You’re saying that you approve of the way the judges made this decision because you don’t think judges should be making this decision.
As much as I hate to say it, D_Anconia has a point. The Tenth Amendment does say “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” which implies that since the Constitution doesn’t say anything about same sex marriage or miscegenation or abortion or sex between consenting adults or the Sega Dreamcast then none of these things are actually protected rights.
In all honesty, it really shouldn’t be the Supreme Court giving us these rights with tenuous interpretations of the Constitution. Does that mean the Court should blatantly overturn precedent and get rid of these rights? No. Does this mean Congress didn’t have a responsibility to enshrine Roe in legislation at some point in the last 50+ years? Also no. Same goes for interracial marriage, and contraception, and same-sex marriage, and everything else this conservative court wants to sweep away as Constitutional rights. All these things should be allowed by law passed by Congress, or better yet enumerated in a constitutional amendment that more explicitly grants them as inalienable rights than the 14th amendment.
The Court addressed the Establish Clause issues on pp 20-31. A government employee is not establishing a religion by using his Free Exercise rights.
You have it backwards. This wasn’t about a power held by the federal government. The Roe decision had already eliminated that power back in 1973.
The Dobbs decision took a power that had been denied to both the federal government and state governments and gave it back to them. This decision increased Federal power along with state power.
No, the Justices themselves said that they shouldn’t be the one to make the law. The decision is up to the People.
You just said judges shouldn’t make that decision.
Your posts are getting circular.
Quoting you does that.
Please explain this. AFAIK, Roe said that the states cannot flatly ban abortion, giving federal judges and courts authority to overrule any state attempting to do so. How was that eliminating a federal power? ETA: afaik there were no federal laws criminalizing abortion.
Federal courts are exercising federal powers under Article III. If they set aside state restrictions on abortion based on the federal constitution, that is a federal power.
Prior to Roe, governments (both states and federal) had the power to ban all abortions. After Roe, they did not. That clearly was a reduction in government power.
The Dobbs decision gave that power back to the government. While most of the focus has been on state governments, there have been Congressmen saying they will seek to enact a federal ban on abortions if the Republicans win a majority in Congress.
If the federal government ever had the power (even if unused) to ban abortion, that’s news to me. The Interstate Commerce Clause notwithstanding, the federal government doesn’t automatically have authority over anything it wants to. I thought abortion was strictly a state matter prior to Roe.
As I noted, there has already been a bill introduced in Congress to outlaw abortions at a federal level. So apparently there are Congressmen who think the federal government can do this. And the current Supreme Court seems motivated more by an ideological agenda than legal principles so I wouldn’t count of them to say no.
Correct; he’s not establishing a religion by using his Free Exercise rights. He’s only establishing a religion when he uses his authority over others to induce them to worship. Had he stuck to just exercising his own rights, and not do that, there wouldn’t have been a problem.
How well would a law hold up, enshrining said rights. All it takes is a change in govt makeup for a couple of years to strip them all away.
I would argue that a SCOTUS decision typically would have more staying power than legislations, as SCOTUS has historically not changed precedent based on political pressures, until now.
Yeah, unfortunately, that will never happen. The amendment process is a bit harder to do, and it’s not up to congress to ratify it even if they pass it by the required thresholds.
Not sure if this is the right thread, so apologies for the potential hijack.
When a woman in Kansas (or another state that’s banned all abortions regardless of the health of the mother) dies from complications of an ectopic pregnancy that should have been terminated, will her family be able to successfully sue the state?
IANAL, but ISTM that preventing women from having a recommended procedure that’s considered standard care elsewhere would leave a state vulnerable to damages in a case like this.
No, that wouldn’t work. If the state has the ability to ban a procedure then it has no further liability. You can’t sue the state for that unless it’s a fundamental right that has been denied. The Supreme Court has already said it’s not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution.
So let me see if I have this straight. AFAIK, coronary bypass surgery is also not a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. If Illinois banned coronary bypasses and I died needing one, the legal remedy would be “tough shit”?
That is correct.