US Politics Megathread

[RefluxSemantic]

I'd argue 'potential life' is something that cannot be defined in any objective manner. It's hard to even define 'life' to begin with.

In principle, any form of human DNA is 'potential life'. One could go as far as argue that a datafile containing human DNA is potential life. I don't see how one can make any reasonable definition here.

EDIT: unless you are willing to invoke religion of course. That's a nifty magic semantic tool that 'justifies' oppression of women.

[Goodspeed]

obvsly you could pass a law in case you'd have the votes^^

You don't say

The relevant question is: Would you need a supermajority (read: a constitutional amendment) to pass a law that's immune to SCOTUS throwing it out

what makes you think a federal law would be thrown out by the court?

It can be deemed unconstitutional

[gibson]

Show hidden quotes

In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?

There is no way to write a law protecting abortion rights that would get through this court

Have you actually seen what you are referring to as a "right"?

8 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893448

10 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1557848858

22 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893453

Sources

Spoiler

All dates are given in embryonic age (age measured from conception.) This is the abortionist's affidavits: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... rMay08.pdf and the photographer's letter: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... elated.pdf

not really interested in this discussion, but 'abortionno' is not an acceptable source. In other words, unless you supply any sources that can reasonable be interpreted as objective, I think a reasonable person would be justified in ignoring your post here, and arguably one should ignore this entire post.

I would argue it's better to ignore the post based off the fact that it's intent is purely to try to emotionally guilt people into agreeing since it has no logical foundation what so ever(though to be fair there aren't many great arguments from a morally or legally consistent view point so I guess it's unsurprising that "pro life" people resort to this kind of thing)

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?

There is no way to write a law protecting abortion rights that would get through this court

Have you actually seen what you are referring to as a "right"?

8 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893448

10 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1557848858

22 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893453

Sources

Spoiler

All dates are given in embryonic age (age measured from conception.) This is the abortionist's affidavits: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... rMay08.pdf and the photographer's letter: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... elated.pdf

not really interested in this discussion, but 'abortionno' is not an acceptable source. In other words, unless you supply any sources that can reasonable be interpreted as objective, I think a reasonable person would be justified in ignoring your post here, and arguably one should ignore this entire post.

I would argue it's better to ignore the post based off the fact that it's intent is purely to try to emotionally guilt people into agreeing since it has no logical foundation what so ever(though to be fair there aren't many great arguments from a morally or legally consistent view point so I guess it's unsurprising that "pro life" people resort to this kind of thing)

That'd mean that I'd actually have to engage with the contents of the post, which I did not really intend to do. Just the source alone is enough to dismiss the post. It's too much of a leap of faith to assume that any of what's been provided is actually real.

[princeofcarthage]

It doesn't even make sense. The right to privacy bars government from interfering in abortion. This was a statement in the 1973 case. What the hell privacy has anything to do with abortion. Can anyone explain that

[Misha]

Interestingly, the draft opinion contains this bit



Which could be interpreted as a sign that the court, or at least Alito personally, isn't coming for the other decisions based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

It expands on it a little bit later ..



All very weak imo. It makes no convincing case as to why the destruction of "potential life" should mean that this case is fundamentally different from the others and in fact it doesn't even attempt to really make that case. It just states it as an apparent premise. What I find especially unconvincing about it is that a LOT of things could be argued to destroy potential life. In fact, the very first thing you would think of would be contraceptives.

It's also interesting how he mentions that "these criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution and the like" as if that is to be objectively considered an argument against the criteria. I for one think that is a good thing but at the very least it's legally irrelevant.

Imo this passage, most of all, betrays that this opinion is a moral judgment.

After reading both Roe and this anti-Roe draft however, I do think Roe, while a good policy decision, was not necessarily a good legal decision. Morally I disagree with the anti-Roe draft, but it makes some good legal points as to why Roe was a piece of shit. Ultimately both opinions come across as biased overall and both I think are pretty bad PR for SCOTUS, especially this last one considering it makes the court come across as flip-flopping.

Something I found particularly weak about Roe was that it argued that the right to abortions was deeply rooted in American tradition (and therefore implicitly covered by the 14th amendment) by noting that historically, women mostly had access to abortions and it was mostly considered fine. Imo the implicit claim that this makes it deeply rooted in American tradition is very subjective and ultimately too flimsy.

Both opinions went over the history of abortion at some length, and these passages read completely differently with Roe naming many examples of when it was considered fine throughout history and anti-Roe naming many examples of when it was considered bad. Laid out next to each other, the obvious bias is almost funny.

These are the first SCOTUS opinions I've ever read in full and I have to say I'm unimpressed. Just abolish SCOTUS imo. Useless institution, might as well be an elected political body.

