Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Of course you do.
- Status
Of course you do.
I'm sure there is another occupation that he is even more widely known for....
Susheel
Illuminator
Do they also wear tight leather and chains in your mind?
To me "originalism" and the intent of the Framers is useful when we want to understand what the words and phrases of the Constitution mean and were intended to mean. That's why so many scholars pour over original sources like the notes of the constitutional convention and the Federalist Papers.
But what Jefferson said 30 years later while he was playing oracle back at Monticello was just his opinion.
What the nay sayer, Patrick Henry thought is just what he thought.
When you get down to the nub of it the document is so remarkably ambiguous that those looking for a definitive road map for 21st century democracy will be disappointed.
The "new originalists" have ignored the intended ambiguity of the document and have pretended that "abortion" since not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is not a protected privacy right.
This argument is an insult to the our intelligence. The justices who so argue citing the Framers original intent disingenuously ignore the 9th amendment which reserves, to the people, rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution or the other Bills of Rights.
This twisted, insincere argument hints that the justices think we are too stupid to understand Constitutional law and can't recognize that they have cherry picked an argument.
The right to privacy isn't just an idea. When it comes down it no state would dare invade our lives so as to tell us we can't turn down that last hopeless round of chemo and radiation. . .or tell us it isn't time to honor pawpaw's living will and turn of life support. . .or tell us that we just have to let go of our suffering cancer riddled preschooler.
But what Jefferson said 30 years later while he was playing oracle back at Monticello was just his opinion.
What the nay sayer, Patrick Henry thought is just what he thought.
When you get down to the nub of it the document is so remarkably ambiguous that those looking for a definitive road map for 21st century democracy will be disappointed.
The "new originalists" have ignored the intended ambiguity of the document and have pretended that "abortion" since not specifically mentioned in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is not a protected privacy right.
This argument is an insult to the our intelligence. The justices who so argue citing the Framers original intent disingenuously ignore the 9th amendment which reserves, to the people, rights which are not enumerated in the Constitution or the other Bills of Rights.
This twisted, insincere argument hints that the justices think we are too stupid to understand Constitutional law and can't recognize that they have cherry picked an argument.
The right to privacy isn't just an idea. When it comes down it no state would dare invade our lives so as to tell us we can't turn down that last hopeless round of chemo and radiation. . .or tell us it isn't time to honor pawpaw's living will and turn of life support. . .or tell us that we just have to let go of our suffering cancer riddled preschooler.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
They could easily argue that the 10th Amendment reserves the power to regulate abortion (among other powers "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution") to the States.
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
- Joined
- Feb 14, 2005
- Messages
- 96,955
Originalism is what Scalia used when it suited him. He ignored it when it didn't.
Alito is using it the same way.
This is the dirty secret of the Constitution. It doesn't really mean much of anything. It's just a mechanism for lending reflected legitimacy to the cultural assumptions of whoever dominates the SC. It's the modern equivalent of the priests interpreting the will of the Gods. The moment significant numbers of people realise that, the Emperor is going to need a new set of clothes.
Last edited:
shemp
a flimsy character...perfidious and despised
Yes it would, but the election matters, the polls don't. You can take all the polls you want regarding Roe v. Wade, but people will be voting for Representatives and Senators, and most people aren't single-issue voters. Millions of pro-choice people may still vote for anti-choice candidates for other reasons. Millions of people who respond to polls with pro-choice answers may not show up to vote at all.
You can take all the goddamn polls you want, BUT ALL THAT MATTERS IS WHO ACTUALLY VOTES AND WHO THEY VOTE FOR! Period!
You also have a whole bunch of systematic polling biases. Some sections of the population are harder to reach, some don't want to answer polls, some don't want to answer honestly. If you look into the methods of lots of polls, there is often a heck of a lot of subjective decision making involved in turning the raw data into something that genuinely reflects the population. Just because all the polls say mostly the same thing, doesn't mean they are right. Are they that great at predicting election percentages?
