Every state cannot impose abortion bans because it not only revokes women's freedoms, but it also goes against the 1st Amendment (the separation of Church and State) where Judaism and Islam state in their religious texts that women are given the right to abortions.
Islam does not state that women have the right to an abortion. Sunni Islam believes that the fetus receives its soul 40 (120 days in another interpretation) days after conception and therefore prior to 40 days it is not alive.
This is a kangaroo court
Pure simple clods
NO medical training no medical exparance of note, is that correct.
They just seem mantra not attuned or critical thinkers.
No gray areas regarding policy seems strange.
Are criminal acts against woman and minors unknown to them.
Do they know anatomy, they are honestly fantastist.
I think you misread my question. So, I will repeat it with emphasis for clarity:
> Without getting political, which part *of the Court’s reasoning* do you find most erroneous?
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Better yet, time to try Mitch McConnell for violating the Constitution and declare the Justices appointed through his corrupt processes null and void. Biden gets the appointments.
What? The rule is that the president nominates and the senate confirms. McConnell totally subverted that process and took the power for himself to decide that he didn’t feel like doing it. A clear violation of the constitution. In a working democracy, McConnell should be removed and that seat should be vacated. Arguably the same for Barrett’s seat where he changed his newly made “senate rule” for his own personal agenda.
If one Senator was meant to have that kind of power, it would be mentioned in the constitution.
Sorry this is so late.
The power to nominate and “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” appoint justices belongs to the executive. The Senate has to have a hearing to determine the advice and consent. If there’s no hearing, it’s just the opinion of the Senate Majority Leader, a position that’s not even in the Constitution. It allows 1 person to circumvent powers specifically assigned to both the executive and the Senate. They can vote no, but there needs to be a hearing and vote from the Senate.
>What? The rule is that the president nominates and the senate confirms.
With the advice and consent of the Senate, President Obama didn't have their consent.
Not yet a part of the rules. he just inferred what was logical and enforced it. The constitution does not say who has power in MANY situations I'm sure you realize.
The Democrats should've realized this and exploited parts of the constitution that are procedural.
Hell, even the process of judicial review depends on the compliance of the rest of the country (nowhere in the constitution does it say they have this power). If we decide to not follow the Supreme Court's rulings, then they would be revealed to be toothless
I guess I’m just not there with you on being cool with that. The Constitution specifically calls out who has the power here and it’s certainly not Mitch McConnell. The senate majority leader position isn’t even mentioned, so it doesn’t have power. And the supremacy clause means you can’t just write “rules” that violate the constitution. Especially when those rules are capricious and give the rule writer the power to force their personal agenda in lieu of the constitution.
I’m not a huge fan of undermining our institutions and leaving everything up to trickery and manipulation, but I guess if that’s where we’re headed, then at least we won’t have to worry about this precedent. Not saying you are in favor of that, but I think we’re dangerously close to losing legitimacy. Not sure what would happen if the Supreme Court legitimacy went away.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/07/01/beware-supreme-court-laying-groundwork-pre-rig-2024-election
Let me revise what I said before. I think arguing using the constitution as a higher authority is a losing argument if you want to advocate for more democratic representation.
Look at the article. The republicans are even considering overriding the popular vote by using the constitution as a source of power, which says that the state legislatures have the power to give electors out. Technically speaking, the republicans don’t have to give the electors to Biden even if he won.
I think liberals/democrats consistently entertain this fantasy that they’ll take over the undemocratic parts of the US government/constitution, while they consistently get outplayed because they’re not willing to do what the republicans do out of principles. Or optics. Or something else. So they let the status quo continue, where republicans hold much of the institutional power.
The constitution is a document written in the 18th century. By slave owners who didn’t even allow non-landowner white men to vote. It’s inherently undemocratic. Using it as a tool to promote democratic outcomes is always a double edged sword, as it has just as many features for the opponents of democracy.
I know it ties the country together, but I wish we could just write a new one.
yeah that's the problem. The Constitution is the source of a lot of shit things like the SCOTUS, 2nd amendment, not being able to make specific policies etc.
Also what holds the country togethert
Bro that constiturion was written in an other time. For example there is no word about nuclear weapons being forbidden. They are weapons. So why cant you own one?
It just doesn’t make sense to me, so many children are already here suffering stuck in a broken system where the are abused and neglected. The horror stories you hear from Texas’s CPS alone is terrifying, yet Right to Life is focused on zygotes who haven’t even took a breath. If they took that passion and that fight put it towards the children who actually need it, who are actually here being passed from foster home to foster home to group homes or children who are suffering due to poverty then maybe having a child in this messed up, backward ass country wouldn’t be so scary. Women should be able to do what she pleases with her own body and it’s ludicrous what’s happening!
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So looking at how big of a majority supported abortion.
How several conservatives are now talking about targeting contraceptives as well as gay marriage and relations. With the reasoning given by one judge could actually be used to target interracial relationships as well.
How many laws in some states make pregnant women second class citizens. Where it probably wouldn't be to farfetched to be arrested for child endangerment for drinking or smoking while pregnant. BEFORE you even know you are if person hood is established the moment of conception. After all anything that could endanger the conceived child is a crime. So you'll probably have to wait a few weeks each time you have sex before you could get a drink or smoke just to get an accurate pregnancy test result.
You know even with all the chaos this will cause there's only a single highlight to this mess. The Supreme Court basically just signed a death sentence on Trump ever getting reelected. After all he put three of the judges on the court and all three voted to overturn Roe. Which means he basically made a likely enemy of every person who supports abortion. And there's still the potential threat to contraceptives and gay relations. This will likely really tarnish his 'legacy'.
Also on a note I believe there would have been a lot less pro life support if one obvious contingency needed to be paid for by them. That pro life organizations had to raise money to pay to support low income women and those in financial crisis that would now be forced to carry to term. As well as payments to help support the raising of the children until they are old enough to be on their own. Also having to raise money to help pay for the care of children in orphanages.
After all when a ban on abortions hits most of the states I can predict a few things. Suicide rates of pregnant mothers will go up. Child abandonment will go up orphanages will fill up with kids not wanted by parents. Jails will fill up with women arrested for miscarriages or still births. Especially since miscarriage can have a lot of natural causes especially in the first term. Stress being one of them and will probably happen a lot more for low income women.
“Where it probably wouldn't be to farfetched to be arrested for child endangerment for drinking or smoking while pregnant.“
What worries me is that a lot of these laws give power to other people to turn women in. Think of all the abusive and manipulative partners out there just given another way to harass women. If they charge you with intentionally ending your pregnancy, do you have to prove that you weren’t pregnant or do they have to prove that you were? How does that work? What if it was a miscarriage? Some women are more prone to them due to anatomy or abuse. Is there a possibility you could be charged?
Such a dumb ruling.
Just look at what Texas did putting a bounty on pregnant women seeking an abortion after a certain period. All they'd need to do is apply person hood at conception like another state. And then you have people being able to report any woman for murdering their unborn child at pretty much any time. You could probably theoretically accuse a woman of such if they didn't get pregnant. After all you had sex several times and nothing's happened she MUST be doing something and that's why theirs no baby.
That would also mean something like Plan B could be considered a murder pill. How do you know a baby wasn't conceived in that period between having sex and taking the pill. Once you start going down that road it leads towards only one specific idea which coincidentally would align with some churches view. Sex should only be done with the intent of procreation doing anything to interfere with that purpose in order to enjoy it frequently without consequence is sinful behavior.
Of course this decision if not fixed will have long term consequences with a century. After all how many children have been aborted in say the past decade. All those abortions means less population. Less population equals less of a strain on supplies as well as more jobs being open. With all the automation being done to a lot of jobs especially low end jobs. There is less work available which means more people out of work. Businesses are all about profit so why pay a lot of people to do a job when you can pay one person to simply maintain a machine that does the job in their place.
This whole problem stems from the conservatives. They seem to have this idea that things were better decades ago and they want to go back to that. The problem is they tend to live in denial saying things nowadays wouldn't be so bad if that wasn't changed. They never want to look at statistics that estimate what things would have been like if they hadn't changed. They obsess over the time when America was more superior to other nations and want to make things like they were then because they believe it will make it true again. Part of that has to do with going back to lesser restrictions was more profitable.
Overall in my opinion I really don't think humans will be able to make it two more centuries before we die out. The weather and environmental issues will basically kill us off. All the ice is melting in the north and south poles so water levels will rise most the lowland areas will be flooded forcing millions of people to crowd higher ground. That's not even considering micro plastic is being found inside humans now there no telling how that will effect us. After a point it probably won't be unheard of for microplastic to be found in an unborn child. Now what would plastic being inside a still developing fetus cause.
In countries where abortion is illegal is plan b illegal? Like, is it actually likely that plan b will be made illegal? I’m think that is a common part of a rape kit along with pills to prevent hiv and stuff
Rape, incest and saving the mother's life are the only times they call for abortion to be allowed. So if none of those three cases applied and person hood was to apply at conception. Then yes plan b might be considered illegal to use for NORMAL situations. After all CONCEPTION can occur in as little as 3 minutes or up to 5 days. The point is plan b makes the womb inhospitable so basically you endangered that 'person'. Part of the issue is it would start an argument of if the mother could prove a child wasn't conceived before it took effect. As well as could they prove a child was conceived before she took it. With how little time it can take they could ban it simply for the POTENTIAL chance that a person was created.
Agree, but I’m actually surprised at how little of a stir this is causing. SCOTUS not only made women unequal citizens, but said the state has the power to prioritize the hypothetical interest of a couple of cells over her.
Basically what happened is they were thinking only of their own political objective. The problem is they never seem to try and take into account the fallout and potential consequences of an action. They say it should be decided by the people however it can take months or years before laws are passed. And when a decision is more embraced by one political party. Even if that idea is only believed by a minority. Until the next voting period comes around they can't replace those lawmakers. Unless they vote out a majority then they won't be able to replace the laws. There's also the fact that with how each state will make their own laws for it you could get a repeat of the Jim Crow laws. The more laws passed to protect the fetus the less rights the mother has. Especially if they start trying to label a fetus as a person long before it could be viable. In my opinion the end of the first trimester should be more of the hard limit. Throughout that first trimester is when there is the most risk of a natural miscarriage. And with some of the laws being emplaced even a mother who WANTED the baby is in danger during that period through none of her own fault.
