We "follow the constitution" for abortion rights but when it comes to NSA surveillance we look the other way.
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.
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).
> 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)
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.
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.
The politickers have chosen the strongest statement to rally their own group around, but what it has actually done is create a potent straw man for opposition to rally around.
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."
Does "bodily autonomy" apply to vaccines?
Folks who worked for govt agencies and contractors were fired for refusing and there were serious efforts to deny govt services on that basis.
Feel free to play games with "forced" but we both know how you'd come down wrt comparable measures and abortion.
They're literally different and you know it to be true, but you'd prefer to play semantics because you can't back it up with logic. Like the idea that losing your job for failing to comply with public safety measures is the same as being charged with murder for aborting an ectopic pregnancy. Severing an employment relationship is nothing like incarcerating someone.
What? You're not? But you said that they were different.
The difference is that one involves abortion while the other involves vaccines.
And yes, I'm going to argue meaning. There aren't any tautologies here.
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.
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?
That ruling returns the relevant power to the states, see the 10th amendment.
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.
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.
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.
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.