[jjoonathan]

I know that courts just interpret the constitution to mean what they want, but they really outdid themselves on this one.

> The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[oceanghost]

We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.

[avs733]

lets just drop the pretense of even using that phrase

To me it is disqualifying for those analyses being taken seriously. If you are claiming that you are doing no interpretation and others are, that just not credible within the law. Of COURSE they are interpreting - that's literally the job. The idea that you aren't interpreting and instead are only divining what others meant is so incredible that it needs to stop being repeated.

Stop repeating the propaganda because it just normalizes a ridiculous phrase.

[oceanghost]

My point was, the powers that be will make any excuse so long as it increases state power.

[avs733]

Powers will use any excuse, the excuse is a distraction. It’s much clearer and more effective to properly name what they are doing rather than indulge their demand of what ever silly term they invent to justify it.

There is no such thing as textualism, there is just (1) a belief that your are doing a thing you labeled textualism but is philosophically incompatible with the concept of the law or (2) lying. Anything from the right in the us as it relates to the constitution is (2).

[vkou]

And in this country, 'state power' often includes 'the power of the states (good state power) to tyrannize their residents as they see fit, without any federal (bad state power) oversight.'

[kolanos]

Abortion isn't covered in the U.S. Constitution, aside from perhaps a right to life? Are you referring to Roe v. Wade? If so, that's a court decision.

[jaywalk]

According to Roe v. Wade, abortion is covered by the 14th Amendment. Which is ludicrous regardless of how you feel about abortion.

[sophacles]

The 9th amendment certainly covers it. It says:

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The upcoming court ruling, denies and disparages a right that was retained by the people for the last 50 years. In fact, it leads me to believe that the very reasoning used by the SC according to the memo is unconstitutional (they argue that since the word abortion doesn't appear in the constitution that it can't be considered by the court, a position that goes against the text and spirit of the 9th amendment)

[tick_tock_tick]

Abortion is absolutely not covered in the Constitution and Roe v Wade was a one of the most twisted bits of logic I've ever seen out of the court. We need real legislation rather then trying to stretch amendments to cover things that they clearly don't.

[mindslight]

I was tempted to see it that way, but the general right to be left alone by the government is most certainly in the founding character of the country. That right to be left alone most certainly applies to medical care. The only thing novel about Roe v Wade was applying the newer standard of gender equality to extend the right to be left alone to women.

Since we're talking about abortion, let's restate what should be abundantly clear - nobody is using abortion as a substitute for birth control. "Pro-choice" is an utterly stupid term that plays right into the political tempest-in-a-tea-pot, completely on-brand for the Democratic party. An appropriate label would be pro-medical-care. This whole topic is akin to debating whether individual states should be able to prevent their residents from receiving blood transfusions.

[sophacles]

How is pro choice a stupid term? You are literally arguing that the government shouldn't get involved in someone's medical care, that they should be allowed to make their own choices rather than having the decision forced on them by the court.

The only reason i can see you saying this is that you are angry and have found a group to other. Perhaps you should do some meditation or smoke a joint or whatever to relax, and stop directing your anger at people advocating for a position you agree with.

[MisterBastahrd]

pro-medical-care is identically stupid.

This is about the right to bodily autonomy, not medical care. Right now we have a right to not be searched, but don't have a right to do what we want with our own bodies. Give it a few years, watch in amusement as redneck states start attempting to ban tattoo parlors for "decency" reasons under the auspices of "proper medical care."

[jessaustin]

The 9th amendment...

This argument proves too much. One might say, for example, that the right to crush annoying smartphones isn't specifically addressed in the constitution or amendments thereof, and thus we must have that right. However, the states do have laws against theft, vandalism, etc. so we don't actually have the right to crush any smartphones that annoy us. The way to preempt those state laws would be with a federal law establishing such a right.

I am pro-choice, but such a federal law addressing abortion could have been passed at any point in the decades since (or before?) Roe. My understanding of the leaked ruling is that it would be overruled by such codification.

The weakness of the appeal to 9A explains why Roe itself did not rely on that.

