The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
You don’t need “privacy” to make the Loving argument. “Life, liberty” suffices.
How is that related? I was referencing the originalism of the amendment.
The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
I don’t think the federal government should have any say in marriage, civil unions, or any of that. If the court scrapped both loving and pace I’d be fine with that (I’m assuming you are summarizing both rulings accurately)
I would generally be okay with the same, though government recognition of marriage comes with a lot and has for some time so it would require a new set of standards for all that it has previously covered.
I agree. I’m reading reports that on average 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Most of the republicans I know only vote right because they are scared of trans and gas prices.
Those polls are crap. Same ones that have Hillary a 99% chance.
I would cite something better than that crap if I were you. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance which was a very fair assessment.
Politically this is bad for the Dems because it takes it away from the Federal level. There is nothing short of a Constitutional amendment that they can do to Federally legalize abortion across all 50 states. Just like with legalization of marijuana there are things the Federal government can do to make it easier to access, less red tape, but they can't just pass a law that say "Abortion is legal, no limits!"
This pushes the issue to the states, and each side, both ProChoice or AntiChoice/ProLife and fight it out there.
I will concede that is could be good for the Dems because it can be used to raise money, but as a practical issue abortion will now have to be dealt with on a state by state level.
It is politically bad for Dems because Dems have become addicted to doing nothing and just fundraising off the threat of Republican ghouls taking office. Dems have had a bill in congress making abortion legal in all 50 states. Obama passed on it after promising during his 2008 campaign to make it a priority and having a 60+ majority in the Senate. Biden won't touch it because he knows Sinema and Manchin won't vote to end the filibuster. So, instead, Dems just get text messages every three minutes from Nancy Pelosi asking for money to stop the Republican from taking over and passing a national ban on abortion.
But in second amendment parlance, the pro-life gun can kick as much as it shoots. States where harsh no exceptions laws go into effect upon the reversal of Roe will give Dems a boost. Beto the Boob in TX would normally get trounced by Abbott. But two weeks before Roe's reversal, Beto cut Abbott's lead from 15 points to just 5. Texas' trigger law bans all abortion and only has a narrow (and poorly defined) exception for when the life of the mother is threatened or "substantial impairment of bodily function" is at risk. No exception for rape or incest. This plus the Uvalde shooting could actually flip the governor's race in TX. Fl and GA have potentially tight races that could be influenced by Roe's reversal. If Republicans were smart, they would make sure that state abortion laws have clear exceptions for medical necessity (need to expressly include ectopic pregnancies and similar complications where death is not imminent but has a high risk once the fetus terminates due to massive hemorrhaging or sepsis) and for rape and incest. And Republicans need to be careful not to prosecute women who go out of state or have a back alley abortion. Anything short of a "compassionate conservative" approach will get voters fired up if women are being jailed, dying from pregnancy complications and 13 year olds who were raped by their father are forced to conceive.
The constitution presents an inherent conflict in the two words “life, liberty”.
For persons.
How is enforcing your definition of personhood on everyone else different than Jehovah’s Witnesses enforcing their views of blood transfusions on everyone else?
You don’t need “privacy” to make the Loving argument. “Life, liberty” suffices.
How is that related? I was referencing the originalism of the amendment.
You said Alito’s reasoning for Roe would strike down Loving. Roe was based in part on the right to privacy, but that doesn’t exist explicitly in the 14th, (although you are right that the framers had an expectation of citizen privacy from the government), and “life, liberty” alone doesn’t suffice for Roe because those two words are inherently at conflict. There was no such conflict in Loving, so Alito’s reasoning wouldn’t affect it. You asked where you were wrong, and I told you.
Dems were stupid to not convince RBG to step down during the 8 yeas of Obama. She was old and sick, it was time to go, but her ego wouldn't allow it. She thought Clinton was going to win and her replacement would be made by the first female president, and her miscalculation blew up her face.
Texas' trigger law bans all abortion and only has a narrow (and poorly defined) exception for when the life of the mother is threatened or "substantial impairment of bodily function" is at risk.
