Abortion is not a constitutional right. That's not how SCOTUS works. I know they don't teach civics anymore, but holy hell do people not understand anything anymore and are just an angry mob frothing at the mouth. It's now a state's rights issue. If you want it in your state, get it on the ballot and vote for it. It's literally more democratic this way. Plus, Roe v Wade wasn't just a catch all for aborting your pregnancy. That's not how it was argued in court, and it's why even Ruth Ginsberg on the bench wanted it repealed. As of right now, only unwanted pregnancies from rape, or ones that will in high likelihood cause harm to the mother or the child if the pregnancy were to continue are considered abortion worthy. And in some states, almost nothing has changed at all. Maybe, just maybe, we as humans can stop falling for the knee jerk reactions over and over and over and just spend 10 minutes looking into how things really are.
Abortion is not a constitutional right. That's not how SCOTUS works.
Scalia said
Even though the Constitution makes no mention of abortion, the Court held that it confers a broad right to obtain one.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I just wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. Roe v Wade declared abortion a Constitutional right.
Roe v Wade allowed abortion, but it had no constitutional protection. It sat as is, not codified for almost 50 years. Had they done so, it would have had constitutional protection.
One can read the whole decision, but my point was that Scalia said that Roe v Wade found a right to abortion in the Constitution. If I'm reading it wrong, please let me know.
The right to free speech in the Constitution is also phrased as "Congress shall make no law" . Banning the government from restricting something is functionally equivalent to declaring it a right. I understand that the founders believed that rights were given by God and the government could only take them away. I agree with that.
It was not yet a law. Congress did not make it a law. It sat on the books without being put into law. That's what being codified means. This is how they were able to take it back. it was not yet codified. There are many like this that they are considering reviewing. SCOTUS by themselves cannot just make laws. They are the judicial branch of government, not the legislative.
Not exactly. What RvW did was use prior precedent: (Griswold v Connecticut) to basically say that abortion was a private medical matter between an abortion doctor and his "patient." Abortion is de facto permitted by no Government, State or Federal, having the legal standing to know about it.
Griswold v Connecticut is where it gets loopy. And it's really the big enchilada that needs to get overturned if America is going to return to any sort of rational Constitutional law. The precedent set in GvC is that there are overall themes to Rights in the Constitution and in the Amendments, and that these themes imply specific Rights not specifically stated.
You may have heard the word "penumbra" used here, which is a "indelible in the hippocampus" way (by which I mean, insufferable, arrogant, and tryhard) of saying "gray area." The argument was literally that the words of the Constitution cast a shadow, and in this shadowy gray area are important things left unsaid but still just as important as the things specifically written. These unwritten things "emanate" (another word used to cloud rather than clarify) outward, going on to suggest more and more unwritten text.
If you have a brain, you understand this is retarded. It renders the Constitution completely meaningless. This perspective gives the Constitution unlimited power, or strips it of all power, depending on how some witch-doctor in a black robe squints at it. In the case of Roe v Wade, the decision was that though the Constitution doesn't state that there is a right to this medical privacy, privacy is implied through creative interpretation.
This new decision on RvW isn't the revocation of a Constitutional right, it's just fixing this stupidity about abortion being under the "penumbra" of implied privacy that "emanates" from Constitutional amendments that very clearly have nothing to do with abortion.
They've been making stuff up on the spot for 70 years now, and when one of their made up nonsense cases is overruled (because it had no basis in anything), the right-wing boogeyman is to blame.
Or maybe they call your FF the 'right-wing'. In that case, it's true.
Peak irony, as there never was a constitutional right to abortion, only far-fetched "living document" re-interpretation of things that were never intended to legitimize abortions.
Cool, so when an NPC gets into an argument with me I can shut them down by linking to this article by their trusted fake news publication. "Actually, the Constitution is whatever I say it is. Your argument is invalid. Source: The Atlantic"
Well the amazing thing about the right is we read the constitution and say ok that’s what it says. The left reads it and says this means anything we need it to mean whenever we can’t force unpopular laws onto the public.
Yeah basically it is, because we're the only ones who actually give three fifths of a shit about the text. They're unironically right about the headline.
