I got your 'it's not in the constitution' right here

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Patricio Da Silva, Jun 26, 2022.

  1. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So your argument is that since the Court never had the authority to take up Roe in the first place, they also cannot overrule it, therefore...Roe stands?

    You're a regular Matlock.

    The penumbra doctrine, made up for Griswold, is seemingly overturned for Dobbs. Since it was never actually based on the constitution in the first place, it was always on flimsy grounds and it seems likely that this was going to happen eventually. For someone who has posted incessantly about "democracy" the past few years, I'm surprised you are so taken with a legal doctrine that allows unelected judges to function as the legislative branch and write their own law based on whatever they want to make up at the time. To me, that seems like a power meant to be abused.

    My advice, if you are so concerned about this, is to advocate for a state law in whatever state you live in for a state constitutionally protected right to abort. It's a path that's in keeping with our legal history and helps you avoid stretching the bounds of common sense in arguments supporting fairly silly legal doctrines.
     
    Trixare4kids likes this.
  2. Esperance

    Esperance Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    5,151
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is why there is an appendix detailing the 1868 legal status of "abortion" attached to the ruling.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
  3. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It was ruled on in 1973 because that is when it was first challenged.

    But, more than buying a gun being essential to 'keep and bear arms', Abortion is not only 'right to privacy' but it is also 'bodily autonomy'.

    States that ban abortion are telling women that the state, and not the woman, owns their body.

    That ain't right, and where is the common sense in that?

    Well, it boils down to the argument, 'when is a fetus a person'? Well, common sense tells us it's not right to harm a person. But that assumes we know when a fetus is a person.

    That's not even a religious argument ( the Bible doesn't grant a fetus personhood) it's a philosophical one. Besides, my religious philosophy believes in reincarnation, and thus abortion can't be murder, since the soul that would have otherwise occupied the fetus nearing birth, having arrived from dying somewhere else, will merely find another womb.

    So, it begs the question: whose philosophy?

    Can we all, at the very minimum, agree on this point; a fetus is a person when it can survive outside the womb sans incubators and similar devices?

    I say that because an incubator is to a large degree, just an external womb.

    I'd say that is 20 weeks, which, I think, is sooner than Roe granted, no?

    Whatever it is, I'd accept the science on it (on the point of when a fetus can survive outside the womb, unaided by science other than nutrition and shelter from the elements).

    Some are arguing 'potential life', but that is way too vague.
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
  4. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,221
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    ,
    The state owns men's bodies. It can pluck them off the street, put a gun in their hands and send them off to be killed in a meaningless war. So spare me the sob stories.
     
  5. Esperance

    Esperance Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2017
    Messages:
    5,151
    Likes Received:
    4,379
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Federalist #45

    State level Constitutional amendments are hard to come by and if a Federal judge finds just one thing wrong with it, good luck in starting the process over.
     
  6. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,284
    Likes Received:
    48,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I love how your abortion advocates are all upset that abortion may be legal in some states and it may not and they may have to travel to another state.

    There are plenty of states where your concealed carry permit is perfectly legal but as soon as you cross over state border it's not legal but I didn't hear y'all say anything about that.
     
  7. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No, I'm arguing that those who are using 'it's not in the constitution' as the basis for repealing Roe, cannot do so because the authority to do it is also not in the constitution. You can find another argument, but not that one.
    "Made up"? My, aren't you the great trivializer of arguments.
    Let's get something straight, SCOTUS granted a woman the right to an abortion, voted 7-2 of whom five justices were republican, it has been upheld in numerous cases for the last 50 years, and now this court, in effect, defecated on the court's legitimacy by taking it away.

    all the intellectual arguments justifying why they did it will not matter to anyone who wants a legitimate court to survive, let alone the women whose right they took it from.

    Now then,

    If you are going to repeal the constitutional right to privacy, then the State, not you, owns your body.

    I don't think that is a flimsy argument, I think the right to privacy, bestowed to America via the Penumbra doctrine, enshrines it as strong as if it were mentioned, specifically.

