Debates
25 Jun 22
25 Jun 22
The SCOTUS has now issued a decision saying that the scope of rights should be determined by what State legislatures in 1868 thought proper and desirable. In 1872, the State Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the application of Myra Bradwell to practice law because:
""That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make, apply, and execute the laws, was regarded as an almost axiomatic truth."
"In view of these facts, we are certainly warranted in saying that when the legislature gave to this Court the power of granting licenses to practice law, it was with not the slightest expectation that this privilege would be extended to women."
I mean after all:
"the applicant --
"as a married woman would be bound neither by her express contracts nor by those implied contracts which it is the policy of the law to create between attorney and client."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/83/130/
As Justice Bradley said so eloquently:
" The paramount destiny and mission of woman are to fulfill the noble and benign offices of wife and mother. This is the law of the Creator."
So is this case once again good law? It's rather clear state legislatures didn't think women had a right to work in most professions, just like they didn't think women had any right to bodily sovereignity concerning reproductive choice. What in Dobbs coherently answers this?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
25 Jun 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidNot to mention, 'Plessy v Ferguson, Dredd Scott,
The SCOTUS has now issued a decision saying that the scope of rights should be determined by what State legislatures in 1868 thought proper and desirable. In 1872, the State Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the application of Myra Bradwell to practice law because:
""That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make ...[text shortened]... right to bodily sovereignity concerning reproductive choice. What in Dobbs coherently answers this?
, & the numerous woman's suffrage (voting) suits.
Women couldn't vote(in Federal Elections), until the 20's.
Interracial marriage was forbidden, by Federal law until The 1960's.
It's called progress, be on the right side of history or, at least,
don't stand in the way of a fairer, more equitable world for everyone.
25 Jun 22
From Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence in Dobbs:
"As I see it, the dispositive
point in analyzing American history and tradition for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment inquiry is that abortion was largely prohibited in most American States as of 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, and that abortion remained largely prohibited in most American States until Roe was decided in 1973."
25 Jun 22
@jimm619 saidIn their stare decisis section that referred to Plessy as "egregiously wrong the day it was decided" but never explained why. After all, it's quite clear that most State legislatures in the late 1800s had no problem with segregation and by the test they say they used to overrule Roe, Plessy should certainly be correct in leaving such decisions to the States.
Not to mention, 'Plessy v Ferguson, Dredd Scott,
, & the numerous woman's suffrage (voting) suits.
@no1marauder
As I said in another thread, Loving vs. Virginia is not going to stand much longer with this court. Dark times a comin'.
25 Jun 22
1 edit
@moonbus saidActually it will. The Court's opinion is incoherent, but it leaves plenty of wiggle room to save prior opinions it knows would trigger a firestorm if overruled. For example, it establishes a long, 5 part "test" on whether stare decisis should apply with all its component parts being highly subjective and malleable.
@no1marauder
As I said in another thread, Loving vs. Virginia is not going to stand much longer with this court. Dark times a comin'.
Unless this country decides to go full Gilead (and you should never go full Gilead), the SCOTUS isn't going to take its own stated philosophy seriously in other cases. What I am doing is criticizing the idiocy of that stated "analysis" of constitutionality of basic, Natural Rights.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
25 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidYou are pointing out legal points,rather than moral ones.
In their stare decisis section that referred to Plessy as "egregiously wrong the day it was decided" but never explained why. After all, it's quite clear that most State legislatures in the late 1800s had no problem with segregation and by the test they say they used to overrule Roe, Plessy should certainly be correct in leaving such decisions to the States.
25 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidOverturning Roe is going to trigger a firestorm. At the ballot box if not in Congress. There is no Constitutional basis for having 9 and only 9 justices; I can see the Dems packing the SCOTUS with several more liberal judges first chance they get.
Actually it will. The Court's opinion is incoherent, but it leaves plenty of wiggle room to save prior opinions it knows would trigger a firestorm if overruled. For example, it establishes a long, 5 part "test" on whether stare decisis should apply with all its component parts being highly subjective and malleable.
