Roe, our constitutional system, and Democratic rage

[SugarDaddy1]

There are three issues to consider in light of the unprecedented leak to Politico of the Supreme Court's draft decision overturning Roe v. Wade. The first is the outrageousness of the leak. The second, and far more consequential, is the substance of the decision itself. And the third, and perhaps most consequential of all, is the long-range political effect of the court's move.

The leak was indeed outrageous, and it will damage the court's standing in our political system, as well as the inner workings of the court. As the court-watching SCOTUSblog noted, "It's impossible to overstate the earthquake this will cause inside the Court, in terms of the destruction of trust among the Justices and staff. This leak is the gravest, most unforgivable sin." Added George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley: "The [Politico] article represents the greatest crisis that Chief Justice John Roberts has faced in his tenure on the Court."

The substance of the decision is, of course, historic. Roe has been law for 49 years. If the decision holds — remember that the leaked draft is, in fact, a draft, and votes and positions could change — the abortion question will return to the states and to state legislatures. At least 26 states have signaled they plan to outlaw abortion. Other states will legalize it, and some will make efforts to attract abortion-seeking women from states that have outlawed it. In short, overturning Roe will have far-reaching effects in American life.


But as important as that is, the political consequences could be even greater, for this reason: The decision will turbocharge existing Democratic and progressive anger at two critical checks on majority rule that are built into our constitutional system: the Electoral College, by which presidents are elected, and the structure and workings of the Senate. And that will, in turn, lead to Democratic challenges to the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, whose justices are nominated by presidents and confirmed by the Senate.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/roe-our-constitutional-system-and-democratic-rage

 

[Sean Renaud]

Lets be honest, the Constitution only matters when you don't have a legit argument to make on a subject. There are lots of things that aren't in the Constitution.

 

[DimmuBurger]

Lets be honest, the Constitution only matters when you don't have a legit argument to make on a subject. There are lots of things that aren't in the Constitution.

That's a lie, not being honest.

If the law only matters when you don't have a legit argument.... then it doesn't matter at all and roe being tossed is non-issue.

You're just mad the Constitution is a thing because you're a totalitarian leftist who hates the USA and damn near if not everything about it as a nation state. From having states to having civil rights not being a thing there isn't much about this country you don't hate and want gone.

It's all good though, you're in good company as a Californian and Democrat.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yeah no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to own a home, hunt, operate a vehichle. If you can find it I'd love to see where the Constitution mentions age for owning firearms or that you lose the right if you commit crimes. I've never seen the part where prisoner can't vote. Which honestly if you have enough people in prison to swing an election you've got a problem to a totalitarian police state. I don't see the part about a right to marriage. If you got broad enough you could make a freedom of religion argument if you tried.

While the Constitution does need to be retired that's because much of it makes little sense in the modern world. Can you imagine a situation outside a war being fought on US soil where the military would take over your home?

 

[DimmuBurger]

Yeah no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to own a home, hunt, operate a vehichle. If you can find it I'd love to see where the Constitution mentions age for owning firearms or that you lose the right if you commit crimes. I've never seen the part where prisoner can't vote. Which honestly if you have enough people in prison to swing an election you've got a problem to a totalitarian police state. I don't see the part about a right to marriage. If you got broad enough you could make a freedom of religion argument if you tried.

I never said there was, you're arguing against some made up strawman here.

While the Constitution does need to be retired that's because much of it makes little sense in the modern world.

Most of it makes perfect sense to a liberal.

I can see how you might think otherwise though, authoritarians have never been a fan of all that freedom and restriction on their authority to bully and abuse others. It must be hard living like that.

Can you imagine a situation outside a war being fought on US soil where the military would take over your home?

Natural disaster relief and Marshall law to quell civil unrest.

Tell us all how free speech and a ban on cruel and unusual punishment is totally outdated for modern times.

 

[anarchoMando]

Lets be honest, the Constitution only matters when you don't have a legit argument to make on a subject. There are lots of things that aren't in the Constitution.