    Did not Marbury v Madison do that for Judicial Review in 1803?

    Yes or no?

    The answer is yes, and if the answer is yes, there are other rulings that could equally have the same significance, and that ruling was done in Griswald in 1965.

    See, no one, 220 years ago, could have drafted a document that foresaw the more complex, more dynamic, modern society 220 years in the future.

    This is why 'originalist' and 'textualists' are barking up a dead tree.

    In Griswold:

    https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/contraception-marriage-and-the-right-to-privacy

    “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion,” the Court said. “While it is not expressly included in the First Amendment, its existence is necessary in making the express guarantees fully meaningful.”

    The Court also pointed to the Third Amendment (prohibition against the quartering of soldiers), the Fourth Amendment (protection against “unreasonable searches and seizures”) and the Fifth Amendment (prohibition against self-incrimination) as further examples of privacy guarantees.

    Undergirding the majority’s analysis was the Ninth Amendment, which says that the rights of the people are not limited to those enumerated in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment allowed the Court to bring these protections to bear against state law.

    In his concurrence, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that the Ninth Amendment alone allowed the Court to find a “fundamental” right to marital privacy without needing the support of others. In separate concurrences, Justice John Marshall Harlan and Justice Byron White called the Connecticut law simply a violation of “liberty” under the due process protections of the Fourteenth Amendment.

    Griswold and the general right to privacy have since been cited in many important rulings, including Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972; right of unmarried couples to use contraception), Roe v. Wade (1973; right of women to an abortion) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992; upholding abortion rights).

    So the right to privacy touches the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 14th amendments.

    "Flimsy" my ass.

    This, ultra right wing court, agenda driven, activist court, as admitted by Clarence Thomas, wants to undue all the liberal achievements, going back a hundred years, EXCEPT the one that grants him the right to marry interracially.

    Flimsy? Give me a break.

    The only flimsy argument is yours.






     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
  8. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113

    That's clearly not true. My State cranks out a couple of referendum constitutional amendments every couple of years.
     
  9. Lil Mike

    Lil Mike Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    51,271
    Likes Received:
    22,659
    Trophy Points:
    113
    One the one hand, the idea that lefties are finally looking at the constitution is somewhat gratifying, but on the other, you guys know so little about the subject that it's exasperating to deal with the all of these brand new con law professors. I will say this about the 9th Amendment; the context of the 10th Amendment makes clear that the Federal government is limited to the delegated enumerated powers, and that every other power is reserved to the States or the people, in which case the proper place to deal with state laws is a state court, not a federal court. I know you love your penumbras but they are not a delegated power.
     
    Trixare4kids and FatBack like this.
  10. FatBack

    FatBack Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    52,284
    Likes Received:
    48,654
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can tell when someone recently learned a new word because they feel the need to use it 10 times a day.
     
    Lil Mike likes this.
  11. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So what?

    That was the problem with RvW - the "right to privacy" is defined nowhere in the Constitution, nor is body autonomy. In fact that was one of Alito's main points; abortion infringes on the life of the embryo.
    Again, the baby's rights are involved as well.
    Maybe the answer is in what is the probability that a fertilized egg, under normal circumstances will survive to be delivered? I don't that there's an exact definition. I think you may be seeking something that his no specific definition
     
  12. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    And what does it say?
     
  13. bobobrazil

    bobobrazil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2022
    Messages:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    893
    Trophy Points:
    113
    in all fairness the twisted rightwing knowledge is a doozy to "understand"
     
  14. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,901
    Likes Received:
    10,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The left HATES the 10th Amendment.

    They hate the idea that each State should be legislated as their citizens see fit. The idea that citizens should be able to move to other states that best resemble their ideal government.... atrocious!

    The left desires a stong central government, with little or no State rights, because they want to force everybody to align with their agenda.

    The idea of Federalism is completely lost on the left. How could anybody be opposed to their forced version of utopia?
     
    Overitall and Trixare4kids like this.
  15. jcarlilesiu

    jcarlilesiu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    Messages:
    27,901
    Likes Received:
    10,503
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This is a silly argument.

