The Supremes

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Oh?

From the syllabus:

"the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment...protects against state action the right to privacy, including a woman's qualified right to terminate her pregnancy. Though the State cannot override that right, it has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman's health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a 'compelling' point at various stages of the woman's approach to term."

the syllabus of what?

[Brisketexan 105192]

4 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

You're basically making Alito's point, which is that the Constitution does not protect these "reproductive rights," so the legislature should deal with them. The legislature has dealt with your other examples, on issues of employment, access to credit, spousal rape and abuse, etc. Why can it not deal with abortion as well, since there's no constitutionally-protected right to have one?

Legislatures sure as shit didn't deal with other rights that have been protected with similar reasoning: right to contraception, right to oral sex in your own home, right to gay sex, right to marry outside of your race, etc.

Rights matter.  Especially about some of the most fundamental and foundational matters of being a human -- our sexuality and reproduction.  There are few things more entwined with our very humanity than those things, and legislatures have been more than happy to take them out of our control, and rule our behaviors by draconian edict.  Again, this decision isn't just profound and devastating for the building it tore down, it's devastating because it demolished the bedrock upon which most of our personal, private lives, and our right to live that life free of government interference, rested.  That's gone.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

My favorite part of the brief is the tangent where they tell us where the Kingdom of Hawai'i banned abortion in 1850 as if that had anything at all to do with Roe, 14th Amendment, or the United States

 

 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Legislatures sure as shit didn't deal with other rights that have been protected with similar reasoning: right to contraception, right to oral sex in your own home, right to gay sex, right to marry outside of your race, etc.

Rights matter.  Especially about some of the most fundamental and foundational matters of being a human -- our sexuality and reproduction.  There are few things more entwined with our very humanity than those things, and legislatures have been more than happy to take them out of our control, and rule our behaviors by draconian edict.  Again, this decision isn't just profound and devastating for the building it tore down, it's devastating because it demolished the bedrock upon which most of our personal, private lives, and our right to live that life free of government interference, rested.  That's gone.

Of course rights matter. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guard against two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't dispute your point at all and I am deeply troubled by what will be obvious consequences of this decision. But at the same time there was no right to reproductive freedom at the time the Constitution was ratified, enumerated or otherwise. 

[Brisketexan 105192]

Just now, SimonBolivar said:

My favorite part of the brief is the tangent where they tell us where the Kingdom of Hawai'i banned abortion in 1850 as if that had anything at all to do with Roe, 14th Amendment, or the United States

 

 

"Since 1714, the English Crown has required the holder of the estate of Duckfuckery to pay annual rent to the Crown in the form of 3 wheels of Stilton cheese and 4 steel axe heads.  Therefore, taxes in the United States can only be paid by aged dairy products and woodchopping implements.  This opinion does not reach the question of whether a modern chainsaw is a woodchopping implement."

[DDD Dad 14346]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

the syllabus of what?

Roe v. Wade.  Here's the text from the body of the opinion:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution....This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy....We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

 

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

According to @Johnny Sack they haven’t moved to the right on anything. Any thoughts on revising that statement?

Nope.  It just is not true.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Roe v. Wade.  Here's the text from the body of the opinion:

"The Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy. In a line of decisions, however, going back perhaps as far as Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251, 11 S.Ct. 1000, 1001, 35 L.Ed. 734 (1891), the Court has recognized that a right of personal privacy, or a guarantee of certain areas or zones of privacy, does exist under the Constitution....This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy....We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation."

 

begging the question overload

SCOTUS is holding that Roe was wrongly decided and that there is not and never has been a right to an abortion

[DDD Dad 14346]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Nope.  It just is not true.

Did you get that off of Facebook?

[hobbes2702 13051]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Nope.  It just is not true.

They haven’t moved right on trade? The border? Guns? Transition of power? Are you just lying to us?

[DDD Dad 14346]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

begging the question overload

SCOTUS is holding that Roe was wrongly decided and that there is not and never has been a right to an abortion

I'm not begging anything.  There clearly was one for nearly 50 years.  That this Court might be reversing itself doesn't change the history that the Constitution (through the SCOTUS's power of judicial review) since the 1970's.

