|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 26, 2022 10:50:49 GMT -5
There is plenty of writing on how the constitution protects a right to abortion. Repeating for posterity: there is not a single phrase of language in the constitution that can reasonably be interpreted as guaranteeing the right to an abortion. Your silly hand-waiving and word games here, are doing nothing other than confirming why people hate lawyers. this isn't true at all. you might believe there isn't language guaranteeing a right to abortion but plenty of people (who are much smarter than you or I) do. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 10:56:44 GMT -5
You might believe there isn't language guaranteeing a right to abortion but plenty of people (who are much smarter than you or I) do. OK. Fine. You are probably right, here. They are smarter than me, as I will freely concede to, and they might actually, genuinely believe that, even though that is clearly false. What is one such phrase -- language directly written in the USC -- that you personally believe guarantees the right to an abortion. I am curious. |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 26, 2022 11:11:24 GMT -5
You might believe there isn't language guaranteeing a right to abortion but plenty of people (who are much smarter than you or I) do. OK. Fine. You are probably right, here. They are smarter than me, as I will freely concede to, and they might actually, genuinely believe that, even though that is clearly false. What is one such phrase -- language directly written in the USC -- that you personally believe guarantees the right to an abortion. I am curious. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 11:16:52 GMT -5
OK. Fine. You are probably right, here. They are smarter than me, as I will freely concede to, and they might actually, genuinely believe that, even though that is clearly false. What is one such phrase -- language directly written in the USC -- that you personally believe guarantees the right to an abortion. I am curious. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If this language, in your opinion (or if you'll just punt to say smarter people than us's opinion), guarantees the right to abortion ..... then words don't mean anything and any phrase can be contorted to mean whatever you want it to mean.
This all gets back to what has to be the truth: being smarter than everyone else shouldn't get to mean that you get to make the decisions.
Smart people are wrong as much as anyone, maybe even more so.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 11:18:16 GMT -5
But I asked the question, and you answered. It is entirely conceivable to me that if/when the SCOTUS returns to a majority nominated by Dem presidents, and then if a new federal abortion legalization law was passed by congress at that time, then that SCOTUS could choose to uphold it using such a phrase, or really any random phrase I guess.
I could easily see that, one day.
|
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 26, 2022 11:19:38 GMT -5
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." If this language, in your opinion (or if you'll just punt to say smarter people than us's opinion), guarantees the right to abortion ..... then words don't mean anything and any phrase can be contorted to mean whatever you want it to mean.
This all gets back to what has to be the truth: being smarter than everyone else shouldn't get to mean that you get to make the decisions.
Smart people are wrong as much as anyone, maybe even more so.
would you agree that the "liberty" in the due process clause includes a right to privacy? |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 26, 2022 11:22:48 GMT -5
There was no mention of women in the constitution at all, period. That has already been fixed. Your wish has been granted. The ERA finally passed and is the law of the land, except that Trump used procedure to stall it and more the Republicans are using the filibuster to prevent it from becoming official. Without that obstruction, Alito has no argument. Until it becomes official, all of the rights for women codified into law over the ladt 60 years will be slowly eroded by backwards states and this SCOTUS, as laws are repealed or changed, and the changes are upheld by this court in absence of the ERA. Never before in our history have recognized rights for a particular group been stripped on such a large scale. I have no idea what your wild guessing here about the future has to do with what I wrote. Thanks |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 11:25:33 GMT -5
If this language, in your opinion (or if you'll just punt to say smarter people than us's opinion), guarantees the right to abortion ..... then words don't mean anything and any phrase can be contorted to mean whatever you want it to mean.
This all gets back to what has to be the truth: being smarter than everyone else shouldn't get to mean that you get to make the decisions.
Smart people are wrong as much as anyone, maybe even more so.
would you agree that the "liberty" in the due process clause includes a right to privacy? Right, like I said: here for example, you're just contorting "liberty" to mean whatever you want it to mean, in order to justify what you want to be justified.
I would say, literally, both extremes of the spectrum would claim that the right to "liberty" can mean as wide ranging of things as can possibly be inferred by a single word. Some would probably claim it means the federal government should not exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 11:27:04 GMT -5
Unless you elaborate further, I'll assume this means you conceded the point. |
|
|
|
Post by oldnewbie on Jun 26, 2022 11:36:34 GMT -5
Unless you elaborate further, I'll assume this means you conceded the point. You reminded me of something I need to do today. Concede what point? Was there a point you were trying to make in this thread? I thought you were just trying to be a pointless waste of time |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 26, 2022 11:38:12 GMT -5
would you agree that the "liberty" in the due process clause includes a right to privacy? Right, like I said: here for example, you're just contorting "liberty" to mean whatever you want it to mean, in order to justify what you want to be justified.
I would say, literally, both extremes of the spectrum would claim that the right to "liberty" can mean as wide ranging of things as can possibly be inferred by a single word. Some would probably claim it means the federal government should not exist.
not what I asked. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 11:47:15 GMT -5
So? I went steps ahead of that question and cut directly to the point that matters. Clearly, you're indeed just highlighting that language in the USC can be contorted to mean whatever you want it to mean. Doesn't matter in the slightest how I personally define liberty, or what I think the founders intended that phrasing to mean. It only matters what the SCOTUS during that ruling thinks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2022 11:48:16 GMT -5
That the historical opinions you cited don't prove that the USC contains language guaranteeing the right to an abortion, even if the founders thought such a right ought to be. |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Jun 26, 2022 12:09:33 GMT -5
So? I went steps ahead of that question and cut directly to the point that matters. Clearly, you're indeed just highlighting that language in the USC can be contorted to mean whatever you want it to mean. Doesn't matter in the slightest how I personally define liberty, or what I think the founders intended that phrasing to mean. It only matters what the SCOTUS during that ruling thinks. Would you say the same about dred Scott and plessy? I think we can be a little more aspirational about what the constitution protects than "a bunch of ultraconservative fossils are the end all and be all of meaning" |
|
|
|
Post by valleyvolley1 on Jun 26, 2022 12:26:23 GMT -5
Many women will vote for anybody who is not a Republican in the next election because of this event. This is obviously correct.
Major problem though: those women already were going to vote that way. They were going to vote that way long before the SCOTUS leak.
They voted that way, in the last election.
The loudest and angriest -- the activists, the protestors -- already were going to vote that way. They already had been voting that way. And yet, here we are.
So .... nothing is changing.
Odd, but my wife and her friends are much more vocal about being anti killing of babies than me and all their husband's. Dems like to think it is just men that are anti killing of babies, but it is just a lie |
|