Constitution as Jefferson said should have been abandoned every 20 years and rewritten for a new generation

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to own a home, hunt, operate a vehichle. If you can find it I'd love to see where the Constitution mentions age for owning firearms or that you lose the right if you commit crimes. I've never seen the part where prisoner can't vote. Which honestly if you have enough people in prison to swing an election you've got a problem to a totalitarian police state. I don't see the part about a right to marriage. If you got broad enough you could make a freedom of religion argument if you tried.

While the Constitution does need to be retired that's because much of it makes little sense in the modern world. Can you imagine a situation outside a war being fought on US soil where the military would take over your home?

The reason they can't and don't is because of that document you think needs to be retired.

 

[Sean Renaud]

And the man was correct. I might have made it a little longer than twenty years mind you. Like I've stated before they lived in a different rule. Just of the first ten amendments I don't think I believe 5th is necessary. I wouldn't expect the miliitary to basically steal my house. I think we would probably tighten the 2nd amendment up a bit. I think you would be pretty hard pressed to find too many people who think we should be able to buy grenades and rocket launchers. Or that putting claymores on your lawn cus kids keep tresspassing to retrieve a baseball is appropriate. However the Constitution isn't a living document then it says ARMS not guns. I think a lot of people would agree that one way or another we need to codify if states are subject to the Constitution. The courts clearly flip a coin on that from time to time. For that matter are companies to any real degree? It says basically says the feds can't make an official religion.

This wasn't really because they believed in freedom to practice as you wanted. They lived in an era where the Pope had enough clout that if he said you're not King, you weren't. I think the whole natural born citizen which has no clear definition is suss. There are lots of reasons Arnold should never be president but being born overseas isn't a good one. While traditionally it has been excepted that if you were born in the US, an embassy or military base you were part of club. A lot of people today don't like that first part, even anchor babies are actually a myth. You can't deport the kid, but that doesn't make the parents immune and they are responsible for the child. The kid is free to comeback upon turning 18 but still. Can we see Trump's birth certificate? I would argue that if you were born by C-Section you are by definition not "naturally born". Its a bullshit argument but if we're following the letter of the law not the spirit I don't see how that is still not natural.

They passed that because we were still in a time when plenty of Americans were still "loyal" to their old countries. I highly doubt there are enough people who are loyal to their country of origin that a Prince could waltz in and get elected.

While I don't mind that Trump and Pillow Guy got banned from twitter I think a very strong case can be made that all the media is owned by like six companies and there NEEDS to be a control in place. Both to stop them from shutting us down at a whim but also a responsibility that to the best of their ability information should be accurate. I think MOST Trumpers are smart enough that they know the vaccines, social distancing and masks worked just fine. I think it was one of those they were in too deep too back off that shit. I think they know the election wasn't stolen. I know what its like to be in so deep that your two options are to keep lying or quietly sit in your corner and wait until everything blows over.

Hell I think they are aware that they knew they were in bed with a tiger. There is a difference between being wrong and lying by the by. Nobody really thought Putin was going to attack. Nobody was lying, just mistaken.

 

[icanhelp1]

Yeah no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to own a home, hunt, operate a vehichle. If you can find it I'd love to see where the Constitution mentions age for owning firearms or that you lose the right if you commit crimes. I've never seen the part where prisoner can't vote. Which honestly if you have enough people in prison to swing an election you've got a problem to a totalitarian police state. I don't see the part about a right to marriage. If you got broad enough you could make a freedom of religion argument if you tried.

While the Constitution does need to be retired that's because much of it makes little sense in the modern world. Can you imagine a situation outside a war being fought on US soil where the military would take over your home?

The constitution grants the legislative body the authority to make laws that govern our citizens.

The executive branch is granted the authority to uphold those law.

The judicial branch is granted the authority to oversee both the legislative and executive branches in that neither branch acts outside its constitutional limits and operates within the law. Also interpretes whether legislation is legal within the framework of the constitution.

So what part of the constitution needs to be retired. This old document you thinks needs to be retired can also be amended to better serve its citizens in changing times.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The reason they can't and don't is because of that document you think needs to be retired.

No the reason they can't and don't is we've built permanent bases. If you think that's a legit fear we could leave it that amendment in. We often just ignore laws indefinitely. There are laws still on the books about where your horse can shit. Most people would never think of riding their horse to the local bar so there is no good reason to erase it.