It has been held that Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects some rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, "but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'" From the wording, it's necessary to prove both components to argue protection under the 14th A. It's therefore sufficient to argue as the draft does that abortion is not a right "deeply rooted" in our history. I don't understand "ordered liberty" very well, it seems to be a controversial issue in constitutional law, but Casey's argument for what the 14th A protects is pr 6 logic: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Obviously under this, anything can be guaranteed by the 14th A. I agree though Goodspeed that you found a weak point in the draft.

[chris1089]

Have you actually seen what you are referring to as a "right"?

Why do you put right in quotation marks and proceed with sharing gory scare pictures?

The right to murder does not exist. Hence "right."
They are not scare pictures. These are scientific images that depict abortion victims.

[chris1089]

Show hidden quotes

In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?

There is no way to write a law protecting abortion rights that would get through this court

Have you actually seen what you are referring to as a "right"?

8 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893448

10 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1557848858

22 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893453

Sources

Spoiler

All dates are given in embryonic age (age measured from conception.) This is the abortionist's affidavits: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... rMay08.pdf and the photographer's letter: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... elated.pdf

not really interested in this discussion, but 'abortionno' is not an acceptable source. In other words, unless you supply any sources that can reasonable be interpreted as objective, I think a reasonable person would be justified in ignoring your post here, and arguably one should ignore this entire post.

The location of the source is frankly irrelevant. The content of the source is what is of importance.

[harcha]

@chris1089 what makes a photo scientific

[Cometk]

I think Freeing the enslaved is not very deeply Rooted in american history and So that there is no real reason for Abolishing it

[Misha]

I think Freeing the enslaved is not very deeply Rooted in american history and So that there is no real reason for Abolishing it

Abolition is deeply rooted in American history, with the movement going back to colonial times. Slavery was abolished though before the 14th A (13 < 14 btw)

[Goodspeed]

Interestingly, the draft opinion contains this bit



Which could be interpreted as a sign that the court, or at least Alito personally, isn't coming for the other decisions based on the due process clause of the 14th amendment.

It expands on it a little bit later ..



All very weak imo. It makes no convincing case as to why the destruction of "potential life" should mean that this case is fundamentally different from the others and in fact it doesn't even attempt to really make that case. It just states it as an apparent premise. What I find especially unconvincing about it is that a LOT of things could be argued to destroy potential life. In fact, the very first thing you would think of would be contraceptives.

It's also interesting how he mentions that "these criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution and the like" as if that is to be objectively considered an argument against the criteria. I for one think that is a good thing but at the very least it's legally irrelevant.

Imo this passage, most of all, betrays that this opinion is a moral judgment.

After reading both Roe and this anti-Roe draft however, I do think Roe, while a good policy decision, was not necessarily a good legal decision. Morally I disagree with the anti-Roe draft, but it makes some good legal points as to why Roe was a piece of shit. Ultimately both opinions come across as biased overall and both I think are pretty bad PR for SCOTUS, especially this last one considering it makes the court come across as flip-flopping.

Something I found particularly weak about Roe was that it argued that the right to abortions was deeply rooted in American tradition (and therefore implicitly covered by the 14th amendment) by noting that historically, women mostly had access to abortions and it was mostly considered fine. Imo the implicit claim that this makes it deeply rooted in American tradition is very subjective and ultimately too flimsy.

Both opinions went over the history of abortion at some length, and these passages read completely differently with Roe naming many examples of when it was considered fine throughout history and anti-Roe naming many examples of when it was considered bad. Laid out next to each other, the obvious bias is almost funny.

These are the first SCOTUS opinions I've ever read in full and I have to say I'm unimpressed. Just abolish SCOTUS imo. Useless institution, might as well be an elected political body.

It has been held that Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects some rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, "but any such right must be 'deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition' and 'implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.'" From the wording, it's necessary to prove both components to argue protection under the 14th A. It's therefore sufficient to argue as the draft does that abortion is not a right "deeply rooted" in our history. I don't understand "ordered liberty" very well, it seems to be a controversial issue in constitutional law, but Casey's argument for what the 14th A protects is pr 6 logic: "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life." Obviously under this, anything can be guaranteed by the 14th A. I agree though Goodspeed that you found a weak point in the draft.

Ordered liberty as I understand it is as much liberty as is possible while maintaining order. A simple enough concept but how to define order?

Whether or not the right to abort a pregnancy is implicit in ordered liberty seems about as subjective as whether it's deeply rooted in American tradition. Read: very subjective.

[RefluxSemantic]

Show hidden quotes

In Roe v Wade they tried to use the 14th amendment to argue for a constitutional right to privacy, but if that is now struck down, what kind of law could you write that fixes this and doesn't need a supermajority?

There is no way to write a law protecting abortion rights that would get through this court

Have you actually seen what you are referring to as a "right"?