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Originalism is the compromise of the generous absolutist: it's only relatively relative.
wareyin
Penultimate Amazing
Within their margin of error, taken in aggregate, yeah they're actually pretty damn good at predicting who will win an election. Which is what they're intended to do.
Well, actually, if you want to adopt that position then you have to ask who gets to vote and who for. As a result of gerrymandering and other sleazy tactics, the vast majority of House districts are locked to one party or the other. State legislatures are even more rigidly divided. Some states have aggressively made it harder to vote, particularly for people who wouldn't be likely to vote for Repubs. 50 senators from the smallest states represent almost 50 million fewer Americans than the 50 from the bigger states. The Supreme Court is profoundly and smugly anti-democratic. If elections could get the majority what we want, we would have universal health care, tough gun laws, legal abortion, and higher taxes on the rich. And Al Gore and Hillary Clinton would have been President.
Last edited:
So a state has the power to violate the privacy of a woman seeking an abortion? It seems to me that the court's decision on NY gun laws means the protections of the Bill of Rights extend to state actions. Is the court saying the state can't stop you from carrying a gun but it can violate the privacy of women and families seeking abortions?
But the real question might end up being whether the Congress via the Supremacy Clause has the authority to preempt state laws that conflict with any federal law protecting abortion rights.
You know. . .wave a magic wand over abortions (really health care in general). . .call it commerce and start dictating to the states.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
This wasn't really in doubt from the 1820s until the 1970s.
This has been true since Gitlow v. New York (1925), but only for selected rights.
Yes.
If that question arises, I do not expect it will be because the Dems had the wherewithal to codify something like Casey or Roe. Instead, it will be because the GOP managed to pass a federal ban.
Thanks for the replies, d4m10n.
The practical application of how the Bill of Rights are made or not made applicable to the states baffles a lot of people.
In this case the idea that Kentucky woman has to cross the Ohio river to Illinois to get a safe and legal abortion sounds like a Dred Scott thing to a lot of people.
The practical application of how the Bill of Rights are made or not made applicable to the states baffles a lot of people.
In this case the idea that Kentucky woman has to cross the Ohio river to Illinois to get a safe and legal abortion sounds like a Dred Scott thing to a lot of people.
Last edited:
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
Not a bad analogy, IMO.
In both cases, SCOTUS had the chance to advance human rights, and in both cases they went with narrow originalism instead.
Tero
Philosopher
I was actually thinking that some 50/50 states might pass the 15 week ban. Enough democrats will think it's some kind of gain over the likely nothing, if the governor is Republican. Governorships here in the little states are just bought. All you need is ads on Fox TV a few months all day. My governor included. He has no skills at all, completely dependent on staff and a grasp of Trumpism.
One theory (which I understand is not supported in case law) is that the 14th amendment extends the first 8 amendments to all U.S. citizens.
But this theory doesn't extend unenumerated 9 amendment rights or penumbral (see Roe) rights to citizens.
d4m10n
Penultimate Amazing
A few maps of how things are playing out in the states:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/99466
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...king-where-abortion-laws-stand-in-every-state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/
Kansas is of particular interest to me, since they will be holding a popular referendum vote in early August to allow the legislature to ban abortions going forward. It will be fascinating to see if the people are going to willingly hand over bodily autonomy, or if there is a significant gap between the rulers and the ruled.
Several other states where abortion is currently available seem likely to implement bans in coming months; I fully expect one will be able to travel from Savannah, Georgia to Priest Lake, Idaho without once stepping foot in a state which allows abortion after six weeks.
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/99466
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...king-where-abortion-laws-stand-in-every-state
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/06/24/abortion-state-laws-criminalization-roe/
Kansas is of particular interest to me, since they will be holding a popular referendum vote in early August to allow the legislature to ban abortions going forward. It will be fascinating to see if the people are going to willingly hand over bodily autonomy, or if there is a significant gap between the rulers and the ruled.
Several other states where abortion is currently available seem likely to implement bans in coming months; I fully expect one will be able to travel from Savannah, Georgia to Priest Lake, Idaho without once stepping foot in a state which allows abortion after six weeks.
Last edited:
- Status