The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[berg80]

From the dissent........

The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.
Could Clarence Thomas’s Dobbs concurrence signal a future attack on LGBTQ rights?

 

[berg80]

no even RBG said it was poorly decided.

RBG said it would be on more solid footing if it had been decided on the equal protection clause of the 14th A. Nonetheless, she believed strongly in a woman's right to decide to have an abortion.

 

[struth]

RBG said it would be on more solid footing if it had been decided on the equal protection clause of the 14th A. Nonetheless, she believed strongly in a woman's right to decide to have an abortion.

yes she thought it was poorly written

 

[berg80]

That would be the "bear arms," part of the Bill of Rights, under 2nd Amendment.....

"Arms" being a musket.

 

[berg80]

yes she thought it was poorly written

No, again, she thought the basis on which it was decided, and its scope, left it open to attack. Don't you ever research things before you splash inaccuracies all over the board?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

"Arms" being a musket.

Good grief

 

[JWBooth]

"Arms" being a musket.

All of your communications are conducted with a quill pen on vellum then.

 

[struth]

No, again, she thought the basis on which it was decided, and its scope, left it open to attack. Don't you ever research things before you splash inaccuracies all over the board?

yep because she believed it was poorly reasoned. I don’t know how many times i got to say that

 

[2aguy]

"Arms" being a musket.

And you posted that with your quill pen?

 

[whitehall]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

Blame the black guy? If anyone was really interested in the Constitution rather than racial bigotry they would find that the original RvW was so faulty that Constitutional scholars laughed at it.

 

[struth]

Blame the black guy? If anyone was really interested in the Constitution rather than racial bigotry they would find that the original RvW was so faulty that Constitutional scholars laughed at it.

blaming the black guy is the old standard play by dems

 

[berg80]

All of your communications are conducted with a quill pen on vellum then.

Not surprised you didn't understand the point. Which is the quantum leap the court has taken in broadly interpreting the intent of the 2nd A at its writing, to allow for open carrying semi-automatic weapons in to........for example.......state houses in order to intimidate law makers.

 

[berg80]

Blame the black guy? If anyone was really interested in the Constitution rather than racial bigotry they would find that the original RvW was so faulty that Constitutional scholars laughed at it.

Those would be conservative "scholars." You know, seeing as Roe withstood numerous challenges on legal grounds until 6 anti-abortion Catholics used an absurd rationale for overturning it.

 

[berg80]

MARY ZIEGLER: It answers this question that there can be no right to abortion by looking at what Justice Alito describes as history and tradition, which he says are the exclusive source of our constitutional rights. And this version of history and tradition are fairly frozen, right? They don't evolve over time. So Justice Alito focuses on the 19th century and reasons that abortion had been a crime throughout much of the history of the common law and was certainly a crime in most states at the time the relevant constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment was written. So the thought, at least as Justice Alito frames it, is that there can be no abortion right if most states treated abortion as illicit or even criminal.


Using that rationale interracial marriage is ripe to be overturned as well if the court is going to be consistent.

 

[Nostra]

Why are all you racists only going after the lone black guy that voted to end fed abortion support. Why not the five other white people too? You racists always show your colors.

He is uppity. Married a white girl.

 

[struth]

Not surprised you didn't understand the point. Which is the quantum leap the court has taken in broadly interpreting the intent of the 2nd A at its writing, to allow for open carrying semi-automatic weapons in to........for example.......state houses in order to intimidate law makers.

View attachment 662803

haha the court in no way said that a state can’t ban guns in a state house

 

[bendog]

I didn't say one was. I said Clarence and friends has set a standard by which interracial marriage, like gay marriage, because both were antithetical to beliefs at the time of the founding (read his concurring opinion in Roe), is open to being banned if a state so chooses.

Not to disagree because I understand what you're saying, but imo its more about reading the const to reach a desired outcome. Of that, neither Thomas (who is not consistent in his approach) or the supposed "textualists" are any different from the Court of the 1970s.

And people are not stupid. Despite Thomas's snark that Americans are more familiar with their Iphones than their constitution, most Americans understand clearly what these 5 are up to.

More technically, the right to privacy, and abortion and contraception, is not explicitly in the const. Gay and interracial marriage are based on the equal protection. During the gay marriage arguments, one of the Justices whose name I've forgotten asked 'but when did equal protection apply to interracial marriage?" The answer was a candid "when the court said it did."

Similarly, the 14th amendment wasn't changed between Brown v. Board of Educ and Plessy v. Ferguson. What changed was what people believed was acceptable in treating people differently based on a characteristic

Thomas and the other four ain't foolin nobody

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well I sincerely doubt they will. But carry on...oh and don't forget about banning birth control, that seems to be another thing you people are sqauwking about

Since it was brought up by a Supreme Court justice it seems a logical thing to be worried about.

There is nothing that is safe in our country any longer

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then you have nothing since Roberts and probably Kavanaugh would never support it anyway.

You worry too easily.

And we were told that Kavanaugh would never support overturning RvW....most of us will not fall for such lies again

 

[struth]

MARY ZIEGLER: It answers this question that there can be no right to abortion by looking at what Justice Alito describes as history and tradition, which he says are the exclusive source of our constitutional rights. And this version of history and tradition are fairly frozen, right? They don't evolve over time. So Justice Alito focuses on the 19th century and reasons that abortion had been a crime throughout much of the history of the common law and was certainly a crime in most states at the time the relevant constitutional provision, the 14th Amendment was written. So the thought, at least as Justice Alito frames it, is that there can be no abortion right if most states treated abortion as illicit or even criminal.


Using that rationale interracial marriage is ripe to be overturned as well if the court is going to be consistent.

no….because Loving was decided under the equal protection clause not the theory of sub due process