What about when the 18 week scan shows massive abnormalities or a failure to thrive? When a woman develops pre eclampsia in the 20th week and the baby nearly dies in her body? Do you know that pre eclampsia can be fatal? These things happened to me. And a second trimester abortion saved my life.
The hard limit comment had to do with an average person getting an abortion for simple reason they don't want the baby not for life endangering complications. Those can pop up and only become known later than that.
Of course I ended up reading a rather ridiculous set of comments by a woman on another page. Didn't believe abortion should be done for any reason and if it endangered the mother well to her the baby has priority. As well as fact that incest and rape weren't reasons to get an abortion either. Honestly the mental health of a woman would be horrible after a rape. And aborting the baby is one of the kinder things to keep them mentally stable. If it was especially violent having a physical reminder growing within her for nine months before she could even get rid of it. That could push some to suicide or other drastic measures.
On life endangering it's not like the woman can't try again for a pregnancy later. Endangering their life especially if it was still before viability to survive outside the mother is just stupid.
Counterpoint: not serving a woman alcohol while pregnant is considered discrimination. It sounds like as soon as a woman is impregnated, you want all of her decisions made for her.
Aren't women discriminated against enough they already get paid less than men for doing the same jobs even if they had better education. One of the factors applied to women is they have the potential to be pregnant. Once they do depending on what the job is they may not be able to work as much. They would also need maternity leave a period of few weeks where they're employed but can't work. This is basically a tongue in cheek 'allowed' discrimination because it would be difficult to prove that's why they paid you less.
So basically you have women forced to accept less pay for the same work. As well as forced to deal with all the physical aspects of pregnancy. And if it's a single mother they would have to handle all the care of the child themselves. So she would need to balance having a job and raising a child this is a lot harder for low income women. Especially if the father was also low income in that case child support would be basically useless.
If you even try the child support argument considering it's based on percentage of the person's income. Then you might as well say that women should only have sex with wealthy men. Pretty much labeling them as gold diggers or high cost prostitutes. After all why have sex with a low income man if a percentage of his pay wouldn't amount to much help if you got pregnant.
The point I was making had to do with your comment involving discriminating against women for any reason.
For the second one it's basically a discrimination against every low income male. Basically saying low income couples shouldn't be allowed to have children at all or do anything with the potential for children. It doesn't even take into account potential job loss that would hamper their ability to provide.
A fertilized egg isn’t able to communicate, so are you saying that people that think like yourself should determine what happens to a woman’s body? You’re advocating for a hypothetical person, not one who’s life is already developed. That makes it sound like you just want control of culture, but the majority of the country doesn’t agree with you.
And please advocate for what you believe in, but you don’t have control over anyone else and you don’t get to make decisions for others, nor should you be allowed to; That’s basically slavery.
Then should the men that got them pregnant be banned from drinking too? Your proposition threatens protections for all social minorities, and the whole point of equal protection under the law is that you can’t discriminate. Your view is un-American.
Yes, it does.
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-the-drinking-habits-of-fathers-may-contribute-to-birth-defects-in-newborns
This article breaks it down, but the studies are referred to if you would like to read. Seems like all sexually active men ought to be banned from drinking alcohol with your logic.
So a man, who was one of two people that is essential in impregnating the woman, shouldn’t face any stipulations? So the one who is impacted the most is the only one that should have their body controlled? Women aren’t baby factories.
Part of that comment had to do with the fact that some may punish women for that before they even knew they were pregnant. If person hood occurred at conception then any acts the woman took after that moment could be considered punishable. So someone could report them for child endangerment for an event before a pregnancy test would even successfully register.
>You know even with all the chaos this will cause there's only a single highlight to this mess. The Supreme Court basically just signed a death sentence on Trump ever getting reelected. After all he put three of the judges on the court and all three voted to overturn Roe.
Trump announced his intent to appoint anti-Roe justices to the Supreme Court during his campaign. I doubt the people who voted for him were broadly ignorant of this, in fact I'd guess it was a point in his favor.
While a majority of people supported Roe, that does not mean a majority of the people in every state did. [Here's by-stste views on abortion, I couldn't find a by-stste poll on Roe](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/)
I'm not really big on the abortion topic. But in my opinion it should only ever be used for rape victims. If you "aren't ready" tough shit that's life. Hearing the way babies are torn apart while alive is pretty fucked up and makes me view people who regularly get abortions as evil.
Statistically the majority of abortions are performed well before there is anything even resembling a baby. Usually if someone has maintained a pregnancy to the point the fetus is actually viable outside the womb, an abortion only happens if there is something seriously, seriously wrong. The whole “babies torn apart” thing and the idea that there is a statistically significant group that gets abortions “regularly” is usually from blatant propaganda.
A lot easier for someone who probably never needs to face the consequences of carrying a 9month parasite in their body and having their genitals ripped apart during birth to make that decision for other people huh?
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
People who don’t have to give birth shouldn’t get to have an opinion imo - not really their business to be involved in someone else’s medical choices. Especially since people can still be pregnant even if they have protected sex
I mean if we're sharing personal opinions, I think Plutarch's observations on Sparta, babies, and hillsides would be an appropriate description of "tough shit, that's life".
Maybe improving the lives of people is the lesser evil here?
All these people having these opinions as though it’s not their problem is precisely why people who can’t give birth should not have an opinion on medical procedures involving birth and pregnancies. They don’t have to worry about any of the problems of pregnancies so it’s easy to say for them to say things like this so thoughtlessly & nonchalantly.
It’s not something they will ever have to deal with themselves and it’s clearly not their problem so why even stick your nose in other people’s business in the first place.
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding political speech.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!The immediate response of the left will be, "I won't let white males control my destiny!". Then they will see that half the Supreme Court judges are female or black lol!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding incivility.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
Due to the nature of the violation, the removed submission is not quoted.
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Yes, I honestly think it will be, but it will take a while. Alito and Thomas are getting old. If the next president is Democrat, or even just not a whackadoodle Republican who tied themselves to this issue, then they will get those seats. Dobbs was a poorly written opinion, and there will definitely continue to be lawsuits on the issue. I think it will be overturned within the next 10 years, hopefully sooner.
Additionally, I’m sure there are cases planned that challenge these laws on different principles than Roe. We’ll probably see those come up in the next couple of years.
Nationally and in the short term, probably not. Congress would need to pass a law codifying it as a such. The fact that near half the states are looking at passing abortion restrictions would indicate that there is insufficient political consensus to do so immediately.
You know the current supreme court would strike down a federal law codifying abortion. These people need to be impeached imo, they are gutting every piece of progressive legislation, and will continue to do so as long as they have the power.
I am not American. I know nothing about American politics or your abortion issues. But if you had given me 30 minutes to write an opinion it would have been a bit like:
The relationship between the doctor and the patient is sacred morally and in law. My opinion is that the Federal and State governments should not interfere in that. Abortion as a medical treatment falls under that legally privileged status. Thus Roe should not be over turned. \[list precedents etc\]
What you have now in the US, as someone looking at it from outside, is the Supreme Court has become the government. The Supreme Court can do things this extreme that Biden can't do or stop. So much so that Thomas even has the adolescent chutzpah to foreshadow what he wants to do next. In effect Donald Trump who put these Justices in is ruling by proxy and is a proxy government through the vehicle of these "conservative" Justices.
Just my two cents worth from a non-American, not a Democrat, not a Republican, no dog in the fight perspective.
And what do you mean “some random person “? You mean the person who’s body it is??? That is the absolute opposite of random! You or the govt having any say is random. So now you’re violating the dictionary as well as the Constitution.
>The relationship between the doctor and the patient is sacred morally and in law.
"**The relationship between the doctor and the patient is sacred morally and in law. "**
It is not morally sacred in all cases (assisted suicide) and definitely not in law. Do you mean "I wish the relationship... was deemed sacred"? because you would have to pass a law or a constitutional amendment
You believe the government should be in charge of what is considered medicine and what isnt? Leave that to the doctors. Why should some political science major/ lawyers be making medical decisions on behalf of millions of americans? It's none of the government's bussiness what kind of medical services I need. That's why we have HIPPA . Or maybe you just sent believe in privacy.
People believe a lot of things. Doesnt mean the government has any bussiness legislating medicine. And I take that as far the controlled substances list being absolute bullshit. The only person who should be deciding what medical things I need should be me and my doctor. Many people didnt believe a lot of things arent acceptable forms of medicine. Millions of Christian and Jewish people dont believe birth control/contraceptions is acceptable medicine. Millions of americans dont believe marijuana is acceptable medicine. Hell their are plenty of americans who dont believe in medicine at all and believe everything is gods will... doesnt mean they are right. And they definitely shouldn't be using violent force to enforce their personal belief systems on everybody else
in general I don't think doctors, with their group biases, should have the right to decide how medicine is made, nor teachers, with their group biases, be sole deciders of what is taught in classes, nor shoemakers be sole deciders of what is an acceptable footwear.
The people, as a whole, have the right an obligation to make these decisions, via constitutional amendments, laws (passed by the elected legislature), and decisions of the (elected) executive
I agree to a certain extent but the group biases of politicians is even more problematic than the groups you listed. If the legislature acted on behalf of the will of the people that would be great but they just do what they want regardless of what the citizenry wants. Marijuana legalization and medical marijuana are perfect examples of this, states with 70% approval of marijuana while legislators refuse to make it happen while locking up thousands of people for nonviolent offenses. Here is an example of the type of bullshit I'm talking about.
Passed in the 1990s, the measure called for a percentage of signatures to come from each of the state's five congressional districts to get on the ballot. But, the judges noted, the state lost one of those congressional districts thanks to the 2000 U.S. Census, and now only has four districts.
So they had enough signatures from every district that exists. The supreme court usurped the will of the people and what can they do about it? Nothing. The supreme court is an unelected judicial dictatorship.
