SCOTUS and Roe - Part 2

[Padreruf]

I'm not necessarily "pro-abortion" but I am "pro-women." This and other decisions seemingly coming down the pike are unbelievable. If we can only interpret The Constitution in terms of original intent, then we are going backwards quickly. If not mistaken "original intent" included less than full human stance for African-Americans...and women.

 

[92tide]

US Attorney General says states can't ban abortion pills that are approved by the FDA

Merrick Garland said the agency's ruling on the safety and efficacy of the drug mifepristone could not be invalidated by state law.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Tug Tide]

Guide to Abortion Privacy — Digital Defense Fund

digitaldefensefund.org

 

[AUDub]

I'm not necessarily "pro-abortion" but I am "pro-women." This and other decisions seemingly coming down the pike are unbelievable. If we can only interpret The Constitution in terms of original intent, then we are going backwards quickly. If not mistaken "original intent" included less than full human stance for African-Americans...and women.

Well put.

 

[Crimson1967]

You are correct. Maybe Thomas wants his marriage to be declared illegal. Think about that...

Then he couldn’t claim spousal immunity if the 1/6 committee subpoenaed him.

 

[bamamc1]

lol

 

[chanson78]

Has anyone stopped to consider the real loser in all this. Poor Susan Collins was lied to by those mean old justice nominees.

 

[81usaf92]

i guess this is Bork getting revenge on Biden from the grave considering he died in 2012 and his replacement was replaced by Kavanaugh….

Got to focus on elections or this is just the beginning.

 

[NationalTitles18]

I find it a horrific miscarriage of justice that a woman's basic rights to life and health are offered NO protection in today's decision.

The rest is bad enough, but that makes the ruling far beyond the bounds of reason.

The point is brought up in the dissenting opinion.

Video: OB-GYN explains the far-reaching effects of Roe ruling - CNN Video

CNN's Jake Tapper talks to OB-GYN Dr. Jennifer Gunter about how the Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade could affect women's health.

www.cnn.com

 

[NationalTitles18]

The right to refuse sexual advances from their husbands was also not a right in 1868.

https://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/crime-penalties/marital-rape.htm

Really, in 1868 women had few rights. They could not control property. They could not make independent decisions regarding their children. They had no right to apply for credit. They had no right to an education. The list goes on.

 

[GrayTide]

Inter-racial, as well.

This is when Clarence Thomas will recuse himself on a vote.

 

[92tide]

 

[NationalTitles18]

SCOTUS has turned traditional conservative thought about rights on its head:

SCOTUS has now said that if people want recognition of their rights expanded then they must use the democratic process to enshrine those rights.

They said that those rights do not exist until and unless a legislative body codifies those rights.

Which presumably means those legislative bodies can also take away those rights at a later time.

But this is antithetical to the tradition of rights under the constitution and, until recently, in traditional conservative thought.

Amendment IX of the Constitutional lays this bare. It states:

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

That amendment was codified to allay fears that laying out a list of certain rights in the Constitution would cause some to believe that the Constitution granted some rights and that without their overt mention in the Constitution that some rights would go unrecognized.

Traditional conservative thought held that no legislative body grants rights and that rights pre-exist their recognition by governments and are thus not dependent on governments. They just are, whether governments recognize them or not.

SCOTUS turns this thought and tradition of American rights on its head by stating it is up to each state legislature or the Congress to recognize a woman's right to life and to health and to make medical decision regarding her own body.

They double down on this error by stating that if the authors of the 14th Amendment did not understand a right at the time they wrote that amendment then that right does not now exist at all until and unless a legislative body codifies it.

This is ludicrous on its face.

I see no way to reconcile the court's decision with conservative tradition or the Constitution.

 

[92tide]

I see no way to reconcile the court's decision with conservative tradition or the Constitution.

but it reconciles quite nicely with christian fascism.

 

[NationalTitles18]

but it reconciles quite nicely with christian fascism.

It does, whatever the label applied.

I skimmed the court's decision, including the concurring (in whole or part) and dissenting opinions (I wasn't going to read 213 pages word for word).

The "reasoning" laid out in that opinion is a complete farce.

 

[92tide]

It does, whatever the label applied.

I skimmed the court's decision, including the concurring (in whole or part) and dissenting opinions (I wasn't going to read 213 pages word for word).

The "reasoning" laid out in that opinion is a complete farce.

their reasoning is the same it has always been. rules are for thee, not we.

 

[NationalTitles18]

their reasoning is the same it has always been. rules are for thee, not we.

Yes, but Alito's pseudointellectualism combined with his arrogant ignorance is unbearable.

 

[92tide]

Yes, but Alito's pseudointellectualism combined with his arrogant ignorance is unbearable.

and unfortunately, it sells like hotcakes

 

[2003TIDE]

He's already spoken on CNN, urged federal law (futilely)...

Well if we don’t vote and let them take the house, senate, and White House in 2 years there will be a federal law(banning abortion.)

 

[Bamaro]

Thomas says Court should rethink precedents on contraception, same-sex marriage

As the U.S. Supreme Court announced its decision to strike down the decades-old rulings that once established a constitutional right to choose to have an abortion, Justice Clarence Thomas urged his colleagues to reevaluate other landmark cases protecting contraceptive access, same-sex relationships and same-sex marriages.

In a concurring opinion delivered Friday, Thomas suggested that the logic used by the court's conservative majority to overturn Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey could signal similar outcomes for cases that recognized other personal rights: Griswold v. Connecticut, Lawrence v. Texas, and Obergefell v. Hodges. In the Griswold case, in 1965, the court threw out a state law banning the use of contraception. Lawrence v. Texas, in 2003, established that states cannot criminalize private sex acts between consenting adults. And in Obergefell, in 2015, the court ruled same-sex couples have an equal right to marry.

"In the future, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell," he wrote.

Thomas says Court should rethink precedents on contraception, same-sex marriage (msn.com)

Maybe he sees this as an opening to ban interracial marriages too so he can get rid of that uppity white woman.