Roe vs. Wade overturned

[Cmaier]

I thought that case had the opposite effect, and determined that SCOTUS could determine whether state laws were constitutional or not.

...guess I gotta read stuff now.

Yes. That’s what that case said. But the power to declare laws unconstitutional is the power to declare them constitutional. And my point is that they don’t question their right to do that. But the same argument that they use to say that women don’t have the right to choose (it’s not spelled out in the constitution) means they shouldn’t have the right to determine the constitutionality of laws.

 

[Renzatic]

Yes. That’s what that case said. But the power to declare laws unconstitutional is the power to declare them constitutional. And my point is that they don’t question their right to do that. But the same argument that they use to say that women don’t have the right to choose (it’s not spelled out in the constitution) means they shouldn’t have the right to determine the constitutionality of laws.

I edited my post, by the way. Read up on it.

Should've just waited for the response.

 

[Cmaier]

I edited my post, by the way. Read up on it.

Should've just waited for the response.

As you note, *state* laws is an even more touchy situation. Heck, the constitution doesn’t even say that things like the bill of rights apply to state laws. The SCOTUS has used its (not written in the Constitution) ability to interpret state laws to decide that various amendments apply to state laws, in a series of cases that covered these one by one.

And while I agree with their conclusion, again, the point is that you can’t, on the one hand, say that ”states can do whatever they want unless the constitution expressly states otherwise” and also say “but because we wear robes we can exercise powers that the constitution doesn’t expressly give us.” And the implications of “it has to be expressly written” should mean that, for example, California can declare all religions illegal. After all, the first amendment only says what congress can do, not what states can do. New York can declare it illegal for republicans to write editorials, by the same logic. Cruel and unusual punishment? Sounds good! Constitution, unless it expressly says something applies to the states, doesn’t apply to the states!

Interracial marriage? No more in Texas! You liked separate but equal? Why not?! Let’s bring that back, after all, the constitution is quiet on that.

 

[Renzatic]

And while I agree with their conclusion, again, the point is that you can’t, on the one hand, say that ”states can do whatever they want unless the constitution expressly states otherwise” and also say “but because we wear robes we can exercise powers that the constitution doesn’t expressly give us.”

Yeah, it leaves us with a situation where we can say "BUT IT'S ESTABLISHED LAW" for things we like, but we can always turn around, and claim it's unconstitutional the moment it starts losing favor. It's the double edged sword of not requiring SCOTUS to be beholden to stare decisis. If they were, they wouldn't have been able to reverse obviously bad decisions, like Dred Scott, but it also leaves us vulnerable to situations like this.

If the last few years have proven anything to me, it's that America is particularly vulnerable to zealots and ideologues. Everything works swimmingly when we have pragmatic leadership at the helm. But the moment we don't...

 

[JayMysteri0]

Remember what I said about the damn walls breaking?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523047482665668608/

IUDs, Plan B Likely Illegal in Missouri Post-Roe

IVF and miscarriages could be complicated as well

www.riverfronttimes.com

A Republican Senate candidate endorsed by Peter Thiel is campaigning on a pledge to vote only for judges who oppose the SCOTUS ruling establishing the right to birth control

Blake Masters pledged to vote for judges who believe Griswold v. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and Planned Parenthood v. Casey were wrongly decided.

www.businessinsider.com

Idaho Republican Leader Says He'd Consider Banning Morning-After Pills and IUDs

The Republican Party insists they "DO NOT want to take away contraception." But some lawmakers are admitting the quiet part out loud.

jezebel.com

From supreme court nominees to politicians, the lies have all been with one thing in mind.

 

[SuperMatt]

Remember what I said about the damn walls breaking?

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523047482665668608/





From supreme court nominees to politicians, the lies have all been with one thing in mind.

Marsha Blackburn indicated (during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing) that the Supreme Court ruling allowing contraception in the name of privacy was wrongly decided.

It appears that these anti-contraception bills are based on that belief. Since they got Roe overturned, they think they can completely remove the right to privacy.

