Roe v Wade is on deck

[Metaphor]

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

Here three constitutional authorities disagree with the decision. Their bios are in the link.

To start, our brief demonstrates that the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment protect personal individual rights essential to liberty, dignity, and autonomy. Against the backdrop of the suppression of rights in the South, the Framers wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to provide broad protections for substantive liberty—not limited to rights enumerated elsewhere in the Constitution—to secure equal citizenship stature for all people. Throughout the debates over the Fourteenth Amendment, the Framers of the Amendment made clear that the Amendment was understood to protect basic personal rights, including the right to enjoy bodily integrity and to make decisions whether to marry, bear and raise children, and start a family.

Our brief also refutes some of Mississippi’s flawed arguments for overruling Roe and Casey. For example, Mississippi claims that the Constitution’s text does not mention abortion and therefore gives the State authority to regulate pre-viability abortions. Our brief emphatically counters this argument by pointing out that the Constitution is equally silent on many of the other fundamental rights that are not only deeply rooted in the text and history of the Fourteenth Amendment, but also have been recognized by the Supreme Court. Mississippi also suggests that because many states at the time of ratification restricted abortion, the public would have understood such regulations to be consistent with the Fourteenth Amendment. But, as our brief explains, the Court has never accepted state practices at the time of ratification as a definitive measure of what fundamental rights are guaranteed by the Fourteenth amendment.

Finally, our brief urges the Court to reaffirm Roe and Casey’s viability line. The brief makes clear that no other line does a better job of both protecting the individual’s right to abortion while accommodating the interests of the government, and Mississippi offers no workable alternative to that line.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization | Constitutional Accountability Center

www.theusconstitution.org

Huh? I haven't even claimed the Court was right or wrong. I claimed 'wishing abortion was a Constitutional right' does not make it so.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't even understand your second point. Is there a Constitutional right to health care?

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." The entire basis for our government.

ZiprHead, you should make it known that the American Constitution implies a right to federally-guaranteed healthcare. What a sensation this will cause among jurists!

 

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

Do you think it's reasonable legally to tell women they have no control over their medical decisions?

The Court did not 'tell' them that.

The Court said that there was no federal Constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion is an essential tool used by the medical profession for womens health and well-being.

That doesn't and can't make abortion a federal Constitutional right.

No, the Ninth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution do.

The problem with Alito's opinion is that it stands at odds with the text and history of the 14th Amendment, which says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." As its drafting and ratification history demonstrate, the 14th Amendment was originally understood to protect a broad range of individual rights from state infringement, including unenumerated rights.

What "great fundamental guarantees" and what "mass of privileges, immunities, and rights" was the 14th Amendment designed to protect from state abuse? For starters, Howard said, the amendment protected fundamental rights that were not explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. "These privileges and immunities," Howard said, "are not and cannot be fully defined in their precise nature." In addition, he continued, "to these should be added the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution." In short, the 14th Amendment compels the states to respect both "the first eight amendments" (enumerated rights) and other fundamental rights that "are not and cannot be fully defined" (unenumerated rights).

But that is not the end of it. The states must also respect the individual liberties guaranteed by the Ninth Amendment, which reads, "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Those unenumerated rights "retained by the people" are part of the great mass of liberties that "are not and cannot be fully defined." The Ninth Amendment's inclusion in the Bill of Rights makes the unwritten liberties that it protects "fundamental" by definition.

Now we reach the key question: Do abortion rights fall under the protection of the Ninth Amendment? If the answer to that is yes, then that means that abortion rights apply against the states via the 14th Amendment.

Abortion Rights Under the 9th and 14th Amendments

Understanding what Supreme Court Justice Alito got wrong in response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

reason.com

Well, I'm told the entire Supreme Court has 'lost legitimacy'. They should all be thrown out and Congress can make a new Court in its Image.

What idiot told you that?

That the Court has lost legitimacy? Elizabeth Warren for one. And dozens of others.

Way to cherry pick. They are all saying the court has lost legitimacy because the conservatives have way overstepped their bounds. Not because of something all of them did.

I did not say all of the Justices had 'overstepped' their bounds. I disagree with the entire contention that any of them lied.

I am mocking the idea that the Court has lost legitimacy. I am also challenging mindless demagogues to have the courage of their convictions.

