@Mr_Smashy already posted it, but the opinion seems to rely on (a) “the Constitution doesn’t mention abortion” and (b) “our nation’s history doesn’t tend to point to abortion being a recognized right”.
It’s not entirely clear to me why Alito is relying so heavily on history, other than to perhaps provide some demarcation between those rights that are not stated directly in the constitution that he wants to keep protected and those that he does not.
You won’t find any justice swearing not to overrule Roe or Casey. But they sure did come close in a wink-wink nudge-nudge sort of way.
~Max
I’m not sure The Internet is written into the Constitution, nor women in the workplace, nor minority suffrage, but the Court rules on those things.
It’s difficult to imagine that on this message board, somebody would still ignore the Southern Strategy, and the fact that – while the party affiliation may have changed – the underlying ideology of the people in question never did.
Strictly on a legal standpoint, the latter. That becomes a Court usurping a legislative prerogative.
All three are addressed by federal law and the Constitution gives the Court jurisdiction over federal law (Article 3 section 2). Minority suffrage is also addressed in the Constitution proper, twice (Amendments XIV and XIX).
~Max
Prager “U”? Ha! Might as well cite QANON.
If you are returning after a long hiatus I recommend reading over the new rules for Politics and Elections.
~Max
I’m taking issue with Originalism, Max.
And the larger point is: the SC has always found a way to tie a novel issue to something that can be found in the Constitution.
So, saying “it isn’t in the Constitution, per se” is just horseshit.
Moderating:
Welcome back to the boards.
You are of course welcome to state your views forcefully here. However, if your intent is simply to troll the libs, then that is not allowed.
I’m going to give you a pointed mod note to dial back the snark.
Thanks.
The implied notion that “facts and numbers” can’t be used to lie is a bit naive, isn’t it?
Yes, that’s pretty much what I wrote. Point being that he was not claiming that abortion has always been illegal, which is how you originally put it.
You can attribute whatever sentiment you want to Alito. ISTM there’s a valid basis for distinguishing between something which has always been regarded as a fundamental right though not explicitly written and something which has no basis in text or history. YMMV.
And now you guys can draft a proper law. Beg, borrow and steal to get the necessary votes to pass it.
Hell, Biden can issue some executive orders to tide you over in the meantime.
Roe v. Wade always was a stupid stop-gap while it lasted. Now it is the past and you need proper laws.
The (D) folks have to realize they cannot have their cake and eat it to. Call your representative, become a representative: do whatever. Leave this thread as a stern warning against inaction.
Judges do not make laws.
Well, I mean, that’s a summary. But the opinion is a little more detailed. The straight dope is linked in post #876. Roe v Wade didn’t settle on any specific provision of the Constitution to justify its holding, and Planned Parenthood v Casey didn’t clarify the matter. Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health revisits all of the individual provisions brought up in Roe and Casey, and rejects their applicability to abortion. One of those arguments - the main one - was that the due process clause protects fundamental rights and abortion is a fundamental right. The Court did an analysis of the history of the right to abortion and rejected that argument.
The State is a semi-sovereign entity, and its laws were passed by the people’s representatives, so the courts give state law a presumption of validity. Which means that a woman (or clinic) wishing to overturn state law due to the Constitution has the burden of convincing the Court that the law is unconstitutional. This court rejected all such arguments, and the law is left standing.
~Max
I thought the writing was on the wall after the ruling on the right to carry handguns. Obviously the leajed draft ruling had already made clear it was a distinct possibilty, but the ruling on handguns at a time when even some in the GOP had signalled they were open to some gun restictions was clear signal.
Ah, I see the distinction you are making. Here is another quote from the decision: “Indeed, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three quarters of the States made abortion a crime at all stages of pregnancy.”
That was the particular historical fact I was referencing - one I’m not sure I agree with the import of.
This position pretty obviously puts gay marriage directly in the cross-hairs.
IANAL, but my understanding is (more or less) Roe was pulled out of Blackmun’s ass.
The main basis of Roe was that through some very contrived way, the 14th amendment gave us a right to personal privacy. That allowed legalization of a woman asking for bodily manipulation for herself. After 24 weeks or viability, it’s more questionable. What I read of the leaked decision was that no such right exists - that the main logic was pulled out of thin air.
Just a note, there is plenty of evidence that Prager U is spewing many conspiracies and misinformation (PragerU - RationalWiki), and as one that investigated climate change in the past and saw a few of the Prager U videos on the subject, I have to agree with the critics of Prager U, get better sources than a place that is not even a University.
It proves that abortion could not possibly have been recognized as a fundamental right at that time.
The idea is that abortion legality may have varied over time and place, but it’s something that was considered within the purview of state governments, to ban, restrict, or allow as they saw fit, and not as a fundamental right that was outside of their authority.
I just watched the video. It’s really about what it doesn’t say. In the troves of fact-based information it excludes, it becomes nothing more than a five-minute long red herring, reminiscent of “If evolution is fact, then why are there still monkeys ?”
It demonstrates a failure to understand and identify the relevant and important issues.
I’ll counter your Prager U cite with this one:
Southern Strategy | Encyclopedia.com
It really addresses everything that Prager’s speaker says, but – much more importantly – everything that she doesn’t say.
Why not? The 'Pubes did.