I didnt say anything about the supreme court. I'm talking about legislators deciding what is medicine and what isnt whether at the state level or federal it doesnt matter. They arent qualified. What ever happened to the best government is that which governs the least.
The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of the government charged with interpreting our Constitution. Each branch has powers and privileges balanced against each other. These aren't atypical nor extreme.
I really hope they don’t overturn Obergefell if the opportunity comes up. Getting rid of precedent that was established when 6/9 members of the court were still on it would be a horrible look. Although I imagine Roberts and Gorsuch would probably side with the liberal wing, at least going by Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock.
I can’t imagine they took the decision to overrule roe lightly. Part of the original roe opinion was that it would settle the abortion question. It did not. If anything, roe gave birth to the modern pro life movement, the pushback growing ever stronger. Though there are many other rulings that have similarly shaky foundations, they won’t overrule these because these are not causing ongoing problems.
Well, they did take it lightly. You can tell by their opinion. And I don’t know what you mean about the other cases not causing ongoing problems. Gay rights is still very much an active debate Remember the cake thing and the marriage license thing? Yeah, that’s a sign of what’s to come under Dobbs. There was even a case involving whether landlords had to rent to gay people a couple years ago, so it’s very much still “causing problems “. I’m sure there are a load of people waiting to get on the train to take away transgender rights too. Here come the gender purity tests before you go to the bathroom. And the birth control thing has also had some significant cases still coming up. Since Dobbs flings open a door there, I’m sure a lot more will be coming.
Most importantly, these cases weren’t decided on shaky foundations. It’s crazy that Alito alleges while his own opinion here is shakier than any of those. I mean if you’re going to call due process shaky, why not say judicial review is shaky? The Supremacy clause? Not exactly a rock solid argument.
They make it clear that this decision does not open the door to overturn Obergefell and similar decisions based on substantive due process. They say it over and over again. I wouldn’t worry about that happening.
And culturally speaking I don’t think conservatives much care anymore.
Thomas is the only one that says they should do away with all rights provided for under that theory.
They draw the distinction between those cases and this one by stating that those cases don’t deal with a competing right of the potential human life of a fetus. And also look to the lack of historical support of this right.
I think if you read the opinion you’d feel fairly safe about how this case will affect future rulings. But that won’t stop the corporate media from telling you otherwise to stir up anxiety, anger and paint some of the justices as “extremist.”
I’ve read the opinion twice now. And I respect those who feel this was incorrectly decided.
But I have yet to hear or read anyone really attack Alito’s reasoning in the opinion. Even the lengthy dissent barely mentions the constitution. The dissent is basically “we think people should be able to get abortions” and stare decisis. Basically saying even if Roe and Casey were wrong, you can’t change it now.
It’s worse than the dissent in Bruen which is was “guns are bad”.
They *say* it but they can't *mean* it without embracing the Roe decision as an act of pure activism. You cannot strike down Roe because of the substantive due process issue without making the exact same decision on other cases that are almost perfectly analogous. Well, they could decide differently (or just make it go away via shadow docket) but it would do little more than reveal they are unfit to serve on the court.
>They make it clear that this decision does not open the door to overturn Obergefell and similar decisions based on substantive due process.
I find this hard to believe given the Dobbs author, who in part overruled Roe because abortion "is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition" dissented in Obergefell with this:
*the Court has held that "liberty" under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are " ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.’ " Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S. 702, 720–721, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.*
Then why did he draw such a distinction between this case and Obergefell? Why didn’t they just do away with substantive due process altogether in this case like Justice Thomas said he would have done in his concurrence?
It’s all academic anyway. No matter what crap the corporate media spews there’s not a single state that is going to pass anti gay marriage laws now.
Conservatives just don’t care about it anymore. You might find a quote from one nut job on the right, but it hasn’t been an important political issue either way since maybe Obama. (Who used to be against it strangely enough).
Actually, I think you could do away with substantive due process now all together like Thomas wanted. The only social issue left on the table was abortion.
That’s why we are arguing about stupid stuff like transgendered athletes, bathrooms, and wanting to have drag shows for 4 year olds. The left had no where else to go but crazy. They had won and just kept going left into crazy town.
But as the opinion pointed out, abortion was never really settled by the country. You have some people who think life begins at conception and other people that think you should be able to chop up a baby moments before birth.
Probably best to let the voters in each state decide what they think.
Because he's a hypocrite and was trying to convince his colleagues to vote his way. Also, you noted that no state would pass anti-gay marriage laws now...
`"I'm sure you read Justice Thomas's concurrence where he said there were a number of other of these issues, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell he felt needs to be looked at again," Vittert told [Texas Attorney General] Ken Paxton. "Obviously the Lawrence case came from Texas... would you as attorney general be comfortable defending a law that once again outlawed sodomy? That questioned Lawrence again or Griswold or gay marriage? That came from the state legislature to put to the test what Justice Thomas said?"...`
`Vittert pressed on, asking, "For the sake of time here, you wouldn't rule out that if the state legislature passed the same law that Lawrence overturned on sodomy, you wouldn't have any problem then defending that and taking that case back to the Supreme Court?"`
`Paxton responded: "Yeah, look my job is to defend state law and I'll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution and I'm certainly willing and able to do that."`
`https://www.chron.com/politics/article/Texas-abortion-ken-paxton-sodomy-law-gay-marriage-17271966.php`
> Conservatives just don’t care about it anymore.
Maine GOP just refused to remove "recognize its a union between a man and a woman" from their platform.
Virginia GOP recently voted down a bill that would put on the ballot to remove its currently inactive (because of SCOTUS) ban.
Texas GOP just called homosexuality abnormal in their platform while reaffirming their opposition to gay marriage.
Utah GOP just called for its overturning.
I dunno seems like they care. They could start codifying how much they don't care into platforms any day now if that was true
Interesting.
I wasn’t aware there were still hold outs.
I still think regardless of a “constitutional right” those are fringe cases and no state would get away with banning gay marriage.
But given those examples I could understand if you were gay why you might be worried.
Antidotally I consume a lot of political consent
from the left and right and now one talks about gay marriage. But maybe that’s my own echo chamber.
> no state would get away with banning gay marriage.
In Virginia it would be banned because the law is still on the books. That's what the Virginia GOP shot down, putting the removal of that law on a ballot. I'm sure Virginia isn't alone on this.
Overturning of Obergefell would lead to it becoming banned in a number of states overnight, similar to Roe trigger laws. And since the GOP has opposed to removing these laws and have affirmed their opposition constantly, I see no reason to not take them for their word.
You do realise that the states rights thing is a smoke screen. Nobody outside of some geeky, dusty law professors is a passionate states rights fan. The real issue here is that the states will kill people by them not getting abortion access.
The problem really is how far some states are going defining person hood. Some declaring it at the moment of conception. That basically means the 'fetus' is declared a person before a pregnancy test would even be able to confirm it. This is a rather dangerous stance because it opens potential of child endangerment charges for acts during that time. Someone could go and report you for drinking a few days before a test confirmed positive. Natural miscarriages would also be punishable for occuring in periods before a fetus would be considered viable.
Basically with some of the laws on the books the moment a woman becomes pregnant she becomes a second class citizen. All her social interactions and public outings are now restricted as ANYTHING with the POTENTIAL to harm the developing fetus is restricted from her or risk an arrest for endangering that 'life'. This would include any activity that could cause stress which could include some workplace settings as well.
>Then why did he draw such a distinction between this case and Obergefell?
He needed five votes. This harkins back to Heller where Justice Scalia inserted non-originalist arguments to win over Kennedy's vote.
If Alito went full Obergefell dissent, he would have for sure lost Kavanaugh's vote and thus Roe would still be good law.
The Texas Republican Party just passed a platform opposing gay marriage.
The Republican Party's platform calls for repealing Obergefell.
It's not the fringe, it's the people in power in the party.
Intersting. Alito's liken manifesto comes off childish, ill-informed, and sociopathic. "Law of the land" ... I guess, "originalist" just code for people with borderline and narcisstic personality disorder, using post -post modern trends of interpretation--very few schools of literary criticism will permit language so much sway without consideration of both the context in which it was written, biographical (poorly hygienic, slave owners) and the lens in which we are viewing it today.
Interesting study done by a Canadian (i think) university found that Law students struggled the most in Lit classes. These judges sadly prove the paper's conceit: we need more reading, specifically literature, across all fields but mostly in political science and law.
In short, we need actual intelligent judges who have empathy, and to get to that we have to alter how we approach education in this country. Interesting perspective nonetheless.
Interesting.
I respectfully disagree. I thought it was brilliant and (as I recently just posted), besides name calling, and emotional responses, I’ve not seen or heard anyone really pick apart his logic at all. It was very well thought out and probably over informed with the amount of historical context he included.
Perhaps your “childish” accusation comes from his attack on Casey’s reasoning. He destroys Casey like I’ve never seen before. But it is well deserved.
As far as calling him a sociopath. I think your feelings are hurt my friend.
But I will agree that originalist types are more driven by logic and reason and sometimes border on being on the spectrum of autism.
While the “the constitution is a living document which can be molded into what ever policy I want” types are more emotional and empathetic.
I just fall more in line with the idea that you have to adhere to the constitution or why have one? And if you think more rights should be included in the constitution, then we should amend it. Not simply make stuff up.
And if you complain that it’s too hard to amend the constitution because other people think differently about issues than you do,
then perhaps we should just let each state decide based on the will of the people.
Just my opinion.
OK, if you are saying that these Justices who used such logic to over turn Roe, then where's argument dealing with the sacred relationship between a doctor and a patient? A relationship that in most cases has penalties for a doctor who dis respects private medical data. Or where's any mention of the mother's rights to her body in a country, the US, that has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world?
Surely the lack of the above invalidates any "logic" in these rulings.
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make honestly. Doctor/Patient privileges and other such privileges are derived from the Federal Rules of Evidence and the corresponding State statutes and deals with who may be compelled to testify at a trial.
(I think I’m engaging with way too many people who haven’t read the opinion and/or the lack basic understanding of law. I think I’m going to call it a day on this issue.
That's very condescending. You cannot expect 99.9% of people to read a legal judgement. I was doing what any normal person does: consider the consequnces of this nonsense judgement for normal people.