Blackburn denounces Supreme Court contraception ruling from 1965

The more prominent Republicans criticize the Supreme Court’s Griswold v. Connecticut ruling on contraception access, the more the public should care.

www.msnbc.com

The Republicans believe this is all part of a culture war and that they are winning. It’s not a culture war. It’s fascism against Democracy… and Democracy is on the ropes.

 

[fooferdoggie]

Marsha Blackburn indicated (during the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearing) that the Supreme Court ruling allowing contraception in the name of privacy was wrongly decided.

ya well lets make her medical record public shall we? come on show is how it will work.

 

[SuperMatt]

The SNL cold open lambasted the Supreme Court with a sketch set in the 13th century…

 

[Yoused]

Heck, the constitution doesn’t even say that things like the bill of rights apply to state laws.

Article IV § 2
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.​

This clause, along with section two of Article VI and section one of 14A, basically places state law under the umbrella of the Constitution and its amendments. To suggest that state law should, based on a strict verbatim et literatim reading, not be required to pass constitutional muster is just downright silliness.

What way be even more troubling a subsequent line is Article IV,

No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.​

which is, yes, where slavery was literally enshrined in the Constitution, but "held to service" could in theory become warped into serving the country by bearing its children. A state could claim that, by law, it holds its pregnant women to service, as is protected under Article IV and cannot be terminated in another state. Which is the paranoid, dystopian, Handmaid's Tale outlook – but we already have a Supreme Court justice straight out of that book, and there is no way to guess what limits there might be on their insanity.

 

[Cmaier]

Article IV § 2​

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.​

This clause, along with section two of Article VI and section one of 14A, basically places state law under the umbrella of the Constitution and its amendments. To suggest that state law should, based on a strict verbatim et literatim reading, not be required to pass constitutional muster is just downright silliness.

What way be even more troubling a subsequent line is Article IV,

No Person held to Service or Labor in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or Labor, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labor may be due.​

which is, yes, where slavery was literally enshrined in the Constitution, but "held to service" could in theory become warped into serving the country by bearing its children. A state could claim that, by law, it holds its pregnant women to service, as is protected under Article IV and cannot be terminated in another state. Which is the paranoid, dystopian, Handmaid's Tale outlook – but we already have a Supreme Court justice straight out of that book, and there is no way to guess what limits there might be on their insanity.

I agree with you! But as for the first part, you just interpreted the constitution to determine that state law is under the umbrella of the constitution. It doesn’t state that, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the effect. Which is why the Supreme Court, using power not expressly granted to it under the constitution, made a series of similar interpretations in a series of opinions over the years.

Which goes back to my point - the Supreme Court is happy to add things to the constitution quite often. But now it’s pretending it can’t do that.

 

[SuperMatt]

I agree with you! But as for the first part, you just interpreted the constitution to determine that state law is under the umbrella of the constitution. It doesn’t state that, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the effect. Which is why the Supreme Court, using power not expressly granted to it under the constitution, made a series of similar interpretations in a series of opinions over the years.

Which goes back to my point - the Supreme Court is happy to add things to the constitution quite often. But now it’s pretending it can’t do that.

The clause specifically deals with ”privileges and immunities.“ When state laws attempt to take rights away from people, this clause explicitly prevents that. So at least when it comes infringing upon “privileges and immunities” - state law is explicitly under the umbrella of the constitution. There are other mentions of federal supremacy in the constitution too, such as the commerce clause, or prohibiting states from treating residents and nonresidents differently.

 

[Cmaier]

The clause specifically deals with ”privileges and immunities.“ When state laws attempt to take rights away from people, this clause explicitly prevents that. So at least when it comes infringing upon “privileges and immunities” - state law is explicitly under the umbrella of the constitution. There are other mentions of federal supremacy in the constitution too, such as the commerce clause, or prohibiting states from treating residents and nonresidents differently.

Being under the umbrella of the constitution does not expressly mean that a particular clause or amendment applies to states. Again, the Supreme Court itself said that the constitution does NOT expressly recite that the bill of rights applies to states. They were right in saying that. They also said that despite this, the bill of rights does apply to states because they interpreted the constitution and reached that conclusion.

In some cases their interpretation made more sense than others.

