Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Editorials & Other Articles

Showing Original Post only (View all)

Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin

(135,361 posts)
Sat Jun 25, 2022, 02:59 PM Jun 2022

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

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.
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»'A revolutionary ruling -...