Read It: Here's the Supreme Court's Basis for Overruling Roe and Casey

The Supreme Court's opinion released Friday is the culmination of decades of work by pro-life activists and comes amid an unprecedented level of hostility toward members of the high court who believed that the "right" to abortion created in Roeand revised in Casey was based on flawed legal reasoning. While the left is already planning for a "night of rage" in response to the decision overruling Roe that merely returns abortion policy-making power to the people and their elected representatives, here's what Justice Alito said were the five factors that weighed strongly in favor of overturning Roe and Casey.

The Nature of the Court’s Error:

An erroneous interpretation of the Constitution is always important, but some are more damaging than others. The infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, was one such decision. It betrayed our commitment to “equality before the law.” 163 U. S., at 562 (Harlan, J., dissenting). It was “egregiously wrong” on the day it was decided, see Ramos, 590 U. S., at ___ (opinion of KAVANAUGH, J.) (slip op., at 7), and as the Solicitor General agreed at oral argument, it should have been overruled at the earliest opportunity, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 92–93. Roe was also egregiously wrong and deeply damaging. For reasons already explained, Roe’s constitutional analysis was far outside the bounds of any reasonable interpretation of the various constitutional provisions to which it vaguely pointed. Roe was on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided, Casey perpetuated its errors, and those errors do not concern some arcane corner of the law of little importance to the American people. Rather, wielding nothing but “raw judicial power,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 222 (White, J., dissenting), the Court usurped the power to address a question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people. ….










Read more: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/spencerbrown/2022/06/24/read-it-heres-the-supreme-courts-basis-for-overruling-roe-and-casey-n2609277









Roe was clearly wrongly decided. This lengthy article covers why that is the case. It is a very good and well reasoned read.

 

The Supreme Court was right in the decision announced today. A great couple of days for constitutional originalists!

 

are all rights enimerated? do you think that madison for one moment thought it necessary to list the things that he could do on the privacy of his plantation?

roe vs wade was decided correctly even in this analysis, as we address a "question of profound moral and social importance that the Constitution unequivocally leaves for the people. …."

that is correct. the people. a natural god given right, not granted by the constitution or the state, but inherent in existence as individuals.

as for a "night of rage." whatever, dude. we are not like god's little pro life army or trump's tough guy mulutias. there will be peaceful demonstrations but violence will be started by the usual boogaloo idiots. .

 

The constitution leaves the issue of abortion to the states and to the people. It is not a federal concern. Likewise I don’t think that congress can either outlaw it or impose across the states

 

NO. NEXT QUESTION? Should State Universities Have Official Positions on Whether Constitution Should Be Read as Protecting Abortion? Apparently, “The Court’s decision”—and by implication the position of students, staff, and faculty who endorse that decision—”is antithetical to the University of California’s mission and values.”

Why should "unelected administrators should get to decide what a university’s “values” are, much less impose them on anyone?"

And why are elements of the Left always trying to impose on others?

"I tend to agree with the 1970 statement by the Office of the UC President:"

"There are both educational and legal reasons why the University must remain politically neutral. Educationally, the pursuit of truth and knowledge is only possible in an atmosphere of freedom, and if the University were to surrender its neutrality, it would jeopardize its freedom. Legally, Article IX, section 9, of the State Constitution provides in part that "The University shall be entirely independent of all political or sectarian influence and kept free therefrom in the appointment of its regents and in the administration of its affairs…"
​

"Given UCLA's professed commitment to "diversity, equity, and inclusion," I respectfully ask you to carefully consider the implications of declaring that a conservative viewpoint is "antithetical to the University of California's mission and values."

We tire of these self-righteous virtue-signalling butt-wipes.

 

While people honestly differ over their views of this, what has really happened with his decision is that a level of consistency has been replaced with a condition of great inconsistency. The federal hand is basically withdrawn, and the states- Not the people, but the powers within those states- will fight it out. And- they will all decide differently. At the same time, those deciding what others must do will have no real skin in the game, whereas the people they dictate too have a very great deal at stake. Right or wrong has not been addressed here at all. Nothing is rightfully resolved by this decision; and I can't see how it will improve anything- but I can see it producing conflict, trouble, hostility and chaos.
I would hope we could learn to do better than that.

