The Many Faces of US Politics...

[Rossfan]

Another one exercising his "Constitoootinal rights"

https://www.rte.ie/news/2022/0515/1298046-buffalo-shooting-10-dead/

[Eamonnca1]

Another "law-abiding gun owner" right up to the moment when he started shooting, no doubt.

[Main Street]

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of abortion you'd have to admit that from a strictly legal standpoint Roe v Wade was very shaky. To extrapolate that the right to privacy infers a right to have an abortion is quite a substantial leap. Also considering that the right to privacy is an extrapolation in itself. Issues like abortion should not be decided by a small cabal of judges. They should be legislated for at state or federal level and sorted out through the wheels of democracy.

each state will decide for itself , as usual most people only getting the cnn side of the story.

Even RBG said it was a poorly crafted law (and she was the biggest supporter of reproductive rights that you'd ever meet)

The rights and wrongs of the actual Rode Wade law have been debated and my personal opinion is that RBG nailed it, but the question now is not about quality of law, it is about women's right to choose, not the medic giving permission or a replacement theory obsessed dogmatic judea christian religious motivated state parliament deciding. On occasion it up to the Supreme Court to decide what the universal (USA) rights are for USA citizens regardless of the opinion of the state legislature with a majority in opposition.

[Eamonnca1]

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of abortion you'd have to admit that from a strictly legal standpoint Roe v Wade was very shaky. To extrapolate that the right to privacy infers a right to have an abortion is quite a substantial leap. Also considering that the right to privacy is an extrapolation in itself. Issues like abortion should not be decided by a small cabal of judges. They should be legislated for at state or federal level and sorted out through the wheels of democracy.

each state will decide for itself , as usual most people only getting the cnn side of the story.

Even RBG said it was a poorly crafted law (and she was the biggest supporter of reproductive rights that you'd ever meet)

The rights and wrongs of the actual Rode Wade law have been debated and my personal opinion is that RBG nailed it, but the question now is not about quality of law, it is about women's right to choose, not the medic giving permission or a replacement theory obsessed dogmatic judea christian religious motivated state parliament deciding. On occasion it up to the Supreme Court to decide what the universal (USA) rights are for USA citizens regardless of the opinion of the state legislature with a majority in opposition.

I am going to unashamedly steal this.

[Gmac]

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of abortion you'd have to admit that from a strictly legal standpoint Roe v Wade was very shaky. To extrapolate that the right to privacy infers a right to have an abortion is quite a substantial leap. Also considering that the right to privacy is an extrapolation in itself. Issues like abortion should not be decided by a small cabal of judges. They should be legislated for at state or federal level and sorted out through the wheels of democracy.

each state will decide for itself , as usual most people only getting the cnn side of the story.

Even RBG said it was a poorly crafted law (and she was the biggest supporter of reproductive rights that you'd ever meet)

The rights and wrongs of the actual Rode Wade law have been debated and my personal opinion is that RBG nailed it, but the question now is not about quality of law, it is about women's right to choose, not the medic giving permission or a replacement theory obsessed dogmatic judea christian religious motivated state parliament deciding. On occasion it up to the Supreme Court to decide what the universal (USA) rights are for USA citizens regardless of the opinion of the state legislature with a majority in opposition.

I am going to unashamedly steal this.

the current administration doesn't care about what the Supreme Court decides they don't follow federal law that doesn't suit their looney agenda.

[trileacman]

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of abortion you'd have to admit that from a strictly legal standpoint Roe v Wade was very shaky. To extrapolate that the right to privacy infers a right to have an abortion is quite a substantial leap. Also considering that the right to privacy is an extrapolation in itself. Issues like abortion should not be decided by a small cabal of judges. They should be legislated for at state or federal level and sorted out through the wheels of democracy.

each state will decide for itself , as usual most people only getting the cnn side of the story.

Even RBG said it was a poorly crafted law (and she was the biggest supporter of reproductive rights that you'd ever meet)

The rights and wrongs of the actual Rode Wade law have been debated and my personal opinion is that RBG nailed it, but the question now is not about quality of law, it is about women's right to choose, not the medic giving permission or a replacement theory obsessed dogmatic judea christian religious motivated state parliament deciding. On occasion it up to the Supreme Court to decide what the universal (USA) rights are for USA citizens regardless of the opinion of the state legislature with a majority in opposition.

A incorrect summation. You're essentially arguing that 4 people have the power to decide what is legal and what should be illegal for 329 million Americans. The Supreme Court Justices are either bound by the constitution and the study of law or they aren't. Should enough people feel the laws are wrong then they have the capacity to change state law, federal law and even the constitution itself. State law is not an unchallengeable doctrine, there are several ways by which it may be overruled by the majority through democratic process.

The Supreme Court are not declaring state law to be paramount to rulings of the court, rather they are declaring (presumably until we see the decision) that the right to privacy does not infer the right to have an abortion.

[J70]

Whilst you can argue the rights and wrongs of abortion you'd have to admit that from a strictly legal standpoint Roe v Wade was very shaky. To extrapolate that the right to privacy infers a right to have an abortion is quite a substantial leap. Also considering that the right to privacy is an extrapolation in itself. Issues like abortion should not be decided by a small cabal of judges. They should be legislated for at state or federal level and sorted out through the wheels of democracy.

each state will decide for itself , as usual most people only getting the cnn side of the story.

Even RBG said it was a poorly crafted law (and she was the biggest supporter of reproductive rights that you'd ever meet)

The rights and wrongs of the actual Rode Wade law have been debated and my personal opinion is that RBG nailed it, but the question now is not about quality of law, it is about women's right to choose, not the medic giving permission or a replacement theory obsessed dogmatic judea christian religious motivated state parliament deciding. On occasion it up to the Supreme Court to decide what the universal (USA) rights are for USA citizens regardless of the opinion of the state legislature with a majority in opposition.

A incorrect summation. You're essentially arguing that 4 people have the power to decide what is legal and what should be illegal for 329 million Americans. The Supreme Court Justices are either bound by the constitution and the study of law or they aren't. Should enough people feel the laws are wrong then they have the capacity to change state law, federal law and even the constitution itself. State law is not an unchallengeable doctrine, there are several ways by which it may be overruled by the majority through democratic process.

The Supreme Court are not declaring state law to be paramount to rulings of the court, rather they are declaring (presumably until we see the decision) that the right to privacy does not infer the right to have an abortion.

So whose opinions on the limits of the constitution and the study of law are the "correct" ones?

The other five people?

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

[Eamonnca1]

192 House Rethuglicans voted against a $28 million package to tackle the shortage of baby formula. "Pro life" my ass. The conservatives are willing to let babies starve to prove an ideological point. We have nothing in common with these people.

[trileacman]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

[J70]

It would be grand if the US supreme court justices were all robots who could parse an issue and look to the constitution in a cold, objective, scientific manner, but they're not. In the real world they all bring their own biases, influences and political motivations to bear in their job, which is partly why it can't be left up to just one of them. This so-called "calling balls and strikes" approach is rhetorical nonsense, but even if one does subscribe to originalism or textualism at least as a guiding principle, why is that objectively better than the "living document" approach? And if we are so concerned about the founders and what was thought at the time a law or amendment was passed, one thing we know for sure about the founders is that they were very concerned about tyranny of the majority (although these days its more the over-represented minority which is the problem) and the dangers of populism. And let's not forget that the Warren court was abhorred by the right for its supposed "judicial activism", starting with Brown. That arguments have since been made for the Brown decision from an originalist perspective doesn't change how they were perceived for years. They and subsequent courts correctly got out ahead of the government and the electorate on a whole range of issues, not just segregation, and people's lives have benefited from that.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with the constitution being interpreted through a modern lens. Hopefully Alito's decision doesn't lead to the rollback of many of the gains society has reaped from that approach. Otherwise, good luck winning back any of those rights with the Republican party holding so much power.

[Eamonnca1]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

[trileacman]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

Do you mean by accepting Roe v Wade as precedent and not overturn it?

[Eamonnca1]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

Do you mean by accepting Roe v Wade as precedent and not overturn it?

Yes

[trileacman]

And like I said before, where would black people have ended up if the Supreme Court said "not our problem, you just have to wait until society gets a little less racist and changes the laws"? Or gay people for that matter.

That's a facetious argument. The 14th amendment clearly identifies that persons cannot be denied equal protection before the law. Therefore Brown v Board and Lawrence V Texas were standing on fairly solid ground when those decisions were made. Clear direction and intention could be drawn upon from the constitution and the authors of the amendment.

Roe v Wade is different and you've admitted as much yourself. There is no use in continued attempts to draw a false equivalence to desegregation.

On the legal underpinnings of Roe V Wade, it depends who you listen to. I've read convincing arguments on both sides.

Irrespective of your view on desegregation, it could be clearly extrapolated from the constitution and so the court ruled in it's favour. Likewise, irrespective of your view on abortion, it's fairly difficult to extrapolate from the constitution a legal right to have one, so it should come as no surprise to anyone that Roe v Wade may be overturned. The prevailing (and mistaken) belief in the current discussion seems to be that because the supreme court ruled in favour of liberal ideology previously they should always do so. This is incorrect. Supreme Court justices should leave their party affiliation, religion and political opinions at the door of the supreme court. They are there to decide upon the specific legal arguments, not the broader social outcome.

So they should respect legal precedent?

Do you mean by accepting Roe v Wade as precedent and not overturn it?

Yes

By such logic, Scott V Stanford shouldn't have been over-ruled and the Supreme Court decision that slavery is lawful in all US states would still be standing. Similarly Brown V Board of Education could never have ruled that segregation is unlawful because Plessy v Ferguson had found that segregation was constitutional.

The argument that justice is simply blindly following legal precedent is a terrible one.

[Gmac]

As the country's economy goes down the toilet the left has its eye on the looney tunes agenda as usual if this three is anything to go by .