[motive]

Regarding guns, the dissent argues that “well-regulated” and “militia” are key components of the text. The applicants for concealed carry were not part of a militia, and the current court doesn’t seem to acknowledge the “well-regulated” piece exists at all.

With regard to abortion, the constitution guarantees us a right to privacy, which is closely linked to bodily autonomy. The argument being that there is constitutionally no legal way for the government to involve itself in your personal health decisions. There is an interesting ideological reversal here with regard to the recent vaccine debate with liberals arguing the government should be able to compel vaccination, and the conservatives against.

[InTheArena]

Except there isn't a explicit right to privacy either in the constitution or the bill of rights. Which is why RBG always argued that Roe v. Wade was poorly decided.

[motive]

Should there be? I think this is an evolving question that would settle a number of ambiguities in the law.

If one were to die tomorrow without being an organ donor, the state still cannot compel one to give up their organs, even if it would save lives. Why should a woman’s body have less autonomy than a corpse?

On the other hand, I don’t think many people would support 39-week abortions either, absent some explicit medical necessity. At some point, which is inherently a gradient, our legal system has to afford protection to what is a viable person.

Americans have a tendency to go for the most extreme positions on everything and I think the court reversing Roe is an incredibly shortsighted decision that will cost it decades of legitimacy. The institution is more damaged now than possibly ever. Even the Chief Justice had wanted to uphold Mississippi’s law but preserve Roe, which would’ve been a much better solution than where we are today.

Extremism is a cancer destroying this country.

[InTheArena]

I agree that extremism is a cancer. I just view Roe v. Wade as the genesis of much of that cancer.

We have a system that allows for changing laws - it's called a republic. We have a system that even allows for changing the constitution.

Upholding Mississippi's law but preserving Roe is intrinsically a political decision. Politics belong with legislatures, not judges.

[cryptonector]

I've seen it claimed that "well-regulated" in 1789 meant "well-equipped". Think of what a "regular" and "irregular" meant then (and kinda still means now). A "regular" was a soldier in an army. An "irregular" was a civilian joining the fight. I don't know if it is true that "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped", but it makes sense that it might have.

[dwater]

> There is an interesting ideological reversal here with regard to the recent vaccine debate with liberals arguing the government should be able to compel vaccination, and the conservatives against.

My interpretation of that ideology is that liberals want the government to protect public health by restricting personal freedom of participation in certain aspects of the public sphere by those who choose not to be vaccinated, and conservatives want to put their own personal choices above the public health by allowing them to do without restriction all the things they did before the pandemic regardless of their vaccination status. There was never serious debate about blanket compelling of vaccination.