"If they were serious about reducing murders, they would end poverty in the US and forcibly redistribute all of Bill Gates's and Elon Musk's money."
Yeah that distinction is often lost when they look at simple laws that talk about the time in the pregnancy up to which abortion on demand is permitted. Most Nations who have that regiment have very early testing and ease of access. Under those circumstances, it makes sense to say that the decision needs to be made early before further development, unless there is a very late development that changes everything it makes sense to require that the decision be made early to be exercised, absent some later previously unknown health development. Obviously that scheme would never work here because there's a substantial part of the population that would never accept ease of access and would always try to block regardless of when the abortion is sought
Earlier this thread a poster (not you) re-posted some numbers about the high % of the public that doesn't want Roe overturned. It was used to buttress the argument that America is pro-abortion, with no restrictions. While the poll was true, I pointed out that this question depends on the way the question is asked. And the details were not so straight-forward. The US clearly is troubled by abortion on demand. I posted this article, and these polling numbers to support my point. I would counter that you should approach the liberal POV with a lot of skepticism. Clearly the poll showing the high % of the public supporting Roe was misleading- though technically true.
And worst case scenario, this Court would revert those issues back to the states. For the most part, they're not like the Court in Roe which basically prohibited (or heavily restricted) states from passing abortion-restrictive legislation. Even if what you're saying is true, this Court would not criminalize gay marriage, nor would it criminalize contraception. They do not believe that is their role, they are just pushing these issues back to the states, democratic processes, where they belong.
And if abortion is popular then the People of that state will elect representatives that will enact popular legislation. Our system is broken if we have to rely on SCOTUS legislating popular things rather than electing representatives that are able to legislate popular things
Oh I agree & frankly the ball has been dropped for YEARS because senators were too lazy or didn't want the political fallout of deciding, and just pointed at the courts. But now hopefully they WILL pass something to make abortion rights a law.
It absolutely depends on how the question is worded. I have read everything I could on the issue for at least 30 years and thought about it as deeply as I am able. But I maintain that the best way to tell you how "popular" a potential policy is in terms of public support is to look at how elected officials react. That's not a perfect measure, but it is pretty probative. In this case, almost all Republican officeholders do not want to claim triumph on the substantive issue. They only want to address the leak. It could be that they feel like the issue is not necessarily unpopular but why risk anything when they're in the strong position for the midterms, which they are. But it doesn't feel like that. In reality, none of us really know until policies are widely implemented how they will impact popular will in a democratic electorate, to the extent that that remains a proper description of our nation. I do believe that a substantial portion of the lack of consideration of potential negative political outcomes is the fact that many on the right feel like they can suppress and ignore electoral outcomes they don't like. There will be some grotesque and newsworthy applications of the policy as enacted. And that really leads to my best speculation, and I will acknowledge that it is speculation, as to where the public actually "is". I think that most well-meaning people would concede in speculation that a not insignificant plurality of elective abortions would be morally problematic according to their personal code and they wouldn't mind having those outlawed on a case-by-case basis. I think that is the sentiment that is most likely captured by the fact that substantial majorities oppose abortion "on demand". I think they are envisioning specific applications and feel certain that all abortion on demand will capture many objectionable decisions. But that's not how law actually works. Laws have to be of general application, and they are enforced by the individual criminal justice systems that in numerous jurisdictions will be directed by those who would affirmatively seek to apply the policy in a punitive way. And if I'm going to flush it out, I would say that while most people would say that many of the individual elective abortion decisions might be morally problematic to them, it is impossible to articulate a rule of law which excludes only those, which obviously will vary almost by individual. By that, I mean that if you're going to be absolutely pro-life, you have to accept that there will be a not insignificant number of applications of the policy which will feel gruesome and limiting and unfair to people of good will. There are no two ways around that. Many have been expressed on this thread. Most of us probably know someone that would meet that criteria, whether we are aware or not. There are 1000 other angles on this, and I am limiting my application only to speculation on the political impact. As with any public policy issue, you can analyze it from legal angles, moral angles, and 25 or 30 others. But my best guess as to the political impact of the decision is largely based upon the formulation I set forth above and most especially the fact that so many Republican officeholders seem completely unwilling to talk about it.
Agreed. But now that compromise = selling out and a sure way to get primaried. In the past, people understood that no one governed the way the ran, because to do so would mean you govern for only your voters, not your district. To do otherwise yields chaos and ultimately civil war. Talking heads eliminated this and indoctrinated their team. Otherwise folks would need to be open to the possibility that Ga worked harder in recruiting. Nope, not happening Ymmv
You apply values of the past to new phenomena. Not a single originalist worth their salt just thinks the Courts should throw their hands up in the air and say that TVs, cars, and the internet weren't around in the 1700s and 1800s so no Constitutional rights should apply to these things. You apply values of the past to new phenomena. The irony is that homosexuality and abortion are not new phenomena. Society's values just changed. And it's not the role of the Court to be a democratic institution. It's the role of the Court preserve the rights enumerated under the Constitution regardless of what society feels. If something isn't mentioned in the Constitution that you think should be mandated by law, pass a law. If something is Unconstitutional you think should be Constitutional, pass an Amendment.
This is circular logic. One of the key roles of The Supreme Court is to strike down laws which violate a persons rights, not “kick it back to the state” that wants to violate those rights in the first place! Abortion and gay marriage are not specifically named in the constitution. Yet it’s easy to see how state intrusion or singling out “gay marriage” bans pretty clearly violate several of the rights that ARE enumerated under the constitution. Of course these “conservatives” on the court also look to undermine actual laws on the books, not just previous interpretations of constitutional rights when it comes to the civil rights and voting rights act. It’s almost like all their arguments are completely ideological and disingenuous (that’s because they are).
I think you've raised an important observation here. It seems to me the Court could affirm the privacy/liberty line of cases, whether based upon substantive due process or the 9th Amendment or whatever, and apply some heightened level of scrutiny while still finding that the interests of the zygote/embryo/fetus are very unique, establishing that the applicable level of scrutiny cannot be met to find this law unconstitutional. Rather, as I read the draft Opinion, Alito simply employs a rational basis test and then says the Opinion is limited to abortion, so don't worry about any of those other cases.
It is not the role of the Supreme Court to invent Constitutional rights based on an arbitrary whim of 5 justices.
Yeah, they are more than happy to strip states of their authority when rights Republicans favor are at issue. The only global logic that can explain their opinions is partisanship. We all know it. I have little interest in pretending otherwise.
From my understanding, aside from the 19th Amendment - which is specific and limited to womens' right to vote - the Constitution by its plain language does not proscribe discrimination based upon sex. Obviously, discrimination against women was historically practiced and allowed to the extent that's the standard. Moreover, the 19th Amendment could have been worded more broadly to protect women. But it wasn't. Should questions involving sex discrimination therefore be thrown back to the states? Of course, we've had cases applying a higher (intermediate) level of scrutiny where discrimination was based upon sex and often based upon traditional stereotypes and norms about the respective roles of men and women and husbands and wives. I think Obergefell could have been decided on that basis alone given that the sex of the respective parties seeking to get married was the sole reason governments did not want to recognize marriages. But, again, does the Constitution actually prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or should that just be left to legislatures?
