| > 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 |