Green Habit wrote:The obvious retort to Thomas wanting to reconsider all those other cases decided on substantive due process grounds is that they can all be answered on Equal Protection Clause grounds instead. That's what O'Connor wanted to do this in Lawrence to try to justify joining the majority in Bowers.
Which is why he is right about substantive due process, and if Roe had been decided on 9th Amendment grounds we wouldn't be revisiting this.
Oh sure we would, at least five current justices think there's no constitutional right to an abortion, and they'd find a way to explain it away.
They'd be more comfortable with stare decisis if Roe's foundation wasn't such a garbage fire.
I think the issue is that such a 9th Amendment finding would constrain the government in other areas that they'd rather not be.
Green Habit wrote:The obvious retort to Thomas wanting to reconsider all those other cases decided on substantive due process grounds is that they can all be answered on Equal Protection Clause grounds instead. That's what O'Connor wanted to do this in Lawrence to try to justify joining the majority in Bowers.
Which is why he is right about substantive due process, and if Roe had been decided on 9th Amendment grounds we wouldn't be revisiting this.
Oh sure we would, at least five current justices think there's no constitutional right to an abortion, and they'd find a way to explain it away.
I interpreted the focus on due process as the Court saying that it didn't matter whether you use the original Roe rationale or the stronger due process/equal protection rationale that they were overturning it either way.
"I want to see the whole picture--as nearly as I can. I don't want to put on the blinders of 'good and bad,' and limit my vision."-- In Dubious Battle
Green Habit wrote:The obvious retort to Thomas wanting to reconsider all those other cases decided on substantive due process grounds is that they can all be answered on Equal Protection Clause grounds instead. That's what O'Connor wanted to do this in Lawrence to try to justify joining the majority in Bowers.
Which is why he is right about substantive due process, and if Roe had been decided on 9th Amendment grounds we wouldn't be revisiting this.
Oh sure we would, at least five current justices think there's no constitutional right to an abortion, and they'd find a way to explain it away.
They'd be more comfortable with stare decisis if Roe's foundation wasn't such a garbage fire.
I think the issue is that such a 9th Amendment finding would constrain the government in other areas that they'd rather not be.
The fact that they expanded the right to gun ownership one day before curtailing the right to an abortion makes it clear that they only want to find rights for some things but not others.
Which, in its essence, is fine! No one is consistent in saying what is and isn't constitutionally protected. Just be up front with the inconsistency.
4/5 wrote:I interpreted the focus on due process as the Court saying that it didn't matter whether you use the original Roe rationale or the stronger due process/equal protection rationale that they were overturning it either way.
Green Habit wrote:The obvious retort to Thomas wanting to reconsider all those other cases decided on substantive due process grounds is that they can all be answered on Equal Protection Clause grounds instead. That's what O'Connor wanted to do this in Lawrence to try to justify joining the majority in Bowers.
Which is why he is right about substantive due process, and if Roe had been decided on 9th Amendment grounds we wouldn't be revisiting this.
Oh sure we would, at least five current justices think there's no constitutional right to an abortion, and they'd find a way to explain it away.
They'd be more comfortable with stare decisis if Roe's foundation wasn't such a garbage fire.
I think the issue is that such a 9th Amendment finding would constrain the government in other areas that they'd rather not be.
The fact that they expanded the right to gun ownership one day before curtailing the right to an abortion makes it clear that they only want to find rights for some things but not others.
Which, in its essence, is fine! No one is consistent in saying what is and isn't constitutionally protected. Just be up front with the inconsistency.
How is it inconsistent to privilege enumerated rights over *whatever this is*? The 2nd is meaningless if bearing is only allowable as part of militia service.
Leaving issues to the states that the constitution is mute on is perfectly reasonable.
Green Habit wrote:The obvious retort to Thomas wanting to reconsider all those other cases decided on substantive due process grounds is that they can all be answered on Equal Protection Clause grounds instead. That's what O'Connor wanted to do this in Lawrence to try to justify joining the majority in Bowers.
Which is why he is right about substantive due process, and if Roe had been decided on 9th Amendment grounds we wouldn't be revisiting this.
Oh sure we would, at least five current justices think there's no constitutional right to an abortion, and they'd find a way to explain it away.
They'd be more comfortable with stare decisis if Roe's foundation wasn't such a garbage fire.
I think the issue is that such a 9th Amendment finding would constrain the government in other areas that they'd rather not be.
The fact that they expanded the right to gun ownership one day before curtailing the right to an abortion makes it clear that they only want to find rights for some things but not others.
Which, in its essence, is fine! No one is consistent in saying what is and isn't constitutionally protected. Just be up front with the inconsistency.
How is it inconsistent to privilege enumerated rights over *whatever this is*? The 2nd is meaningless if bearing is only allowable as part of militia service.
Leaving issues to the states that the constitution is mute on is perfectly reasonable.
I don't like it out of fear of how far a right-wing court could take it to win the culture war, but this seems like a justifiable position. They really should have gone with the Collins abortion bill a few weeks ago.
"The fatal flaw of all revolutionaries is that they know how to tear things down but don't have a f**king clue about how to build anything."
The vibes are so bad today, probably just a matter of time before someone else tries to go Nick Roske mode.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
Mickey wrote:The vibes are so bad today, probably just a matter of time before someone else tries to go Nick Roske mode.
You've committed that dorks name to memory? Impressive.
Kavanagh's neighbors are probably all leaving town for the weekend.
You ever hear of google, my man?
I've seen Alito, Kav, and Thomas's home addresses all over the timeline today. There's a palpable difference from even a few years ago.
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
JuanHamm wrote:From what I've seen both RBG and Obama are receiving a lot of criticism.
Yeah they're getting rightfully dragged, as far as I can tell. Again, things have shifted!
VinylGuy wrote:its really tiresome to see these ¨good guys¨ talking about any political stuff in tv while also being kinda funny and hip and cool....its just...please enough of this shit.
JuanHamm wrote:Isn't the real problem the United State's bizarre form of government? States rights vs federal power and all that...
I don't know, we have a similar system in Australia that generally works well.
The problem seems to be the perverse politicisation of the Supreme Court where its seen as a de facto policy maker, something that should instead only be the responsibility of the legislature.
I'm only a non-local idiot and haven't read the decision, but I thought it was pretty accepted that Roe was poorly decided and there was a degree of inevitability about its overturning at some point.
Isn't it possible to accept overturning Roe was the right decision but also support abortion rights and leaning on elected officials to remedy the gap in legal protections? I guess it's hard for me to understand the 'another example of the USA sliding into fascism!' reactions.
