Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (5 Viewers)

Users who are viewing this thread

Brennan77

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
126
Reaction score
152
Age
42
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.
 
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.
 
This is wild. Never thought this would happen.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Court packing wouldn't solve anything and only spur an endless downward cycle of additional Justices being added whenever power changed hands.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Back
Top Bottom