The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[BlackSand]

Ironically, after the court's conservatives say about Roe that the public's opinion doesn't matter, the majority of Americans having wanted to see Roe untouched, defenders of their ruling pretend public opinion will keep the court's hands off things like same sex marriage. This despite the court introducing a pretext for it and other rights to be dismantled.

.

It is not, and has never been, the Supreme Court's job to Represent the desires of the People.
That is the job of the elected Representatives who have the ability to write Legislation, and failure to do so does not grant the Court the power to do so.

.​

 

[bendog]

well because gun ownership is a Constitutional Right....it's in the Second Amendment....an abortion is not a constitutional right.

Hold the fuck up. YOU just reasoned equal protection analysis applies to abortion, and that's in the const. #67

But more to the point, sub due process is not more important just because guns are mentioned explicitly. The NY carry permit law was not even rationally related. Now you MAY be saying a fundamental right, such as guns, has to be even more than rationally related. And you'd be right.

But the right to marry is also Fundamental. And treatment of different classes is subject to strict scuitiny.
The Court ended its opinion with a short section holding that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.[40] The Court said that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, and it held that depriving Americans of it on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional.[40]

These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
  Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.
— Loving, 388 U.S. at 12 (citations omitted).[41]

And the Four don't want to defend a ban on abortion or contraception affects men and women equally

 

[Dragonlady]

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

There are already laws being passed banning birth control on the grounds it contributes to "immoral behaviour". Like there was no pre-marital sex or abortions BEFORE both were available.

 

[Lesh]

The OP is reaching here. There is nothing in the Constitution protecting interracial marriage.

That’s the point pinhead

 

[bendog]

well because gun ownership is a Constitutional Right....it's in the Second Amendment....an abortion is not a constitutional right.

Hold the fuck up. In post 67 you said equal protection could apply to abortion, but perhaps that was not your intent, but it can apply. EP and strict scuitiny apply to marriage and race. And marriage is a fundamental right. That's loving.

Guns don't get a special place over any other fundamentla right, and not all fundamenatl rights are spelled out. Marriage for example.

 

[hadit]

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.

It would have to go to the SC, where it would die. No one dies in an inter-racial marriage.

 

[struth]

Hold the fuck up. YOU just reasoned equal protection analysis applies to abortion, and that's in the const. #67

But more to the point, sub due process is not more important just because guns are mentioned explicitly. The NY carry permit law was not even rationally related. Now you MAY be saying a fundamental right, such as guns, has to be even more than rationally related. And you'd be right.

But the right to marry is also Fundamental. And treatment of different classes is subject to strict scuitiny.
The Court ended its opinion with a short section holding that Virginia's anti-miscegenation law also violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.[40] The Court said that the freedom to marry is a fundamental constitutional right, and it held that depriving Americans of it on an arbitrary basis such as race was unconstitutional.[40]




And the Four don't want to defend a ban on abortion or contraception affects men and women equally

1) yes I would have used equal protection....but Roe wasn't decided that way....so..
2) I agree Sub Due Process isn't more "important' - the right to bear arms is mentioned...therefore you don't have to follow the Sub Due Process test.
3) Loving was decided on Equal Protection...nothing further was needed...but the writers also said violated the Due Process clause.

Roe should have been decided or viewed via the Equal Protection clause in my opinion and thus I think would have been very harder to overturn

 

[miketx]

Learn to think, dipshit.

Lol left babble is amazing.

 

[miketx]

It would have to go to the SC, where it would die. No one dies in an inter-racial marriage.

Yup courts ain't got no business telling you who you can marry. They let men marry men but you can't marry a woman from another race? Lol

 

[Dragonlady]

.

It is not, and has never been, the Supreme Court's job to Represent the desires of the People.
That is the job of the elected Representatives who have the ability to write Legislation, and failure to do so does not grant the Court the power to do so.

.​

This Court has lost all legitimacy. Three of the Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in regards precedent and "settled law". It was bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and their "dark money" donors. Another plank in the authoritarian structure these theocrats have been building for decades.

 

[BlackSand]

This Court has lost all legitimacy. Three of the Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in regards precedent and "settled law". It was bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and their "dark money" donors. Another plank in the authoritarian structure these theocrats have been building for decades.

