something missling from the law. Common sense again.

Your simplistic opinion is not 'debate.' Obviously millions disagree with you, as well as the Constitution. The 14th Amendment starts with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Again, you dont seem prepared for this discussion, which does indeed focus on actual legal principles, laws, etc.

 

[fmw]

Your simplistic opinion is not 'debate.' Obviously millions disagree with you, as well as the Constitution. The 14th Amendment starts with "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof..." Again, you dont seem prepared for this discussion, which does indeed focus on actual legal principles, laws, etc.

So common sense means nothing to you. Not good. It is far more valuable than the nonsense people have been feeding you.

 

[Objective Voice]

Shouldnt the ruling be challenged then?

Yes, it should be...but it won't be.