    The judicial branch is able of "reviewing" laws to determine Constitutionality, but they are not able to "interpret" the Constitution is doing so. How do you review something, without interpreting it, in order to draw a conclusion? Is this like Jesus skills or something. The words come off the paper and have absolute meaning? If that were the case, then why even have a Supreme Court? The Constitution is so precise, that no interpretation is required?
     
  16. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    False equivalency.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Correct, if they don't understand English they can use a dictionary. But if that's the case they should not be on the Supreme Court in the first place due to qualification issues. Why do you suppose the framers failed to give them that power in Article III and why do you suppose the Supremes had a eureka moment in Marbury v Madison if that was the intent?

    They are employees of The People and are paid by The People to sit on the Supreme Court via an employment contract called the Constitution (see Article III).

    If you were an employer and your employee was employed via an employment contract, would you give your employee the power to interpret his/her employment contract and decide for example that a clause really means you have to give your employee a 100% raise every month?
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
  18. Overitall

    Overitall Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2021
    Messages:
    12,181
    Likes Received:
    11,542
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No.
     
  19. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can't trivialize 50 years of precedent.
    The court's authority for Judicial Review is nowhere in the constitution, either, but you don't have a problem with that. eh?

    You only have a problem with court decisions you don't personally like.

    Right?
    An embryo has no rights, it's not a person. Sounds like a stupid argument. If he even believed that, he would have incorporated his ruling to the states, but he didn't.
    R v W assigns personhood at the third Trimester.
    R v W worked, I don't see a valid reasons to repeal it.

    But, 50 years of precedent means nothing to this court, they shat on it's legitimacy.
     
  20. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I agree, wholeheartedly.

    And so it is a bullshit argument. The only means by which you can determine the constitutionality of any law is via interpretation.

    If this were not true, and were as simple as repubs appear to make it sound, then justices on the court would never disagree with each other.

    And Repubs are gonna give me any crap that republican selected justices review correctly, and democrat selected justices don't, that argument is, indeed, as dumb as it sounds.
     
  21. Pycckia

    Pycckia Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    Messages:
    18,221
    Likes Received:
    6,045
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Why do you say that? Can you demonstrate the falseness of the equivalency?

    As far as I can tell, the state has total control over your body except for the explicit rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

    I don't believe you have an argument.
     
  22. Bullseye

    Bullseye Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2021
    Messages:
    11,853
    Likes Received:
    10,260
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Age is not the controlling issue; the precedent has to be valid.
    Seems like you're the one with problems.
    So what magically happened when it travels down the few inches of the birth canal? Sorry, valid argument.
    Which was one of Alito's disagreements with it.

    didn't turn out so well for the fetuses that get aborted.
    Precedent is not a miracle cure. Other precedents have been over ruled.[/quote]
     
    Last edited: Jun 27, 2022
  23. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The hell they don't, they do it all the time. It's called 'precedent'.

    Oops, my bullshit meter is redlining.

    "interpret' is a vague word. Review, interpret, you're going to split hairs on these words? In order to determine if a law is compliant, it's not like you take the word and chuck it into a computer and it spits out 'compliant' or 'not complaint'. Did you notice that the process requires HUMANs to make these determination, and that is it human nature to 'interpret'. like it or not?

    They will, indeed, interpret the laws they are reviewing, and they will interpret the constitutionality of the law they are reviewing.

    If what you are saying is true, then justices would always agree with each other, and they don't.

    And why is it that they don't always agree with each other?

    Scalia, in a rare moment of honesty, told us. He said that justices are subject to their own 'judicial philosophy'.

    Now just what does that mean? It means that conservatives and liberals see the world through two distinctly different lenses.

    I.e., 'interpret' the world differently. That means anything they look at the will see differently, ESPECIALLY the law.

    Or rather, whenever the law is vague such that the courts are called in to settle the constitutionality of the law.

    Judicial philosophy, Scalia says.

    Now there's a phrase with enough wiggle room one can drive a truck through it.

