'A revolutionary ruling - and not just for abortion': A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

Dobbs

What does this ruling mean?

This is a revolutionary ruling. Not just for abortion, but for the ongoing debates over the nature of rights under the Constitution.

The ruling signals a massive change in how we read the Constitution, from a living reading to an original reading. The court has firmly rejected the theory of the living Constitution, which argues that the meaning of the document’s language changes as the beliefs and values of Americans change.

The living view, which prevailed at the Supreme Court during the second half of the 20th century, means that additional rights can emerge over time, including abortion, privacy and same-sex marriage. The living Constitution is updated through the judgment of the justices of the Supreme Court, who determine when public values have changed, and hence new rights have emerged.

Originalism, which is the approach taken by the justices who overruled Roe, rejects the living Constitution. In the originalist view, the Constitution is static until officially altered by amendment. It does not evolve on its own without public approval. The role of the justices is to determine the original public meaning of the text, but to leave other decisions to democratic representation through elections.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/revolutionary-ruling-not-just-abortion-185520421.html

So then only land-owning white Protestant males should be able to vote. That would disenfranchise most of the current Supreme Court.

[mn9driver]

1. Fortunately, the right of women, minorities and other categories of citizen to vote is protected

by constitutional amendments specifically granting that right. As crazy and corrupt as this court is, they would have a difficult time ignoring those already ratified amendments.

They might try, though. The conservative justices are nuts.

[Dysfunctional]

3. After Roe v Wade, at some point Congress should have passed a bill and a president sign it into law.

[Igel]

10. That would have been the solution.

Use the democratic organs of government to produce a democratically decided outcome.

Don't know if there's a bit of the opinion saying that it can't be a federal law or that that's an option. Just that they're saying, "Shouldn't have been decided by 9 people in black robes."

[Igel]

9. I'd rather think they'd say, "Ah, a text. What was its original meaning, when enacted?"

It's a text fetish, not a 1789 fetish.

[2naSalit]

2. Whose opinion is this?

I avoid Yahoo.

[Dysfunctional]

4. You should read it.

[2naSalit]

5. I would if I could find it elsewhere.

I don't like the shit that follows me home whenever I go to yahoo.

[Dysfunctional]

6. I use a PVN and TOR.

[Kilgore]

7. Thanks for that, it was very informative

Well written explanation of how the constitution can be interpreted.

This one goes into the bookmarks.

[modochartaigh]

8. Rights of US citizens

As a US citizen you have the right to be born wealthy. Should you choose not to avail yourself of this right, all other rights may be forfeit.