 

[royiv 9333]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Nope.  It just is not true.

Show your work. You’ve been given a dozen issues where the Rs have moved right. A moving blob of color does nothing to support your argument.

[Brisketexan 105192]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

Of course rights matter. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guard against two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't dispute your point at all and I am deeply troubled by what will be obvious consequences of this decision. But at the same time there was no right to reproductive freedom at the time the Constitution was ratified, enumerated or otherwise. 

There wasn't a right to free speech by electronic communication.

There wasn't a right to any weapon capable of firing 800 rounds per minute.

There was no right to engage in oral sex with your spouse.

There was not right to contraception.

And we could go on, for pages.

Foolish originalism is just that, pure folly.  It presumes that humanity, our economies, and our social structures will not develop or advance in any way since 1789.  And/or, only the most profound of advances (gee, after having a war that kills hundreds of thousands, MAYBE slavery is bad) can be acknowledged in terms of actual protections from government reach.

"Reproductive freedom" is not a "deep historical" thing because women have functionally been slaves for most of human history.  THAT'S why it isn't a "deep historical" thing -- because bitches do what they're told, especially what their husband tells them to do, right up to this last century.  For millennia it was that way.  And Alito says "so, let's side with the millenia of shitty history, and NOT the past century where we figured out that maybe women were equal human beings."  It's so fucking terrifyingly retrograde as to defy full explanation or illustration.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

I'm not begging anything.  There clearly was one for nearly 50 years.  That this Court might be reversing itself doesn't change the history that the Constitution (through the SCOTUS's power of judicial review) since the 1970's.

 

sure you are. You're saying there was a constitutional right to an abortion because Roe recognized such a right even though SCOTUS is now saying that Roe was wrongly decided because there never was a constitutional right to an abortion. Maybe we're just arguing semantics but the result is the same: SCOTUS is going to hold that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

[SimonBolivar 10958]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Did you get that off of Facebook?

It's a visualization from Pew that shows how both parties were polarized from 2004-2017. For some reason Sack seems to think it doesn't show that?

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Good thread here

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

There wasn't a right to free speech by electronic communication.

There wasn't a right to any weapon capable of firing 800 rounds per minute.

There was no right to engage in oral sex with your spouse.

There was not right to contraception.

And we could go on, for pages.

Foolish originalism is just that, pure folly.  It presumes that humanity, our economies, and our social structures will not develop or advance in any way since 1789.  And/or, only the most profound of advances (gee, after having a war that kills hundreds of thousands, MAYBE slavery is bad) can be acknowledged in terms of actual protections from government reach.

"Reproductive freedom" is not a "deep historical" thing because women have functionally been slaves for most of human history.  THAT'S why it isn't a "deep historical" thing -- because bitches do what they're told, especially what their husband tells them to do, right up to this last century.  For millennia it was that way.  And Alito says "so, let's side with the millenia of shitty history, and NOT the past century where we figured out that maybe women were equal human beings."  It's so fucking terrifyingly retrograde as to defy full explanation or illustration.

an intentional oversimplification of textualism/originalism and how it works but you know that

[DDD Dad 14346]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

sure you are. You're saying there was a constitutional right to an abortion because Roe recognized such a right even though SCOTUS is now saying that Roe was wrongly decided because there never was a constitutional right to an abortion. Maybe we're just arguing semantics but the result is the same: SCOTUS is going to hold that there is no longer a constitutional right to an abortion.

FIFY.

[Pig Bellmont 8719]

Looking forward to Texas telling women they have to carry their dead babies to term. 

[TXSooner518 2438]

19 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

You're basically making Alito's point, which is that the Constitution does not protect these "reproductive rights," so the legislature should deal with them. The legislature has dealt with your other examples, on issues of employment, access to credit, spousal rape and abuse, etc. Why can it not deal with abortion as well, since there's no constitutionally-protected right to have one?