8 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893448

10 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1557848858

22 week old abortion victim

Spoiler

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/cbruk/ ... 1556893453

Sources

Spoiler

All dates are given in embryonic age (age measured from conception.) This is the abortionist's affidavits: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... rMay08.pdf and the photographer's letter: http://www.abortionno.org/wp-content/up ... elated.pdf

not really interested in this discussion, but 'abortionno' is not an acceptable source. In other words, unless you supply any sources that can reasonable be interpreted as objective, I think a reasonable person would be justified in ignoring your post here, and arguably one should ignore this entire post.

The location of the source is frankly irrelevant. The content of the source is what is of importance.

That's exactly the opposite of how it works.

[Goodspeed]

A source of what? What claim is even being discussed here?

[Misha]

Ordered liberty as I understand it is as much liberty as is possible while maintaining order. A simple enough concept but how to define order?

Whether or not the right to abort a pregnancy is implicit in ordered liberty seems about as subjective as whether it's deeply rooted in American tradition. Read: very subjective.

The wording of the Due Process Clause is unfortunately vague. The Court has devised a two-part method to resolve this vagueness. The "ordered liberty" component seems nearly as ambiguous as the original amendment. The second component though, the question of whether a right is "deeply rooted in our history and tradition," is not very subjective, especially if one reads beyond those seven words and sees how it has been consistently applied over the years. The answer in this particular case is clear (pages 13-15). We in this dicussion need not necessarily accept this two-part interpretation of the Due Process Clause, but it predates this draft by decades, and it's certainly much less subjective than Casey's non-workable "liberty is the right to define... the mystery of human life" (wtf?).

[RefluxSemantic]

A source of what? What claim is even being discussed here?

Based on his 'source' there is no reason to assume those pictures are even real.

[gibson]

It shouldnt matter if the pictures are real or not, because even if they are it's not an argument, but pure emotional appeal to cover the fact that there's no actual argument.

[duckzilla]

The location of the source is frankly irrelevant. The content of the source is what is of importance.

There's obviously no need to make sure that the source created the content meeting scientific standards. A simple trust me bro is enough, if the content fits to my agenda.

[fightinfrenchman]

The wording of the Due Process Clause is unfortunately vague. The Court has devised a two-part method to resolve this vagueness. The "ordered liberty" component seems nearly as ambiguous as the original amendment. The second component though, the question of whether a right is "deeply rooted in our history and tradition," is not very subjective, especially if one reads beyond those seven words and sees how it has been consistently applied over the years.

Every rule the Court uses is 100% subjective if a majority of them are willing to just do whatever they want lol

[Goodspeed]

Ordered liberty as I understand it is as much liberty as is possible while maintaining order. A simple enough concept but how to define order?

Whether or not the right to abort a pregnancy is implicit in ordered liberty seems about as subjective as whether it's deeply rooted in American tradition. Read: very subjective.

The wording of the Due Process Clause is unfortunately vague. The Court has devised a two-part method to resolve this vagueness. The "ordered liberty" component seems nearly as ambiguous as the original amendment. The second component though, the question of whether a right is "deeply rooted in our history and tradition," is not very subjective, especially if one reads beyond those seven words and sees how it has been consistently applied over the years. The answer in this particular case is clear (pages 13-15). We in this dicussion need not necessarily accept this two-part interpretation of the Due Process Clause, but it predates this draft by decades, and it's certainly much less subjective than Casey's non-workable "liberty is the right to define... the mystery of human life" (wtf?).

Yeah I do agree that, while Roe wasn't arguing based on these criteria at the time, if we apply them retroactively the answer is pretty clear.

What I don't really understand still is why the current court felt the need to include the rather explicit argument that Roe is fundamentally different from the other cases in this, due to the destruction of potential life, and that these other cases are not subject to review (it says that somewhere in the opinion iirc). It doesn't help their argument and if anything weakens it, so why?

I can only assume it's because they really don't want to go after these decisions, probably because they don't want to make the court look even more silly than it already does. Maybe Roberts insisted on it or something.

But if any of these cases were brought before this court again, it's hard to believe they would uphold them based on the weak argument that they don't involve the destruction of potential life, especially since contraceptives pretty clearly do.

And if we subject these cases to the same "deeply rooted" criterium... would they survive?

[callentournies]

There's no point

[princeofcarthage]

@Goodspeed logic is pretty stupid. By same logic man and woman should be forced to have sex every moment. Every moment they are not engaged in sex leads to potential destruction of life. Masturbation should be banned since it leads to potential destruction of life.

[callentournies]

ah yes, QED

[fightinfrenchman]

Masturbation should be banned since it leads to potential destruction of life.

I read on here once that if you don't masturbate you die

[harcha]

Masturbation should be banned since it leads to potential destruction of life.

I read on here once that if you don't masturbate you die

i remember your reading comprehension being quite poor that particular time