General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsReading through the Dobbs decision there are so many outrageous statements - but this one
Last edited Mon Jun 27, 2022, 03:52 PM - Edit history (1)
is what is striking me as the most the degrading line, at least tonight. Each time I read it I go more out of my mind. The lack of logic and the overflowing of stupidity just does not stop infuriating me. These are brain bound losers of the highest order.
From Justice Alitos majority decision:
These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define ones concept of existence prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like. See Compassion in Dying v. Washington, 85 F. 3d 1440, 1444 (CA9 1996) (OScannlain, J., dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc). None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history. Id., at 1440, 1445.
Here is the link to the entire decision and the dissents. Which are elegant and intelligent.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
elleng
(130,834 posts)Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)The dissent of course is excellent. But if you have ever read Roe, which is a work of elegance, you will be outraged beyond consolation. At least I am.
elleng
(130,834 posts)Alito's been my least favorite since the first we'd seen of him.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)So, like you, I must be careful.
As I am older and I do not have unlimited time to get my work done.
elleng
(130,834 posts)so it means an awful lot to me. Family full of lawyers, respecting the law (while recognizing the humanity of those who engage in it,) but this is TOO much.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)while in college in 1975. The last decision that we studied was Roe. I fell so in love with its clear logic and the history it articulated. I would have switched from science to law if I felt that I could have afforded law school. But it was not to be.
So I love reading the decisions from the Court and that I care so much about.
This outrageously rude and stupid assault on Roe just has gotten to me something fierce!
I am an organic plant breeder and I support my research by selling the products of the plants that I breed themselves. I just want ten more years of being able to do this research
..of course I want more
but I think at my age ( late 60s) I think ten years is possible. The farming/ plant breeding work is rather challenging physically. I am trying very hard to make things easier for myself.
Thank you for all that you post on DU, I really appreciate you and your voice.
elleng
(130,834 posts)Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)I would love to hear your opinion of this garbage decision. Once you can stomach it.
brush
(53,759 posts)to be of superior intellect but these American Taliban 6 are revealing themselves by this decision to be little more than small and backwards minded, religious extremists of no particular intellectual distinction, dutifully fulfilling their party's long-held goal to re-subjugate women and take away their self-autonomy should their lives become disrupted by an unwanted pregnancy.
It's chauvinistic hubris to the extreme and there will be backlashes to this 16th century thinking that will make republican heads spin as women voters across the nation are enraged atthe foolish stupidity of rescinding 50 years of settled law.
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)They want us subjugated. They want us held down. They want to put is in "our place".
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)with the right to demand to be a prostitute. Can you believe it?
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)But I want to call them on it.
HariSeldon
(455 posts)Or is her name Ofthomas or Ofbrett? I get confused on these issues sometimes.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)Here is from the beautiful rebuttal :
From dissent: Casey itself understood this point, as will become clear. See infra, at 2324. It recollected with dismay a decision this Court issued just five years after the Fourteenth Amendments ratification, approving a States decision to deny a law license to a woman and suggesting as well that a woman had no legal status apart from her husband. See 505 U. S., at 896897 (majority opinion) (citing Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130 (1873)). There was a time, Casey explained, when the Constitution did not protect men and women alike. 505 U. S., at 896. But times had changed. A womans place in society had changed, and constitutional law had changed along with it. The relegation of women to inferior status in either the public sphere or the family was no longer consistent with our understanding of the Constitution. Id., at 897. Now, [t]he Constitution protects all individuals, male or female, from the abuse of governmental power or unjustified state interference. Id., at 896, 898.
So how is it that, as Casey said, our Constitution, read now, grants rights to women, though it did not in 1868? How is it that our Constitution subjects discrimination against them to heightened judicial scrutiny? How is it that our Constitution, through the Fourteenth Amendments liberty clause, guarantees access to contraception (also not legally protected in 1868) so that women can decide for themselves whether and when to bear a child? How is it that until today, that same constitutional clause protected a womans right, in the event contraception failed, to end a pregnancy in its earlier stages?
