SugarDaddy1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2012
- Posts
- 1,904
Court observers believe Chief Justice Roberts just signaled that abortion rights could be overturned
- Thread starter SugarDaddy1
- Start date
If Roe is overturned, that would be an electoral disaster for the GOP. Stripped of constitutional protection, abortion would become an ordinary political-legislative matter. I'm sure most Americans who feel morally uncomfortable with abortion still want the clinics to be there in case their teenage daughters get pregnant. One who feels that way can vote R with a clean conscience, knowing it is only a gesture so far as abortion as concerned -- but that calculus changes once it means giving legislatures real power to shut down the clinics.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,642
They don't really exist in the Constitution, so why shouldn't they? It can be more plausibly stated they exist in the 9th and 10th Amendments, so give it back to the states where they belong.
How would the effects of that differ from simply overturning Roe?
Fermina_Daza
That’s not my name….
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2019
- Posts
- 2,493
The rich will always have access to abortions.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,642
Was Dred Scott valid?
It's hard to find anything in CJ Taney's opinion that he was actually wrong about. Of course, the Civil War Amendments rendered all related questions moot.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,642
The SCOTUS is there to determine constitutional issues. Roe was decided incorrectly without a constitutional basis. It needs to be corrected. It's more than likely abortion will be permitted by a majority of states within their legislative strictures.
BlueEyesInLevis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Posts
- 11,353
From Wiki...
Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s opinion for the court was arguably the worst he ever wrote. He ignored precedent, distorted history, imposed a rigid rather than a flexible construction on the Constitution, ignored specific grants of power in the Constitution, and tortured meanings out of other, more-obscure clauses. His logic on the citizenship issue was perhaps the most convoluted. He admitted that African Americans could be citizens of a particular state and that they might even be able to vote, as they in fact did in some states. But he argued that state citizenship had nothing to do with national citizenship and that African Americans could not sue in federal court because they could not be citizens of the United States. Scott’s suit, therefore, should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the district court. On this point, however, Taney stood on shaky constitutional ground: if even one state considered an African American a citizen, then the Constitution required that all states, and by inference also the federal government, had to accord that person “all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” (Article IV, Section 2), which includes the right to sue in federal court. Furthermore, Article III, which establishes the jurisdiction of the federal courts, does not mention national citizenship but rather declares that “the judicial Power” shall extend, among other things, “to Controversies…between Citizens of different States” (the so-called “diversity jurisdiction”).
Chief Justice Roger Brooke Taney’s opinion for the court was arguably the worst he ever wrote. He ignored precedent, distorted history, imposed a rigid rather than a flexible construction on the Constitution, ignored specific grants of power in the Constitution, and tortured meanings out of other, more-obscure clauses. His logic on the citizenship issue was perhaps the most convoluted. He admitted that African Americans could be citizens of a particular state and that they might even be able to vote, as they in fact did in some states. But he argued that state citizenship had nothing to do with national citizenship and that African Americans could not sue in federal court because they could not be citizens of the United States. Scott’s suit, therefore, should have been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by the district court. On this point, however, Taney stood on shaky constitutional ground: if even one state considered an African American a citizen, then the Constitution required that all states, and by inference also the federal government, had to accord that person “all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States” (Article IV, Section 2), which includes the right to sue in federal court. Furthermore, Article III, which establishes the jurisdiction of the federal courts, does not mention national citizenship but rather declares that “the judicial Power” shall extend, among other things, “to Controversies…between Citizens of different States” (the so-called “diversity jurisdiction”).
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,642
What about these? All reversed:
- Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977)
- Baker v. Nelson (1972)
- Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923)
- Chisholm v. Georgia (1793)
- Adler v. Board of Education (1952)
- Bowers v. Hardwick (1986)
- Pace v. Alabama (1883)
- Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990)
- Oregon v. Mitchell (1970)
- Wolf v. Colorado (1949)
- Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
BlueEyesInLevis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Posts
- 11,353
Abortion is EXACTLY the kind of question that should be decided by the citizenry, either through their elected officials or by ballot if that is how a state determines it should be decided.
"Pro-lifers" would object to that thinking on the grounds that only the born get to vote.
It should be decided by State Legislatures. It’s a State’s Rights issue. Nothing in the Constitution gives the Federal Government the authority to decide/rule on such matters. It was just a matter of time before it got overturned. Should have been done a LONG time ago. If you’re a racist, and hate black people, then you’d support Roe v Wade.
That does not actually sound much different from how it would be if Roe were overturned, or if the case had never come before the SCOTUS in the first place.
Please never, ever use those words again, in any context, however apparently innocuous.
What, as reducing the black population? It's still a matter of private choice for pregnant black women -- nobody is making abortion mandatory for any population group.
BlueEyesInLevis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Posts
- 11,353
S
So.... you resent the 10th Amendment of the Constitution. We get it.
Rightguide
Prof Triggernometry
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2017
- Posts
- 67,642
The closer to the people and their diversity the better.
No one even knows what that amendment means. No important court case has ever turned on it. Likewise with the 9th.
If you dot like the reality of State’s Rights, that’s YOUR issue. Change the Constitution!
Legally and constitutionally, states do not have "rights" in the sense that individuals have rights. Neither does the USG itself.
BlueEyesInLevis
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2003
- Posts
- 11,353
He's actually applying the liberal tactic of making simplistic arguments from wide ranging statistics. For instance:
A. Because the prisons have a higher population of Blacks, the courts and laws are racist.
B. Because Blacks have historically higher rates of illegitimacy and thus higher rates of abortion, those favoring abortion want to see more Black babies killed.
Similar threads
