28 Jun 22
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a 3-part inquiry:
1. Is there a human right to privacy/bodily autonomy?
2. If so, does a fetus have a right to life? If so, when?
3. If and when yes, how do the two rights balance?
It's a damned complicated inquiry with a Hell of a lot of nuance. But "It doesn't say so in the Constitution" isn't the point. I'm not saying it doesn't help at all when rights are enumerated (it clearly does), but that can't be the be-all-end-all of the inquiry.
If the Court had said "there's a right to life that outweighs the right to privacy from day 1," I don't think I'd agree with that premise, but at least you're resting the inquiry on a basis that's unique to abortion.
As it stands, the decision calls into question pretty much all due process rights, even if this Court does not appear to be interested in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.
It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
28 Jun 22
@sh76 saidGood men may differ
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As fa ...[text shortened]... ed in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.
It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.
28 Jun 22
@sh76 saidThe whole point was to set a precedent for future decisions. By establishing this precedent they can now overrule decisions like gay marriage or contraception rights. Thomas, in his opinion, said SCOTUS decisions like Lawrence v Texas should be "reconsidered".
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
This terrible ruling was deliberate and politically motivated.
@sh76 saidThe "conservative" majority in the court are quite plainly politicians in robes. Clarence Thomas may well be the worst. An absolute hack, clearly prejudiced, most definitely guided by his gut beliefs (and quite possibly his wife) and not matters of law or justice. But there are no checks and balances any more, if there ever were any. The Gang of Five (or Six) can do whatever they want and there is no practical means of stopping them for the foreseeable future.
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As fa ...[text shortened]... ed in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.
It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.
And don't anyone blither about Congress expanding the court or impeaching obviously corrupt justices. It will never happen unless the Democrats secure supermajorities in both houses, but that is forever out of reach due to the incontestable ascendancy of misinformation, dark money, and gerrymandering.
I see no way out now except civil war.
28 Jun 22
@sh76 saidFirst, one must accept that the whole premise of a right is that it is 'something' that no one else but you are entitled to. That to me is the essence of a right. So, your #1 answer is that yes, one has a right to privacy and to their bodies. Note that this right does not infringe one iota on another person.
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As fa ...[text shortened]... ed in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.
It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.
#2, they will be arguing for a long time about when a fetus becomes a baby. Does that entity in the womb have any rights at all? I dunno. But it does if it is a baby. An adult is a grown up baby, with rights. The right to live. Sacrosanct.
So that is all there is to it, #3 a bit superfluous or irrelevant.
@sh76 said
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As fa ...[text shortened]... ed in revisiting Griswold through Obergefell.
It was a poorly thought out strategy and decision.
As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a 3-part inquiry:
1. Is there a human right to privacy/bodily autonomy?
2. If so, does a fetus have a right to life? If so, when?
3. If and when yes, how do the two rights balance?
Thanks for posting. You're right a monumental decision to overturn this precedent should be based on sounder logic that provides some clarity on your three points. Unfortunately it does not. It looks like we will have a bit of a mess moving forward because of this wishy-washy decision, but ultimately I don't think there's any way around the Supreme Court having to set precedent for these three questions.
Conservatives have had 50 years to come up with sound legal logic and this is the best that we have come up with?
29 Jun 22
@wildgrass saidIt is understandable to say that it was not produced on sound logic, and I am big on logic. But, since it will never be agreed upon as to when a fetus becomes a baby, then it stands to reason that there can be no standard by which to measure and adjudicate decisions based upon issues of fetuses and babies. It is impossible. This is why I keep pleading, forget it already. You fellers can rail on till the cows come home, nothing will be set in stone. Even if everyone here agrees a baby is not a baby until it is born, that little agreement will have no effect on the real world.As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a 3-part inquiry:
1. Is there a human right to privacy/bodily autonomy?
2. If so, does a fetus have a right to life? If so, when?
3. If and when yes, how do the two rights balance?
Thanks for posting. You're right this is a monumental decision to overturn this precedent, it should be based on sounder logic that p ...[text shortened]... have had 50 years to come up with sound legal logic and this is the best that we have come up with?
29 Jun 22
@averagejoe1 said
It is understandable to say that it was not produced on sound logic, and I am big on logic. But, since it will never be agreed upon as to when a fetus becomes a baby, then it stands to reason that there can be no standard by which to measure and adjudicate decisions based upon issues of fetuses and babies. It is impossible. This is why I keep pleading, forget it alrea ...[text shortened]... a baby is not a baby until it is born, that little agreement will have no effect on the real world.
it stands to reason that there can be no standard by which to measure and adjudicate decisions based upon issues of fetuses and babies. It is impossible.
Isn't it the entire point that the laws set these standards? Laws have to set these standards. Laws have to define the line between health care and murder. SCOTUS just can't handle that responsibility.
