Draft Alito opinion leaked overturning Roe

You're on a roll with the whataboutisms and false equivalencies today.

Scalia cited both plain text definitions at the time of ratification in Heller and historical interpretations during the time period in which it was ratified.

You'd be hardpressed to find one person who thought that the Equal Protections Clause under the 14th Amendment encompassed "gay marriage" in the 1860s.

 

Except it wasn't interpreted that way until Scalia's opinion. He analyzed the original meaning based on the text (in an extremely dishonest manner). The text of the Equal Protection Clause clearly covers gay people. That, of course, is why you continue to fall back on intention and what people thought it covered. That's irrelevant when the text is clear and unambiguous.

The irony here is that the conservatives on the Supreme Court will rule next year that the Fourteenth Amendment bars affirmative action and requires colorblindness, despite the fact that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment clearly thought the opposite. But that's what happens when you lack intellectual honesty.

 

Again, he also relied on how it was interpreted at the time. You can ignore that all you want, that doesn't dismiss the point.

Even Justice Breyer doesn't think that it's a clear answer as to whether the Fourteenth Amendment "requires" colorblindness. Just watch any interview with him on the issue. He favors affirmative action, he believes it's Constitutionally permissible, but he doesn't believe there's a "clear answer." He believes there's a legitimate argument for colorblindness.

 

It’s not the court role to legislate what is popular. That is the role of the legislature.

All overturning Roe does is say it is up to the people. IT DOES NOT BAN ABORTION. If it is as popular as you say then certainly it will be legal.

 

Lots and lots of pro choice scholars think Roe was extremely shaky.

People seem to forget that whether we should make abortion legal and Roe v Wade are two very different questions.

 

I'd be curious to know who these lots and lots of pro choice scholars are?

 

No, he purported to seek out the original public meaning (which he didn't actually follow). But you don't do that when the text is clear and unambiguous on its face.

Cool. I agree with Thurgood Marshall. Breyer's wrong on plenty of issues.

 

Heller was a 5-4 decision where both the majority and the dissent interpreted the same text very differently, and you call that text that is clear and unambiguous on its face?

It is widely agreed upon that the 2nd Amendment is not clearly written which is how you have two sides of the political aisle using originalist interpretations coming to very different conclusions in Heller.

Cool. Justice Marshall (may he rest in peace) was wrong on plenty of issues.

 

You have my point exactly backwards.

Maybe, maybe not. He was right about the Equal Protection Clause.

 

and yet we’ve allowed it.

I’ve always wondered why these are political appointments..

It gives no one confidence as a whole

 

The justices are going to find their own freedoms are going to be extremely curtailed coming soon..

Pray for them Plank

 

Look at other links/maps provided & you'll see where states already have laws that will kick in either banning or severely limiting abortion. Do you think Texas, for example, cared about popularity when it passed their 6 week plus bounty hunting abortion law? No. They care about pandering to their extremist base. They don't care about women's health or rights. So yes, overturning Roe does equal a ban because that's already in place & ready to go.

Some states have laws that will kick in protecting the right to an abortion so you'll see a lot of women moving, or at least traveling for medical services.

Once again it'll be the poor/lower middle class who will suffer because some guy who can afford to send his mistresses off to get abortions in another state "knows better".

 

Apparently leaks have happened before including the original decision. Think those upset by the leaks are more upset at being exposed than the actual leak.

 

So it’s not a Federal matter, but let’s introduce a bill to make it a Federal matter. Marco being Marco. Serial opportunist and virtue signaler.

Rubio introduces bill prohibiting employers from receiving tax breaks for expenses related to abortions | Fox News

 

Some have suggested it was a right winger trying to lock in the 5 radical right wing judges to follow through on this.

 

The fallacy of this reasoning is this: if the state’s definition of marriage excludes who can marry whom, then marriage is not a fundamental right. If the stare’s Definition requires a marriage certificate be recorded, then that definition does not restrict who can exercise the right. Anyone who marries can record it. Also, the word “marriage” is not mentioned in the constitution. If this draft opinion becomes law, then it supports the notion that marriage is a creation of the state because, like privacy, it is not mentioned in the constitution. As it stands after this opinion, and based on history, the only privacy rights any one will have outside of thought, speech and religion are those to not have their house searched by the government without a warrant. And since suppression of evidence is not mentioned in the constitution, it would appear that an illegal search now would not be remedied in a criminal proceeding. Nor are Miranda warnings mentioned in the constitution. So, if you want an attorney, get one or ask for one on your own. Lots of changes coming in the next 30 years as this court reshapes the country to transfer power to the government by diminishing individual rights. It starts in areas where large numbers of ideologically based are happy, and then moves to areas where no one is happy. And in the area of voting, we will now see a great movement to diminish minority voting power under the rubric, “it is up to the legislatures.”

 

I’ve got a question for the board.

How many people posting about this draft opinion have actually read it?

Alito laser focuses on rights not specifically enumerated in the Constitution needing to be rooted in our history to be constitutionally valid. As I’ve said a number of times in this thread, see the first grammatical paragraph on P5 of the draft, which leads to a long discussion of the history of abortion, here and elsewhere, starting with its illegality in many places when our beloved document was written.

Well, there are plenty of rights and circumstances that we enjoy daily that aren’t “rooted in our history” or mentioned in the constitution the court has recently upheld:

-Gay marriage
-Obamacare
-Interracial marriage
-Corporations as people
-Contraception
-Miranda rights
-Any of the judicially created exceptions to unlawful and seizure laws


I know the draft says “this is only about abortion”. Of course it does, as the MS case is only about abortion.

But the whole basis for the ruling goes well beyond abortion and any lawyer on here no matter how conservative damn well knows from their law school days that the self-serving statement limiting the opinion to abortion is just that-fodder to salve the real danger of this opinion in inviting other states to undo some of these daily protections and use this case as the stepladder to get there. That’s how it works, because that’s how we got here in the first place-it’s the equivalent of going down the backside of a ladder.

Do I think Miranda is at risk? No. I’m not being hysterical.

Do I think some backwater legislature will test the limits of gay marriage or contraception, etc? You’re damn right I do. Just look at these abortion laws that not only criminalize abortion within a state, but purport to punish women who leave that state and have an abortion elsewhere where legal.

That’s the direction the breadth of this opinion points us, notwithstanding its self serving language limiting it to abortion. Of course that’s what it says. It’s an abortion case.

 

I don’t think it is hysterical to address Miranda or suppression remedies for constitutional violations. There are strong dissents on these subjects which are given vitality by the Alito doctrine. Shouldn’t it be up to state legislatures or (in Florida, the Supreme Court of Florida) to decide what evidence is admitted? The idea that the constitution is a dead document that does not apply to developments in technology etc. is just foreign. For example, there were no AR 15s in the 18th century. History does not support that the founding fathers contemplated those guns. Why are they protected under the Second Amendment? As for contraception, if the right of privacy is overruled, so is Griswold. So are the sodomy decisions; the government can tell you what you can and cannot do in bed with your partner. Because that was the history and law in the 18th Century. There was no electronic surveillance in the 18th century. Why do you need a warrant for a wee tap? The warrant clause applied to homes historically. Btw: your business is not your home.