It’s loaded and misinforming statements like this that make me believe the republicans will do fine. Zealots like you claim there are no exceptions and then sometimes quietly say there are exceptions. The smart voters see through this.
How is that related? I was referencing the originalism of the amendment.
You said Alito’s reasoning for Roe would strike down Loving. Roe was based in part on the right to privacy, but that doesn’t exist explicitly in the 14th, (although you are right that the framers had an expectation of citizen privacy from the government), and “life, liberty” alone doesn’t suffice for Roe because those two words are inherently at conflict. There was no such conflict in Loving, so Alito’s reasoning wouldn’t affect it. You asked where you were wrong, and I told you.
Originalism. What was the thinking at the time of ratification. So yes, Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving vs Virginia.
The constitution presents an inherent conflict in the two words “life, liberty”.
For persons.
How is enforcing your definition of personhood on everyone else different than Jehovah’s Witnesses enforcing their views of blood transfusions on everyone else?
Go back and read my previous responses instead of going around in circles repeating the same question over and over. Learn to and accept key points of disagreement in a debate to take it further.
This thread is literally six dudes debating Roe V. Wade and clearly no one is convincing anyone of anything lmao. It’s a microcosm of American society at large.
I would cite something better than that crap if I were you. 538 gave Trump a 1 in 3 chance which was a very fair assessment.
I didn’t mention 538, only the ones that gave HRC 99%.
If you think Dobbs is hugely unpopular, you have little to worry as the midterms would fix it.
A single poll cannot accurately predict an election. There were polls that favored Trump both times. All of that is beside the point because public opinion polls are different than election polls.
You said Alito’s reasoning for Roe would strike down Loving. Roe was based in part on the right to privacy, but that doesn’t exist explicitly in the 14th, (although you are right that the framers had an expectation of citizen privacy from the government), and “life, liberty” alone doesn’t suffice for Roe because those two words are inherently at conflict. There was no such conflict in Loving, so Alito’s reasoning wouldn’t affect it. You asked where you were wrong, and I told you.
Originalism. What was the thinking at the time of ratification. So yes, Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving vs Virginia.
The highest-order originalism is that the constitution can be amended. The constitution is an interpretative document, so originalism can never be absolute, rather it’s always an inexact inference of what the framers might have thought but not made explicit in writing.
You said Alito’s reasoning for Roe would strike down Loving. Roe was based in part on the right to privacy, but that doesn’t exist explicitly in the 14th, (although you are right that the framers had an expectation of citizen privacy from the government), and “life, liberty” alone doesn’t suffice for Roe because those two words are inherently at conflict. There was no such conflict in Loving, so Alito’s reasoning wouldn’t affect it. You asked where you were wrong, and I told you.
Originalism. What was the thinking at the time of ratification. So yes, Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving vs Virginia.
It’s political suicide for the Republicans to go any further. Their radical base would love them to but they would lose popular support. Gay marriage and interracial marriage both carry very widespread support. If they made both state controlled, it would be bad for them. Can you imagine the public reaction to gay marriage being re-banned in a backwards rural state? Roe has support but it doesn’t have gay marriage levels of support. Overturning Roe had nothing to do with actual law or constitution and everything to do with politics.
Originalism. What was the thinking at the time of ratification. So yes, Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving vs Virginia.
The highest-order originalism is that the constitution can be amended. The constitution is an interpretative document, so originalism can never be absolute, rather it’s always an inexact inference of what the framers might have thought but not made explicit in writing.
I don’t see what you see in Alito’s reasoning.
I’ll spell it out for you.
1. Alito says that the Constitution and its amendments must be viewed in the contexts and understandings at the time of their writing and passage.
2. Loving vs Virginia overruled Pace vs Alabama, citing the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
3. This is a modern interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause and not an originalist one, as the ruling in Pace vs Alabama cites the fact that, at the time of the ratification of the 14th Amendment, many states that ratified the 14th Amendment also had miscegenation laws in force, so it was clear that those states did not intend for the 14th Amendment to nullify those laws.
4. The overruling of Pace v Alabama in Loving v Virginia is a revisionist and not an originalist view on the 14th Amendment.