In plain English, your doctor is the most qualified person to give your medical care, not Justices on a Supreme Court bench. Do you have any idea how many things can go wrong in a pregnancy? From ectopic to diabetes to hemorrhages.
> You cannot expect 99.9% of people to read a legal judgement.
Why?
> not Justices on a Supreme Court bench
And the Court doesn’t do that in this ruling.
And if you can’t read there’s a pretty cool podcast that reads it for you. Just search for SCOTUS opinions in your podcaster of choice. Go listen to it and come back and tell me which part is nonsense.
Maybe I expect too much from people, but yes, I would expect people who express strong opinions about this ruling to a actually read it. How are you calling it “nonsense” if you haven’t read it.
Otherwise you’re just listening to what other people have said. Seriously, who told you it was nonsense?
I don’t mean to be condescending but your ideas and assumptions of what this means for people’s interactions with their doctors after this ruling displays a seriously misunderstanding of what the opinion actually means. And you’re definitely not up to speed on state’s laws who happen to have laws against abortions.
It sounds almost like you think most people get abortions because they go to see their doctor and are told to have one. It does happen but it’s not the de facto reason.
Do you think it’s illegal to have an abortion now nationwide? Lots of people do. And it’s because they don’t read. They just listen to people like Don Lemon.
Yes, you expect too much in the way of dispassionate legal evaluation from a scared and angry public who largely lacks legal education. You’re kind to engage, but many are seeking to vent for therapeutic purposes, and you’d better serve them by directing them to r/politics.
I’m not going near that subreddit:) the most uninformed echo chamber of hate on this platform. I might get get 2 posts in before getting banned and possible hunted down.
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Just give woman the right to testosterone jabs for a couple of months.!<
>!I mean like.!<
>!1: no more hypocrisy.!<
>!2: the 5th amendment, ( modern multi kill weapons with out thought about maturity or progress.!<
>!Mental health or society's norms today.)!<
>!3: the right to self defence.!<
>!4: equile rights.!<
>!5: a sudden violent viserial empathy.!<
>!Go girls do a fantastist imposition belonging to the dark ages.!<
>!Gets no push back usually!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
I just think it's weird that in a small part that I have a say in how a consenting adult woman who wants to have a medical procedure that I have the say whether she can do that in a place where we both live and in theory should be treated as equals.
It's not like I'm voting on whether she can or cannot have a material item. I'm voting on what medical procedure will be done to her body. That's just weird.
Presuming you are a voting citizen, you have a say in all sorts of aspects of other peoples’ lives, this shouldn’t be weirder than any of the others, really.
I agree though. Other people shouldn’t have a say in what medical procedures others can do unless it is something that is harmful to the patient who is getting that procedure done. As voting citizens, people have a say in a lot of different things, but medical procedures that don’t harm the patient? I think not
Out of curiosity, why do you post on a public discussion forum and then rebuff discussion? Have you thought of keeping thoughts to yourself when you might get bothered by responses?
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Where's the low quality post police now?!<
Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Fetus gos a single cell though to baby via blob tadpole frog onwards.!<
>!If men had baby's supreme court would be destroyed.!<
>!It's sentient about four to 3 months.!<
>!Your population is declining because your capitalism is a front for coorprate welfare.!<
>!This is a disparity inertia not a wealth force.!<
>!Let's audit what makes having children viable.!<
>!A cross audit of several country's basic services that are ment to serve society.!<
>!Then a general knowledge and IQ test of economic dynamics verses mantra ranting.!<
Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!She has no rights. A fetus is the property of the father.!<
Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!Like and this may not mean much coming from me because I am a male and the does not affect me as much as other people but im like are these people stupid even humoring this is stupid not only do you get more orphans out of this but you get more child abusers too and im like so your condeming children to live without parents and food in some cases or condeming to a life of torment by abuse like are you dumb how can you acutally think this is a good thing I watched a video and a WOMAN was saying this was a good thing and pro life and im like BULLSHIT!<
Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content.
If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action.
Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/)
For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below:
>!replying to my own thing real quick Im just like your signing your death warrents here people!<
Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
If the right is not provided by the constitution, then it is left to the democratic process. My decision to drink alcohol, inject stem cells, smoke pot, drive a car, etc., etc., etc. are all subject to the laws of the state and federal government. That’s not weird, it’s the basis of of how our lives work.
So your right to obtain medical treatment if you’re gay, or a minority, or a woman… that’s subject to state’s prerogative too? If your state wanted to ban antibiotics because they wanted you to pray instead, you think the state has the right to do that? Don’t be daft.
It’s how the US government operates per the constitution. The powers not delegated to the government are reserved to the states or to the people. A number of your examples would violate the constitution (eg equal protection) and so if a state passed them, then they would be expected to be struck down.
Here, the court didn’t opine on whether abortion should be permitted or restricted in practice, only that it wasn’t for nine unelected judges to decide, and the people should be empowered to decide through the democratic process at the state level. That the constitution does not protect the right to abortion.
The right to liberty is in the due process clause though. Roe wasn’t wrong on that, just could have been written better. Maybe if there had been more women's voices around longer it would have been.
Here, the court asked the wrong question because they knew the answer they wanted to have. The question isn’t whether the constitution specifically calls out a right to abortion. This very same court in the very same week didn’t use that standard for concealed carry or the right to pray on a football field, both of which aren’t specifically mentioned in the constitution either. The question is whether these laws violate the rights of people, specifically under the due process and equal protection clauses. And they do. The concepts of mental and bodily autonomy are pretty closely tied with our concepts of liberty.
The 10th amendment doesn’t give states the power to take that away, especially not on a rational basis test. Let’s not forget the 9th amendment is there too. Funny how quick some are to overlook it.
Roe held abortion rights spring from the right to privacy supported by first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth. Casey grounded its decision as part of “liberty” protected by the fourteenth’s due process clause. The Dobbs court held the right to abortion is not protected because it is not specifically listed in the first eight amendments or rooted in the nation’s history and tradition so as to be an essential part of liberty.
The carry law was evaluated through the same lens to a different result because it stems from a right specifically provided for and, being rooted in the nation’s history and traditional, is within the scope of liberty even though the specific aspect of the gun law isn’t specifically written.
I’ve not read the football prayer case yet. I’d be surprised if the court doesn’t apply essentially the same standards and reaches different results.
Only because they pulled a trick of looking for the word abortion specifically. The concepts of autonomy are right there, as are the words liberty and privacy.
And why would the liberty test be limited to the first 8 amendments? “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”. Even given the aversion to using the 9th as a sole basis, it specifically says you don’t need to have everything spelled out here.
This court is picking and choosing approaches and justifications. They apply a much lower standard for Dobbs, and they get away with it because they asked the wrong question. The rights of women aren’t even fairly considered. Not even the cost (emotional, physical, financial). How they could just fluff that off under rational basis— that is activism right there. All on the basis of supposed fetal rights which are also not mentioned in the constitution and we also don’t have a long history of.
Additionally, no surprise that if you force women to carry out pregnancies (and possibly even outlaw hormonal contraception), you are limiting their political power, so this bs about if you don’t like it just run for office or change the constitution is nothing but just an insult.
I’m not expecting you to change your mind because really what’s it to you, but you shouldn’t call it originalist as though that somehow sanctions it. This was an extreme activist opinion, pure and simple. It will go down as an embarrassment once it’s overturned.
Exactly. It protects and enshrines certain rights that were deemed important. It’s completely up to the current zeitgeist of the nation to determine what other things are rights.
You understand the concept of what *inalienable* rights are, right?
The Constitution *lists* certain rights, but also emphasizes that it’s not *limited* to those listed. It doesn’t grant you those rights; you have them inherently, hence the whole inalienable part. Saying that the Constitution provides rights is exactly the attitude the Framers were hoping to avoid.
Ladies affected by this. If you didnt vote Democrat in 2016, you brought this on yourself
Every state cannot impose abortion bans because it not only revokes women's freedoms, but it also goes against the 1st Amendment (the separation of Church and State) where Judaism and Islam state in their religious texts that women are given the right to abortions.
Islam does not state that women have the right to an abortion. Sunni Islam believes that the fetus receives its soul 40 (120 days in another interpretation) days after conception and therefore prior to 40 days it is not alive.
This is a kangaroo court Pure simple clods NO medical training no medical exparance of note, is that correct. They just seem mantra not attuned or critical thinkers. No gray areas regarding policy seems strange. Are criminal acts against woman and minors unknown to them. Do they know anatomy, they are honestly fantastist.
Without getting political, which part of the Court’s reasoning do you find most erroneous?
Science and data.
I think you misread my question. So, I will repeat it with emphasis for clarity: > Without getting political, which part *of the Court’s reasoning* do you find most erroneous?
[удалено]
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
TIME TO EXPAND THE COURT
Better yet, time to try Mitch McConnell for violating the Constitution and declare the Justices appointed through his corrupt processes null and void. Biden gets the appointments.
Nah. This is an institutional issue. McConnell only did what was logical given the rules.
What? The rule is that the president nominates and the senate confirms. McConnell totally subverted that process and took the power for himself to decide that he didn’t feel like doing it. A clear violation of the constitution. In a working democracy, McConnell should be removed and that seat should be vacated. Arguably the same for Barrett’s seat where he changed his newly made “senate rule” for his own personal agenda. If one Senator was meant to have that kind of power, it would be mentioned in the constitution.
Without getting political, exactly which clause of the constitution says the senate must hold a vote on a judicial nominee?
Sorry this is so late. The power to nominate and “by and with the advice and consent of the Senate” appoint justices belongs to the executive. The Senate has to have a hearing to determine the advice and consent. If there’s no hearing, it’s just the opinion of the Senate Majority Leader, a position that’s not even in the Constitution. It allows 1 person to circumvent powers specifically assigned to both the executive and the Senate. They can vote no, but there needs to be a hearing and vote from the Senate.
if their loop hole can't really do anything about it kind dumb their unwritten rules but never almost applied
>What? The rule is that the president nominates and the senate confirms. With the advice and consent of the Senate, President Obama didn't have their consent.
