ADVERTISEMENT

Roe v. Wade: Gone Forever; Dobbs is here to stay.

The left's only arguments against the Dobbs decision are vacuous emotional appeals rather than sound legal reasons for the existence of a right to abortion in the Constitution.
Elizabeth (Pocahontas) Warren, the great Harvard professor, said the justices had “burned whatever legitimacy they may still have had.” With this ruling, “they just took the last of it and set a torch to it.”
Kamal Harris, the former California Attorney General and great legal intellect, said "Millions of women in America will go to bed tonight without access to the healthcare and reproductive care that they had this morning.” Talk about a banal appeal to emotion. Vice President Kamala Harris always says so much with so little content. She is our next Walter Mondale.

image-from-blasting-news-image-library_1420871.jpg
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: spider fan
Legit question here, and take the abortion discussion out of it: Should we continue to defer to the original Constitution until the end of time? Or at some point, should we do what the founders themselves intended and update it with new amendments – or (gasp!) update the whole thing to bring it into the 21st century?

I view the Constitution as a wonderful document that was ahead of its time in many ways, but it's also really no different from a business plan that every business uses to guide its work. No successful business that I know wrote a business plan and never changed it. In fact, those are living, breathing documents that should be reviewed and updated every 6 months or year in order to take current trends and opportunities into consideration. If Ford had written its business plan in 1908 and never altered it, it would still be trying to sell the Model-T.

There is and should be reverence for the Constitution, but a document that is 250 years old could never envision many of the issues we face today -- nor was it intended to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KE Spider, bullfrog91, urfan1 and 1 other person
There are provisions for amending the Constitution. The difficulty has been decisions that are unconstitutional and attempt to short circuit those provisions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gallipoli
there are many constitutional experts that would say the decisions you reference were not unconstitutional
 
There's also nothing in the Constitution about the internet, flying cars, nuclear weapons or any number of other things that didn't exist in the 1700s or that don't exist yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WCUR11
Eight Legger said:
There's also nothing in the Constitution about the internet, flying cars, nuclear weapons or any number of other things that didn't exist in the 1700s or that don't exist yet.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the framers knew that. This is a roll back of the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s. The Warren and Burger courts acted as super legislatures. Expect the administrative state to be rolled back and the slop that counts for statutory language from Congress to improve. I expect the IRS will be reigned in.
 
So I am clear, the 2nd Amendment allows infinite permutations (assault rifles, high capacity magazines, bump triggers, etc.) simply because guns (ignoring the well regulated militia part) are mentioned? Conversely, anything else not mentioned is not allowed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Eight Legger
Spiderwiz said:
So I am clear, the 2nd Amendment allows infinite permutations (assault rifles, high capacity magazines, bump triggers, etc.) simply because guns (ignoring the well regulated militia part) are mentioned? Conversely, anything else not mentioned is not allowed?
Click to expand...
The abortion ruling and the 2nd Amendment rulings are consistent with originalist interpretations of the Constitution. If you don't like the rulings change the law. The court should not legislate from the bench.
 
Gallipoli said:
The bigger question is to what extent does a state has an interest in protecting the life of an unborn baby?
Click to expand...
The biggest question of them all should be to what extent does the state have an interest in protecting a woman who is already living, breathing, existing, contributing to society & economy, etc. compared to a clump of cells? Rendering a woman a criminal--or in some interpretations, a slave of the state, forced to carry a fetus to term--merely for seeking what is best for her life and goals is against both the 13th and 14th amendments.

It is clear that this is a sensitive topic--but why don't Republicans get back to what they claim the party is about: Small government and personal freedoms & liberties. Or better yet, adopt the Libertarian motto "fiscally conservative, socially liberal."

The state should not be involved in doctor's offices, bedrooms, places of worship, newsrooms, etc.
 
WCUR11 said:
The biggest question of them all should be to what extent does the state have an interest in protecting a woman who is already living, breathing, existing, contributing to society & economy, etc. compared to a clump of cells? Rendering a woman a criminal--or in some interpretations, a slave of the state, forced to carry a fetus to term--merely for seeking what is best for her life and goals is against both the 13th and 14th amendments.
Click to expand...
So, just to be clear. If a perfectly healthy baby is about to be born and it starts to come out of the womb, and even comes out of the womb, you think it is ok to abort that child?
 
Gallipoli said:
So, just to be clear. If a perfectly healthy baby is about to be born and it starts to come out of the womb, and even comes out of the womb, you think it is ok to abort that child?
Click to expand...
Literally did not say that, at all. I think that abortion up to ~20 weeks should be an option since that is when many genetic complications are detected that can endanger both mother and child. And I agree with 61% of Americans that abortion should be legal in all or most cases: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...rtion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

I'm going to end with this: If you don't like abortions, don't get one! Pretty damn simple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: urfan1
WCUR11 said:
Literally did not say that, at all. I think that abortion up to ~20 weeks should be an option since that is when many genetic complications are detected that can endanger both mother and child. And I agree with 61% of Americans that abortion should be legal in all or most cases: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-ta...rtion-should-be-legal-in-all-or-most-cases-2/

I'm going to end with this: If you don't like abortions, don't get one! Pretty damn simple.
Click to expand...
So you think there should be some limits on abortion, beginning around 20 weeks?
 
You see these commentators on TV who are very passionate about abortion. They scream and yell about how horrible the Dobbs decision was. I think someone should ask them if they have ever had an abortion.
 