The answer is that this Court has rejected the majoritys pinched view of how to read our Constitution. The Founders, we recently wrote, knew they were writing a document designed to apply to ever-changing circumstances over centuries. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U. S. 513, 533534 (2014). Or in the words of the great Chief Justice John Marshall, our Constitution is intended to endure for ages to come, and must adapt itself to a future seen dimly, if at all. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819). That is indeed why our Constitution is written as it is. The Framers (both in 1788 and 1868) understood that the world changes. So they did not define rights by reference to the specific practices existing at the time. Instead, the Framers defined rights in general terms, to permit future evolution in their scope and meaning. And over the course of our history, this Court has taken up the Framers invitation. It has kept true to the Framers principles by applying them in new ways, responsive to new societal un- derstandings and conditions.
Nowhere has that approach been more prevalent than
Consider first, then, the line of this Courts cases protecting bodily integrity. Casey, 505 U. S., at 849. No right, in this Courts time-honored view, is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person. Union Pacific R. Co. v. Botsford, 141 U. S. 250, 251 (1891); see Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, 497 U. S. 261, 269 (1990) (Every adult has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body). Or to put it more simply: Everyone, including women, owns their own bodies. So the Court has restricted the power of government to interfere with a persons medical decisions or compel her to undergo medical procedures or treatments. See, e.g., Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753, 766767 (1985) (forced surgery); Rochin v. Cali- fornia, 342 U. S. 165, 166, 173174 (1952) (forced stomach pumping); Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, 229, 236 (1990) (forced administration of antipsychotic drugs).
As a matter of constitutional substance, the majoritys opinion has all the flaws its method would suggest. Because laws in 1868 deprived women of any control over their bodies, the majority approves States doing so today. Because those laws prevented women from charting the course of their own lives, the majority says States can do the same again. Because in 1868, the government could tell a pregnant womaneven in the first days of her pregnancythat she could do nothing but bear a child, it can once more impose that command. Todays decision strips women of agency over what even the majority agrees is a contested and contestable moral issue. It forces her to carry out the States will, whatever the circumstances and whatever the harm it will wreak on her and her family. In the Fourteenth Amendments terms, it takes away her liberty. Even before we get to stare decisis, we dissent.
Solly Mack
(90,762 posts)Haggis 4 Breakfast
(1,453 posts)This vile man will have no peace. Not here. Not anywhere.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)Wow, but he is clearly not intelligent enough to even realize how idiotic the argument is.
Skittles
(153,138 posts)they had an agenda, and they tried to make their facts "fit" the agenda....as long as they get what they want, they don't care how fucked up they sound
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)EndlessWire
(6,480 posts)madaboutharry
(40,200 posts)His complete and total hatred of women drips from the pages of this opinion. No doubt pain and misery is the point. It seems he resents not being able to burn women at the stake or hang them for being witches, like the judges from the 1600s that he cited with such admiration.
This opinion will be studied in Constitutional Law classes in law schools for the gross abomination that it is. It will forever be held up as one of the most disgraceful opinions of the court, along with Dred Scott and Plessy.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)It is stunning. Actually.
Backseat Driver
(4,385 posts)I do know that at this time, all 50 states have some form of "coded" law at very least, for self-chosen suicide with very often less criteria of conscious mental health than a LW&T, but more legal process, than a self-inflicted bullet at home.
If women can be denied the the "liberty" or privacy of a decision to abort, how can they request the "liberty" or "privacy" of a self- or assisted-suicide? All 50 states have some "death w/dignity" laws. Those laws, and often the processes, have been coded and are applicable for both men and women.
Substance addiction may indeed be an illness that can possibly be treated successfully, but I'll not be carrying around naloxone to revive a criminal whose "pain" lies beneath their self-administered "relief" from the street and suffers the consequences of other criminals' contaminated products. Shame also to the physicians and manufacturers who encourage users for profit.
Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)He is justifying overturning Roe due to their view that Roe and Casey were misrulings to begin with.
Hekate
(90,620 posts)Tumbulu
(6,272 posts)sharing this particular line.
I guess there are so many horrific ones
..