Public opinion polls have been very useful in tracking social change throughout history. Have you even taken a 100 level political science course?
Irrelevant question, next. Focus on the subject, not the speaker.
There’s clear input on the subject. I’m just adding something extra for you to think about down the line. Really I’m helping you by suggesting extra classes that will refine your positions in these arguments. Polling is hugely important and you should consider learning more about it.
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.
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.
Try harder. Quote explicitly from Alito’s majority draft to defend your attributions to him.
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.
Irrelevant question, next. Focus on the subject, not the speaker.
There’s clear input on the subject. I’m just adding something extra for you to think about down the line. Really I’m helping you by suggesting extra classes that will refine your positions in these arguments. Polling is hugely important and you should consider learning more about it.
Plus it’s a STEM application with statistics. Should be super fun for your science logic man brain!
There’s clear input on the subject. I’m just adding something extra for you to think about down the line. Really I’m helping you by suggesting extra classes that will refine your positions in these arguments. Polling is hugely important and you should consider learning more about it.
Plus it’s a STEM application with statistics. Should be super fun for your science logic man brain!
Quintessential province of those who’ve lost the argument to turn their attention to attacking the speaker.
You just made your sexism apparent with your own written words.
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.
Try harder. Quote explicitly from Alito’s majority draft to defend your attributions to him.
Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential compo- nents of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.
…
By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided.
At the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, 27 of the 34 states had anti-miscegenation laws in force. Do you think it was the intent of those state legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment that it would be used to end bans on interracial relations?
What I meant was, you must hate her because she was the most political out of all them.
I don’t hate the court for becoming political. Obviously it wasn’t intended to be that way but it was going to happen eventually. Pretty much everything is political.
Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential compo- nents of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.
…
By the time the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy. This consensus endured until the day Roe was decided.
At the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, 27 of the 34 states had anti-miscegenation laws in force. Do you think it was the intent of those state legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment that it would be used to end bans on interracial relations?
Alito’s quoted text seems reasonable and I’ve read it before. It doesn’t say what you said in your first of your four bullets earlier.
Pace and Loving are irrelevant and are not mentioned in the Dobbs majority opinion, so your question about whether the framers intended to end miscegenation seems altogether irrelevant to finding a contradiction of principle in Dobbs.
The constitution’s originalist foundational principle is freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which is consistent with Loving and inconsistent with Pace.
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.
Saying "I have already said that" is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for having weak rhetorical skills or communicating ineffectively.
Come on. Are these monoliths here? Eunice Kennedy Shriver started the Special Olympics but didn’t care about babies because she was a Democrat but Republicans who won’t support any legislation to make it easier for low income households to support their kids do? America is one of the only countries in the world that offers no federal paid maternity leave and the GOP swears it will wreck the economy if we did, but they care about babies? Most of these people in elected office only care about getting elected again so they can get paid by the people who want them elected. That’s all it is.
At the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, 27 of the 34 states had anti-miscegenation laws in force. Do you think it was the intent of those state legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment that it would be used to end bans on interracial relations?
Alito’s quoted text seems reasonable and I’ve read it before. It doesn’t say what you said in your first of your four bullets earlier.
Pace and Loving are irrelevant and are not mentioned in the Dobbs majority opinion, so your question about whether the framers intended to end miscegenation seems altogether irrelevant to finding a contradiction of principle in Dobbs.
The constitution’s originalist foundational principle is freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which is consistent with Loving and inconsistent with Pace.
Do you understand what “originalism” is in the context of reading and interpreting the US Constitution?
At the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868, 27 of the 34 states had anti-miscegenation laws in force. Do you think it was the intent of those state legislatures that ratified the 14th Amendment that it would be used to end bans on interracial relations?
Alito’s quoted text seems reasonable and I’ve read it before. It doesn’t say what you said in your first of your four bullets earlier.
Pace and Loving are irrelevant and are not mentioned in the Dobbs majority opinion, so your question about whether the framers intended to end miscegenation seems altogether irrelevant to finding a contradiction of principle in Dobbs.
The constitution’s originalist foundational principle is freedom of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, which is consistent with Loving and inconsistent with Pace.
You are quoting the Declaration of Independence while talking about Constitution.
Maybe you can see why we don't see you as very informed speaker on this matter.
Come on. Are these monoliths here? Eunice Kennedy Shriver started the Special Olympics but didn’t care about babies because she was a Democrat but Republicans who won’t support any legislation to make it easier for low income households to support their kids do? America is one of the only countries in the world that offers no federal paid maternity leave and the GOP swears it will wreck the economy if we did, but they care about babies? Most of these people in elected office only care about getting elected again so they can get paid by the people who want them elected. That’s all it is.
I agree that 99% of people in office only care about reelection. But this thread is about roe v wade. When a democratic senator was asked point blank if he would support a bill that banned abortion with exceptions for rape and incest, he became flustered and refused to answer.