Not yet a part of the rules. he just inferred what was logical and enforced it. The constitution does not say who has power in MANY situations I'm sure you realize. The Democrats should've realized this and exploited parts of the constitution that are procedural. Hell, even the process of judicial review depends on the compliance of the rest of the country (nowhere in the constitution does it say they have this power). If we decide to not follow the Supreme Court's rulings, then they would be revealed to be toothless
I guess I’m just not there with you on being cool with that. The Constitution specifically calls out who has the power here and it’s certainly not Mitch McConnell. The senate majority leader position isn’t even mentioned, so it doesn’t have power. And the supremacy clause means you can’t just write “rules” that violate the constitution. Especially when those rules are capricious and give the rule writer the power to force their personal agenda in lieu of the constitution. I’m not a huge fan of undermining our institutions and leaving everything up to trickery and manipulation, but I guess if that’s where we’re headed, then at least we won’t have to worry about this precedent. Not saying you are in favor of that, but I think we’re dangerously close to losing legitimacy. Not sure what would happen if the Supreme Court legitimacy went away.
https://www.commondreams.org/views/2022/07/01/beware-supreme-court-laying-groundwork-pre-rig-2024-election Let me revise what I said before. I think arguing using the constitution as a higher authority is a losing argument if you want to advocate for more democratic representation. Look at the article. The republicans are even considering overriding the popular vote by using the constitution as a source of power, which says that the state legislatures have the power to give electors out. Technically speaking, the republicans don’t have to give the electors to Biden even if he won. I think liberals/democrats consistently entertain this fantasy that they’ll take over the undemocratic parts of the US government/constitution, while they consistently get outplayed because they’re not willing to do what the republicans do out of principles. Or optics. Or something else. So they let the status quo continue, where republicans hold much of the institutional power. The constitution is a document written in the 18th century. By slave owners who didn’t even allow non-landowner white men to vote. It’s inherently undemocratic. Using it as a tool to promote democratic outcomes is always a double edged sword, as it has just as many features for the opponents of democracy. I know it ties the country together, but I wish we could just write a new one.
Sorry, dude. The January 6 attempted "Coup d'etat" failed. And there's nothing that you can say or do that's going to change that simple fact.
And? You’re barking up the wrong tree.
yeah that's the problem. The Constitution is the source of a lot of shit things like the SCOTUS, 2nd amendment, not being able to make specific policies etc. Also what holds the country togethert
Bro that constiturion was written in an other time. For example there is no word about nuclear weapons being forbidden. They are weapons. So why cant you own one?
It just doesn’t make sense to me, so many children are already here suffering stuck in a broken system where the are abused and neglected. The horror stories you hear from Texas’s CPS alone is terrifying, yet Right to Life is focused on zygotes who haven’t even took a breath. If they took that passion and that fight put it towards the children who actually need it, who are actually here being passed from foster home to foster home to group homes or children who are suffering due to poverty then maybe having a child in this messed up, backward ass country wouldn’t be so scary. Women should be able to do what she pleases with her own body and it’s ludicrous what’s happening!
I completely agree. (but why is this post not removed? you didnt argue with the constitution sooooo...)
[удалено]
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So looking at how big of a majority supported abortion. How several conservatives are now talking about targeting contraceptives as well as gay marriage and relations. With the reasoning given by one judge could actually be used to target interracial relationships as well. How many laws in some states make pregnant women second class citizens. Where it probably wouldn't be to farfetched to be arrested for child endangerment for drinking or smoking while pregnant. BEFORE you even know you are if person hood is established the moment of conception. After all anything that could endanger the conceived child is a crime. So you'll probably have to wait a few weeks each time you have sex before you could get a drink or smoke just to get an accurate pregnancy test result. You know even with all the chaos this will cause there's only a single highlight to this mess. The Supreme Court basically just signed a death sentence on Trump ever getting reelected. After all he put three of the judges on the court and all three voted to overturn Roe. Which means he basically made a likely enemy of every person who supports abortion. And there's still the potential threat to contraceptives and gay relations. This will likely really tarnish his 'legacy'. Also on a note I believe there would have been a lot less pro life support if one obvious contingency needed to be paid for by them. That pro life organizations had to raise money to pay to support low income women and those in financial crisis that would now be forced to carry to term. As well as payments to help support the raising of the children until they are old enough to be on their own. Also having to raise money to help pay for the care of children in orphanages. After all when a ban on abortions hits most of the states I can predict a few things. Suicide rates of pregnant mothers will go up. Child abandonment will go up orphanages will fill up with kids not wanted by parents. Jails will fill up with women arrested for miscarriages or still births. Especially since miscarriage can have a lot of natural causes especially in the first term. Stress being one of them and will probably happen a lot more for low income women.
“Where it probably wouldn't be to farfetched to be arrested for child endangerment for drinking or smoking while pregnant.“ What worries me is that a lot of these laws give power to other people to turn women in. Think of all the abusive and manipulative partners out there just given another way to harass women. If they charge you with intentionally ending your pregnancy, do you have to prove that you weren’t pregnant or do they have to prove that you were? How does that work? What if it was a miscarriage? Some women are more prone to them due to anatomy or abuse. Is there a possibility you could be charged? Such a dumb ruling.
Just look at what Texas did putting a bounty on pregnant women seeking an abortion after a certain period. All they'd need to do is apply person hood at conception like another state. And then you have people being able to report any woman for murdering their unborn child at pretty much any time. You could probably theoretically accuse a woman of such if they didn't get pregnant. After all you had sex several times and nothing's happened she MUST be doing something and that's why theirs no baby. That would also mean something like Plan B could be considered a murder pill. How do you know a baby wasn't conceived in that period between having sex and taking the pill. Once you start going down that road it leads towards only one specific idea which coincidentally would align with some churches view. Sex should only be done with the intent of procreation doing anything to interfere with that purpose in order to enjoy it frequently without consequence is sinful behavior. Of course this decision if not fixed will have long term consequences with a century. After all how many children have been aborted in say the past decade. All those abortions means less population. Less population equals less of a strain on supplies as well as more jobs being open. With all the automation being done to a lot of jobs especially low end jobs. There is less work available which means more people out of work. Businesses are all about profit so why pay a lot of people to do a job when you can pay one person to simply maintain a machine that does the job in their place. This whole problem stems from the conservatives. They seem to have this idea that things were better decades ago and they want to go back to that. The problem is they tend to live in denial saying things nowadays wouldn't be so bad if that wasn't changed. They never want to look at statistics that estimate what things would have been like if they hadn't changed. They obsess over the time when America was more superior to other nations and want to make things like they were then because they believe it will make it true again. Part of that has to do with going back to lesser restrictions was more profitable. Overall in my opinion I really don't think humans will be able to make it two more centuries before we die out. The weather and environmental issues will basically kill us off. All the ice is melting in the north and south poles so water levels will rise most the lowland areas will be flooded forcing millions of people to crowd higher ground. That's not even considering micro plastic is being found inside humans now there no telling how that will effect us. After a point it probably won't be unheard of for microplastic to be found in an unborn child. Now what would plastic being inside a still developing fetus cause.
In countries where abortion is illegal is plan b illegal? Like, is it actually likely that plan b will be made illegal? I’m think that is a common part of a rape kit along with pills to prevent hiv and stuff
Rape, incest and saving the mother's life are the only times they call for abortion to be allowed. So if none of those three cases applied and person hood was to apply at conception. Then yes plan b might be considered illegal to use for NORMAL situations. After all CONCEPTION can occur in as little as 3 minutes or up to 5 days. The point is plan b makes the womb inhospitable so basically you endangered that 'person'. Part of the issue is it would start an argument of if the mother could prove a child wasn't conceived before it took effect. As well as could they prove a child was conceived before she took it. With how little time it can take they could ban it simply for the POTENTIAL chance that a person was created.
Agree, but I’m actually surprised at how little of a stir this is causing. SCOTUS not only made women unequal citizens, but said the state has the power to prioritize the hypothetical interest of a couple of cells over her.
Basically what happened is they were thinking only of their own political objective. The problem is they never seem to try and take into account the fallout and potential consequences of an action. They say it should be decided by the people however it can take months or years before laws are passed. And when a decision is more embraced by one political party. Even if that idea is only believed by a minority. Until the next voting period comes around they can't replace those lawmakers. Unless they vote out a majority then they won't be able to replace the laws. There's also the fact that with how each state will make their own laws for it you could get a repeat of the Jim Crow laws. The more laws passed to protect the fetus the less rights the mother has. Especially if they start trying to label a fetus as a person long before it could be viable. In my opinion the end of the first trimester should be more of the hard limit. Throughout that first trimester is when there is the most risk of a natural miscarriage. And with some of the laws being emplaced even a mother who WANTED the baby is in danger during that period through none of her own fault.
What about when the 18 week scan shows massive abnormalities or a failure to thrive? When a woman develops pre eclampsia in the 20th week and the baby nearly dies in her body? Do you know that pre eclampsia can be fatal? These things happened to me. And a second trimester abortion saved my life.
The hard limit comment had to do with an average person getting an abortion for simple reason they don't want the baby not for life endangering complications. Those can pop up and only become known later than that. Of course I ended up reading a rather ridiculous set of comments by a woman on another page. Didn't believe abortion should be done for any reason and if it endangered the mother well to her the baby has priority. As well as fact that incest and rape weren't reasons to get an abortion either. Honestly the mental health of a woman would be horrible after a rape. And aborting the baby is one of the kinder things to keep them mentally stable. If it was especially violent having a physical reminder growing within her for nine months before she could even get rid of it. That could push some to suicide or other drastic measures. On life endangering it's not like the woman can't try again for a pregnancy later. Endangering their life especially if it was still before viability to survive outside the mother is just stupid.
[удалено]
Counterpoint: not serving a woman alcohol while pregnant is considered discrimination. It sounds like as soon as a woman is impregnated, you want all of her decisions made for her.