Strongly disagree. I believe that Griswold, Lawrence, Roe, Casey, etc., were correctly decided based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. My point is that the opinion of jagoffs in mid-1700s England is irrelevant to these discussions today. 

Absolutely cannot leave people's core rights in life, such as the right to marry, travel, family plan, have sex, etc., up to the whims of partisan legislatures, even before the cascading waterfall of bullshit voter suppression and gerrymandering. 

[Brisketexan 105192]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

an intentional oversimplification of textualism/originalism and how it works but you know that

Of course it's a simplification -- I get shit on when I write a treatise.  But, it's also pretty fucking accurate, and you know that, too.  It's an utterly shit mode of approaching constitutional interpretation, and it is almost always result-driven in the worst ways.  It's not an honest philosophical approach, it's an excuse for imposing retrograde beliefs.

[jimmyjazz 46021]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Of course rights matter. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to guard against two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner. I don't dispute your point at all and I am deeply troubled by what will be obvious consequences of this decision. But at the same time there was no right to reproductive freedom at the time the Constitution was ratified, enumerated or otherwise. 

What is your point?  Are you saying the 14th Amendment, once passed, should not have been interpreted as it was in Roe V Wade?

[JBJ 3664]

27 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Not gonna review the entire treatise to see if this was a true, clear-minded legal statement completely untinged with Hale's opinion. Let's stipulate that you are correct. Even with that, two GIANT differences:

1) One is written in 1973 and the other in 2022. It's a half-century later, which has drastically shifted the role of women in society. 1973 is not far removed from women are there for men as property mindset that many had in the 1950s etc. The sexual revolution and idea of career women was taking off. Let's take opinion of spousal rape in 1973 and compare it to 2022 for example. 

2) Roe is using Hale's piece as a counter-example: "Even in repressive times, this was not illegal."  Alito's opinion is using what was illegal in the 1700s to argue what should be illegal today. Who gives one flying fuck what a society that said a man could beat and rape his wife thinks about women's reproductive freedom in 2022??  It's abhorrent. 

Point 1: There's a process for this and it's not judicial.  In the example you give I assume legislatures have amended laws to meet the changing attitudes of society.

Point 2: The basic argument from Roe is that abortion is a unenumermated right.  Unenumerated rights are those not specifically named in the constitution but are so ingrained in history and culture that they would not have even been thought of to be made explicit.  The right to freely travel within the nation is a common example.  The presumption of innocence is another.

Both are using ECL to support their claims that this was or was not an unenumerated right.  By showing what is illegal or not under ECL.  ECL is not an atypical battleground for these discussions because that's where the vast majority of our law comes from.

Basically, it was/wasn't legal throughout our full legal history, so it can/can't be a fundamental right.  If times have changed, that's evidence that Roe is wrong and Alito is right.

[tchookem 3905]

 

I understand the point, but I think we're well beyond hypocrisy mattering to GOP voters.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

FIFY.

yeah that's not what they're holding. They are holding that there is not and never has been a constitutional right to an abortion because it's not protected by the constitution because it is neither an enumerated right protected by the constitution nor is it one of the unenumerated rights that existed at the time of ratification. 

I'm not going to try and insult you but that's what the holding is/will be.

[Brisketexan 105192]

Just now, TXSooner518 said:

Strongly disagree. I believe that Griswold, Lawrence, Roe, Casey, etc., were correctly decided based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. My point is that the opinion of jagoffs in mid-1700s England is irrelevant to these discussions today. 

Absolutely cannot leave people's core rights in life, such as the right to marry, travel, family plan, have sex, etc., up to the whims of partisan legislatures, even before the cascading waterfall of bullshit voter suppression and gerrymandering. 

You sound like a libtard who things that negroes and queers are actual human beings, women are not chattel ("deeply rooted in history!"), and that blowjobs are not a perversion born of the devil.  You'll get yours soon enough, commie.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

Strongly disagree. I believe that Griswold, Lawrence, Roe, Casey, etc., were correctly decided based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. My point is that the opinion of jagoffs in mid-1700s England is irrelevant to these discussions today. 