 

The Left claims to have this broad mandate for a particular national standard on abortion and they can't even come with a standard that all 50 Democrats in the Senate agree on.

If they want a National Standard, they will need to get the agreement of Congress, because the days when SCOTUS will go "Abra Cadabra Penumbra!" and make up a constitutional basis for it, are over.

So, if what they want is a Legislative basis, is all this J6 Trump Revenge Porn really the best use of the Congress' time?

OOPS: Just 5% call abortion top concern. “Abortion, the No. 1 concern in today’s media and politics, ranks nearly dead last among areas voters care about as they struggle with paying daily bills, soaring inflation, and interest rate hikes, according to a just-released survey. While the Supreme Court’s decision overruling the 1973 Roe v. Wade right to abortion has dominated today’s network and cable coverage, the latest McLaughlin & Associates poll said just 5% of voters call it a top concern. Just below abortion, at 1%, is reviewing the 2020 election, over which the media are also obsessing.”

#JUSTSHUTUPANDFIXINFLATION

“Only 5% said abortion was top issue. That might change a little, but not with people who can’t afford food or gas or rent or medical bills.”

There’s a huge class component to abortion politics.

"The terms “Front-Row Kids” and “Back-Row Kids,” coined by the photographer Chris Arnade, describe the divide between the educated upper middle class, who are staying ahead in today’s economy, and the less educated working class, who are doing poorly. The differences in education—and the values associated with elite schooling—have produced a divide in America that is on a par with that of race."

We aren't divided by race, we divide by class.

 

So @FoxHastings. Do women still have the right to an abortion?

 

I've already read it. I, and many actual legal scholars, think it's pure sophistry. They wanted an outcome so they searched for a justification, any justification no matter how flimsey.

 

You act as if the States do not have legislatures that are elected. As of the Governor of a State is not elected. As if the State governments are not beholden to the people residing in that State.

Quite the contrary. In fact The People in those States have more say over what their State governments do than they do in what the Federal government does.

 

And there are many legal scholars that agree with it. Remember, for every lawyer that argues one point, you can find another to argue the opposite. Same goes for pretty much any other "profession".

 

Why should the states have that power?

 

Have what power specifically? Because reading your post which is responding to my post about how each State has its own legislature the context makes me think you're asking why each State should have the power to make laws with in their own borders. However the thread is about RvW being over turned so if I assume that you're not actually responding to what I said and just wanted to ask me why States should have the power to regulate abortion then that deserves a different response.

So...have what power specifically?

 

Why should states have the power to say women can't have an abortion?

 

A better question is - why should women’s rights vary depending on which state she is currently standing in?

 

conservatives deny that these issues were resolved at appomattox courthouse. the 14th amendment protects the people ("equal protection of the law") from undue oppression by their states.

was that the "original intent" of the federalist papers? no, but the original intent of the federalist papers was clearly to unite the states under the constitution.

 

Preservation of human life.

 

Equal protection of the law....except for those not deemed human enough?

 

What human life?

 

deemed by whom? that is a religious question and beyond the authority of the congress, the courts, or the states. and certainly beyond me.

 

Whether you two like it or not, it is a fact that a ZEF has distinct human DNA that is alive. That is scientific fact and has nothing to do with god, your belief, or my belief.

 

i will agree that this divisive culture war battle is not finished. the anti privacy crusaders will take their bombs and guns to protect life in the states, as well as continue to restrict abortion in dc.

 

If you're for science, then you will agree that a ZEF is human life. Are you for science? Or anti-science?

 

how about elizebeth and isabella, sofia vergara's frozen embryos who are suing for their trust funds?

if they can find a lawyer they must be human.

 

Of course, they all do. But it's somewhat like putting a monkey in the driver's seat. Being in the position does not insure they know how to drive, nor have the focus and intent or capability to do it well.
Every level of government is sort of a train wreck at one stage or another. Telling the monkey what you want them to do and actually getting it seem to be totally disconnected.

How many people do you know that would vote for riots, crime, inflation, scandal? Did you? Or- did the monkeys all say "trust me, I'm a good driver", and we just picked the best monkey we could?

I think we need to put shock collars on the monkeys- but then, which of us holds the control? That's just as unreliable. The human species has a long way to go before we can govern ourselves as a group and do it well.