The Constitution protects my right to own an attack helicopter and nuclear warhead, too, I guess.
 
localspider said:
You are confusing assault rifles with semi-automatic weapons, big difference. Your grand dads .22 squirrel rifle was semi-automatic rifle, same as AR-15, AK 47, SAS. Which the Constitution protects.
Click to expand...
AK-47? Isn’t that Fully automatic, 30 round magazine that used to be issued by the Soviet Military?
 
localspider said:
you should take a couple minutes and read second amendment
Click to expand...
It doesn't take a couple minutes to read it. It grants me the power to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia. So I've assembled one with a few friends. You should come over one day and watch us take target practice in our Apaches. It's quite impressive. We need them for self defense, of course.
 
I first saw this movie when I was a student at UR. It is called The Silent Scream.
I encourage you to watch it. It is quite unsettling.

 
Last edited:
“But it says nothing about abortion”
Neither is anything said about same sex marriage nor contraception as Justice Thomas noted although he conspicuously omitted interracial marriage even though that isn't mentioned either.

The Roe reversal will adversely affect the less well off. Those with means always have an option (regardless of the solution emloyed). I am more interested in pro-life advocates being pro-life on the other side of the womb and putting their money where their mouth is. Broadly speaking, support services are paradoxically less available in pro-life areas. Take the great state of Mississippi for instance (Dobbs anyone?) which acknowledges it “ranks last, or close to last, in almost every leading health outcome” and where "8.5 live births per 1000 end in death before the celebration of a first birthday”.

Health Equity - Mississippi State Department of Health

msdh.ms.gov

I am sure an equally (if not more so) disturbing video of an abused unwanted child could be found if a balanced narrative is desired.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WCUR11 and Eight Legger
Spiderwiz said:
“But it says nothing about abortion”
The Roe reversal will adversely affect the less well off. Those with means always have an option (regardless of the solution emloyed). I am more interested in pro-life advocates being pro-life on the other side of the womb and putting their money where their mouth is.

Health Equity - Mississippi State Department of Health

msdh.ms.gov
Click to expand...
Personally, I would rather spend money on Americans than illegal immigrants.
 
Last edited:
Eight Legger said:
Legit question here, and take the abortion discussion out of it: Should we continue to defer to the original Constitution until the end of time? Or at some point, should we do what the founders themselves intended and update it with new amendments – or (gasp!) update the whole thing to bring it into the 21st century?

I view the Constitution as a wonderful document that was ahead of its time in many ways, but it's also really no different from a business plan that every business uses to guide its work. No successful business that I know wrote a business plan and never changed it. In fact, those are living, breathing documents that should be reviewed and updated every 6 months or year in order to take current trends and opportunities into consideration. If Ford had written its business plan in 1908 and never altered it, it would still be trying to sell the Model-T.

There is and should be reverence for the Constitution, but a document that is 250 years old could never envision many of the issues we face today -- nor was it intended to do so.
Click to expand...
What is the purpose of having a constitution as a controlling document, if you can eviscerate it at will? Does the language of the constitution matter? SCOTUS' job is to call balls and strikes.
What if a beaureaucrat interprets the law in a way inconsistent with Federal Statute and the constitution? What if a president pushes something illegal via executive order? See West Virginia v. EPA.
 
I think I explained pretty clearly the course I would take. If you believe that the Constitution covers every possible need we would ever have as a country from the late 1700s until the end of time, the Founders themselves would disagree with you.

It's a great document. But it needs to be updated and brought into the 21st century. Why do authors update editions of textbooks? Because things change and new things happen, and their books need to reflect that. The Constitution is no different.
 
Eight Legger said:
In fact, those are living, breathing documents that should be reviewed and updated...
Click to expand...
Eight Legger said:
It's a great document. But it needs to be updated and brought into the 21st century....
Click to expand...
So, you contend the constitution is a living document. Accordingly, it is appropriate for SCOTUS to change the Constitution according to the mores of society. It needs to change as society changes.
Under our system of government, Congress makes the law. Congress decides what needs to be done. SCOTUS only interprets the law according to the Constitution, not create new law; Roe was new law. By ruling that a new constitutional right to abortion exists, SCOTUS made new law.
 
I didn't say that the Supreme Court should alter the Constitution. That would be a Congressional action.
 
The Constitution should not just be revered, it should be followed. The concept of the living Constitution is a euphemism for changing Our founding document as dictated by the social mores of the time. If we ignore it, or worse, seek to change it on a whim, we would become unmoored from the that which holds us together. The Constitution is the tie that binds the Republic.
 
The Constitution provides the mechanism for changes, updates. There are already 27 Amendments since its adoption. If the Citizenry feel something needs to be addressed, garner the required votes and amend it.
 
Right now, I am scouring the Constitution for “Major Questions”. Guns, yes. Abortion, no. Major Questions, uh …
 
KE Spider said:
The Constitution provides the mechanism for changes, updates. There are already 27 Amendments since its adoption. If the Citizenry feel something needs to be addressed, garner the required votes and amend it.
Click to expand...
You're right, it does. My point is that our electeds in the last 40-50 years or so have simply decided that it is never to be changed ever again. I'm not sure how we arrived here, but it's clearly not what was intended.
 
The "living Constitution" doctrine transforms the Constitution from a normative (rules) basis to a prerogative basis for interpretation. The danger is whoever is in charge can interpret laws based on their personal whims (their policy prerogatives). Our entire pluralistic system emanates from the stability afforded by the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
By 1937, Nazi Germany made the transition from a rules based system to a system adhering to the social preferences prevailing at the time. All of the lawyers and judges became acclimated to the new way of thinking. The Nazis packed the courts or removed the undesirables who disagreed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back