    Sorry, justices interpret, like it or not, according to their 'judicial philosophy'.

    Now, if you are gonna holler that republican selected justices do it correctly, and democrat selected justices do not, or vice versa, how is that argument any better than if I made the reverse argument? Or vise versa? (I don't know your politics).

    I hate to be the one to deliver the memo to you, perhaps for the first time in your life, but there is such an animal as a
    'conservative' justice, and a 'liberal' justice, and that politicians select the justices, based on their rulings, who more closely align with their politics.

    And that's life, get over it.
     
  24. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    8,576
    Likes Received:
    2,337
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Or Stare Decisis or Case "Law". Yeah they do whatever the **** they want. I wasn't talking about what they do, I was talking about what the Constitution grants them the power to do (Article III) and what they are prohibited from doing (10th Amendment and the rest of the Constitution). Each case must be decided on its own merits, not by case "law" which has the same effect as "law" or legislating from the bench or has the same effect as creating an Amendment from thin air. Legislating is reserved to Congress (Article I) and Amendments have a specific procedure (Article V) not involving the judiciary. The Judiciary seized powers reserved to Congress and in some cases, the Executive, the states and The People (Gore v Bush for example when they appointed the President).

    I'm not going to go around in circles or keep repeating myself on "interpretation", I've already made my point and I don't give a rat's ass about what Scalia says or thinks. These unelected for life black robed criminal lawyers are always going to find creative ways to protect/defend their existence (raison d'etre) and their idiotic unconstitutional decisions.

    At my age (my parents were Holocaust survivors) it's far too late to "get over it" so I'll bitch as long as I still breathe.

    "Everything Hitler did was legal." - Martin Luther King Jr.
     
  25. Patricio Da Silva

    Patricio Da Silva Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2020
    Messages:
    31,226
    Likes Received:
    16,924
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Valid? Roe v Wade was decided on a 7-2 vote, and five of the justices in the majority were appointed by Republicans.
    Since then, it was upheld in 17 reproductive rights cases.
    If a 7-2 vote, plus 17 cases upholding it, spanning 50 years, if that doesn't make it valid, then what does?
    Some radical hard right conservatives suddenly 'see the light' and invalid all those cases and 50 years of precident?
    No, you wrote:
    That was the problem with RvW - the "right to privacy" is defined nowhere in the Constitution, nor is body autonomy.

    You are claiming that R v W is a problem because 'it's not in the constitution'.

    But, since the authority the court used, conferred by Maybury v Madison, a court ruling which is not in the constitution, your 'problem' is selective, applied
    to rulings you do not like. You never expressed any problems with other court rulings which are 'not in the constitution'.

    That makes you the problem, not R v W.
    An embryo is not a person.
    Sorry.
    Alito doesn't strike me as one of the more astute justices. But I'll say he's better than Kavanaugh and Thomas who are veritable boors.
    His ruling is the zenith of arrogance, utter disregard for historical precedent, over a dozen rulings upholding R v W, as if he can do better than the immense history of his peers on the court upholding R v W, then he says 'the court is not taking a position of R v W', but he said "R v W was egregious from the beginning'. That's a position taken, and so his ruling is sloppy and by the measure, subpar for a Justice of the Supreme Court.
    Since a fetus is not a person, that's like saying when I dropped an egg and it smashed, it didn't turn out well for the egg. BFD.

    I'd accept giving the unborn personhood status when it is viable outside the womb, and subtract 5 weeks from that time to play it safe. That's about 17 weeks.
    A precedent of 50 years, 17 court rulings upholding it, if that isn't settled law, then the concept of precedent & settled law has no meaning, and the court has no legitimacy.

    That's what this court did today, it shat on it's legitimacy in the most epic blunder since Dredd Scott.

    And the sad thing is, most republicans don't even know it, they are so blinded by their fervor to end R v W, they don't realize that they are going to kill poor women who will die by botched DIY abortions because they can't afford to travel to outside the state, stay in a hotel, etc. Those who support the end of RvW are the ones with blood on their hands.

     

Share This Page