Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey
are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the
people and their elected representatives. Pp. 8–79.
KISS.
1 Like
CNN seems to be talking rationally, so it seems the establishment doesn’t want riots.
That’s good.
Probably thinking about the midterms…
1 Like
Congratulations America. You are a banana republic.
Establishment wants to draft all genders for the military as soon as possible- they need the abortion ruling to rile the public to push the equal rights act which will get Women constitutional rights to abortion - and as a bonus, surprise military draft.
I’m not familiar at all about all the legislative system, but couldn’t the legislators pass a federal law that, in practice, sets the same framework as the Roe v. Wade decision? Isn’t the problem simply that the decision was taken by the Supreme Court rather than the “regular way” laws are passed?
It’ll be one of Trump’s legacies and more ammo for TDS.
His 3 justices were in the majority decision.
In practice, that’s true. If you look at the actual constitution, the federal government doesn’t have the right to make this type of law.
So leaving the company of North Korea, China, and Vietnam and having laws more in line with the EU makes the US a banana republic? Or Is it having a judiciary which follows the law instead of creating it?
4 Likes
Many women will die and their lives will be on all pro-life Republican morons.
Lol, by overturning Roe v Wade abortion is completely unavailable in many US states now. Please be more informed.
Gay marriage and contraceptives are next. Soon you won’t even be able to buy a condom in America. Embarrassing shithole.
1 Like
The Dems will be thanking him for that one.
1 Like
Some snark from the dissent:
The majority’s core legal postulate, then, is that we in the 21st century must read the Fourteenth Amendment just as its ratifiers did. And that is indeed what the majority emphasizes over and over again. See ante, at 47 (“[T]he most important historical fact [is] how the States regulated abortion when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted”); see also ante, at 5, 16, and n. 24, 23, 25, 28. If the ratifiers did not understand something as central to freedom, then neither can we. Or said more particularly: If those people did not understand reproductive rights as part of the guarantee of liberty conferred in the Fourteenth Amendment, then those rights do not exist.
As an initial matter, note a mistake in the just preceding sentence. We referred there to the “people” who ratified the Fourteenth Amendment: What rights did those “people” have in their heads at the time? But, of course, “people” did not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment. Men did. So it is perhaps not so surprising that the ratifiers were not perfectly attuned to the importance of reproductive rights for women’s liberty, or for their capacity to participate as equal members of our Nation. Indeed, the ratifiers—both in 1868 and when the original Constitution was approved in 1788— did not understand women as full members of the community embraced by the phrase “We the People.” In 1868, the first wave of American feminists were explicitly told—of course by men—that it was not their time to seek constitutional protections. (Women would not get even the vote for another half-century.) To be sure, most women in 1868 also had a foreshortened view of their rights: If most men could not then imagine giving wome n control over their bodies, most women could not imagine having that kind of autonomy. But that takes away nothing from the core point. Those responsible for the original Constitution, including the Fourteenth Amendment, did not perceive women as equals, and did not recognize women’s rights. When the majority says that we must read our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification (except that we may also check it against the Dark Ages), it consigns women to second-class citizenship.
Have the pro-choice people on this forum made any legal arguments yet?
If we have, then can someone post a link?
I don’t like how people criticize the USA without knowing anything about our legal system (e.g. electoral college).
EDIT: even as I speak:
Are you suggesting that I’m criticizing the USA, or that the dissent is?
You posted something I was looking for.
I hadn’t seen the pro-choice contingent’s make any legal argument yet until you posted the dissent’s opinion.
Ah. Well I’m not making a legal argument either, really. Just sharing the part that seems like the core of their argument, and is also amusingly snarky.
You clearly don’t understand either the law or how they are supposed to come into existence in America. Please do some reading before posting your hate-fueled bile next time.
2 Likes
That’s not a legal argument; it’s a public policy one.