[OrangeMonkey]

This is a divisive issue for many so I think we should be kind in our replies.

In that vein, I disagree with a few points you stated.

We, in the US, are a nation of states. It has always been the case that laws differ from state to state. Consider a legal gun owner in one state that does business in another - if he keeps his weapon on him in a restricted state, he will be jailed and possibly face prison. This fact - that we are a collection of states - was an important consideration to the forming of the united states as a whole. I would argue that the increasing federalization of laws is likely the opposite of historic norms in the united states.

I know this does not help if you feel strongly about this - and many do. In this ruling, which has impacted so many, the court did not take away a right. The court stated that it had taken away the power of the people and created a law where none existed.

If we, the people, dislike this then we petition our government to change the laws. . . and we start in our state. Today - literally today - I can call up my state reps office and schedule a lunch or a chat with her. I have, in the past, done just that.

If the current laws bother you, and I think they do, then you should absolutely do the same. Look - its one of the great parts of America.

I hope you have a good day man.

[joshka]

> In this ruling, which has impacted so many, the court did not take away a right. The court stated that it had taken away the power of the people and created a law where none existed.

This ignores the fact that the previous status quo was that not that the court had taken away the power, but that the court had recognized that a inalienable right existed based on the 14th amendment, and as such was not something that the states had power to legislate. This is not the creation of a law, but an interpretation of it. See Roe at p33 [1]

Given that we as a society have for 50 years believed that we had such an INALIENABLE right, that a court of any regard can take such a right away is pure nonsense.

I guess the easiest question to ask of you is do you "OrangeMonkey" believe in an inalienable right to privacy, whether it's enumerated explicitly or not in the constitution. Because this all falls on that singular point regardless of the outcome on Roe / Dobbs. As a male, Dobbs doesn't directly affect me in its impact of whether I can have an abortion. But it affects my understanding of what the state can or cannot do with respect to my private actions. See Roe at para 77 [2] and especially para 117 [3].:

   In the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Great concepts like . . . 'liberty' . . . were purposely left to gather meaning from experience. For they relate to the whole domain of social and economic fact, and the statesmen who founded this Nation knew too well that only a stagnant society remains unchanged.

One of Dobbs effects is that the 14th amendment is narrowly constructed to only mean as much as "liberty" could possibly mean when it was passed. There is much ado about the concept of "ordered liberty", which although it explores did not exist in the framer's construction. Dobbs claims that the court does not have the ability to interpret the idea of liberty with respect to the context of society (that is overwhelmingly pro-choice). When interpretation is the entire rationale for the courts existence, this point is particularly ridiculous.

[1]: Roe v Wade. para 33. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#p33

[2]: Roe v Wade. para 77. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#p77

[3]: Roe v Wade. para 114. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113#p117

[czstar]

Thank you for your response.

Euclidean geometry is a vast subject with many theorems. Those theorems are logical consequences of the 5 axioms of Euclidean geometry. Just 5 statements are the basis for a large number of logical consequences. Imagine then how many logical consequences are possible from the many statements of the U.S. Constitution.

There is no explicit right to an abortion stated in the U.S. Constitution but courts 50 years ago said that this healthcare procedure can’t be completely outlawed. They enshrined it as a right. It has been a right for 50 years. Now it is not. I talked with a conservative justice on a state Supreme Court many years ago. He told me that the legal basis for Roe had slowly been established by precedents over the years. He did not say whether or not he agreed with those precedents. I’m just pointing out that the expansion of the rights of women to an abortion was not without a well reasoned path. Sort like how after enough theorems one can see that then sum of the degrees of a triangle is 180 degrees.

There have been historical variations in laws between states. Slavery is the quintessential example of this and it led to the Civil War. If there is too much variation on the legal protections between the states this can lead to chaos. The Court should be in the business to equalizing rights across the nation and not diminishing them. The Court is in the process of trying to equalize the rights to guns across the nation. While I oppose the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment most people have it should be equalized across the nation. This is particularly true since travel is so much easier now than in the past.

We will soon live in a country where an act is legal in one city and a death penalty offense in another. The last time that happened we ended up in a civil war. I don’t believe we will end up with a civil war over abortion but I can see liberal states telling Texas to go ahead an secede when Texas declares their right to do so (as they have done at various times over the past 40 years).

The Court’s action is extremely divisive and I don’t think state legislatures should have to right to limit medical procedures. Let’s assume we both agree that at conception the embryo is a human being with all the accompanying rights. I don’t think state legislatures should able to force a person to risk their life to save that embryo. Should legislatures have to the right to force me to donate blood to someone or donate a kidney to save someone? I think not. Legislatures should not have the right to force women to risk their lives to save an unborn child.

We disagree strongly on this issue. We disagree on the role of the Court. There are major power imbalances with regard to the power distribution among the states. These structural problems are coming to the fore due to results like overturning abortion. Such is my view.

I hope you have a good day too. I will read any response you make but won’t respond further. I doubt you will convince me my position is wrong and I doubt I’ll convince you but it is fruitful to read other peoples’ opinions.

[salawat]

Now you know first hand why Thomas Jefferson so feared the Judiciary/Supreme Court. This is exactly the type of destabilizing effect it can have. There is tremendous power vested in largely unaccountable, unelected Justices, such that they could be wielded as a tool by one party or another to instill one view or another over the populace with no recourse.

The Courts are the nuclear option in our System, and disturbingly, people have been looking more and more to them as the way to get things their way in the abscence of a non-assenting populace. I fear that our common law system may have too much to it to be reasonably refactored without some serious innovation in the space of jurisprudence, or to be accepted without giving widespread access to every last citation and point of historical fact that weighs into one particular decision or another by the Court.

The crows must come home to roost in the Justice System at some point. If we can't agree on the facts at the Federal level, we've got bigger issues, and we've got a tragic contention for having historically factual evidence honored for acts of the judiciary, and the need for a judiciary that can collate and parse those facts fast enough to make decisions within a reasonable timeframe without Yoloing it. Trying to do that though, increasingly feels to me like work more appropriately done by the legislature.

Perhaps there needs to be a sort of link between the legislative and judiciary as far as facilities for research? Both seem to be in dire need of the same thing.

[czstar]

I agree that the system is in need of reforms. I’m nit insightful enough to know what those reforms should be but I definitely agree that things are amiss.