After all, the crowd who thinks police are illegitimate do not draw the line at a few bad apple cops. They mean it is illegitimate and the institution cannot be saved. Their ideas are fucking crazy and monstrous but at least they are internally consistent.

---

As far as errors, virtually every case cited by Alito to bolster his decision was from a time when women had no right to vote, let alone take seats on our government. Half the country, probably more than half if you include minorities, had no say in the government. Hell, he even cited a guy that sentenced women to death for witchcraft and said men have the right to rape their wives.

Are these legal errors? What makes them legal errors?

Do you believe it to be fair to bind half the country to decisions they had no say in?

I didn't say "fair" or anything like it. I said "what makes them legal errors"?

See above.

1a : marked by impartiality and honesty : free from self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism a very fair person to do business with. b(1) : conforming with the established rules : allowed.

None of this came about through impartiality or honesty. These judges were not impartial, nor honest in their confirmation hearings.

Oy gevalt. I've explained in all the ways I am capable why 'the Justices lied under oath' is a bullshit claim.

Read it again. I didn't say they lied under oath. I said they were not honest in their confirmation hearing. They lied by omission. Unfortunately lying by omission has been ruled, by another Supreme Court (how convenient) to not be perjury.

 

[ZiprHead]

Huh? I haven't even claimed the Court was right or wrong. I claimed 'wishing abortion was a Constitutional right' does not make it so.

Bullshit. You may not have stated it outright but you sure are defending the Dobbs decision. You have quite the talent at feigning obtuseness.

 

[Metaphor]

Huh? I haven't even claimed the Court was right or wrong. I claimed 'wishing abortion was a Constitutional right' does not make it so.

Bullshit. You may not have stated it outright but you sure are defending the Dobbs decision. You have quite the talent at feigning obtuseness.

I haven't read the Dobbs decision and I am not 'defending' it. All I've said about Roe was that my non-expert understanding of it is that it seemed very legally dubious, and a product of its political times.

An analogy I would use is the way works of fiction are 'read' at university. "A Marxist reading of Gone With the Wind" or "A Freudian reading of The Corrections" or "an intersectional feminist reading of Das Boot". You can read 'with the text' or 'against the text'. Any text can mean any thing you want, as long as you argue eloquently enough, cherry pick carefully enough, and/or bamboozle skillfully enough with your own text commenting on other texts.

But whether the Dobbs ruling is, in fact, legally wrong, makes no difference to whether the Justices 'lied under oath' as AOC and others imply. They didn't lie or mislead, no matter how any Democrat senator feels about it personally.

 

[Jarhyn]

Huh? I haven't even claimed the Court was right or wrong. I claimed 'wishing abortion was a Constitutional right' does not make it so.

Bullshit. You may not have stated it outright but you sure are defending the Dobbs decision. You have quite the talent at feigning obtuseness.

There are folks in this world, such as, I believe, Donald Trump, whose mind contains an effective compartment such that the obtuseness they display is not feigned, but rather enforced by a doubly-evil part of themselves that most people do not ever encounter directly, nor speak to, developed by persistent cognitive dissonance and unflinching self interest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

Do you think it's reasonable legally to tell women they have no control over their medical decisions?

The Court did not 'tell' them that.

The Court said that there was no federal Constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion is an essential tool used by the medical profession for womens health and well-being.

That doesn't and can't make abortion a federal Constitutional right.

As far as errors, virtually every case cited by Alito to bolster his decision was from a time when women had no right to vote, let alone take seats on our government. Half the country, probably more than half if you include minorities, had no say in the government. Hell, he even cited a guy that sentenced women to death for witchcraft and said men have the right to rape their wives.

Are these legal errors? What makes them legal errors?

Do you believe it to be fair to bind half the country to decisions they had no say in?

I didn't say "fair" or anything like it. I said "what makes them legal errors"?

1. You are not a constitutional authority.
2. Abortion is healt care.

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

I don't even understand your second point. Is there a Constitutional right to health care?

Aus'splain 101

 

[ZiprHead]

Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Table of Contents

Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Table of Contents with links to the rules

www.americanbar.org

Rule 8.4: Misconduct​

Share:

Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession​

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

Hmmmmm...

 

[ZiprHead]

I haven't read the Dobbs decision and I am not 'defending' it. All I've said about Roe was that my non-expert understanding of it is that it seemed very legally dubious, and a product of its political times.

No, you've never said that.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

That is true. What is ironic is that exactly your defense for the lying SCOTUS justices .