29 Jun 22
@wildgrass saidOK, I'm with you. A law, a law which will make it certain, stare decisis certified, as to when a baby is a baby. You must think that that can happen, since you crafted a post on it. Do you? Think how that could happen, even in our wildest dreams? Be honest.it stands to reason that there can be no standard by which to measure and adjudicate decisions based upon issues of fetuses and babies. It is impossible.
Isn't it the entire point that the laws set these standards? Laws have to set these standards. Laws have to define the line between health care and murder. SCOTUS just can't handle that responsibility.
29 Jun 22
@wildgrass saidCasey did a pretty good job, I thought, anyway. In a nutshell, it said:As far as I'm concerned, abortion is a 3-part inquiry:
1. Is there a human right to privacy/bodily autonomy?
2. If so, does a fetus have a right to life? If so, when?
3. If and when yes, how do the two rights balance?
Thanks for posting. You're right a monumental decision to overturn this precedent should be based on sounder logic that provides some ...[text shortened]... have had 50 years to come up with sound legal logic and this is the best that we have come up with?
1. Yes, but there's no fundamental right to abortion, per se
2. Yes, at viability
3. Pre-viability, states can regulate abortion, but cannot impose an "undue burden" on abortion. Post-viability, states can prohibit abortion except where necessary to save the life/health of the mother.
The decision wasn't perfect (I don't see why spousal notification laws were considered an undue burden), and if you want to move the line back to 15 weeks that's reasonable to me, but it seems to me to be about as good a job as possible under the circumstances.
Casey was very complex and very nuanced, but it was hard to really argue that it was fundamentally unreasonable.
29 Jun 22
The answer will usually be somewhere in the middle.
Unfortunately, the big battles will be fought at the extremes.
The Dems (far left) will push for late (or very late) term when these scenarios hardly ever happen.
The GOP (far right) will push for a ban, no exceptions.
It's almost as of these 2 parties are just trying to piss each other off !!
A good example is that those pushing for complete abortion bans also want to ban contraception, something that should reduce the need for abortions.
An absolute contradiction !!
That kind of policy just serves to strengthen my personal views that a lot of the far right is driven by religious doctrine.
In their minds, contraception and abortion have one thing in common.
Both contribute to sexual promiscuity, in their minds.
Something in between can and should be pursued.
As to the SCOTUS. I believe that activism has crept into the institution.
@sh76 saidYeah we discussed viability in another thread. I agree that it set a reasonable standard for states to follow.
Casey did a pretty good job, I thought, anyway. In a nutshell, it said:
1. Yes, but there's no fundamental right to abortion, per se
2. Yes, at viability
3. Pre-viability, states can regulate abortion, but cannot impose an "undue burden" on abortion. Post-viability, states can prohibit abortion except where necessary to save the life/health of the mother.
The decisio ...[text shortened]... ry complex and very nuanced, but it was hard to really argue that it was fundamentally unreasonable.
The new standard of letting states decide on the question of "WHEN DOES LIFE BEGIN?" will be a complete mess, I think. Abortion clinics lined up on the border of Texas like liquor stores.
29 Jun 22
@sh76 said"It doesn't say so in the Constitution" isn't actually the point, and the decision doesn't pretend to end the inquiry. The point is that in a government formed of the People's representatives moral decisions like regulating abortion belong to the People, and should not be imposed by judicial fiat.
I finished reading the decision (I did skim some of it).
Even as a Republican, I'm very disappointed in it.
I don't give a damn what people thought were rights in 1868. I'm not saying I buy the whole "living document" business to the excess some take it to, but the Constitution can't be so dead that human rights ideas can't change at all ever without an Amendment.
As fa ...[text shortened]... l when rights are enumerated (it clearly does), but that can't be the be-all-end-all of the inquiry.
“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” - Alito
@sleepyguy saidIn a country based on respect for Natural Rights and limited government interference with them, "profound moral questions" should be decided by individuals, not the State.
"It doesn't say so in the Constitution" isn't actually the point, and the decision doesn't pretend to end the inquiry. The point is that in a government formed of the People's representatives moral decisions like regulating abortion belong to the People, and should not be imposed by judicial fiat.
“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not pr ...[text shortened]... those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” - Alito
The fact that men only State legislatures 150-200 years thought women had only limited rights should have zero impact.
@sleepyguy saidThe Constitution places limits on the State to interfere in basic decision making. Casey said that this decision is available to all women unless the fetus is viable. "There is a realm of personal liberty which the government cannot enter."
"It doesn't say so in the Constitution" isn't actually the point, and the decision doesn't pretend to end the inquiry. The point is that in a government formed of the People's representatives moral decisions like regulating abortion belong to the People, and should not be imposed by judicial fiat.
“Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not pr ...[text shortened]... those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.” - Alito
States can now force women to carry non-viable pregnancies to term.