USSC decisions

I'm not sure if you're being serious. If you are, that's disappointing as someone who appreciates conservative jurisprudence. Selective incorporation of the due process clause of the 14th is established as the constitutional link for almost all expansion of rights, which is part of abortion argument (plus privacy plus equality).

It's the same clause of the 14th that the court interpreted as the reason why states can't ban the right to bear arms in your home.

And it's the same clause that some of the amici argue is the constitutional basis for fetal personhood.

The states' rights argument is crap. It's just a ruse to get to fetal personhood, which is a stronger argument imo. And Mississippi is completely contradicting their own petition for writ of cert when they argued that Roe should stand.

 

the right to kill unborn children is nowhere to be found in the constitution, therefore states can ban it

 

As if the Founding Fathers didn't beat their pregnant wives or force them to miscarriage.

Somehow Unborn Children and Corporations as Individuals always comes into play with you Strict Originalist folks...

 

It's fine just put the clinics at coushatta or even that naskila gaming

 

Damn, I thought you were legit and not a troll. My bad for trying to have a high minded discussion - welcome to ignore. Even in your own quip you shows the true reason for the fight against abortion - the belief that there is value in the unborn.

Anyhow, your point has already been addressed. There are many unenumerated rights that states cannot ban, like the right have gay sex in private, which is still illegal according to Texas law. If rewritten in SB8 style, we can sue the crap out if gays who bang.

 

They know. They aren't stupid. They simply don't care. All that talk about respect for the law and the Constitution were fake.

 

@Kim One can believe both that there is no right to abortion protected by the constitution AND that unborn children should have rights that should be protected. It is legitimate to advance one or the other or both. Just because you believe people are people even before they are born, doesn't mean you cannot advance an argument that makes no reference to that.

 

One problem I have is that the arguments made by the petitioners (and I read the briefs) is that other than the hardcores, everyone else beats around the bush. Just say it. It's slipped so many times and never made the prime argument: the unborn should be valued regardless of whether state legislatures say they do. Some of the amici make that argument. Everyone references that argument when they say things like "killing a baby girl before she's born (Scalia)." So just go ahead and make the fetal personhood the central tenant as some of the briefs say.

It's complete baloney for a pro-life activist to say, "the most important things is to let state legistatures decide via their representation of the will of their citizenry. [If they decide every woman can have an abortion up to the day before giving birth, then that's cool with us.]" That's just BS. And adding my dumb opinion to it as a bad Constitutional argument is because states have historically made bad rights decisions for bad reasons, such as the whole point of abortion restrictions in the 1800s wasn't about the sanctity of life but losing birth pace to dirty immigrants like the Irish.

So the fetal personhood argument to me is a much stronger Constitutional argument which by how SCOTUS works needs to be incorporated via the 14th. With that stated, yes, you can argue there's no right to abortion in the Constitution - I have no problem with that argument. What I have a problem with are the specific lies Mississippi, Texas, and SCOTUS has been saying to 1) dispell the Constitutional connections and 2) claim that overturning abortion rights is completely different from and does not impact the entire field of substantive due process rights.

With regards to 2), for example, when Mississippi's SG was asked why no other substantive due process rights were in jeopardy if Roe was overturned based on that unenumerated Constitutional language reasoning, the response was, "there's no law out there that is attacking gay marriage. We've accepted that already. It's cool." I'm paraphrasing, but WTH? Texas' DOMA was never repealed by Texas. Hell, Texas' gays can't bang was never repealed by Texas. Hell, we still have in Texas racial restrictive covenants that say you can only sell your house to white people in many neighborhoods. The only reason gays can marry in Texas, gays can legally bang, and non-whites can buy houses anywhere is because of substantive due process rights interpreted by SCOTUS for the first two and Federal housing law upheld as Constitutional by SCOTUS (for the covenants part). Letting states decide on their own is pretty disasterous in the field of substantive due process rights.

Addressing 1), the attacks against the connections were either ignorant, insincere, or both. ACB was like, "you know, we have all these safe haven laws nowadays, so the liberty constitutional connection to abortion doesn't stand anymore, because you don't have to raise a kid. Just give it up." Sigh, I get it coming from her because she's popped out 5 or 6 kids, right? And she's on the SCOTUS, lol. So to her, being forced by law to carry a pregnancy to term is not an infringement on liberty interests for woman - it's just no biggy. But that's ludacris because it is a big deal - to carry a pregnancy to term. There are many complications, risks, black women have much higher maternal mortality rates (equality interests), and it's just wrong to say there's no liberty impact there.

Also addressing 1), the attacks on the equality links are absurd. "Women have babies and carreers all the time nowadays, hence it's not an issue anymore. Getting pregnant and having a baby will have no relation to career opportunities across the board." Seriously?

It just goes on and on. I don't have a problem with your statement "there is no right to an abortion in the Constitution." It's complicated and foreign ground to those who don't study the Constitution and the history and developments of Con Law. You can make a case for and against it, fairly. What is BS is the petitioners specific case against it, trying to separate it from other substantive due process rights, because it's illogical to do so.

In my dumb opinion, the very best argument doing so is saying, "well, this is different because we're protecting the life of the unborn." And that should be it! It should be, "we think the life of the unborn deserves some Consitutional protections incorporated via the 14th, so in balance, it's more important than women's rights in this case." Instead they're saying, "if states choose to protect the rights of the unborn, then that should be law because the constitutional connections for women's abortions don't exist, but just because these don't exist, all other similar connections arguments still stand, like gay marriage." The logic is messed up and the statements are insincere.

Still reiterating that Mississippi's original petition argued that Roe and Casey can stand, and that they're just trying to move the line to 15 weeks. Another reason for the current illogical BS that's being displayed in court.

 

This decision that circumvents the constitution is a very very deadly precedent that could lead to a nasty dystopian state.

 

Spoiler

 

It wasn't a quip, and there is value in the unborn. As it pertains to SCOTUS, whether the unborn have value is up to the people to decide, not judges.

Is there any right I can't claim has unenumerated constitutional protection? What's the limiting principle there?

You need a wall of text to dissemble and obfuscate the reality that there is no right to abortion hidden in the constitution.

 

The fact that Roberts couldn't get a fifth vote to get an injunction on that stupid law speaks to the fact that Roberts has no control of the five conservatives. Its terrifying to think about what other precedents are going to get chopped down over the next few years.

 

Maybe if she's talking about numbers and not percentages

 

I'm annoyed at the flu argument. It gets incredibly old.