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?
You must know the answer to that question if you’ve read any of my responses at all, so I’ll ignore it as rhetorical condescension.
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.
Yup, have seen that video before. Made Raskin look pretty bad. It’s like dishonest bargaining: demanding a lower price and then backing out when offered that. One would get beaten up if you tried that with street vendors.
What if a pregnant woman has metastatic cancer that requires aggressive chemotherapy treatment?
Such treatment will be extremely toxic to the fetus, likely causing a miscarriage. The mother will certainly die without treatment, as will the fetus once the mother dies.
What is the right course of action? To treat the mother is to knowing induce an abortion. To not treat the mother is to condemn both to death.
1. Alito citing the legal status and popular opinion of abortion in the states at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868 and
2. the legal status and popular opinion of interracial relations and marriage at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868
I can’t. I explained why already. You need to learn to read.
Narrator: He hadn't explained it already.
You need to understand that if every cannot understand you (because you are so smart or whatever) then it's your fault, not everyone else's. Learn to communicate clearly. This is like middle school stuff!
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.
Exceptions only matter to the extent that people who are otherwise pro-life end up with personal experiences or have family/friends who are affected and end up jumping ship politically. That number could be significant because there are about 700-800k rapes in the US and an estimated pregnancy rate of 5%. That would mean 35-40k women being forced to conceive their rapists baby every year if Republicans go for a Federal ban with no exception. The numbers would be much higher for women who are injured or killed because they were deprived of an abortion that was necessary due to complications, ectopic pregnancy, etc. Political winds can shift once the full ramifications of abortion without exceptions hits.
But for most everyone else, anything short of legal abortion on demand is the sublimation of women's rights to the will of the Christian right wing. They do not care if there is a rape/incest exception or whether the life/health of the mother exception is broadly drafted. They believe that women should have the right to decide whether to bring a pregnancy to term or whether to safely terminate via abortion because anything short of that turns women into subjects of the state who have their bodies appropriated by the state to serve the religious edicts of Christians.
The obvious solution here is implantable wombs (we are getting closer, we can now grow mouse embryos ex-vivo for ~2/3 of gestational term) so we can make men carry the pregnancies they refuse to allow others to abort.
1. Alito citing the legal status and popular opinion of abortion in the states at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868 and
2. the legal status and popular opinion of interracial relations and marriage at the time of the 14th Amendment’s ratification in 1868
I can’t. I explained why already. You need to learn to read.
Your argument is little different from saying the founders intended to preserve slavery because they didn’t explicitly note that their foundational principles would one day result in abolishing slavery, therefore any originalist must support slavery.
There is originalist support for interracial marriage. There isn’t originalist support for Roe. So the core premise of the argument you are trying to make is broken.
Sure bud you’ve won the argument. What was it again?
Exactly.
We’re extremely far apart and you don’t care about things I care about. I haven’t judged you to be correct in any meaningful way that challenges my views. You’re probably right about the legal stuff but I’m more interested in the political side of it, which is the driving force behind the legal stuff anyway. I can’t really argue against democracy being good because I believe the same thing. I’m confident in democracy, but the downside of democracy has always been that change takes a really long time. We knew slavery was wrong for many years before Lincoln took office. And then lastly all the mens rights stuff comes off silly to me. Coming to this thread to advocate for men to have the rights that women just lost. It’s comically out of touch. A joke I will tell my friends.
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.
They tried, but she refused. It was 6 years of Obama with the window open. After 2014, they didn’t have the senate majority to pick the replacement they wanted. She lived 6 years past the time she needed to step. She just needed 3 more months.
Even if Hillary won, they couldn’t confirm a replacement with Mitch at the head of the senate. They would have gone with 8 Justices for four years.
I can’t. I explained why already. You need to learn to read.
I read very well. You’re picking and choosing when to apply originalism and when not to.
So are you. That is the whole point of originalism that has always been an inexact means of persuasion and subjective principle, not some kind of mathematically objective principle intended to produce universally agreed upon outcomes.
If you want to be originalist, why start at 14th and Pace, why not the 1770s? The original constitution clearly has the foundational principles suggesting that Pace was bad law.
I can’t. I explained why already. You need to learn to read.
Your argument is little different from saying the founders intended to preserve slavery because they didn’t explicitly note that their foundational principles would one day result in abolishing slavery, therefore any originalist must support slavery.
There is originalist support for interracial marriage. There isn’t originalist support for Roe. So the core premise of the argument you are trying to make is broken.
They did intend to preserve slavery and it was legally preserved until the passage of the 13th Amendment. The Constitution was written to count enslaved Black people as three-fifths of a non-Black person.