And if you all want to argue with me that such and such language in the constitution means that the first amendment should apply to states then you are completed missing the point. You are doing exactly what the Supreme Court did (which I agree with!), which is to find that the constitution provides for rights even even though they are not clearly written out in the constitution.

And the right to abortion was found the same way. It was inherent in the penumbral right to privacy which the Supreme Court decided that states cannot invade.

And my point is that the same court which changed its mind and now decided that you can’t find a right in the constitution if it’s not written is there is full of shit because the way the Supreme Court has always worked is to interpret the words of the constitution to find things that are not expressly written there. INCLUDING THEIR OWN POWER TO OVERTURN LAWS! And including their own power to do anything about state laws.

 

[SuperMatt]

Being under the umbrella of the constitution does not expressly mean that a particular clause or amendment applies to states. Again, the Supreme Court itself said that the constitution does NOT expressly recite that the bill of rights applies to states. They were right in saying that. They also said that despite this, the bill of rights does apply to states because they interpreted the constitution and reached that conclusion.

In some cases their interpretation made more sense than others.

And if you all want to argue with me that such and such language in the constitution means that the first amendment should apply to states then you are completed missing the point. You are doing exactly what the Supreme Court did (which I agree with!), which is to find that the constitution provides for rights even even though they are not clearly written out in the constitution.

And the right to abortion was found the same way. It was inherent in the penumbral right to privacy which the Supreme Court decided that states cannot invade.

And my point is that the same court which changed its mind and now decided that you can’t find a right in the constitution if it’s not written is there is full of shit because the way the Supreme Court has always worked is to interpret the words of the constitution to find things that are not expressly written there. INCLUDING THEIR OWN POWER TO OVERTURN LAWS! And including their own power to do anything about state laws.

That specific clause explicitly mentions the states though. And since “privileges” is a synonym for “rights” - then it’s really a literal reading, not an interpretation, to say that the federal government can tell the states not to infringe on those rights. So, in order to make abortion legal some places and not others, one must interpret as you said, that abortion is NOT a right.

As for rights not specifically mentioned in the constitution, check out the 9th amendment. That is explicit language allowing for human rights to be protected. A nice way to cover anything that might come up in the future or that they didn’t specifically get to add. Unfortunately, it comes back to interpretation as you mentioned before. Some judges don’t interpret abortion as a human right.

There is a lot of gray area and interpretations to be made between federal and state powers. However, there are some explicit statements about those powers, and protecting “privileges and immunities” is an example of an explicit clause.

 

[Cmaier]

That specific clause explicitly mentions the states though. And since “privileges” is a synonym for “rights” - then it’s really a literal reading, not an interpretation, to say that the federal government can tell the states not to infringe on those rights. So, in order to make abortion legal some places and not others, one must interpret as you said, that abortion is NOT a right.

Ok. what you are doing there is interpreting the words of the constitution to come to the conclusion that the first amendment, which expressly says CONGRESS, also means states, right? It’s NOT a literal reading. Its using other literal words, interpreting them, and coming to a conclusion which is NOT literally written there. Again, the Supreme Court, itself, found that the constitution does NOT *literally* prevent the states from impinging on rights from the bill of rights.

And they reached the conclusion NOT based on what you cited - that wasn’t good enough. They reached it based on the 14th amendment!

And guess what else! They did NOT reach the conclusion that all rights in the bill of rights are protected from state interference! The right to indictment by a grand jury is not! (Sorry, fifth amendment!) You like the 6th amendment? Well, states don’t have to give you a jury from the district where the crime was committed, so sorry about that!

The whole framework of ”selective incorporation” (applying much of the bill of rights to the states) is built on the same reasoning - the constitution can mean things that aren’t written out in it - that the Supreme Courts now rejects with respect to abortion.


By the way, it was not until 1925 (!) that the Supreme Court said the first amendment applies to states. See Gitlow v. New York. Clearly the founders didn’t INTEND to prevent states from impinging free speech, right? They didn’t SAY so. The constitution specifically says “CONGRESS shall make no law…”. And there was a long tradition of states preventing different kinds of speech! I mean, Alito says you can only prevent a state from impinging on a supposed right if the right is granted expressly in the constitution or if the right was a traditional and long held fundamental right, yes? I guess free speech and freedom of religion are the next to go.