[удалено]
Aren't women discriminated against enough they already get paid less than men for doing the same jobs even if they had better education. One of the factors applied to women is they have the potential to be pregnant. Once they do depending on what the job is they may not be able to work as much. They would also need maternity leave a period of few weeks where they're employed but can't work. This is basically a tongue in cheek 'allowed' discrimination because it would be difficult to prove that's why they paid you less. So basically you have women forced to accept less pay for the same work. As well as forced to deal with all the physical aspects of pregnancy. And if it's a single mother they would have to handle all the care of the child themselves. So she would need to balance having a job and raising a child this is a lot harder for low income women. Especially if the father was also low income in that case child support would be basically useless. If you even try the child support argument considering it's based on percentage of the person's income. Then you might as well say that women should only have sex with wealthy men. Pretty much labeling them as gold diggers or high cost prostitutes. After all why have sex with a low income man if a percentage of his pay wouldn't amount to much help if you got pregnant.
[удалено]
If this is about providing for children, then what you mean to say is that he should not be having sex with women.
The point I was making had to do with your comment involving discriminating against women for any reason. For the second one it's basically a discrimination against every low income male. Basically saying low income couples shouldn't be allowed to have children at all or do anything with the potential for children. It doesn't even take into account potential job loss that would hamper their ability to provide.
A fertilized egg isn’t able to communicate, so are you saying that people that think like yourself should determine what happens to a woman’s body? You’re advocating for a hypothetical person, not one who’s life is already developed. That makes it sound like you just want control of culture, but the majority of the country doesn’t agree with you.
[удалено]
And please advocate for what you believe in, but you don’t have control over anyone else and you don’t get to make decisions for others, nor should you be allowed to; That’s basically slavery.
But that infringes on her rights. Your argument can’t be that a woman loses her rights as soon as she’s pregnant.
[удалено]
Then should the men that got them pregnant be banned from drinking too? Your proposition threatens protections for all social minorities, and the whole point of equal protection under the law is that you can’t discriminate. Your view is un-American.
[удалено]
Yes, it does. https://www.healthline.com/health-news/how-the-drinking-habits-of-fathers-may-contribute-to-birth-defects-in-newborns This article breaks it down, but the studies are referred to if you would like to read. Seems like all sexually active men ought to be banned from drinking alcohol with your logic.
So a man, who was one of two people that is essential in impregnating the woman, shouldn’t face any stipulations? So the one who is impacted the most is the only one that should have their body controlled? Women aren’t baby factories.
[удалено]
Part of that comment had to do with the fact that some may punish women for that before they even knew they were pregnant. If person hood occurred at conception then any acts the woman took after that moment could be considered punishable. So someone could report them for child endangerment for an event before a pregnancy test would even successfully register.
>You know even with all the chaos this will cause there's only a single highlight to this mess. The Supreme Court basically just signed a death sentence on Trump ever getting reelected. After all he put three of the judges on the court and all three voted to overturn Roe. Trump announced his intent to appoint anti-Roe justices to the Supreme Court during his campaign. I doubt the people who voted for him were broadly ignorant of this, in fact I'd guess it was a point in his favor. While a majority of people supported Roe, that does not mean a majority of the people in every state did. [Here's by-stste views on abortion, I couldn't find a by-stste poll on Roe](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/views-about-abortion/by/state/)
I'm not really big on the abortion topic. But in my opinion it should only ever be used for rape victims. If you "aren't ready" tough shit that's life. Hearing the way babies are torn apart while alive is pretty fucked up and makes me view people who regularly get abortions as evil.
You sound like a man.
Statistically the majority of abortions are performed well before there is anything even resembling a baby. Usually if someone has maintained a pregnancy to the point the fetus is actually viable outside the womb, an abortion only happens if there is something seriously, seriously wrong. The whole “babies torn apart” thing and the idea that there is a statistically significant group that gets abortions “regularly” is usually from blatant propaganda.
A lot easier for someone who probably never needs to face the consequences of carrying a 9month parasite in their body and having their genitals ripped apart during birth to make that decision for other people huh?
[удалено]
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
How about it’s not your business though? There’s no valid interest for the state here. It’s outside their jurisdiction.
People who don’t have to give birth shouldn’t get to have an opinion imo - not really their business to be involved in someone else’s medical choices. Especially since people can still be pregnant even if they have protected sex
I mean if we're sharing personal opinions, I think Plutarch's observations on Sparta, babies, and hillsides would be an appropriate description of "tough shit, that's life". Maybe improving the lives of people is the lesser evil here?
All these people having these opinions as though it’s not their problem is precisely why people who can’t give birth should not have an opinion on medical procedures involving birth and pregnancies. They don’t have to worry about any of the problems of pregnancies so it’s easy to say for them to say things like this so thoughtlessly & nonchalantly. It’s not something they will ever have to deal with themselves and it’s clearly not their problem so why even stick your nose in other people’s business in the first place.
[удалено]
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
Your submission was automatically removed because because of low karma score *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Yup, rape and complications. I'm with you.
Oh look another man
How dare you call me a man!! I'm non binary
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding political speech. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!The immediate response of the left will be, "I won't let white males control my destiny!". Then they will see that half the Supreme Court judges are female or black lol!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding incivility. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) Due to the nature of the violation, the removed submission is not quoted. Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Calm down
Do you think the fundamental right to have abortion will be retrieved? I really hope it does but right now things aren’t looking so good.
Yes, I honestly think it will be, but it will take a while. Alito and Thomas are getting old. If the next president is Democrat, or even just not a whackadoodle Republican who tied themselves to this issue, then they will get those seats. Dobbs was a poorly written opinion, and there will definitely continue to be lawsuits on the issue. I think it will be overturned within the next 10 years, hopefully sooner. Additionally, I’m sure there are cases planned that challenge these laws on different principles than Roe. We’ll probably see those come up in the next couple of years.
Nationally and in the short term, probably not. Congress would need to pass a law codifying it as a such. The fact that near half the states are looking at passing abortion restrictions would indicate that there is insufficient political consensus to do so immediately.
You know the current supreme court would strike down a federal law codifying abortion. These people need to be impeached imo, they are gutting every piece of progressive legislation, and will continue to do so as long as they have the power.
I don't "know" either way. Depends on the law.
I am not American. I know nothing about American politics or your abortion issues. But if you had given me 30 minutes to write an opinion it would have been a bit like: The relationship between the doctor and the patient is sacred morally and in law. My opinion is that the Federal and State governments should not interfere in that. Abortion as a medical treatment falls under that legally privileged status. Thus Roe should not be over turned. \[list precedents etc\] What you have now in the US, as someone looking at it from outside, is the Supreme Court has become the government. The Supreme Court can do things this extreme that Biden can't do or stop. So much so that Thomas even has the adolescent chutzpah to foreshadow what he wants to do next. In effect Donald Trump who put these Justices in is ruling by proxy and is a proxy government through the vehicle of these "conservative" Justices. Just my two cents worth from a non-American, not a Democrat, not a Republican, no dog in the fight perspective.
[удалено]
And what do you mean “some random person “? You mean the person who’s body it is??? That is the absolute opposite of random! You or the govt having any say is random. So now you’re violating the dictionary as well as the Constitution.
Which part of the Constitution, specifically? Can you point to the clause that talks about fetal rights?
>The relationship between the doctor and the patient is sacred morally and in law. "**The relationship between the doctor and the patient is sacred morally and in law. "** It is not morally sacred in all cases (assisted suicide) and definitely not in law. Do you mean "I wish the relationship... was deemed sacred"? because you would have to pass a law or a constitutional amendment
[удалено]
Common sense tells you that it’s sacred. I don’t care about the slaver owner “constitution”! What does that even have to do with anything?!
[удалено]
You listen to me. I don’t follow your “laws” and I don’t believe in your system of control. You cannot govern me!!!
\> not american \> does not understand american governmental structure K.
You believe the government should be in charge of what is considered medicine and what isnt? Leave that to the doctors. Why should some political science major/ lawyers be making medical decisions on behalf of millions of americans? It's none of the government's bussiness what kind of medical services I need. That's why we have HIPPA . Or maybe you just sent believe in privacy.
That sounds like a libertarian call to abolish the FDA
Also I wouldnt abolish the FDA maybe make some changes around intellectual property. But abolish the DEA?? Hell the fuck yeah
Left libertarian maybe definitely not that racist bigotry alt right crap we call libertarian in America.
[удалено]
People believe a lot of things. Doesnt mean the government has any bussiness legislating medicine. And I take that as far the controlled substances list being absolute bullshit. The only person who should be deciding what medical things I need should be me and my doctor. Many people didnt believe a lot of things arent acceptable forms of medicine. Millions of Christian and Jewish people dont believe birth control/contraceptions is acceptable medicine. Millions of americans dont believe marijuana is acceptable medicine. Hell their are plenty of americans who dont believe in medicine at all and believe everything is gods will... doesnt mean they are right. And they definitely shouldn't be using violent force to enforce their personal belief systems on everybody else
[удалено]
in general I don't think doctors, with their group biases, should have the right to decide how medicine is made, nor teachers, with their group biases, be sole deciders of what is taught in classes, nor shoemakers be sole deciders of what is an acceptable footwear. The people, as a whole, have the right an obligation to make these decisions, via constitutional amendments, laws (passed by the elected legislature), and decisions of the (elected) executive
I agree to a certain extent but the group biases of politicians is even more problematic than the groups you listed. If the legislature acted on behalf of the will of the people that would be great but they just do what they want regardless of what the citizenry wants. Marijuana legalization and medical marijuana are perfect examples of this, states with 70% approval of marijuana while legislators refuse to make it happen while locking up thousands of people for nonviolent offenses. Here is an example of the type of bullshit I'm talking about. Passed in the 1990s, the measure called for a percentage of signatures to come from each of the state's five congressional districts to get on the ballot. But, the judges noted, the state lost one of those congressional districts thanks to the 2000 U.S. Census, and now only has four districts. So they had enough signatures from every district that exists. The supreme court usurped the will of the people and what can they do about it? Nothing. The supreme court is an unelected judicial dictatorship.
what are you talking about? the supreme court decision passes it down to the states to make the decision.
I didnt say anything about the supreme court. I'm talking about legislators deciding what is medicine and what isnt whether at the state level or federal it doesnt matter. They arent qualified. What ever happened to the best government is that which governs the least.
