The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

[allvol123]

Armstrong lives in California, but says he's going to move to the UK in protest of the Dobbs decision. Even after the Dobbs decision, California still has much more liberal abortion laws than the UK.

Rock on dude!

 

[bamawriter]

I don't understand why you'd make that distinction. As we just saw, the Judicial branch can also take back a right

They didn't "take back a right." All they said was that if abortion is a right it is covered by the 10th Amendment.

 

[hog88]

I don't understand why you'd make that distinction. As we just saw, the Judicial branch can also take back a right

No, they can correct a mistake made in a previous decision. SCOTUS can neither grant or take back a right.

 

[Sea Ray]

Then work to amend the constitution, otherwise it falls within the purview of the state.

That is debatable. There are opinions on each side. Talk of "codifying" Roe is talk of Congress passing a federal law. However our SCOTUS could throw that out too saying it's a states' rights thing.

My point is that IMO we should have one law that covers this one way or another nationwide. It's too chaotic otherwise. Kinda like gay marriage. You should not have a country where you're married in one state but not in another

 

[Sea Ray]

DP

 

[hog88]

I don't understand why you'd make that distinction. As we just saw, the Judicial branch can also take back a right

.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I don't understand why you'd make that distinction. As we just saw, the Judicial branch can also take back a right

Then it was never a right. And no such right existed in the Constitution. Roe was decided by extreme mental gymnastics applying the due process clause. It’s stupid and wrong.

 

[hog88]

That is debatable. There are opinions on each side. Talk of "codifying" Roe is talk of Congress passing a federal law. However our SCOTUS could throw that out too saying it's a states' rights thing.

My point is that IMO we should have one law that covers this one way or another nationwide. It's too chaotic otherwise. Kinda like gay marriage. You should not have a country where you're married in one state but not in another

I'll ask again, what else do you think needs to be covered by 1 federal law nationwide?

 

[Sea Ray]

Then it was never a right. And no such right existed in the Constitution. Roe was decided by extreme mental gymnastics applying the due process clause. It’s stupid and wrong.

I agree that right never existed in the Constitution but disagree that Congress can't legislate rights. They've done so many time with civil rights acts

 

[ClearwaterVol]

Separate but Equal was the law of the land for even longer before being overturned.

Not but by a couple of years.

 

[Sea Ray]

I'll ask again, what else do you think needs to be covered by 1 federal law nationwide?

I answered: the right of gay marriage (if granted) should be done federally. Personally I'm not a fan of that legislation but if it's going to be legal then it should not be done on a state by state basis

 

[hog88]

I agree that right never existed in the Constitution but disagree that Congress can't legislate rights. They've done so many time with civil rights acts

If you really dig into civil rights legislation congress isn't granting anyone "rights" they're mainly taking away rights, the right to free association being the biggest one.

 

[ClearwaterVol]

No she did not. Not as currently written.

She felt it was better suited for equal protection and not privacy.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I agree that right never existed in the Constitution but disagree that Congress can't legislate rights. They've done so many time with civil rights acts

You’re basically putting weight on a form of I right I don’t think exists in practice. I don’t believe the government grants a right. They can only grant privileges.

If instead you are referring to legislation limiting the government’s ability to screw with the citizens then we can talk. But that’s a limitation on government not the government being some magnanimous overlord.

 

[RockyTop85]

No she did not. Not as currently written.

Are you stoned?

Ginsburg had a case challenging an Air Force policy that discharged women who wouldn’t undergo an abortion where she was advocating that it was a fundamental right of the woman to control her own reproductive and procreative decisions and that it was a violation of the equal protection clause and due process clause.

She applied for cert the same term Roe was heard. SCOTUS took the case and the Air Force dropped the policy. The case became moot and was dismissed.

She/her group filed an amicus brief in Roe arguing the same theory.

She absolutely believed it was a constitutional issue.
The criticism of Roe by Ginsburg and others like her has generally been about how it was tethered to the constitution, not that it was.

 

[NorthDallas40]

She felt it was better suited for equal protection and not privacy.

She openly stated Roe “went too far”. Her words in an interview. Yes she was a strong advocate for women’s control over their productive rights. But she didn’t agree with how the SCOTUS went about it.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Are you stoned?

Ginsburg had a case challenging an Air Force policy that discharged women who wouldn’t undergo an abortion where she was advocating that it was a fundamental right of the woman to control her own reproductive and procreative decisions and that it was a violation of the equal protection clause and due process clause.

She applied for cert the same term Roe was heard. SCOTUS took the case and the Air Force dropped the policy. The case became moot and was dismissed.

She/her group filed an amicus brief in Roe arguing the same theory.

She absolutely believed it was a constitutional issue.
The criticism of Roe by Ginsburg and others like her has generally been about how it was tethered to the constitution, not that it was.

Look down one post. Yes Struck vs Dept of Defense.

 

[Sudden Impact]

That is debatable. There are opinions on each side. Talk of "codifying" Roe is talk of Congress passing a federal law. However our SCOTUS could throw that out too saying it's a states' rights thing.

My point is that IMO we should have one law that covers this one way or another nationwide. It's too chaotic otherwise. Kinda like gay marriage. You should not have a country where you're married in one state but not in another

That was not the point. It was not about the ability to Marry in one state vs another. It was about whether or not the Marriage was recognized as a Couple for benefits. IRS, Health, the list goes on and on.

Roe vs Wade is completely different and should be at the State Level. The only Downfall to those States is the burden and Taxpayers' dollars spent that will ensue with this decision.

 

[RockyTop85]

Look down one post. Yes Struck vs Dept of Defense.

Your “down one post” doesn’t mean she didn’t think it was a constitutional issue. She wanted incremental change like Roberts wanted in the opposite direction and she didn’t agree with the way it was tethered to the constitution (which is exactly what @ClearwaterVol is trying to tell you).

 

[davethevol]

I’m really beginning to think that Donald Trump’s presidency was a form of Divine Intervention. No other president would have had the guts to do what he did with his Supreme Court picks, and what are the odds of having the chance to do what he did? I’d like to shake his hand and thank him.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Your “down one post” doesn’t mean she didn’t think it was a constitutional issue. She wanted incremental change like Roberts now wanted in the opposite direction.

Yep she says that in the same interview I referenced. And I would modify your statement to she wanted to see constitutional protections. None exist today.

 

[TRUEFANVol]

I’m really beginning to think that Donald Trump’s presidency was a form of Divine Intervention. No other president would have had the guts to do what he did with his Supreme Court picks, and what are the odds of having the chance to do what he did? I’d like to shake his hand and thank him.

A pathological liar and con man as Divine Intervention.......

 

[Sea Ray]

That was not the point. It was not about the ability to Marry in one state vs another. It was about whether or not the Marriage was recognized as a Couple for benefits. IRS, Health, the list goes on and on.

Roe vs Wade is completely different and should be at the State Level. The only Downfall to those States is the burden and Taxpayers' dollars spent that will ensue with this decision.

That's exactly why is should be a federal law

IMO abortion is a right for someone, either the mother or the kid. You're free to disagree

 

[RockyTop85]

Yep she says that in the same interview I referenced. And I would modify your statement to she wanted to see constitutional protections. None exist today.

Link to an interview where she says women’s reproductive and procreative decisions are not a constitutional right?

 

[NorthDallas40]

Link to an interview where she says women’s reproductive and procreative rights are not a constitutional issue?

I’m not saying she said they aren’t. I’m about to see a Dr and we’re both talking about the same interview so feel free to link it.

Final edit then into office. Her views were never debated by SCOTUS either.