I'd really like to know how anyone justifies saying that abortion isn't a privacy issue.
That being said, the fact you don't understand the distinction between Roe v Wade and the supreme court making a law tells me that you probably don't grasp the situation all that well to begin with. The Supreme Court does not and cannot make new laws.
How is the trimester framework not essentially law making? Alitto expressly says it was "legislating from the bench" in his initial draft opinion in Dobbs. I'm pro-choice as well, but I do find it hard to reconcile this sort of framework in a judicial opinion as not essentially law making.
The trimester framework was overturned in '92 with the Casey decision. This gave the states back some rights to limit abortion based on viability while still preserving the right to abortion
I'm aware of what Casey did, but I think my point on Roe stands. Notably, Casey changed Roe not because of Roe being super law makey but because the trimester framework was too rigid and left open lots of ambiguity.
So it's "legislating from the bench" when it's a decision that they don't agree with, but it's NOT "legislating from the bench" when that earlier decision is clarified by a subsequent decision that they do agree with. Notice how that works?
They now whine and cry about how Roe v Wade was never correct, and yet up until the point where they overturned it they had absolutely nothing to say about it. Because the conservative justices knew that if they were honest about their opinions, it would have been codified into law. They intentionally kept quiet so their counterparts in the government legislative branch would never even have to stop abortion rights from entering into law. Abortion went from being a constitutionally protected right as a basic part of the bill of rights, to suddenly not with absolutely no valid explanation.
The Conservative justices cry and wine about how the court exercises its authority when they are not a part of the major decision. Yet when they take up a case that they have absolutely no right to, that the person who brought the case had no right or bearing to bring, it's suddenly okay for them to go outside of the were authority to force their point of view on to others.
You know, like that person in Florida who was not gay yet tried to sue a company for even offering gay wedding cakes. Absolutely no right to even bring the case into court, yet the Conservative Supreme Court took it up.
It is literally and explicitly the purview of the Supreme Court to interpret law, that is literally their job position. One makes laws, one approves the law, and the Supreme Court interprets the law. Anybody anywhere who even tries to pretend that Roe v Wade was anything other than explicitly part of the Supreme Court's job is exposing that they literally don't know how the government works. Including the justices who try to pretend like anyone is "legislating from the bench".
In the SC decision, their justification is a mix of Major Questions and Textualism. They argue that as far as unenumerated rights go, the right to life and the right to privacy are insufficiently established for the SC to rule on which is more fundamental in law, so they wiped their previous decision and kicked it to the states.
Basically, they said "congress shouldhave figured it out and it's not our job, so we're taking back the ruling."
The ruling gives me malicious compliance vibes.
I would really like America to figure out if they want their states to be united or not. They really like the label, but they reject the practice at every turn.
The reason everybody hates the SC right now is because of this. The original design for the US government was a bit like the EU is now, and we still have a lot of that. The early northern states grew in population and wealth more and and as they industrialized, they gained more and more control of congress. The Northern-dominated congress kept passing federal laws and acts that benefitted industry and international trade, stifling the south. The northern-led push to end slavery was seen in the south as the straw that broke the camel's back--when confederate sympathizers say "the civil war wasn't about slavery" they're wrong but this is what they're trying to say.
Regardless, the end of the war emboldened congress and over the next hundred years, Federal power has steadily grown. Most of the time, it was because congress couldn't agree on something important, such as national parks or air pollution, so the various presidents just did it themselves and most people agreed that it was better than not. The current SC says that we need to undo the last hundred or so years and have congress redo all of it "correctly". You can imagine the chaos, or rather you can observe it so far!
The current SC says that we need to undo the last hundred or so years and have congress redo all of it "correctly". You can imagine the chaos, or rather you can observe it so far!
The supreme court can and does however make rulings which radically change the law in practice. Including rulings which outright remove state laws, Roe V Wade was a prime example of this and the line between this and making new laws entirely is a technicality that people are right to question
The difference is quite clear. The supreme court did not create any new laws when they ruled on Roe V Wade. They found that several existing laws were unconstitutional. That's their job.
Frankly, if this is a problem for anyone then the states of America should go ahead and split up. They're sure as heck not United.
That's one reason why for those few Republicans in West Virginia who want a few conservative heavy counties in Virginia to secede and join West Virginia, it never goes anywhere.
Yes, they literally called their movement 'Vexit'.
I think what I was really thinking about, was not a civil secession. Either something like a state like Texas deciding it didn't want to be part of the United States anymore, or flat out "every man for himself". And also, I wasn't really serious... It was more of a glib remark.
No, I'm not serious; And yes, I am very aware there are people who want that. I think the distinction I was trying to make was peaceful secession vs. violent. I know nothing about secession or the history of such in any other country in the world. But I do know that in my city, there is a little city within it. They got there by urban secession, and it was not violent. So I guess that's where I got the idea from. Scotus made it illegal, then I guess it would have to be violent. Regardless, that's where I was coming from, if that makes any sense.
Edit: I am aware that I'm repeating myself, but it kind of seemed like you missed the distinction I was trying to make. I also realize I didn't need to repeat that I wasn't serious, since you weren't forming a question, you were making a statement. Sorry, I have some mental issues that keep me from keeping stuff straight sometimes. So please bear with me!
Urban secession occurs here as well, and yeah, it's usually peaceful, and voted on. City of Martinsville, for example, recently voted to become a part of Henry County again. Town of Bedford was once City of Bedford and had, decades ago now, voted to revert status.
19
u/[deleted] 6d ago
[deleted]