Roe v Wade Being Repealed
Discussion
gregs656 said:
Byker28i said:
The Lancet come out strongly
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vo...
I don't think that is a strong rebuttal at all, in fact, I think Alito could easily use that piece to support his position. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vo...
longblackcoat said:
gregs656 said:
Byker28i said:
The Lancet come out strongly
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vo...
I don't think that is a strong rebuttal at all, in fact, I think Alito could easily use that piece to support his position. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vo...
As long as enough people believe the lie, it doesn't mayte if it's a fabrication
longblackcoat said:
Not sure how you get that - care to elucidate?
Sure. Justice Alito is an 'originalist' - in his opinon the only way to understand the constitution is to (pretend, mostly) to figure out what the original meaning of the text is, The Lancet is basically taking a pragmatic approach, which Alito would dismiss out of hand anyway, but it is not a very good pragmatic argument as it concedes far too much to the originalists.Sentences like these:
The Lancet said:
What is so shocking, inhuman, and irrational about this draft opinion is that the Court is basing its decision on an 18th century document ignorant of 21st century realities for women. History and tradition can be respected, but they must only be partial guides.
And even worse this one The Lancet said:
Although Alito gives an exhaustive legal history of abortion, he utterly fails to consider the health of women today who seek abortion.
If I was Alito, or if I wanted to argue in support of Alito's position, you could use either of these to say 'Well, you're saying I'm right on the history and therefore we are in agreement on the originalist position, which is what I am basing my decision on'A much stronger rebuttal would be to dismantle his understanding of the history of abortion and how it was understood at the time, and demonstrate that there is an established history of abortion rights in the US (which there is, and which his history in the draft opinion ignores or minimises).
The idea that abortion isn't a long standing thing, in the US or anywhere else (mostly elsewhere as the US hasn't been around that long) is crazy. It's even in their precious damn bible! The same with gay sex, which will be next on the target list. I'm sure a few pilgrims, or even the Founding Father's, were not averse to a bit of bum fun. Just because it wasn't shouted from the rooftops doesn't mean it didn't exist, and wasn't a part of society.
To use a 250 year old document to decide modern problems is plain stupid, it's time the red half of America let go of the past
To use a 250 year old document to decide modern problems is plain stupid, it's time the red half of America let go of the past
kowalski655 said:
The idea that abortion isn't a long standing thing, in the US or anywhere else (mostly elsewhere as the US hasn't been around that long) is crazy. It's even in their precious damn bible! The same with gay sex, which will be next on the target list. I'm sure a few pilgrims, or even the Founding Father's, were not averse to a bit of bum fun. Just because it wasn't shouted from the rooftops doesn't mean it didn't exist, and wasn't a part of society.
To use a 250 year old document to decide modern problems is plain stupid, it's time the red half of America let go of the past
As opposed to any other 1000+ religious text or book that millions base their life on. To use a 250 year old document to decide modern problems is plain stupid, it's time the red half of America let go of the past
gregs656 said:
Byker28i said:
The Lancet come out strongly
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vo...
I don't think that is a strong rebuttal at all, in fact, I think Alito could easily use that piece to support his position. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/issue/vo...
That's a hoot; his arguments stem from judgements handed down by an english witchfinder general from the 1600s, they would be funny if he didn't hold such a ridiculously high and unassailable position of power in the US. Have a serious think about what you just typed. Alito is a lunatic who would be ignored and mocked by rational beings if not for his position.hidetheelephants said:
That's a hoot; his arguments stem from judgements handed down by an english witchfinder general from the 1600s, they would be funny if he didn't hold such a ridiculously high and unassailable position of power in the US. Have a serious think about what you just typed. Alito is a lunatic who would be ignored and mocked by rational beings if not for his position.I think I have been pretty clear that I don't support Alito, or originalism in general. There are much better rebuttals out there.
Big protest march in Washington yesterday
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-cou...
I think this is massively going to backfire for the GOP in the midterms.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-cou...
I think this is massively going to backfire for the GOP in the midterms.
kowalski655 said:
MiniMan64 said:
As opposed to any other 1000+ religious text or book that millions base their life on.
All equally stupid tooI heard an interview yesterday with Diana Greene Foster - author of ‘The Turnaway Study’ - https://www.ansirh.org/research/ongoing/turnaway-s...
Really interesting, and contests many of the arguments use by the conservative side of the bench to undermine or remove access to abortion (Justice Thomas’ claim it lead to long term suffering, and Justice Barrett’s argument that safe haven laws are a suitable alternative).
Really interesting, and contests many of the arguments use by the conservative side of the bench to undermine or remove access to abortion (Justice Thomas’ claim it lead to long term suffering, and Justice Barrett’s argument that safe haven laws are a suitable alternative).