Abortion is not a constitutional right. That's not how SCOTUS works. I know they don't teach civics anymore, but holy hell do people not understand anything anymore and are just an angry mob frothing at the mouth. It's now a state's rights issue. If you want it in your state, get it on the ballot and vote for it. It's literally more democratic this way. Plus, Roe v Wade wasn't just a catch all for aborting your pregnancy. That's not how it was argued in court, and it's why even Ruth Ginsberg on the bench wanted it repealed. As of right now, only unwanted pregnancies from rape, or ones that will in high likelihood cause harm to the mother or the child if the pregnancy were to continue are considered abortion worthy. And in some states, almost nothing has changed at all. Maybe, just maybe, we as humans can stop falling for the knee jerk reactions over and over and over and just spend 10 minutes looking into how things really are.
Scalia said
I'm not sure what you are trying to say, but I just wanted to make sure I understood it correctly. Roe v Wade declared abortion a Constitutional right.
Roe v Wade allowed abortion, but it had no constitutional protection. It sat as is, not codified for almost 50 years. Had they done so, it would have had constitutional protection.
What means "no constitutional protection?"
One can read the whole decision, but my point was that Scalia said that Roe v Wade found a right to abortion in the Constitution. If I'm reading it wrong, please let me know.
The right to free speech in the Constitution is also phrased as "Congress shall make no law" . Banning the government from restricting something is functionally equivalent to declaring it a right. I understand that the founders believed that rights were given by God and the government could only take them away. I agree with that.
It was not yet a law. Congress did not make it a law. It sat on the books without being put into law. That's what being codified means. This is how they were able to take it back. it was not yet codified. There are many like this that they are considering reviewing. SCOTUS by themselves cannot just make laws. They are the judicial branch of government, not the legislative.
Not exactly. What RvW did was use prior precedent: (Griswold v Connecticut) to basically say that abortion was a private medical matter between an abortion doctor and his "patient." Abortion is de facto permitted by no Government, State or Federal, having the legal standing to know about it.
Griswold v Connecticut is where it gets loopy. And it's really the big enchilada that needs to get overturned if America is going to return to any sort of rational Constitutional law. The precedent set in GvC is that there are overall themes to Rights in the Constitution and in the Amendments, and that these themes imply specific Rights not specifically stated.
You may have heard the word "penumbra" used here, which is a "indelible in the hippocampus" way (by which I mean, insufferable, arrogant, and tryhard) of saying "gray area." The argument was literally that the words of the Constitution cast a shadow, and in this shadowy gray area are important things left unsaid but still just as important as the things specifically written. These unwritten things "emanate" (another word used to cloud rather than clarify) outward, going on to suggest more and more unwritten text.
If you have a brain, you understand this is retarded. It renders the Constitution completely meaningless. This perspective gives the Constitution unlimited power, or strips it of all power, depending on how some witch-doctor in a black robe squints at it. In the case of Roe v Wade, the decision was that though the Constitution doesn't state that there is a right to this medical privacy, privacy is implied through creative interpretation.
This new decision on RvW isn't the revocation of a Constitutional right, it's just fixing this stupidity about abortion being under the "penumbra" of implied privacy that "emanates" from Constitutional amendments that very clearly have nothing to do with abortion.
They've been making stuff up on the spot for 70 years now, and when one of their made up nonsense cases is overruled (because it had no basis in anything), the right-wing boogeyman is to blame.
Or maybe they call your FF the 'right-wing'. In that case, it's true.
Peak irony, as there never was a constitutional right to abortion, only far-fetched "living document" re-interpretation of things that were never intended to legitimize abortions.
Ah yes, because there second amendment was talking about infanticide when it said "shall not be infringed".
Cool, so when an NPC gets into an argument with me I can shut them down by linking to this article by their trusted fake news publication. "Actually, the Constitution is whatever I say it is. Your argument is invalid. Source: The Atlantic"
They only read the headlines anyway.
I fucking wish.
Well the amazing thing about the right is we read the constitution and say ok that’s what it says. The left reads it and says this means anything we need it to mean whenever we can’t force unpopular laws onto the public.
"Please don't emanate in the penumbras."
Lol, if the right just treated it like a piece of scrap paper we wouldn't even be in this mess to begin with.
Yeah basically it is, because we're the only ones who actually give three fifths of a shit about the text. They're unironically right about the headline.
I often wish the world actually was they way it is in the left’s fever dreams.
Unironically yes, that is correct.