Absolutely cannot leave people's core rights in life, such as the right to marry, travel, family plan, have sex, etc., up to the whims of partisan legislatures, even before the cascading waterfall of bullshit voter suppression and gerrymandering. 

I get what you're saying but that position currently has 3.5 votes at SCOTUS

[immamac 42890]

4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

Looking forward to Texas telling women they have to carry their dead babies to term. 

I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Of course it's a simplification -- I get shit on when I write a treatise.  But, it's also pretty fucking accurate, and you know that, too.  It's an utterly shit mode of approaching constitutional interpretation, and it is almost always result-driven in the worst ways.  It's not an honest philosophical approach, it's an excuse for imposing retrograde beliefs.

lol and what method of constitutional interpretation is not results driven? 

Parts of it are accurate, which is why I said it was an oversimplification and not incorrect. It's correct in the sense that rights evolve in terms of how they are expressed (for example, we don't use printing presses, buggies, or muskets anymore), but that does not mean that we can just create new rights because it's good public policy. 

[DDD Dad 14346]

5 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

yeah that's not what they're holding. They are holding that there is not and never has been a constitutional right to an abortion because it's not protected by the constitution because it is neither an enumerated right protected by the constitution nor is it one of the unenumerated rights that existed at the time of ratification. 

I'm not going to try and insult you but that's what the holding is/will be.

One court cannot undo the history of what a prior court ruled.  Unless and until the court issues an opinion reversing Roe, the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy.  That is the law TODAY.  If the court changes course and says, "no, those other justices were wrong" then there no longer will be a constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

To say that it wasn't protected by the Constitution under the Supreme Court's power of judicial review (also not in the Constitution, BTW) in the Roe opinion since the 1970's (regardless of whether the opinion was rightly or wrongly decided) is to be obtuse.  What makes the opinion rightly or wrongly decided is a vote of a majority of the court at any given time.

Feel free to try to insult my intelligence all you like.  I figure I've got decades of constitutional law education and experience over you.

Edited May 3, 2022 by DDD Dad

[Johnny Sack 8397]

4 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

They haven’t moved right on trade? The border? Guns? Transition of power? Are you just lying to us?

Transition of power is a left or right position?  Trump lost and was a dumbass.  But nothing was ever going to happen.

What about gay marriage?  Trump was the first president in history to run for a first term in support of gay marriage.

Trade protectionism has traditionally been a position of the left.  So I would say the GOP has moved left on the issue.

Immigration? I guess moved right due to the Lucy with the football.

Drugs?  Moved left.

Sentencing reform?  Moved left.

Spending?  Moved way left.

Gays in the military.  Moved left.

Anti-discrimination laws.  Moved left.

In my view, the GOP and those who identify as Republicans have moved to the left on most social issues and fiscal issues.

 

 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What is your point?  Are you saying the 14th Amendment, once passed, should not have been interpreted as it was in Roe V Wade?

I'm saying that the people who ratified the constitution, the bill of rights, and the fourteenth amendment were not contemplating abortion when they did so and certainly did not intend to protect that right by doing so

[Brisketexan 105192]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The right to freely travel within the nation is a common example.  The presumption of innocence is another.

.......

Basically, it was/wasn't legal throughout our full legal history, so it can/can't be a fundamental right.  If times have changed, that's evidence that Roe is wrong and Alito is right.

First, your first two examples are now fully open to debate. Stare decisis is shit. And I know for a fact that the anti-immigrant faction of the GOP (so, all of them) does NOT believe in the right to freely travel (see the "papers, please" laws in AZ etc.).

Second, as to your bold, women didn't have the right to jack shit throughout our history.  They were functionally chattel.  They sure as shit didn't have the right to refuse sex to their husbands.  Anything women now have, except for the right to vote (the subject of specific constitutional provision) is thus not constitutionally protected.  And don't try to trot out "but equal protection."   The removal of the right to refuse sex to your spouse falls almost entirely on women.  The removal of the right to use contraception falls most heavily on women.