.


There is nothing Authoritarian about the decision to overturn Roe or Casey.
The Supreme Court wrote no laws in doing so ... They set no limits or requirements in doing so.

They simply returned the Powers granted to the States and their Representatives, back to the States and the People.
What they did doesn't even require a State to write a law that forbids or allows Abortion.

If you want the People to have Freedom ... Then let them be Free.
Stop Pretending

.​

 

[hadit]

This Court has lost all legitimacy. Three of the Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in regards precedent and "settled law". It was bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and their "dark money" donors. Another plank in the authoritarian structure these theocrats have been building for decades.

The Senate has destroyed the credibility of the Court by applying litmus tests to ensure their sacred cows would not be gored. That was wrong.

 

[bendog]

1) yes I would have used equal protection....but Roe wasn't decided that way....so..
2) I agree Sub Due Process isn't more "important' - the right to bear arms is mentioned...therefore you don't have to follow the Sub Due Process test.
3) Loving was decided on Equal Protection...nothing further was needed...but the writers also said violated the Due Process clause.

Roe should have been decided or viewed via the Equal Protection clause in my opinion and thus I think would have been very harder to overturn

I'm not sure why you are elevating the second amend. The 2A requires substantive due process apply the same way as to all fundamental rights. Some enumerated, others not, such as marriage or procreation which are not enumerated, but are fundamental rights nonetheless. Loving and Skinner.

Skinner was really a substantive due process case. Loving only mentioned substantive due process at the tail end. It is really an equal protection case.

But regardless, The 2A can and is regulated ... subject to strict scrutiny. Just as marriage or the reproductive rights of mentally and physically disabled people. That is why the Five had to get rid of a right to privacy. And as Thomas said, if a state puts limits on contraception for adults ... that tees up that for the Five.

I'm not going down a right to guns rabbit hole with you. There is no difference between protections for guns than abortions, except it was easier for the Five to get rid of a right to privacy .... despite their adherence to history and what people expect and 60plus years of a right to privacy and s supermaj thinking they overstepped.

 

[Independent thinker]

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.

In other words, you are just trying to deflect from Biden's horrible presidency? Clarence Thomas also likes to kick cute little puppy dogs when no one is looking.

 

[struth]

I'm not sure why you are elevating the second amend. The 2A requires substantive due process apply the same way as to all fundamental rights. Some enumerated, others not, such as marriage or procreation which are not enumerated, but are fundamental rights nonetheless. Loving and Skinner.

Skinner was really a substantive due process case. Loving only mentioned substantive due process at the tail end. It is really an equal protection case.

But regardless, The 2A can and is regulated ... subject to strict scrutiny. Just as marriage or the reproductive rights of mentally and physically disabled people. That is why the Five had to get rid of a right to privacy. And as Thomas said, if a state puts limits on contraception for adults ... that tees up that for the Five.

I'm not going down a right to guns rabbit hole with you. There is no difference between protections for guns than abortions, except it was easier for the Five to get rid of a right to privacy .... despite their adherence to history and what people expect and 60plus years of a right to privacy and s supermaj thinking they overstepped.

i am not elevating it….i am sayijg you don’t have to go through the sub due process test to see if it’s a fundamental right, like they did with Roe and abortion

 

[busybee01]

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

No Clarence Thomas is squawking about doing that.

 

[struth]

No Clarence Thomas is squawking about doing that.

no he’s talking about revisiting cases that were decided under sub due process…a theory he’s disagreed with

 

[SassyIrishLass]

No Clarence Thomas is squawking about doing that.

Let him sqauwk...but plenty of you loons are also, BurpyBee

 

[scruffy]

There are already laws being passed banning birth control on the grounds it contributes to "immoral behaviour". Like there was no pre-marital sex or abortions BEFORE both were available.

Bullshit.

 

[scruffy]

This Court has lost all legitimacy.

Because it made a decision you don't like?

Tough titties, libtard.

Three of the Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in regards precedent and "settled law".

Bullshit.

It was bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and their "dark money" donors.

WHO?

Wait, let me get a tin foil hat for you.

Another plank in the authoritarian structure these theocrats have been building for decades.

Theocrats?

You're fucking nuts.

Go away.