Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Brennan77

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Apr 30, 2019
    Messages
    126
    Reaction score
    152
    Age
    41
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline

    SaulGoodmanEsq

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 19, 2020
    Messages
    2,144
    Reaction score
    3,470
    Age
    44
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    Not surprising. It's actually somewhat more surprising a draft was leaked although I'm sure it was one of the law clerks. Just goes to show that the federal courts are little more than a supra-legislature.
     

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    11,771
    Reaction score
    17,077
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    Just posting these here:





    I also read that in the leaked opinion, Alito also specifically singles out several other precedents that he says should not be, chief among them single sex marriage.
     

    brandon

    Well-known member
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    2,490
    Reaction score
    4,228
    Offline
    This is wild. Never thought this would happen.
     

    SaulGoodmanEsq

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 19, 2020
    Messages
    2,144
    Reaction score
    3,470
    Age
    44
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    Yes, that fits the philosophy: anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not protected, i.e., anything that falls under the rubric of Substantive Due Process like right to privacy in consensual sexual relations, etc.
     

    GrandAdmiral

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages
    2,627
    Reaction score
    3,483
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Offline
    Yes, that fits the philosophy: anything not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is not protected, i.e., anything that falls under the rubric of Substantive Due Process like right to privacy in consensual sexual relations, etc.
    So I guess this mean I might need to break up with my three girlfriends next?
     

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    3,842
    Reaction score
    9,302
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    Passage about same sex marriage:



    I think all that says is that the analogy to those other cases - recognizing certain rights - are not persuasive to root the right to abortion in some established line of authority. I don’t see it as suggesting those rights, too, are suspect and up for reconsideration.
     

    SaulGoodmanEsq

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 19, 2020
    Messages
    2,144
    Reaction score
    3,470
    Age
    44
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    So I guess this mean I might need to break up with my three girlfriends next?
    State could ban that based on its general police powers/morality laws. Scalia once compared the sodomy statutes (which basically included any form of gay sex) to (no pun intended... or maybe he intended the pun) cockfighting laws. It's given no special treatment.
     

    brandon

    Well-known member
    Joined
    May 17, 2019
    Messages
    2,490
    Reaction score
    4,228
    Offline
    Let’s be clear. Mitch McConnell screwing Obama out of the appointment of Merrick Garland directly led to the loss of a 50-year right for women.

    If this isn’t a case for court-packing, I don’t know what is.
     

    SaulGoodmanEsq

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 19, 2020
    Messages
    2,144
    Reaction score
    3,470
    Age
    44
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    Court packing wouldn't solve anything and only spur an endless downward cycle of additional Justices being added whenever power changed hands.
     

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    11,771
    Reaction score
    17,077
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    I think all that says is that the analogy to those other cases - recognizing certain rights - are not persuasive to root the right to abortion in some established line of authority. I don’t see it as suggesting those rights, too, are suspect and up for reconsideration.
    I don’t believe for a moment they don’t want to get rid of that as well. We just found out today they have a national abortion ban bill ready to go, just waiting for the right time. So much for let the states decide. I don’t think most men realize how pissed off this will make women.
     

    superchuck500

    U.S. Blues
    Joined
    Mar 26, 2019
    Messages
    3,842
    Reaction score
    9,302
    Location
    Charleston, SC
    Offline
    I don’t believe for a moment they don’t want to get rid of that as well. We just found out today they have a national abortion ban bill ready to go, just waiting for the right time. So much for let the states decide. I don’t think most men realize how pissed off this will make women.

    Perhaps but I’m saying Stern’s tweet misrepresents the section of the draft opinion. It does not call those rights “phony”. The same list includes the right against involuntary surgery.
     

    GrandAdmiral

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Nov 20, 2019
    Messages
    2,627
    Reaction score
    3,483
    Location
    Center of the Universe
    Offline
    State could ban that based on its general police powers/morality laws. Scalia once compared the sodomy statutes (which basically included any form of gay sex) to (no pun intended... or maybe he intended the pun) cockfighting laws. It's given no special treatment.
    Oh, I remember reading about it in my constitutional law class. It's crazy the extent that originalist supporters go. Outside of amending the Constitution, which is damn near impossible to do in these times, the fundamental law is incapable of adjustment. Consider me a non-believer.
     

    SaulGoodmanEsq

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Sep 19, 2020
    Messages
    2,144
    Reaction score
    3,470
    Age
    44
    Location
    New Orleans
    Offline
    Oh, I remember reading about it in my constitutional law class. It's crazy the extent that originalist supporters go. Outside of amending the Constitution, which is damn near impossible to do in these times, the fundamental law is incapable of adjustment. Consider me a non-believer.
    Yep. It's a broken system we are handcuffed to as a result of what a bunch of rich elites thought was a good idea 250+ years ago.
     

    MT15

    Well-known member
    Joined
    Mar 13, 2019
    Messages
    11,771
    Reaction score
    17,077
    Location
    Midwest
    Offline
    Perhaps but I’m saying Stern’s tweet misrepresents the section of the draft opinion. It does not call those rights “phony”. The same list includes the right against involuntary surgery.
    So involuntary birth is different in his eyes? I propose every man is available for forced blood donation and/or bone marrow donation at any time the government deems it necessary. Men will still get off easy. See how men like having their bodies regulated by the government.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    MAP Amazon Affiliate Ad

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Top Bottom