Worth a listen for anyone who wants a better understanding of the situation
podcast said:
Honestly with Bari Weiss: The Yale Law Professor Who Is Anti-Roe, But Pro-Choice
Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale university, where he’s been teaching constitutional law since the ripe old age of 26. He is the author of more than a hundred law review articles and several award-winning books. Amar’s work has been cited in more than 40 supreme court cases—more than anyone else in his generation—including in the shocking draft opinion by Justice Alito that was leaked to the press last week.
What may be confusing about that is that Amar is a self-described liberal, pro-choice Democrat. So why is Alito citing his work in an opinion to overturn Roe? Today, Amar explains why he, in fact, agrees with Alito, what overturning Roe might mean for the country, what the leak says about the culture of American law, and what supporters of legal abortion, like himself, should do now.
Akhil Reed Amar is the Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale university, where he’s been teaching constitutional law since the ripe old age of 26. He is the author of more than a hundred law review articles and several award-winning books. Amar’s work has been cited in more than 40 supreme court cases—more than anyone else in his generation—including in the shocking draft opinion by Justice Alito that was leaked to the press last week.
What may be confusing about that is that Amar is a self-described liberal, pro-choice Democrat. So why is Alito citing his work in an opinion to overturn Roe? Today, Amar explains why he, in fact, agrees with Alito, what overturning Roe might mean for the country, what the leak says about the culture of American law, and what supporters of legal abortion, like himself, should do now.
gregs656 said:
I haven't listened to all of it, but so far it supports my previous observation that The Lancet piece basically agrees with Alito's position.
Yup.Frankly the logic is pretty obvious and the handwringing about the legal decision itself is misplaced. Regardless of whether or not one thinks people should have access to abortion, Roe v Wade was always a flimsy basis for establishing that right. It was clearly a significant extrapolation from what the Constitution actually said and was therefore always wide open to being overturned on purely legal grounds, without regard to the merits of access to abortion itself. It is crazy that a country has a constitutional system that gives courts competence to effectively create new laws by ambitious extrapolation. Materially new law should be created democratically by politicians. Courts should not be asked to try to fulfil that role, and a court system that was sensibly constituted would refuse to do so when asked. As I said early in the thread, it is entirely reasonable for a constitutional court to rule that it is not competent to make a decision on something like abortion if it thinks that the constitution it is supposed to be interpreting simply doesn't address the subject sufficiently directly that a sound legal judgement can be reached. The court should be able to say "this is a political decision and that is for politicians, not us." The US is stuck with a crappy constitutional framework. The Constitution itself is treated almost like a holy text in which all answers can be found. That's a position of political immaturity and cowardice. The US is collectively too worried about its ability to reach political consensus and compromise to allow its Constitution to be amended by its national politicians at the pace that is actually required to keep up with its people's needs. Instead the country falls back on a Court's reinterpretation of the text to allow its meaning to evolve. The courts should interpret the law and Constitution conservatively. If that leads to legal decisions that the people don't like, then politicians need to change the law and the Constitution. If people are horrified that abortion is becoming harder to obtain in the US, they should be pointing the finger at the nation's politicians who have failed to establish a sound legal basis for access to abortion, not the Supreme Court.
ATG said:
If people are horrified that abortion is becoming harder to obtain in the US, they should be pointing the finger at the nation's politicians who have failed to establish a sound legal basis for access to abortion, not the Supreme Court.
Potentially. What is really horrific is that (a) there are enough anti-abortionists in the US to make it unpalatable, if not impossible, for successive governments to pass federal abortion legislation, and (b) that the political and legal system is such that a committed group of well-funded religious zealots can stack the highest court in the land to achieve a political goal.What has been laid bare here is the fallibility of a politically-appointed Supreme Court and the fragility of a system that grants a small group of people the power to unilaterally remove long-accepted freedoms without any democratic oversight.
There is an extensive cohort of constitutional experts who would vehemently disagree with the Alito draft and the interpretation of history it draws on which doesn't get much attention in that podcast. There wasn't anything new for me.
Credit to Akhil for acknowledging that RBG verbally and in practice walked back her position in that much quoted speech.
Credit to Akhil for acknowledging that RBG verbally and in practice walked back her position in that much quoted speech.
_dobbo_ said:
If Democracts codify Roe vs Wade they can't fundraise off the threat of Roe vs Wade being overturned.
And now America faces the consequences of that. The Dems once again are playing tiddlywinks whilst the Reps do total war.
They tried recently. Every Republican, and Manchin of course, said no. And now America faces the consequences of that. The Dems once again are playing tiddlywinks whilst the Reps do total war.
kowalski655 said:
_dobbo_ said:
If Democracts codify Roe vs Wade they can't fundraise off the threat of Roe vs Wade being overturned.
And now America faces the consequences of that. The Dems once again are playing tiddlywinks whilst the Reps do total war.
They tried recently. Every Republican, and Manchin of course, said no. And now America faces the consequences of that. The Dems once again are playing tiddlywinks whilst the Reps do total war.
Don't interrupt his rant with facts.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff