Is anybody interested in listening to points of view different from one's own?

[adrina]

There's an argument on the other side. By overturning Roe, the Supreme Court returned the issue to the states and their legislatures. That IS democratic. Roe v. Wade was an undemocratic opinion, because it removed the issue of abortion from the democratic process and insulated the abortion right from democratic challenge, despite the transparently feeble connection between the abortion right and the text of the Constitution.

Disagree. Especially since this is what I would call a classic male perspective. Sorry if that bothers you but that is the reality of living as a woman in a world that disregards women. Roe V Wade was as democratic as any other controversial decision that the court has ruled on. That is the job of the courts. To apply the rule of law - the constitution - to the issue in question. Abortion is a right to privacy opinion. If you don't have privacy rights to your body and what it is used for, then what do you have?

The Dobbs opinion may be opposed by the majorities of California and New York, but not by the majorities of many other states, so one can't say it's contrary to the majority of the population's opinion.

Ask Kansas and some of the other conservative states that have had to go through this ridiculous process to restore basic human rights to women.

You can point to democratic strong hold blue states but there are many red and purple states who support abortion. Honestly you pointing to NY and Cali does not sound like a good faith argument. Especially given how it completely ignores Kansas, as well as all the other so called conservative states who have easily crossed the threshold for signatures for ballot measures supporting reproductive rights.

Lastly 62% (according to Pew) do not support the repeal of Roe. If you want to try to argue that all 62% of them reside in Cali and NY etc then that is a tall hill to climb.

I read the Roe opinion over 35 years ago and have read it since then a number of times and my view is that the majority of people have no understanding of what the issues are in Supreme Court decisions.

The Supreme Court is an inherently un-democratic institution. Its job is to ignore what the majority wants and to uphold the rights granted by the Constitution, even if it protects rights that the majority doesn't value, such as the free speech rights of communists or the religious freedoms of Jews and Muslims and the Amish.

Their job is to apply the constitution to the issue at hand. Not find a way for their ideology to be supported by the constitution. Which, in deciding Roe, is exactly what the conservative majority did.

The immunity ruling is an entirely different matter. Whether or not it ends up being authoritarian will depend on how the Court decides when the President is acting in his official capacity and therefore immune from prosecution. The ruling left that question somewhat open.

Considering they put the kaibosh on discovery, I'd say it's a pretty big opportunity for mischief.

 

[adrina]

Brown v. the Board of Education overruled 58 years of precedent established by Plessy v. Ferguson. And it was right to do so. The reality is that nobody cares much about precedent when it comes to Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, and that's as it should be. People only care about precedent when it comes to overturning decisions they want to keep. The Supreme Court should try, in good faith, to get it right, rather than relying upon a bad precedent. No liberal justice of the Court has ever shied away from junking precedent when it suited their view about what they thought was the "right" decision. I thought Alito's dissection of the precedent argument in Dobbs was powerful and sound.

Plessy limited rights. Brown enshrined rights.

Roe enshrined rights. Dobbs removed them.

Apples and oranges to bananas and cantaloupes.

 

[ll74]

Brown v. the Board of Education overruled 58 years of precedent established by Plessy v. Ferguson. And it was right to do so. The reality is that nobody cares much about precedent when it comes to Supreme Court interpretation of the Constitution, and that's as it should be. People only care about precedent when it comes to overturning decisions they want to keep. The Supreme Court should try, in good faith, to get it right, rather than relying upon a bad precedent. No liberal justice of the Court has ever shied away from junking precedent when it suited their view about what they thought was the "right" decision. I thought Alito's dissection of the precedent argument in Dobbs was powerful and sound.

The Dobbs decision made clear that our legislative body is frozen and cannot get out of its own way.

No one should be blocked from getting the healthcare they need and government has no business obstructing healthcare that people desire.

 

[SimonDoom]

So if fundamental freedoms are to be solely determined by states, how do you avoid a tyranny of the majority?
How do you avoid women being left in their cars dying of sepsis?
Democracy isn’t simply a case of following what a particular law says if that law itself is defective and undemocratic

The language of the Constitution addresses that, and the Supreme Court is obligated to respect and uphold that language. The problem with Roe is that the Constitution is silent on abortion. Who gets to decide what are fundamental freedoms, especially if they're not clearly spelled out in the Constitution? That's the question. I think people should have a right to smoke marijuana if they want to. Does that mean it's a Constitutional right? I wouldn't say so, because I cannot in good faith locate that right in the text of the Constitution. I'm pro-choice, too, but I've always been troubled by how shoddy the reasoning of Roe was. It's a bad piece of legal reasoning.

 

[MajorRewrite]

The Dobbs opinion may be opposed by the majorities of California and New York, but not by the majorities of many other states, so one can't say it's contrary to the majority of the population's opinion.

So far, every state that let the people vote has backed abortion rights.

The Republican politicians in red states are adamantly opposed to letting people vote on the issue, but it’s been forced onto the ballot in multiple states.

 

[SmokingFap]

https://democrats.org/where-we-stand/party-platform/

Thanks for the link.

 

[SimonDoom]

Roe enshrined rights. Dobbs removed them.

That depends on whose rights you're looking at, right?

You can't make the argument go away, ipso facto. A very big percentage of the country, perhaps a majority, believes that a fetus embodies some sort of life interest that is worth protecting by regulating abortion to at least some extent and prohibiting it at some point in the pregnancy.

This is an excellent example of what I mean. It's crystal clear that there are different sides to the abortion issue, and in particular on the merits of Roe and Dobbs. But people cannot stand letting the door open even a crack to consider the possibility that there are different sides. I've seen this process play out so many times.

 

[adrina]

The language of the Constitution addresses that, and the Supreme Court is obligated to respect and uphold that language. The problem with Roe is that the Constitution is silent on abortion. Who gets to decide what are fundamental freedoms, especially if they're not clearly spelled out in the Constitution? That's the question. I think people should have a right to smoke marijuana if they want to. Does that mean it's a Constitutional right? I wouldn't say so, because I cannot in good faith locate that right in the text of the Constitution. I'm pro-choice, too, but I've always been troubled by how shoddy the reasoning of Roe was. It's a bad piece of legal reasoning.

The constitution is silent on qualified immunity, the electoral college, congressional districts, executive privilege, executive orders etc.

But they are respected as law.

As far as Roe, I need you to understand that in 1973 women couldn't get birth control without their husband's permission, could not get a credit card, could not buy a house, couldn't get business loans etc. Roe was a product of it's time and just because a lot of the people don't like the legal reasoning doesn't mean that it was right to overturn. Especially now that we have the government in the way of citizens seeking necessary medical care.

 

[SmokingFap]

So far, every state that let the people vote has backed abortion rights.

The Republican politicians in red states are adamantly opposed to letting people vote on the issue, but it’s been forced onto the ballot in multiple states.

I was frankly shocked that Kansas was the bellwether on this issue among the states. I literally live four blocks from State Line Road, which separates Kansas and Missouri. Kansas is very conservative, even in the suburbs. But Kansans blew MAGA's abortion ban out of the water. First time I've been proud of Kansas since my Jayhawks last won the national championship.

 

[Typo Fu Master]

I'm curious. I don't see any point in participating in a politics forum without genuine curiosity and open-mindedness toward people who think differently from the way I do. But I see no evidence of that at all in this forum. It's boring, and the nastiness and one-sidedness is dispiriting.

Most online political forums I've seen are like this, but this one is worse than most.

These people have been at each other's throats for decades. They love to hate each other. I'm genuinely surprised to see they're still at it.

I took a long hiatus from Lit but with this election year being so important I remembered there used to be some pretty fevered political discussion here. And durned if it isn't still going on!

I've seen people from both sides make valid points but there is a strong "Demoncraps versus MAGAts" contingent that generally ruins it. If you're so bitter you can't see half the country as anything other than an insult, well, that's just sad. Grow the fuck up. United we stand, divided we fall.

 

[MajorRewrite]

This is an excellent example of what I mean. It's crystal clear that there are different sides to the abortion issue, and in particular on the merits of Roe and Dobbs. But people cannot stand letting the door open even a crack to consider the possibility that there are different sides. I've seen this process play out so many times.

Wait a minute. You say you want civil debate in this forum, but now you seem to be upset that someone disagrees with a position you hold.

 

[adrina]

That depends on whose rights you're looking at, right?

You can't make the argument go away, ipso facto. A very big percentage of the country, perhaps a majority, believes that a fetus embodies some sort of life interest that is worth protecting by regulating abortion to at least some extent and prohibiting it at some point in the pregnancy.