 

[laughing dog]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.

I'm not struggling. No justice made that statement.

Saying something is Stare Decisis is effectively saying exactly that.

No. You don't understand the term. Stare decisis is a principal; it isn't a quality about a particular case.

stare decisis

www.law.cornell.edu

A legal principle that conservatives love unless it conflicts with their ideology. Reversing a previous decision should not be taken lightly nor reached via blatantly ideological and hypocritical grounds.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/kavanaugh-gorsuch-roe-kagan-supreme-court/

If Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied in their confirmations, so did Kagan​

During Elena Kagan’s 2009 confirmation hearings for the office of solicitor general, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) asked her point-blank: “Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?” She replied with one sentence: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The following year, when President Barack Obama nominated her to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and conservatives tried to paint her as a guaranteed vote for same-sex marriage, her supporters pointed to this answer as proof that any concerns were unfounded. She was confirmed 63 to 37. But when she got to the high court, she voted in Obergefell v. Hodges to find that there is, in fact, a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Did Kagan lie?

No. As she explained in a March 2009 letter to then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), she was simply describing the state of existing case law, which did not at the time recognize a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. “Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives,” Kagan wrote. “By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

This history is worth recalling as some on the left now argue that members of the court’s conservative majority should be impeached for lying during their confirmation hearings about whether Roe v. Wade could be overturned. “Every single one of them said under oath that they would actually preserve Roe,” claimed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). “That is absolutely fraud, and there should be consequences.” On “Meet the Press” this past weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called for a House investigation into whether Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch should be impeached. “They lied,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...isastrous-america-military-readiness/?itid=cn
In fact, none of the conservative justices promised to uphold Roe. Indeed, if they had done so — if they had promised to vote a certain way in a case in exchange for something of value, a senator’s vote — that would be an impeachable offense. It would be a serious violation of judicial ethics for a nominee to the federal bench to say how they would vote in a case before hearing the facts and evidence. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained during her 1993 confirmation hearings, “It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.” Ginsburg added, “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Of course, none of the justices did that. Kavanaugh explicitly declined to directly answer whether Roe was “correct law,” but he said, “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times. … So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.” Gorsuch similarly declared that Roe “is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. … So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

This is similar to what Kagan said during her July 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, when she was asked whether she agreed that the court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago mean that the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, particularly for self-defense. She replied that Heller and McDonald are “settled law” and “binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case.” But last week, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, she voted to uphold New York’s draconian gun law, which required anyone who wanted a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for doing so.
If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh deceived the Senate, then so did Kagan. And if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be impeached, then Kagan should be as well.

In fact, none of them lied — not Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh, not Kagan. It is perfectly understandable for senators to try to divine how a justice, if confirmed, would rule on a case they care about. But it would be a gross dereliction of judicial ethics for a nominee to prejudge a case or give senators any assurances of how they would decide. Which is why they all follow the “Ginsburg rule.” And there is nothing impeachable about that.

That article is comparing apples (the Roe V Wade established constitutional right of abortion) and oranges (the right to same sex marriage which had not been established). Kagan's answer was factual - at the time of the asking of it, there was no established constitutional right of same sex marriage.

So that comparison was inapt and inept.

 

[laughing dog]

But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.

How religious.
You can build a whole moral world view out of the difference between "expecting" and "pregnant".

Yeah.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

Basing one's arguments by ignoring scientific facts (men cannot get pregnant) is the hallmark of a religious mindset.

 

[Jarhyn]

But you were still "expecting", not pregnant.

How religious.
You can build a whole moral world view out of the difference between "expecting" and "pregnant".

Yeah.
Bless Your Heart.
Tom

Basing one's arguments by ignoring scientific facts (men cannot get pregnant) is the hallmark of a religious mindset.

Well, it's not impossible for men to be pregnant. But impossible for that man, most certainly.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

That is true. What is ironic is that exactly your defense for the lying SCOTUS justices .

Believe as you wish, evidence not required.

 

[Metaphor]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.

I'm not struggling. No justice made that statement.

Saying something is Stare Decisis is effectively saying exactly that.

No. You don't understand the term. Stare decisis is a principal; it isn't a quality about a particular case.

stare decisis

www.law.cornell.edu

A legal principle that conservatives love unless it conflicts with their ideology. Reversing a previous decision should not be taken lightly nor reached via blatantly ideological and hypocritical grounds.