Alito's brand of "originalism" is an excuse, not a sincere or honest legal approach.

[hobbes2702 13051]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Transition of power is a left or right position?  Trump lost and was a dumbass.  But nothing was ever going to happen.

What about gay marriage?  Trump was the first president in history to run for a first term in support of gay marriage.

Trade protectionism has traditionally been a position of the left.  So I would say the GOP has moved left on the issue.

Immigration? I guess moved right due to the Lucy with the football.

Drugs?  Moved left.

Sentencing reform?  Moved left.

Spending?  Moved way left.

Gays in the military.  Moved left.

Anti-discrimination laws.  Moved left.

In my view, the GOP and those who identify as Republicans have moved to the left on most social issues and fiscal issues.

 

 

So you’re just doing the lying thing? Cool

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

One court cannot undo the history of what a prior court ruled.  Unless and until the court issues an opinion reversing Roe, the Constitution protects a woman's right to an abortion in the first trimester of her pregnancy.  That is the law TODAY.  If the court changes course and says, "no, those other justices were wrong" then there no longer will be a constitutionally protected right to an abortion.

To say that it wasn't protected by the Constitution under the Supreme Court's power of judicial review (also not in the Constitution, BTW) is to be obtuse.

Feel free to try to insult my intelligence all you like.  I figure I've got decades of constitutional law education and experience over you.

I have no desire whatsoever to insult you or your intelligence. 

[jimmyjazz 46021]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Unenumerated rights are those not specifically named in the constitution but are so ingrained in history and culture that they would not have even been thought of to be made explicit.  

What?  Where does slavery fall under this umbrella?  13A codified that it was no longer allowed.  Is 13A "wrong" because the idea that slavery is wrong wasn't ingrained in the original Constitution?

[DaysOff 7966]

Unless the babies are brown and their parents speak some desert or jungle language...
We killed over 500,000 civilians in Iraq because a Republican president was mad they tried to kill his daddy and a Republican vice president wanted a no-bid government contract for the company he owned to rebuild the whole place.  Legit LMAO at Republicans trying to claim the moral high ground on not killing innocents.  A person would have to be pure evil or really ignorant to even attempt it with a straight face.
 

He still loved Jeb more to the last breath. Was it worth it?

[burntorangebongos 10751]

11 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

sure you are. You're saying there was a constitutional right to an abortion because Roe recognized such a right even though SCOTUS is now saying that Roe was wrongly decided because there never was a constitutional right to an abortion. Maybe we're just arguing semantics but the result is the same: SCOTUS is going to hold that there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

It doesn't make the 50 years that is was recognized as a right go away. Don't be daft.

[DDD Dad 14346]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

I'm saying that the people who ratified the constitution, the bill of rights, and the fourteenth amendment were not contemplating abortion when they did so and certainly did not intend to protect that right by doing so

OK cool.  Now do the second amendment and the idea of an individual right to bear arms.

[DaysOff 7966]

And if you read the whole thing, they're not calling for the enactment of a constitutional amendment.  They're supporting the efforts of those who seek a constitutional amendment.
But that acknowledges that Roe is good law.  And that's not what you said.  You said that they were opposed to Roe.  And that's not true.  Republican efforts to overturn Roe didn't start until the 1980s.

It started with Reagan sucking off that fat moral majority guy.

[Brisketexan 105192]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

lol and what method of constitutional interpretation is not results driven? 

Parts of it are accurate, which is why I said it was an oversimplification and not incorrect. It's correct in the sense that rights evolve in terms of how they are expressed (for example, we don't use printing presses, buggies, or muskets anymore), but that does not mean that we can just create new rights because it's good public policy. 

But your deconstruction makes the actual point.  There are very few rights more sacrosanct -- and DEEPLY rooted in history -- than the right to do as you wish with your own body, to control your own physical person.  It's arguably the original, foundational right.  But, for much of history, we built structures that said "well, yeah, sure.....but we don't mean for bitches.  Bitches gotta do what we say."  Alito says that we were "wrong" to interpret things differently for 50 years.  Yet he is unwilling to say that we were "wrong" for treating women like chattel for millennia.  The only difference is the starting point of our epic fuck up -- he just picked the outcome he likes.