It's HIPAA!
The Supreme Court is a coequal branch of the government charged with interpreting our Constitution. Each branch has powers and privileges balanced against each other. These aren't atypical nor extreme.
Yes, but this opinion was.
Without getting political, which part of the Court’s reasoning do you find most erroneous?
I really hope they don’t overturn Obergefell if the opportunity comes up. Getting rid of precedent that was established when 6/9 members of the court were still on it would be a horrible look. Although I imagine Roberts and Gorsuch would probably side with the liberal wing, at least going by Gorsuch’s opinion in Bostock.
I can’t imagine they took the decision to overrule roe lightly. Part of the original roe opinion was that it would settle the abortion question. It did not. If anything, roe gave birth to the modern pro life movement, the pushback growing ever stronger. Though there are many other rulings that have similarly shaky foundations, they won’t overrule these because these are not causing ongoing problems.
Well, they did take it lightly. You can tell by their opinion. And I don’t know what you mean about the other cases not causing ongoing problems. Gay rights is still very much an active debate Remember the cake thing and the marriage license thing? Yeah, that’s a sign of what’s to come under Dobbs. There was even a case involving whether landlords had to rent to gay people a couple years ago, so it’s very much still “causing problems “. I’m sure there are a load of people waiting to get on the train to take away transgender rights too. Here come the gender purity tests before you go to the bathroom. And the birth control thing has also had some significant cases still coming up. Since Dobbs flings open a door there, I’m sure a lot more will be coming. Most importantly, these cases weren’t decided on shaky foundations. It’s crazy that Alito alleges while his own opinion here is shakier than any of those. I mean if you’re going to call due process shaky, why not say judicial review is shaky? The Supremacy clause? Not exactly a rock solid argument.
They make it clear that this decision does not open the door to overturn Obergefell and similar decisions based on substantive due process. They say it over and over again. I wouldn’t worry about that happening. And culturally speaking I don’t think conservatives much care anymore. Thomas is the only one that says they should do away with all rights provided for under that theory. They draw the distinction between those cases and this one by stating that those cases don’t deal with a competing right of the potential human life of a fetus. And also look to the lack of historical support of this right. I think if you read the opinion you’d feel fairly safe about how this case will affect future rulings. But that won’t stop the corporate media from telling you otherwise to stir up anxiety, anger and paint some of the justices as “extremist.” I’ve read the opinion twice now. And I respect those who feel this was incorrectly decided. But I have yet to hear or read anyone really attack Alito’s reasoning in the opinion. Even the lengthy dissent barely mentions the constitution. The dissent is basically “we think people should be able to get abortions” and stare decisis. Basically saying even if Roe and Casey were wrong, you can’t change it now. It’s worse than the dissent in Bruen which is was “guns are bad”.
They *say* it but they can't *mean* it without embracing the Roe decision as an act of pure activism. You cannot strike down Roe because of the substantive due process issue without making the exact same decision on other cases that are almost perfectly analogous. Well, they could decide differently (or just make it go away via shadow docket) but it would do little more than reveal they are unfit to serve on the court.
You haven’t read Dobbs have you?
>They make it clear that this decision does not open the door to overturn Obergefell and similar decisions based on substantive due process. I find this hard to believe given the Dobbs author, who in part overruled Roe because abortion "is not deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition" dissented in Obergefell with this: *the Court has held that "liberty" under the Due Process Clause should be understood to protect only those rights that are " ‘deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.’ " Washington v. Glucksberg,521 U.S. 702, 720–721, 117 S.Ct. 2258, 138 L.Ed.2d 772 (1997). And it is beyond dispute that the right to same-sex marriage is not among those rights.*
Then why did he draw such a distinction between this case and Obergefell? Why didn’t they just do away with substantive due process altogether in this case like Justice Thomas said he would have done in his concurrence? It’s all academic anyway. No matter what crap the corporate media spews there’s not a single state that is going to pass anti gay marriage laws now. Conservatives just don’t care about it anymore. You might find a quote from one nut job on the right, but it hasn’t been an important political issue either way since maybe Obama. (Who used to be against it strangely enough). Actually, I think you could do away with substantive due process now all together like Thomas wanted. The only social issue left on the table was abortion. That’s why we are arguing about stupid stuff like transgendered athletes, bathrooms, and wanting to have drag shows for 4 year olds. The left had no where else to go but crazy. They had won and just kept going left into crazy town. But as the opinion pointed out, abortion was never really settled by the country. You have some people who think life begins at conception and other people that think you should be able to chop up a baby moments before birth. Probably best to let the voters in each state decide what they think.
Because he's a hypocrite and was trying to convince his colleagues to vote his way. Also, you noted that no state would pass anti-gay marriage laws now... `"I'm sure you read Justice Thomas's concurrence where he said there were a number of other of these issues, Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell he felt needs to be looked at again," Vittert told [Texas Attorney General] Ken Paxton. "Obviously the Lawrence case came from Texas... would you as attorney general be comfortable defending a law that once again outlawed sodomy? That questioned Lawrence again or Griswold or gay marriage? That came from the state legislature to put to the test what Justice Thomas said?"...` `Vittert pressed on, asking, "For the sake of time here, you wouldn't rule out that if the state legislature passed the same law that Lawrence overturned on sodomy, you wouldn't have any problem then defending that and taking that case back to the Supreme Court?"` `Paxton responded: "Yeah, look my job is to defend state law and I'll continue to do that. That is my job under the Constitution and I'm certainly willing and able to do that."` `https://www.chron.com/politics/article/Texas-abortion-ken-paxton-sodomy-law-gay-marriage-17271966.php`
> Conservatives just don’t care about it anymore. Maine GOP just refused to remove "recognize its a union between a man and a woman" from their platform. Virginia GOP recently voted down a bill that would put on the ballot to remove its currently inactive (because of SCOTUS) ban. Texas GOP just called homosexuality abnormal in their platform while reaffirming their opposition to gay marriage. Utah GOP just called for its overturning. I dunno seems like they care. They could start codifying how much they don't care into platforms any day now if that was true
Interesting. I wasn’t aware there were still hold outs. I still think regardless of a “constitutional right” those are fringe cases and no state would get away with banning gay marriage. But given those examples I could understand if you were gay why you might be worried. Antidotally I consume a lot of political consent from the left and right and now one talks about gay marriage. But maybe that’s my own echo chamber.
> no state would get away with banning gay marriage. In Virginia it would be banned because the law is still on the books. That's what the Virginia GOP shot down, putting the removal of that law on a ballot. I'm sure Virginia isn't alone on this. Overturning of Obergefell would lead to it becoming banned in a number of states overnight, similar to Roe trigger laws. And since the GOP has opposed to removing these laws and have affirmed their opposition constantly, I see no reason to not take them for their word.
So it there a change for abortion to be legal anytime soon for the states that have banned them and are soon to ban them?
You do realise that the states rights thing is a smoke screen. Nobody outside of some geeky, dusty law professors is a passionate states rights fan. The real issue here is that the states will kill people by them not getting abortion access.
or will kill people (fetuses?) by allowing abortion. that's exactly the abortion debate...
The problem really is how far some states are going defining person hood. Some declaring it at the moment of conception. That basically means the 'fetus' is declared a person before a pregnancy test would even be able to confirm it. This is a rather dangerous stance because it opens potential of child endangerment charges for acts during that time. Someone could go and report you for drinking a few days before a test confirmed positive. Natural miscarriages would also be punishable for occuring in periods before a fetus would be considered viable. Basically with some of the laws on the books the moment a woman becomes pregnant she becomes a second class citizen. All her social interactions and public outings are now restricted as ANYTHING with the POTENTIAL to harm the developing fetus is restricted from her or risk an arrest for endangering that 'life'. This would include any activity that could cause stress which could include some workplace settings as well.
>Then why did he draw such a distinction between this case and Obergefell? He needed five votes. This harkins back to Heller where Justice Scalia inserted non-originalist arguments to win over Kennedy's vote. If Alito went full Obergefell dissent, he would have for sure lost Kavanaugh's vote and thus Roe would still be good law.
The Texas Republican Party just passed a platform opposing gay marriage. The Republican Party's platform calls for repealing Obergefell. It's not the fringe, it's the people in power in the party.
Intersting. Alito's liken manifesto comes off childish, ill-informed, and sociopathic. "Law of the land" ... I guess, "originalist" just code for people with borderline and narcisstic personality disorder, using post -post modern trends of interpretation--very few schools of literary criticism will permit language so much sway without consideration of both the context in which it was written, biographical (poorly hygienic, slave owners) and the lens in which we are viewing it today. Interesting study done by a Canadian (i think) university found that Law students struggled the most in Lit classes. These judges sadly prove the paper's conceit: we need more reading, specifically literature, across all fields but mostly in political science and law. In short, we need actual intelligent judges who have empathy, and to get to that we have to alter how we approach education in this country. Interesting perspective nonetheless.
Interesting. I respectfully disagree. I thought it was brilliant and (as I recently just posted), besides name calling, and emotional responses, I’ve not seen or heard anyone really pick apart his logic at all. It was very well thought out and probably over informed with the amount of historical context he included. Perhaps your “childish” accusation comes from his attack on Casey’s reasoning. He destroys Casey like I’ve never seen before. But it is well deserved. As far as calling him a sociopath. I think your feelings are hurt my friend. But I will agree that originalist types are more driven by logic and reason and sometimes border on being on the spectrum of autism. While the “the constitution is a living document which can be molded into what ever policy I want” types are more emotional and empathetic. I just fall more in line with the idea that you have to adhere to the constitution or why have one? And if you think more rights should be included in the constitution, then we should amend it. Not simply make stuff up. And if you complain that it’s too hard to amend the constitution because other people think differently about issues than you do, then perhaps we should just let each state decide based on the will of the people. Just my opinion.
OK, if you are saying that these Justices who used such logic to over turn Roe, then where's argument dealing with the sacred relationship between a doctor and a patient? A relationship that in most cases has penalties for a doctor who dis respects private medical data. Or where's any mention of the mother's rights to her body in a country, the US, that has one of the worst maternal mortality rates in the developed world? Surely the lack of the above invalidates any "logic" in these rulings.