 

[Sean Renaud]

The constitution grants the legislative body the authority to make laws that govern our citizens.

The executive branch is granted the authority to uphold those law.

The judicial branch is granted the authority to oversee both the legislative and executive branches in that neither branch acts outside its constitutional limits and operates within the law. Also interpretes whether legislation is legal within the framework of the constitution.

So what part of the constitution needs to be retired. This old document you thinks needs to be retired can also be amended to better serve its citizens in changing times.

Lots of it. I'm not at all worried about the military taking over my home unless there is a war on our soil. You would think the people who are always bitching about big government would be all for eliminating anything that's extraneous.

I would tighten 2nd amendments language. I would like definitive phrasing on if the US Constitution applies to states or doesn't. Cus it really seems l like they flip a coin. Brown vs Board clearly states you can't intentionally segregate schools. We flip flop on religious rights.

 

[icanhelp1]

Lots of it. I'm not at all worried about the military taking over my home unless there is a war on our soil. You would think the people who are always bitching about big government would be all for eliminating anything that's extraneous.

I would tighten 2nd amendments language. I would like definitive phrasing on if the US Constitution applies to states or doesn't. Cus it really seems l like they flip a coin. Brown vs Board clearly states you can't intentionally segregate schools. We flip flop on religious rights.

There are the enumerated powers the constitution grants to the federal government and the rest lies with the states. Roe vs Wade the SCOTUS overstepped its judicial authority wresting the legislative authority from the states. The court does not have the authority to make laws.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yeah but it seems to be random. Clearly the feds can tell you that you can't segregate schools. I see nothing addressing education at all. While they don't really bother with weed I must have missed where drug use was a federal thing. Or legal drinking age.

I'm using those examples simply. Could California ban Fox News? I'm using things that aren't likely to happen but still.

 

[Rightguide]

Yeah no. There is nothing in the Constitution that says you have a right to own a home, hunt, operate a vehichle. If you can find it I'd love to see where the Constitution mentions age for owning firearms or that you lose the right if you commit crimes. I've never seen the part where prisoner can't vote. Which honestly if you have enough people in prison to swing an election you've got a problem to a totalitarian police state. I don't see the part about a right to marriage. If you got broad enough you could make a freedom of religion argument if you tried.

While the Constitution does need to be retired that's because much of it makes little sense in the modern world. Can you imagine a situation outside a war being fought on US soil where the military would take over your home?

The powers of the federal government are few and enumerated, and were not precluded by the Constitution itself, all else is left to the purview of the states and the people.

 

[Sean Renaud]

On paper sure, but we know better don't we?

 

[HisArpy]

Lots of it. I'm not at all worried about the military taking over my home unless there is a war on our soil. You would think the people who are always bitching about big government would be all for eliminating anything that's extraneous.

I would tighten 2nd amendments language. I would like definitive phrasing on if the US Constitution applies to states or doesn't. Cus it really seems l like they flip a coin. Brown vs Board clearly states you can't intentionally segregate schools. We flip flop on religious rights.

Originally, the 2nd amendment wasn't going to be included in the Constitution because no one thought it would be necessary.

So goes the same thinking regarding your view on whether we still need the 3rd Amendment "because we all know it's not necessary."

You don't know what you don't know and no one knows what the future holds. Ensuring that the future can't come back to bite us all on the ass is what the Bill of Rights is all about. Even if you don't think it's "necessary."

 

[Lady2020]

Politico is a joke at this point. I'm not outraged. What idiot didn't see this coming? Conservatives be like Dems are SOOO outraged. Meanwhile, every damn day right wing media is outraged over some stupid shit. Books, history, CRT, equality, women's right to make medical decisions, cartoon characters, Sesame Street, Ukraine fighting for democracy and sovereignty, Satan talking to women, manliness, etc etc etc.

 

[HisArpy]

Scalia literally considered whether or not you could carry (bear) a weapon to be a significant point.

Bearing arms wasn't within the scope of either Heller or McDonald so the best the SCOTUS could do was insert some dicta in that regard. Some of which came from RBG when she said (paraphrased) "to bear means to carry.. such as.. in the pocket."