 

[JayMysteri0]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523300762256015360/

Seriously, you know these mother fuckers lie. Stop coddling them for fear of them NOT coming back. Why the FUCK would you want someone who lies back on your show? Call them out, piss them off, make them run off in tears with the head tucked, then call them out again for NOT having the balls to be on your show and TELL THE TRUTH! It's so simple, yet so maddening. It's why these assholes are emboldened to do their shit, because they will NOT get called out.

 

[Cmaier]

The clause specifically deals with ”privileges and immunities.“ When state laws attempt to take rights away from people, this clause explicitly prevents that. So at least when it comes infringing upon “privileges and immunities” - state law is explicitly under the umbrella of the constitution. There are other mentions of federal supremacy in the constitution too, such as the commerce clause, or prohibiting states from treating residents and nonresidents differently.

By the way, the clause you mention has historically been used primarily for the idea that if you are a citizen of, say, Colorado, and you travel to Texas, then while in Texas you have all the basic rights of a citizen of Texas. It has NOT been interpreted to mean that Colorado has to allow you the rights a Texan has in Texas, or that if the federal government provides a right, then the states have to.

After all, it literally says “Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.”

It meant that you are to be treated as a local (more or less) when you travel between states.

History tells us this is what the founders meant, by the way. It’s similar to a clause in the articles of confederation.

 

[Roller]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523300762256015360/

Seriously, you know these mother fuckers lie. Stop coddling them for fear of them NOT coming back. Why the FUCK would you want someone who lies back on your show? Call them out, piss them off, make them run off in tears with the head tucked, then call them out again for NOT having the balls to be on your show and TELL THE TRUTH! It's so simple, yet so maddening. It's why these assholes are emboldened to do their shit, because they will NOT get called out.

Right! How about following-up with "You didn't answer my question. What does 'not focused on at this time' mean?" I think they're afraid of offending their guests to the point that they'll refuse to appear again, but who cares? And Democrats should be pounding away on these issues through every medium available, letting people know the rights that will be taken away.

 

[SuperMatt]

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1523300762256015360/

Seriously, you know these mother fuckers lie. Stop coddling them for fear of them NOT coming back. Why the FUCK would you want someone who lies back on your show? Call them out, piss them off, make them run off in tears with the head tucked, then call them out again for NOT having the balls to be on your show and TELL THE TRUTH! It's so simple, yet so maddening. It's why these assholes are emboldened to do their shit, because they will NOT get called out.

Just saw Reeves on Meet the Press and he refused to rule out banning contraception there too. And he had no solution when Chuck Todd pointed out the severe child poverty problems in Mississippi and how those would get even worse if abortion is banned.

And on a tangent: one legal analyst tossed out the possibility that the court could re-hear the case.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Right! How about following-up with "You didn't answer my question. What does 'not focused on at this time' mean?" I think they're afraid of offending their guests to the point that they'll refuse to appear again, but who cares? And Democrats should be pounding away on these issues through every medium available, letting people know the rights that will be taken away.

Not to criticize after liking, but it isn't the dems who should be doing the pounding.

It's a f'n news show about reporting the news & supposedly getting at the truth. But CNN and the like can't even do that for fear of hurting their guests feelings. To quote some of that guest's loudest constituents "F' their feelings"! It's literally Tapper's job to drill down thru the bullshit. If he can't do that, nobody should watch him unless he's doing puff pieces. The dems as you say though should use such interviews to demonstrate that if one of these republicans is talking about anything abortion related, it should be assumed as a lie until they can prove otherwise. They've lost the "innocent until proven guilty" aspect when it comes to honest discussion about this topic and many more.

Back to what I was originally going to post.
https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1522975927038316544/

 

[Alli]

What’s going to happen to all these people who swear they interpret the constitution “as it was written” when they realize there were not 50 states mentioned in it? Will we have to dissolve states who didn’t exist at that time?