This is an excellent example of what I mean. It's crystal clear that there are different sides to the abortion issue, and in particular on the merits of Roe and Dobbs. But people cannot stand letting the door open even a crack to consider the possibility that there are different sides. I've seen this process play out so many times.

If you think of rights as a pie when one person gets some then others get less yes.

But that's not the case.

Unless you think that we should have a right to discriminate when it comes to education?

The majority of the country didn't want to see Roe overturned. If you think law should be based on what people think of a fetus - regardless of confirmation, as you are just guessing and not putting out any actual real numbers - then the law should easily be based on the majority (filibuster proof heh) who believe that abortion should be legal.

 

[SimonDoom]

Especially since this is what I would call a classic male perspective.

I don't know what that means. There are plenty of women who share this perspective.

It doesn't bother me, but I think it's a silly thing to say.

Honestly you pointing to NY and Cali does not sound like a good faith argument.

There you go. You have to believe it's bad faith. Exactly the problem I was raising.

there are many red and purple states who support abortion

And if that's so, then the voters of those states are perfectly free to toss out the anti-abortion politicians with those who will vote on laws to protect the rights they want. That's democracy. It's a process, and it doesn't always result in the laws you want. But that doesn't make it undemocratic.

Their job is to apply the constitution to the issue at hand. Not find a way for their ideology to be supported by the constitution.

Critics of Roe have, from the very beginning, pointed out that this is exactly what the majority in Roe did: they ignored what the Constitution actually said and made up a right that nobody previously had ever thought it encompassed. Have you read the opinion? I'm a lawyer. I've read it, and thousands--I mean, literally, thousands-- of legal opinions.

 

[SmokingFap]

A very big percentage of the country, perhaps a majority, believes that a fetus embodies some sort of life interest that is worth protecting by regulating abortion to at least some extent and prohibiting it at some point in the pregnancy.

This is true. Also true is the fact that the vast majority of Americans believe that women should have autonomy over their own bodies, that politicians shouldn't get to arbitrarily dictate what they can and can't do, especially based on religious beliefs. Hardcore conservatives are the ones who won't even allow exceptions for rape, incest, or the life and health of the mother. Which is truly disgusting and unforgivable. Additionally, MAGA isn't pro-life, only pro-birth. They don't give a damn about children once they're out of the womb. They fight efforts for free pre-K care, health insurance for underprivileged children, free school lunches, etc. Anti-abortion efforts are primarily just a way to control women. The right needs to stop pretending that they give a shit about the kids that women and girls are forced to bear, even under the most horrific circumstances. Or, at least, everyone else needs to quit pretending that the right is arguing in good faith.

 

[ll74]

So if fundamental freedoms are to be solely determined by states, how do you avoid a tyranny of the majority?
How do you avoid women being left in their cars dying of sepsis?
Democracy isn’t simply a case of following what a particular law says, especially if that law is defective and undemocratic

Rights are guaranteed before the government gets involved. Those rights aren't perfectly defined which is why courts get involved.

Healthcare continues to be seen as a product instead of a right, which is the cause of much of this bullshit.

 

[SimonDoom]

Wait a minute. You say you want civil debate in this forum, but now you seem to be upset that someone disagrees with a position you hold.

It's not a matter of being upset. It's a matter of being concerned about a particular sort of rhetorical tactic that denies the possibility of good-faith disagreement, and there's a lot of that going on in this thread.

I don't think most of the people expressing opinions on Roe and Dobbs have even read them. If you haven't read them, and you don't know the law behind them, how can you have an opinion?

 

[adrina]

I don't know what that means. There are plenty of women who share this perspective.

It doesn't bother me, but I think it's a silly thing to say.

You wouldn't say that if you were a woman. Especially a woman who believed in reproductive rights. But as a man you have that luxury. Yes there are women who are anti-abortion, but the overwhelming majority are pro-choice. Additionally, many of these anti-abortion women hold the perspective as taught to them by their male religious leaders.

There you go. You have to believe it's bad faith. Exactly the problem I was raising.

So when a person tries to argue that two states make up all or most of the support for reproductive rights, do you want to try to tell me that that is a good faith argument?

You have to be sincere if you want sincere and worthwhile discourse. If you want to pull stuff out of your head and then try to have a meaningful policy exchange... well it doesn't work that way.

And if that's so, then the voters of those states are perfectly free to toss out the anti-abortion politicians with those who will vote on laws to protect the rights they want. That's democracy. It's a process, and it doesn't always result in the laws you want. But that doesn't make it undemocratic.

Minus that pesky gerrymandering.

I am curious why you keep debating with a rudimentary knowledge level of how our government works and how it is working currently.

Critics of Roe have, from the very beginning, pointed out that this is exactly what the majority in Roe did: they ignored what the Constitution actually said and made up a right that nobody previously had ever thought it encompassed. Have you read the opinion? I'm a lawyer. I've read it, and thousands--I mean, literally, thousands-- of legal opinions.

Again, if you don't have the right to privacy to do with your body what you want, then what rights do you have?


Question: if it were men that needed abortions, how much of a debate do you think this would be?

 

[jaF0]

That depends on whose rights you're looking at, right?

No. The only 'rights' that matter here are those of the patient.

 

[SimonDoom]

Healthcare continues to be seen as a product instead of a right, which is the cause of much of this bullshit.

You've opened up a whole other big issue which deserves debate and civil conversation: the different conception of what rights are. But I'm not going to wade into that for now. This thread has exploded enough for now and I have other things to do.

 

[jaF0]

Aha. When the discussion takes off in a direction you don't like, you take a hike. Much like the AH.

 

[MiaBabe23]

It's not a matter of being upset. It's a matter of being concerned about a particular sort of rhetorical tactic that denies the possibility of good-faith disagreement, and there's a lot of that going on in this thread.

I don't think most of the people expressing opinions on Roe and Dobbs have even read them. If you haven't read them, and you don't know the law behind them, how can you have an opinion?

Oh dear oh dear oh dear
So because we disagree, we’re inherently less informed and less educated on the matter?
And bang goes your claim to want sincere debate

I’m yet to hear any actual cogent argument from you as to where you think it was legally flawed, simply that you think it was

beginning to unfortunately see why you were called sealion

 

[SmokingFap]

You've opened up a whole other big issue which deserves debate and civil conversation: the different conception of what rights are. But I'm not going to wade into that for now. This thread has exploded enough for now and I have other things to do.

Good. Go do them.

 

[SimonDoom]

So when a person tries to argue that two states make up all or most of the support for reproductive rights, do you want to try to tell me that that is a good faith argument?

You have to be sincere if you want sincere and worthwhile discourse. If you want to pull stuff out of your head and then try to have a meaningful policy exchange... well it doesn't work that way.

I did not do that. It's clear from the actual words I used that I did not do that. I used New York and California as the two examples that leapt most clearly to mind because they are the most populous pro-choice states. There are plenty of other pro-choice states, and there are some states where the people are less pro-choice.

I am curious why you keep debating with a rudimentary knowledge level of how our government works and how it is working currently.

Now you are being ignorant as well as insulting. You don't know what I know.

If gerrymandering is going on, then the solution is to challenge the gerrymandering, either through the courts or the democratic process. There's no perfect process. But it's not obvious that the court should step in just because some of its members decide for themselves that they don't think the democratic process is working sufficiently well in a state that doesn't reach the results they don't like. It's the problem of judicial legitimacy. This is the problem that John Hart Ely -- a liberal legal scholar -- raised in his 1970s critique of Roe v. Wade, and nobody ever had a very good answer to it. You can't cut the legal Gordian Knot just by making appeals to how important you think the right is. If it's not clearly spelled out in the Constitution, then a fundamental issue arises regarding the legitimacy of the Court to say whether a right is fundamental or whether it isn't. Your own personal views and politics and judgments about what rights are "fundamental" don't settle the question for everybody else. That's where democracy--however imperfect--comes in. The people decide through the people they vote for.

Consider the second amendment. The same people who want an expansive interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to include the abortion right want a restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment to deny a broad individual right to own firearms. Who's right?

I don't think it's obvious in either case. Arguments can be made on both sides. I've read dozens and dozens of legal opinions and legal articles on both questions, and when people try to deny that there are different ways of looking at the issue I think they're either uninformed or one-sided.

 

[ll74]

You've opened up a whole other big issue which deserves debate and civil conversation: the different conception of what rights are. But I'm not going to wade into that for now. This thread has exploded enough for now and I have other things to do.

It's not an issue. A basic level of healthcare should be available to all I our country.

 

[TomTeacher19]

This thread is in hilarious. It's supposedly about having dialogue with the other side but if you dare have a different opinion than the OP's self declared right perspective on all things then you get attacked by them for being wrong. I guess it kind of proves the point, ironically enough.