 

[HisArpy]

Politico is a joke at this point. I'm not outraged. What idiot didn't see this coming? Conservatives be like Dems are SOOO outraged. Meanwhile, every damn day right wing media is outraged over some stupid shit. Books, history, CRT, equality, women's right to make medical decisions, cartoon characters, Sesame Street, Ukraine fighting for democracy and sovereignty, Satan talking to women, manliness, etc etc etc.

To me the biggest joy in all of this is the Karmic Justice that's biting the SCOTUS on its collective asses. All those Supreme Court opinions in which the "recipient" of leaked material is held "blameless" now means that the court has no leverage to use to find out who leaked a confidential SCOTUS draft opinion.

Oops.

 

[Lady2020]

I find no joy in now believing SCOTUS is corrupt af and stupid af.

 

[Sean Renaud]

While I disagree on the 2nd for many reasons and some of it is either entirely obsolete or at least mostly. They try to tell us that the reason for the 2nd is encase we need to overthrow the government. If you honestly believe that I know a Nigerian Prince and if you wire me 10k I can unlock his bank accounts.

One of the biggest parts is at least some of the FF thought that having a standing army was oppression on its face. I think it was WW1 but don't quote me on that. We eventually decided that having to draft an army with no experience at all was a bad idea. One of the reasons people cite (I don't know how true it is) is that WW1 was unnecesarily destruction cus nobody, generals included at a clue what was going on. Anyway we've a standing military since before probably you were born. Which makes that justification obsolete.

That being said the 2nd isn't a hill I want to die on. I accept that one of two things is true and neither matter to the right. Either Americans are almost uniquely evil in what we tend to think of as the West, even though Japan and Australia are clearly not in the West unless someone wants to argue the entire world is West since you can keep going in one direction. Anyhow, the other option is that having easily available fire arms is not safe. Its not worth truly fighting over with more energy than just kinda of poking holes in the thought process of conservatives.

So yes I do think the 3rd serves zero purpose. It wouldn't even be history repeating itself because that was just what was done back in the day. It was standard practice. That's like truly believing we need an Amendment abolishing slavery. That time is mostly past. I would argue what we do to our prisoners is cruel and unusual punishment and if it was possible to boycott all the companies that use them I would. However it is not really possible. The reality is that would so much money in gas alone to find the one grocery store or Walmart style business that it would hurt me more than them.

I think the tenth, at least in practice is so vague that it means whatever someone wants it to. As I've pointed out earlier especially on Constitutional issues it feels like the SCOTUS flips a fucking coin. If I had my way we would add an amendment that is more clearly written about what is and isn't the Feds job or at least something they are allowed to meddle in and what should be left to the states.

 

[anarchoMando]

I never said there was, you're arguing against some made up strawman here.



Most of it makes perfect sense to a liberal.

I can see how you might think otherwise though, authoritarians have never been a fan of all that freedom and restriction on their authority to bully and abuse others. It must be hard living like that.



Natural disaster relief and Marshall law to quell civil unrest.

Tell us all how free speech and a ban on cruel and unusual punishment is totally outdated for modern times.

Jefferson said that every 20 years the Constitution burn so we could make a new one every 20 years

 

[PaxNurgle]

That's a lie, not being honest.

If the law only matters when you don't have a legit argument.... then it doesn't matter at all and roe being tossed is non-issue.

You're just mad the Constitution is a thing because you're a totalitarian leftist who hates the USA and damn near if not everything about it as a nation state. From having states to having civil rights not being a thing there isn't much about this country you don't hate and want gone.

It's all good though, you're in good company as a Californian and Democrat.

You blather on about freedoms and the totalitarian left.

OVerturning Roe/Wade is about removing freedoms, and installing totalitarian control of women's bodies. And yet, you have no problem with this, as long as the liberals don't take your guns away, it's no problem when the conservatives take OTHER People's rights away.

Hypocrite.

 

[pecksniff]

While I disagree on the 2nd for many reasons and some of it is either entirely obsolete or at least mostly. They try to tell us that the reason for the 2nd is encase we need to overthrow the government. If you honestly believe that I know a Nigerian Prince and if you wire me 10k I can unlock his bank accounts.

Would you settle for a percentage of my toll revenues from the Brooklyn Bridge?

 

[Sean Renaud]

That is a tempting offer.