[robonerd]

> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That's great and all, but how did they ass-pull the third trimester restriction? Courts recognizing rights not explicitly found in the Constitution is what the 9th amendment permits. But to ass-pull a restriction to a right, when that restriction isn't found in the Constitution or any law passed by congress? Is that really what the 9th Amendment is about? That's hard to swallow if so. What if SCOTUS ass-pulls a restriction to the 1st Amendment and says it never applies to computers? Is that the sort of thing the 9th Amendment permits?

[anamax]

> The upcoming court ruling, denies and disparages a right that was retained by the people for the last 50 years.

That ruling returns the relevant power to the states, see the 10th amendment.

[hn_version_0023]

The Supreme Court has been stacked with ideologues and possibly criminals (given Mr. Kavanaugh’s history). I’ve even read that getting Gorsuch on the court required a huge payoff to Mr. Breyer — open corruption.

I’m not well versed enough in its history to know if this is abnormal. I find it unacceptable, but given the state of government in the US, I don’t have any solutions.

[Akronymus]

roe v wade also only really concerns itself on whether it is a federal or state level issue.

[robonerd]

Hmm, I don't think that's accurate. Roe v Wade did say that Texas's statutes against abortion violated the fundamental right to privacy found in the 14th amendment. If Roe v Wade had simply said "It's a federal issue, it's up to Congress to pass an amendment if they want it changed", then I think you'd be right.

But Roe v Wade went further than that, with all the talk about pregnancy trimester nonsense. I buy into the premise of a right to privacy being derived from the 14th Amendment, but there's certainly nothing about trimesters in that amendment; it reeks of the court trying legislate. Either this right to privacy exists or it doesn't, it shouldn't be conditional on trimesters. I think this is where they fucked up.

Anyway, now Congress has to do what they should have done 50 years ago and sort this mess out the proper way.

[everforward]

Their argument about trimesters isn't terribly bad. The basic gist is that there are competing interests: that of the woman and control over her body, and that of the state in its interests in protecting humans.

They basically ignore the question of whether a fetus is alive or a citizen. It's the state's interest in protecting a potential person/citizen vs the woman's right to privacy.

The trimester system allows the controlling interest to shift as the fetus becomes closer to a citizen (and thus increasing the validity of the state's interest). In the first trimester, it's not at all close to a citizen and the woman's rights reign supreme. There are some concessions for the state in the second trimester, and by the third trimester, it's close enough to a citizen that the state has a compelling interest in preventing harm.

They explicitly call out that the right to privacy is not absolute, which is basically par for the course. The 1st Amendment doesn't let you incite violence, the second doesn't guarantee your right to buy a tank and ammunition, felons can't vote, prisoners can be slaves, etc. Basically none of our rights are absolute. It's a balance between preserving the rights of the people and the interests of the state.

It's an arbitrary framework, which the SC acknowledged, but you have to draw a line somewhere. Without a consensus on when life begins, that's always going to be an arbitrary line.

[sophacles]

You should try reading the constitution some time - there's an amendment that disagrees with your reasoning. It's called the 9th amendment and it literally says that there are rights beyond those specifically enumerated in the constitution.

[UncleEntity]

The constitution doesn’t grant rights to the people but sets down the restrictions on what the federal government can and can not do.

Anything and everything not specifically outlined in it is either retained by the people or governed by the states.

If the Supreme Court says the federal government doesn’t have jurisdiction they are simply returning the responsibility to the states or default legal status. They literally can’t strip away a right by returning it to the people.

[robonerd]

I think you should read my comment again. I agree with the premise of a right to privacy being found in the 14th Amendment. It you understand that I understand that and are trying to draw my attention to something else, then I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean. What I find suspect is the court seemingly to invent a restriction to such an inferred right, the trimester rule.

[leephillips]

The Supreme Court upholds a proud tradition of pretending that the 9th and 10th amendments don’t exist. I believe I remember Judge Bork pointing out, to general outrage, during his “confirmation” “hearings” that these amendments essentially don’t mean anything. He was just calling attention to the sad truth of the matter.