Question (re: Dobbs)

[Mad_Machine76]

Maybe it's been explained somewhere, but how did a case specifically about a 15-Week Abortion Ban lead to SCOTUS completely demolishing Roe & Casey? I know they can basically do what they want because it's all about power to them, but I feel like I missed a step between 15 weeks and saying YOLO States can do whatever they want regarding Abortion? If it's that easy to go from one specific issue and then demolish precedent like that, virtually nothing is safe anymore. Also, if SCOTUS is going to pretty much send everything back for the states to decide, then, I guess their work is done and they can quit, right?

[Thomas Hurt]

2. If I have this correct. Privacy rights, from which Abortion arises, is not an express right...

in the Constitution. Since it is not explicit but implied, the Court overturned Roe and kicked to the states under the 9th Amendment.

The real reason of course is imposing conservative christian values on the people.

[unblock]

3. Roberts said more or less that.

He said the case could have been decided just by eliminating the viability line, but not throwing out roe entirely.

But as noted in Thomas' opinion, they have an aggressively regressive agenda and want to eliminate other rights as well, so they took the opportunity to go further than what was necessary in order to advance their agenda.

Even though they all said it was "settled law" in their confirmation hearings, they now decided it was so "egregiously wrong" they had to overturn it even when it wasn't necessary to decide the case before them.


You'll note in other posts they also lied about the facts of the praying football coach in order to make another decision that they wanted.

The right wing if this court is the very embodiment of "activist judges" who "legislate from the bench", which the right wing has breathlessly told us was wrong for ages.

[Novara]

9. They're taking a sledgehammer to the Constitution

[thatdemguy]

4. Pretty simple

The state passed a law that said no abortion past 15 weeks. Then there was a lawsuit saying the law was not constitutional due to roe v wade. The supreme court then said is was constitutional due to abortion not being listed or even mentioned in the constitution as a right, which killed roe v wade.

[bucolic_frolic]

7. The right to eat food is not mentioned in the Constitution either

Last edited Tue Jun 28, 2022, 06:06 AM - Edit history (1)

You are conflating enumerated power and rights with implied power and rights, and that's a simply right wing argument in my view.

[Thomas Hurt]

11. The SC's power of judicial review is not explicitily mentioned in the Constitution either.

But you won't see the christofascists' divesting themselves of that power using that argument.

[thatdemguy]

12. No it is not

I read marbury v madison the other day and that is where they get it, along with the judiciary act or what ever it was called. The funny thing is they used their new "ability" to review the law and actually found part of the law was unconstitutional.

After reading all the M v M and judiciary act stuff, with some references to statements written back then I see how they could make the jump to say they have the power of review. Again the BS of THT stuff.

But it is not given to them in the constitution and I can see how a case could be brought before them challenging it.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. The Constitution is being dismantled brick by brick

The other two branches of government and all the states might begin to ignore this power grab. You're hearing jurisdictions refusing to go along. The Court is out of control. They have a monopoly BUT the Court's power still depends on enforcement. People don't always and sometimes often don't obey unjust laws. Look at speeding, and any other number of crimes. I think we're headed to lawlessness, random, wanton non-compliance with the law, and enforcement will be spotty as well.

[hlthe2b]

10. They chose to legislate from the bench. Not the first time with this creepy crew, either.