Theory - this abortion thing is a leftist election scam

So the opposite of enumerate. I did misread. But now above in your 2 examples, you use the word enumerate. So which is it you want to address, the numbered list of rights or the unnumbered list of rights?

...
Dissent. Justice Rehnquist. The right to an abortion is not universally accepted, and the right to privacy is thus not inherently involved in this case.

Discussion. The Court finds that an abortion statute that forbids all abortions except in the case of a life saving procedure on behalf of the mother is unconstitutional based upon the right to privacy. However, it does allow for regulation and proscription of abortion when the statute is narrowly tailored to uphold a compelling state interest, such as the health of the mother or the viable fetus. The court declined to address the question of when life begins.
https://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law...on-for-the-family-and-its-members/roe-v-wade/
...

The RvW ruling said it's about a persons right to privacy.

Rights are only granted and enforced by a society with an granting and enforcing mechanism. They are not carved into stone.

 

Ok, which privacy? Your protected papers, you property, due process, I mean there are a lot of things expressly set out on the constitution. Where is bodily autonomy? Its why RBG wanted to strap it to equal protection. But legal minds can debate it. I find you don't actually understand what the overturn of Roe would create. And for the record, rights are inherent. Which is why government is established to protect them. not divvy them out when they feel like it, or retaking them when they feel like it.

 

So you're saying the guy you love so much is no better than Trump?

What's it like to hold such completely contradictory standards?

 

What makes you think he doesn’t actually love trump? It takes a certain level of love to refer to someone as a “messiah”

 

There’s a schism in the “conservative” wing of the court that’s playing out through leaks. Yes, plural. I haven’t a clue what they’re attempting to accomplish but it’s definitely not a D and R thing. It’s R on R: a power struggle.

If it were a D thing we would take the “spilling seed” Biblical text angle and suggest R’s next step was to criminalize masterbation—spilling seed anywhere outside a vagina. Any male over the age of twelve would be fitted with a penis monitor to insure semen isn’t recklessly murdered.

 

you should have your own show! The penis monitor line almost made me choke on my drink
Good stuff!

 

Then I guess you guys must love obama.

 

Obama is a like able guy in my opinion
He’s got great charisma

 

I challenge you to find my latest quote where I mentioned him I can find you folks mentioning Trump multiple times every day.

Want to see which one of us is right here?

 

Darthcervantes said: What makes you think he doesn’t actually love trump? It takes a certain level of love to refer to someone as a “messiah”

You guys constantly called obama a messiah.

 

Quote me one single time I'll make it even simpler quote my last post about Obama.

If I had a penny for every time I hear the word Trump around here every single day I could pay all of my bills with every single day.
.. and then some

 

It won't. Methinks it will inspire many sit-on-the fence moderates and democrats to get out and vote.

 

Rediculous.

The Court is roughly split 3-3-3

Consequentialists - Institutionalists - Textualists.

 

You would need to ask the court what privacy.
Perhaps their choice of medical care? Their choice to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

Correct, man established the words, man established a gov't to grand and enforce those words.
But the words are not explicit nor absolute.

 

Poll Results Show Democrats May Be Doomed in Midterms Over Pro-Abortion stance.

​

Misinformation that will be easily corrected through information and argument.

Dems are dancing in a closet.

​

 

Dobbs can be upheld without overturning Roe, though Casey needs to go. That's the outcome favored by Roberts. And if he could get the 3 on the Left to go along with him he could probably pick off Kavanaugh, but, they may be too dogmatic to go along with this sensible compromise.

If they don't work with the Chief Justice, it will likely be a 6/3 decision to overturn Casey and a 5/4 decision to overturn Roe.

 

Abortion is an implied right, like travel, marriage, privacy, etc. Abortion or the right to choose is based on several key aspects within our Constitution, namely, equal protection under the law, the 14th amendment. It also incorporates the 4th amendment, no unreasonable search and seizures, aka right to privacy, interstate commerce clause, and common law such as the physician-patient privilege. Overturning the law completely will put all at risk for any and all civil rights.

In addition, nowhere can you find the words "air force" or "space force" or the right to vote or the right to freedom of religion. With religion, there are two clauses, equally important, the no establishment clause and the free exercise thereof. Free exercise thereof means basically that government has no authority to dictate how or whom we worship, literally.

 

Yea, its the liberal judges fault that Roe is being overturned, I guess.

 

Well, I wouldn't call them Liberal, Leftists certainly, but Roe as a judicial doctrine is not in keeping with our constitutional liberal democracy. Abortion in our system if regulated, is to be regulated by our elected lawmakers not appointed judges. If Roe falls it's because it was always judicial overreach. I guess they thought it would settle it, but it settled nothing, it has marred our politics for a half century and made judges very difficult to confirm.

But, before we go too far let's see what the actual final decision is.

 

Overturning RvW is like the holy grail for social conservatives. Some conservatives care more about social issues than economic ones, especially poor or religious conservatives. It's not a means to an end. It was the goal.

It's true most Americans want abortion, at least early in pregnancy, to be legal. That's why it took shady Republican tactics to construct scotus to be the abomination it is today. Largely thinking of McConnell here, using different rules in confirming conservative vs liberal nominees.

 

Clarence Thomas: “When Someone Uses Stare Decisis that Means They’re Out of Arguments”.

​

“I always say that when someone uses stare decisis that means they’re out of arguments. Now they’re just waving the white flag. And I just keep going.”

"If a justice does not believe that the right of abortion is well-founded in the Constitution, I do not believe that this principle should compel him or her to vote to preserve that erroneous precedent."

"In my view, if the Court encounters a decision that is demonstrably erroneous—i.e., one that is not a permissible interpretation of the text—the Court should correct the error, regardless of whether other factors support overruling the precedent. Federal courts may (but need not) adhere to an incorrect decision as precedent, but only when traditional tools of legal interpretation show that the earlier decision adopted a textually permissible interpretation of the law. A demonstrably incorrect judicial decision, by contrast, is tantamount to making law, and adhering to it both disregards the supremacy of the Constitution and perpetuates a usurpation of the legislative power."

"justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution and to “faithfully and impartially” interpret the law. It is bizarre to argue that they should vote for some interpretation of the Constitution that they believe is wrong and unfounded just to preserve precedent. If that view had prevailed in the past, Brown versus Board of Education would have upheld the racist precepts of “separate but equal” in Plessy v. Ferguson. When it comes to fundamental rights, justices should faithfully interpret the Constitution."

"Stare decisis may protect the Court as an institution from public criticism, but that should not override the duty to correctly and faithfully interpret the Constitution."

Those points some by Turley and some by Thomas are all well made.

https://jonathanturley.org/2022/05/...at-means-theyre-out-of-arguments/#more-188687​

 

yeah.Dems have a lot of clout with those three Trump appointed justices that they bullied so badly in those hearings. Was Trump in on this scam when he promised to appoint pro life justices in the primaries and then got elected by the Pro life party to be the nominee?

 

Spoken in the voice of the tyrant. No rights are absolute. So when folks come after the ones you like, then what?

 

Silly theory since it's been Republicans who roped in One Issue voters ( abortion) to get their votes....and waited 50 years before taking any action...


It isn't Democrats who cause a fuss by wanting to overturn RvW and destroy women's rights..