[TXSooner518 2438]

6 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Point 1: There's a process for this and it's not judicial.  In the example you give I assume legislatures have amended laws to meet the changing attitudes of society.

Point 2: The basic argument from Roe is that abortion is a unenumermated right.  Unenumerated rights are those not specifically named in the constitution but are so ingrained in history and culture that they would not have even been thought of to be made explicit.  The right to freely travel within the nation is a common example.  The presumption of innocence is another.

Both are using ECL to support their claims that this was or was not an unenumerated right.  By showing what is illegal or not under ECL.  ECL is not an atypical battleground for these discussions because that's where the vast majority of our law comes from.

Basically, it was/wasn't legal throughout our full legal history, so it can/can't be a fundamental right.  If times have changed, that's evidence that Roe is wrong and Alito is right.

Point 1 - LOL no they haven't. 

Point 2 - Wrong. Roe specifically applies the 14th Amendment of the Constitution in protecting fundamental privacy rights, as do a litany of other cases. It can be fundamental without having been enumerated in the original text of the Constitution. They don't have to have been ingrained in history, since, ya know, history is chock full of fucking over every minority at every opportunity possible. 

Do you think slavery should be addressed by the state legislatures? Segregation? Interracial marriage? Access to contraception?  Legality of gay sex or sodomy?  Ability to rape your wife?  Ability to beat your wife? 

[DDD Dad 14346]

2 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

It doesn't make the 50 years that is was recognized as a right go away. Don't be daft.

I believe the word you're searching for is obtuse.

[jimmyjazz 46021]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

I believe the word you're searching for is obtuse.

Maybe, but "daft" is a helluva word.  I gotta put it back in my quiver.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

OK cool.  Now do the second amendment and the idea of an individual right to bear arms.

it's been done

But no question Heller is up for the Roe treatment once the composition of the Court flips

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

But your deconstruction makes the actual point.  There are very few rights more sacrosanct -- and DEEPLY rooted in history -- than the right to do as you wish with your own body, to control your own physical person.  It's arguably the original, foundational right.  But, for much of history, we built structures that said "well, yeah, sure.....but we don't mean for bitches.  Bitches gotta do what we say."  Alito says that we were "wrong" to interpret things differently for 50 years.  Yet he is unwilling to say that we were "wrong" for treating women like chattel for millennia.  The only difference is the starting point of our epic fuck up -- he just picked the outcome he likes.

you know that's not true for all the reasons you've already stated in terms of women being chattel, lack of autonomy, etc. You're making a natural rights argument that is different than what the constitution protects. And for what it's worth I agree with you on the policy. 

[DDD Dad 14346]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

it's been done

But no question Heller is up for the Roe treatment once the composition of the Court flips

And if a new court determines that Heller was wrongly decided it won't erase the fact that for at least a period of time the Constitution protected an individual's right to bear arms outside of the scope of ensuring a well-organized militia.  But I highly doubt that will ever come to pass.

Edited May 3, 2022 by DDD Dad

[JBJ 3664]

5 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

What?  Where does slavery fall under this umbrella?  13A codified that it was no longer allowed.  Is 13A "wrong" because the idea that slavery is wrong wasn't ingrained in the original Constitution?

13A? It's almost like we used the process given in the constitution to change the law of the land.  Novel idea!

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19139]

4 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

You’re long past that stage

[B00M 6436]

6 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

And for those who say "well, just vote for a government that won't enact such laws," that is sophistry.  Rights transcend voting trends, that's their entire point.  If such fundamental principles live or die at the whim of an elected government, then they are not rights.  The entire point of a right is that it stands as a bulwark against the vagaries of a capricious government.  I find it FASCINATING that many of the same people who rant like hell against an "authoritarian government," and stockpile weapons and ammo based on that fear....happily cheer on the removal of some of the most fundamental barriers to an actual authoritarian government.