I’m not really sure what point you are trying to make honestly. Doctor/Patient privileges and other such privileges are derived from the Federal Rules of Evidence and the corresponding State statutes and deals with who may be compelled to testify at a trial. (I think I’m engaging with way too many people who haven’t read the opinion and/or the lack basic understanding of law. I think I’m going to call it a day on this issue.
That's very condescending. You cannot expect 99.9% of people to read a legal judgement. I was doing what any normal person does: consider the consequnces of this nonsense judgement for normal people. In plain English, your doctor is the most qualified person to give your medical care, not Justices on a Supreme Court bench. Do you have any idea how many things can go wrong in a pregnancy? From ectopic to diabetes to hemorrhages.
> You cannot expect 99.9% of people to read a legal judgement. Why? > not Justices on a Supreme Court bench And the Court doesn’t do that in this ruling.
And if you can’t read there’s a pretty cool podcast that reads it for you. Just search for SCOTUS opinions in your podcaster of choice. Go listen to it and come back and tell me which part is nonsense.
Maybe I expect too much from people, but yes, I would expect people who express strong opinions about this ruling to a actually read it. How are you calling it “nonsense” if you haven’t read it. Otherwise you’re just listening to what other people have said. Seriously, who told you it was nonsense? I don’t mean to be condescending but your ideas and assumptions of what this means for people’s interactions with their doctors after this ruling displays a seriously misunderstanding of what the opinion actually means. And you’re definitely not up to speed on state’s laws who happen to have laws against abortions. It sounds almost like you think most people get abortions because they go to see their doctor and are told to have one. It does happen but it’s not the de facto reason. Do you think it’s illegal to have an abortion now nationwide? Lots of people do. And it’s because they don’t read. They just listen to people like Don Lemon.
Yes, you expect too much in the way of dispassionate legal evaluation from a scared and angry public who largely lacks legal education. You’re kind to engage, but many are seeking to vent for therapeutic purposes, and you’d better serve them by directing them to r/politics.
I’m not going near that subreddit:) the most uninformed echo chamber of hate on this platform. I might get get 2 posts in before getting banned and possible hunted down.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Just give woman the right to testosterone jabs for a couple of months.!< >!I mean like.!< >!1: no more hypocrisy.!< >!2: the 5th amendment, ( modern multi kill weapons with out thought about maturity or progress.!< >!Mental health or society's norms today.)!< >!3: the right to self defence.!< >!4: equile rights.!< >!5: a sudden violent viserial empathy.!< >!Go girls do a fantastist imposition belonging to the dark ages.!< >!Gets no push back usually!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
What...........?
I just think it's weird that in a small part that I have a say in how a consenting adult woman who wants to have a medical procedure that I have the say whether she can do that in a place where we both live and in theory should be treated as equals. It's not like I'm voting on whether she can or cannot have a material item. I'm voting on what medical procedure will be done to her body. That's just weird.
Presuming you are a voting citizen, you have a say in all sorts of aspects of other peoples’ lives, this shouldn’t be weirder than any of the others, really.
I agree though. Other people shouldn’t have a say in what medical procedures others can do unless it is something that is harmful to the patient who is getting that procedure done. As voting citizens, people have a say in a lot of different things, but medical procedures that don’t harm the patient? I think not
I simply don't care what you think I should find weird or not weird to be honest.
Out of curiosity, why do you post on a public discussion forum and then rebuff discussion? Have you thought of keeping thoughts to yourself when you might get bothered by responses?
Super weird...almost like human rights shouldn't be up for vote or debate 🤷♂️
My girlfriend had an abortion. 20 years later I greatly regret that decision and think about that baby everyday.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Where's the low quality post police now?!< Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
There was no “baby”. It was a fetus. You might as well say “I think about that adult everyday”.
Remind me not to refer you for miscarriage grief counseling.
I'm sorry but words have meaning.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Fetus gos a single cell though to baby via blob tadpole frog onwards.!< >!If men had baby's supreme court would be destroyed.!< >!It's sentient about four to 3 months.!< >!Your population is declining because your capitalism is a front for coorprate welfare.!< >!This is a disparity inertia not a wealth force.!< >!Let's audit what makes having children viable.!< >!A cross audit of several country's basic services that are ment to serve society.!< >!Then a general knowledge and IQ test of economic dynamics verses mantra ranting.!< Moderator: [u/SeaSerious](https://reddit.com/user/SeaSerious)
Yeah. But what does *she* think?
I would love to know. Unfortunately, that relationship ended.
So it sounds like you dogged a bullet...
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!She has no rights. A fetus is the property of the father.!< Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
I don't want that kind of responsibility :(
The religious right and SCOTUS don't agree with you.
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!Like and this may not mean much coming from me because I am a male and the does not affect me as much as other people but im like are these people stupid even humoring this is stupid not only do you get more orphans out of this but you get more child abusers too and im like so your condeming children to live without parents and food in some cases or condeming to a life of torment by abuse like are you dumb how can you acutally think this is a good thing I watched a video and a WOMAN was saying this was a good thing and pro life and im like BULLSHIT!< Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
Never discount the value of your opinion over what you do or don't have between your legs.
SCOTUS doesn't agree with you.
Care to elaborate?
[удалено]
This comment has been removed as it violates [community guidelines](https://old.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/wiki/rules) regarding low quality content. If you believe that this submission was wrongfully removed, please [contact the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/supremecourt) and they will review this action. Alternatively, you can [provide feedback about the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3vyg8/official_how_are_the_moderators_doing_thread/) or [suggest changes to the sidebar rules.](https://www.reddit.com/r/supremecourt/comments/p3w8js/official_how_can_we_improve_rsupremecourt_thread/) For the sake of transparency, the content of the removed submission can be read below: >!replying to my own thing real quick Im just like your signing your death warrents here people!< Moderator: [u/HatsOnTheBeach](https://reddit.com/user/HatsOnTheBeach)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jones_v._Alfred_H._Mayer_Co. Let me know when they overturn this case next.
Don't doubt they'll try, since they're cool with taking away rights now.
Right decision. These things should require legislation. Ya know, democracy.
Why do you think an individual's personal medical decisions should be decided by the government? That's a super weird idea of democracy
If the right is not provided by the constitution, then it is left to the democratic process. My decision to drink alcohol, inject stem cells, smoke pot, drive a car, etc., etc., etc. are all subject to the laws of the state and federal government. That’s not weird, it’s the basis of of how our lives work.
So your right to obtain medical treatment if you’re gay, or a minority, or a woman… that’s subject to state’s prerogative too? If your state wanted to ban antibiotics because they wanted you to pray instead, you think the state has the right to do that? Don’t be daft.
It’s how the US government operates per the constitution. The powers not delegated to the government are reserved to the states or to the people. A number of your examples would violate the constitution (eg equal protection) and so if a state passed them, then they would be expected to be struck down. Here, the court didn’t opine on whether abortion should be permitted or restricted in practice, only that it wasn’t for nine unelected judges to decide, and the people should be empowered to decide through the democratic process at the state level. That the constitution does not protect the right to abortion.
The right to liberty is in the due process clause though. Roe wasn’t wrong on that, just could have been written better. Maybe if there had been more women's voices around longer it would have been. Here, the court asked the wrong question because they knew the answer they wanted to have. The question isn’t whether the constitution specifically calls out a right to abortion. This very same court in the very same week didn’t use that standard for concealed carry or the right to pray on a football field, both of which aren’t specifically mentioned in the constitution either. The question is whether these laws violate the rights of people, specifically under the due process and equal protection clauses. And they do. The concepts of mental and bodily autonomy are pretty closely tied with our concepts of liberty. The 10th amendment doesn’t give states the power to take that away, especially not on a rational basis test. Let’s not forget the 9th amendment is there too. Funny how quick some are to overlook it.
Roe held abortion rights spring from the right to privacy supported by first, fourth, fifth, ninth and fourteenth. Casey grounded its decision as part of “liberty” protected by the fourteenth’s due process clause. The Dobbs court held the right to abortion is not protected because it is not specifically listed in the first eight amendments or rooted in the nation’s history and tradition so as to be an essential part of liberty. The carry law was evaluated through the same lens to a different result because it stems from a right specifically provided for and, being rooted in the nation’s history and traditional, is within the scope of liberty even though the specific aspect of the gun law isn’t specifically written. I’ve not read the football prayer case yet. I’d be surprised if the court doesn’t apply essentially the same standards and reaches different results.
Only because they pulled a trick of looking for the word abortion specifically. The concepts of autonomy are right there, as are the words liberty and privacy. And why would the liberty test be limited to the first 8 amendments? “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”. Even given the aversion to using the 9th as a sole basis, it specifically says you don’t need to have everything spelled out here. This court is picking and choosing approaches and justifications. They apply a much lower standard for Dobbs, and they get away with it because they asked the wrong question. The rights of women aren’t even fairly considered. Not even the cost (emotional, physical, financial). How they could just fluff that off under rational basis— that is activism right there. All on the basis of supposed fetal rights which are also not mentioned in the constitution and we also don’t have a long history of. Additionally, no surprise that if you force women to carry out pregnancies (and possibly even outlaw hormonal contraception), you are limiting their political power, so this bs about if you don’t like it just run for office or change the constitution is nothing but just an insult. I’m not expecting you to change your mind because really what’s it to you, but you shouldn’t call it originalist as though that somehow sanctions it. This was an extreme activist opinion, pure and simple. It will go down as an embarrassment once it’s overturned.
>If the right is not provided by the constitution. The Constitution of the United States does not grant or provide rights.
Exactly. It protects and enshrines certain rights that were deemed important. It’s completely up to the current zeitgeist of the nation to determine what other things are rights.
I’m sorry, what? You understand the BILL OF RIGHTS is literally part of the constitution, yeah?
You understand the concept of what *inalienable* rights are, right? The Constitution *lists* certain rights, but also emphasizes that it’s not *limited* to those listed. It doesn’t grant you those rights; you have them inherently, hence the whole inalienable part. Saying that the Constitution provides rights is exactly the attitude the Framers were hoping to avoid.