There is no originalist support for interracial marriage as 27 of the 34 states in the Union in 1868 prohibited it. This isn’t hard to understand.
I read very well. You’re picking and choosing when to apply originalism and when not to.
So are you. That is the whole point of originalism that has always been an inexact means of persuasion and subjective principle, not some kind of mathematically objective principle intended to produce universally agreed upon outcomes.
If you want to be originalist, why start at 14th and Pace, why not the 1770s? The original constitution clearly has the foundational principles suggesting that Pace was bad law.
Because:
1. Pace v Alabama was the ruling that confirmed that states were just to prohibit interracial relations and marriage and
2. The Court referenced the 14th Amendment in Pace v Alabama, confirming that those laws didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Constitution as it was written and adopted didn’t consider Black people to be citizens. This was confirmed by Dred Scot, when Taney surveyed the laws of the states in 1787 and found that the Constitution wasn’t written with the intent to consider Black people as full legal citizens. This is why the US changed the Constitution to fix this and to give all people born in the US, no matter their race, full legal citizenship.
We’re extremely far apart and you don’t care about things I care about. I haven’t judged you to be correct in any meaningful way that challenges my views. You’re probably right about the legal stuff but I’m more interested in the political side of it, which is the driving force behind the legal stuff anyway. I can’t really argue against democracy being good because I believe the same thing. I’m confident in democracy, but the downside of democracy has always been that change takes a really long time. We knew slavery was wrong for many years before Lincoln took office. And then lastly all the mens rights stuff comes off silly to me. Coming to this thread to advocate for men to have the rights that women just lost. It’s comically out of touch. A joke I will tell my friends.
Your finding it funny doesn’t bother me, just like your finding something funny doesn’t change a religious person’s sincerely held beliefs.
You believe that a man should have no legal say in either the preservation or termination of a fetus that is created from a piece of him and for which he might have paternal feelings (or perhaps not), yet he should be on the hook for sharing parenting responsibilities in either case. I believe this aspect of the law is unfair to men even without Roe today, but Roe was further cementing it in stone.
The scotus majority opinion is consistent with this view to the extent, as it argues right in the first two pages, that Roe was never intended to be “a sex-based classification”, eg, precedents like Geduldig v Aiello held that denying work loss benefits on account of pregnancy was not sex discrimination because it is normal for a woman and can not happen for a man (in simple non-trans language).
Your argument is little different from saying the founders intended to preserve slavery because they didn’t explicitly note that their foundational principles would one day result in abolishing slavery, therefore any originalist must support slavery.
There is originalist support for interracial marriage. There isn’t originalist support for Roe. So the core premise of the argument you are trying to make is broken.
They did intend to preserve slavery and it was legally preserved until the passage of the 13th Amendment. The Constitution was written to count enslaved Black people as three-fifths of a non-Black person.
There is no originalist support for interracial marriage as 27 of the 34 states in the Union in 1868 prohibited it. This isn’t hard to understand.
But you can’t possibly argue that someone who calls themselves an originalist today is pro-slavery. Or would you?
”Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” supports interracial marriage. This isn’t hard to understand.
So are you. That is the whole point of originalism that has always been an inexact means of persuasion and subjective principle, not some kind of mathematically objective principle intended to produce universally agreed upon outcomes.
If you want to be originalist, why start at 14th and Pace, why not the 1770s? The original constitution clearly has the foundational principles suggesting that Pace was bad law.
Because:
1. Pace v Alabama was the ruling that confirmed that states were just to prohibit interracial relations and marriage and
2. The Court referenced the 14th Amendment in Pace v Alabama, confirming that those laws didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause.
The Constitution as it was written and adopted didn’t consider Black people to be citizens. This was confirmed by Dred Scot, when Taney surveyed the laws of the states in 1787 and found that the Constitution wasn’t written with the intent to consider Black people as full legal citizens. This is why the US changed the Constitution to fix this and to give all people born in the US, no matter their race, full legal citizenship.
Your response above to what I said makes no sense to me. Try crystallizing it harder if you think you have a point.
They did intend to preserve slavery and it was legally preserved until the passage of the 13th Amendment. The Constitution was written to count enslaved Black people as three-fifths of a non-Black person.
There is no originalist support for interracial marriage as 27 of the 34 states in the Union in 1868 prohibited it. This isn’t hard to understand.
But you can’t possibly argue that someone who calls themselves an originalist today is pro-slavery. Or would you?
”Life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” supports interracial marriage. This isn’t hard to understand.
Who is arguing that? The originalist would agree that the original intent of the 13th Amendment was to end slavery.
And it’s also clear that the original intent of the 14th Amendment wasn’t to stop states from banning marriage between whites and non-whites, given that so many of the states that ratified the amendment had those laws in force at the time.