Unless this country decides to go full Gilead ( ...[text shortened]... g is criticizing the idiocy of that stated "analysis" of constitutionality of basic, Natural Rights.
25 Jun 22
@moonbus saidFor now, they'll go as far as Joe Manchin will let them, which isn't very far.
Overturning Roe is going to trigger a firestorm. At the ballot box if not in Congress. There is no Constitutional basis for having 9 and only 9 justices; I can see the Dems packing the SCOTUS with several more liberal judges first chance they get.
But there are good prospects for a larger Democratic majority in the Senate after November. However, the Democrats would have to hold the House and convince some moderates there to acquiesce to a more SCOTUS seats, which seems a tall order.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
25 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidIndeed....FDR tried it, to no avail.
For now, they'll go as far as Joe Manchin will let them, which isn't very far.
But there are good prospects for a larger Democratic majority in the Senate after November. However, the Democrats would have to hold the House and convince some moderates there to acquiesce to a more SCOTUS seats, which seems a tall order.
25 Jun 22
@no1marauder saidAlso the 14th Amended explicitly giving voting rights to males.
The SCOTUS has now issued a decision saying that the scope of rights should be determined by what State legislatures in 1868 thought proper and desirable. In 1872, the State Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the application of Myra Bradwell to practice law because:
""That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make ...[text shortened]... right to bodily sovereignity concerning reproductive choice. What in Dobbs coherently answers this?
25 Jun 22
1 edit
@no1marauder saidAlways interesting to see the libs squirm to phrase a comment in a convenient way to fit their narrative.
The SCOTUS has now issued a decision saying that the scope of rights should be determined by what State legislatures in 1868 thought proper and desirable. In 1872, the State Supreme Court of Illinois rejected the application of Myra Bradwell to practice law because:
""That God designed the sexes to occupy different spheres of action, and that it belonged to men to make ...[text shortened]... right to bodily sovereignity concerning reproductive choice. What in Dobbs coherently answers this?
Here, instead of the issue, which is whether a woman be free to abort a child, thus ending its possibility at life (liberty, the pursuit, etc), he instead refers to that scenario as the woman's right to bodily sovereignty concerning reproductive choice. What in the hell??? Bodily sovereignty?? Never have heard the phrase used in general conversation. Why doesn't he call it what it is. A bit shadowy, if you ask me. Oh, well...
If Suzianne says to me that a woman has a right to bodily sovereignty concerning reproductive choice, I would say of course she does....I would naturally assume she means the right to decide whether to reproduce. To choose. But Marauder is using the phrasing to explain something entirely different....Ending Pregnancy.
Whew. Hard to keep up with you fellers. A cagey guy.
25 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 saidYou probably haven't heard of a lot of things that people with average intellect are aware of.
Always interesting to see the libs squirm to phrase a comment in a convenient way to fit their narrative.
Here, instead of the issue, which is whether a woman be free to abort a child, thus ending its possibility at life (liberty, the pursuit, etc), he instead refers to that scenario as the woman's right to bodily sovereignty concerning reproductive choice. What in ...[text shortened]... entirely different....Ending Pregnancy.
Whew. Hard to keep up with you fellers. A cagey guy.
Libertarians like to say your own your body; does than make it easier for you to understand? Of course, you can do whatever you please with things you own (subject to actions that invade the rights of others). So you should be able to do whatever you please with your own body and things inside it.
And the SCOTUS majority said several times things like this:
"Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when
prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after
birth." p. 38
So abortion should surely be a decision made by the woman who's body she owns and who it effects. And since the fetus has no rights (I would say it does after viability but the SCOTUS won't) the limitation on not doing anything with your body that damages others doesn't apply. And as the dissent forcefully states a law commanding a pregnant woman to give birth or face penal sanctions:
"forces her to carry out the State’s will" Dobb's dissent p. 30
So there you have it; such laws invade the basic right of you having control of your body and replace it with the State controlling your actions.
Personally, I don't like saying you "own" your body since you ARE your body IMO but if it helps others to understand the basic concept of bodily sovereignity than so be it.