Who said they took it lightly?

I'm certain you didn't find the original Roe decision to be 'blatantly ideological'.

Your charge of hypocrisy is, of course, unevidenced.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/06/28/kavanaugh-gorsuch-roe-kagan-supreme-court/

If Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied in their confirmations, so did Kagan​

During Elena Kagan’s 2009 confirmation hearings for the office of solicitor general, Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) asked her point-blank: “Do you believe that there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage?” She replied with one sentence: “There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”
Sign up for a weekly roundup of thought-provoking ideas and debates
The following year, when President Barack Obama nominated her to become an associate justice of the Supreme Court, and conservatives tried to paint her as a guaranteed vote for same-sex marriage, her supporters pointed to this answer as proof that any concerns were unfounded. She was confirmed 63 to 37. But when she got to the high court, she voted in Obergefell v. Hodges to find that there is, in fact, a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Did Kagan lie?

No. As she explained in a March 2009 letter to then-Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.), she was simply describing the state of existing case law, which did not at the time recognize a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. “Constitutional rights are a product of constitutional text as interpreted by courts and understood by the nation’s citizenry and its elected representatives,” Kagan wrote. “By this measure, which is the best measure I know for determining whether a constitutional right exists, there is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.”

This history is worth recalling as some on the left now argue that members of the court’s conservative majority should be impeached for lying during their confirmation hearings about whether Roe v. Wade could be overturned. “Every single one of them said under oath that they would actually preserve Roe,” claimed Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.). “That is absolutely fraud, and there should be consequences.” On “Meet the Press” this past weekend, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called for a House investigation into whether Brett M. Kavanaugh and Neil M. Gorsuch should be impeached. “They lied,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “I believe lying under oath is an impeachable offense.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...isastrous-america-military-readiness/?itid=cn
In fact, none of the conservative justices promised to uphold Roe. Indeed, if they had done so — if they had promised to vote a certain way in a case in exchange for something of value, a senator’s vote — that would be an impeachable offense. It would be a serious violation of judicial ethics for a nominee to the federal bench to say how they would vote in a case before hearing the facts and evidence. As Ruth Bader Ginsburg explained during her 1993 confirmation hearings, “It would be wrong for me to say or preview in this legislative chamber how I would cast my vote on questions the Supreme Court may be called upon to decide.” Ginsburg added, “A judge sworn to decide impartially can offer no forecasts, no hints, for that would show not only disregard for the specifics of the particular case, it would display disdain for the entire judicial process.”

Of course, none of the justices did that. Kavanaugh explicitly declined to directly answer whether Roe was “correct law,” but he said, “Roe v. Wade is an important precedent of the Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed many times. … So that precedent on precedent is quite important as you think about stare decisis in this context.” Gorsuch similarly declared that Roe “is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. … So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.”

This is similar to what Kagan said during her July 2010 Supreme Court confirmation hearing, when she was asked whether she agreed that the court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago mean that the Constitution guarantees a fundamental right for an individual to own a firearm, particularly for self-defense. She replied that Heller and McDonald are “settled law” and “binding precedent entitled to all the respect of binding precedent in any case.” But last week, in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, she voted to uphold New York’s draconian gun law, which required anyone who wanted a license to carry a concealed handgun outside the home to show “proper cause” for doing so.
If Gorsuch and Kavanaugh deceived the Senate, then so did Kagan. And if Gorsuch and Kavanaugh should be impeached, then Kagan should be as well.

In fact, none of them lied — not Gorsuch, not Kavanaugh, not Kagan. It is perfectly understandable for senators to try to divine how a justice, if confirmed, would rule on a case they care about. But it would be a gross dereliction of judicial ethics for a nominee to prejudge a case or give senators any assurances of how they would decide. Which is why they all follow the “Ginsburg rule.” And there is nothing impeachable about that.

That article is comparing apples (the Roe V Wade established constitutional right of abortion) and oranges (the right to same sex marriage which had not been established). Kagan's answer was factual - at the time of the asking of it, there was no established constitutional right of same sex marriage.

So that comparison was inapt and inept.

The comparison is perfectly cromulent. When Kavanaugh said it was 'settled law', he meant exactly what he said. It was settled law and Roe had established a Constitutional right to abortion.

 

[Metaphor]

I haven't read the Dobbs decision and I am not 'defending' it. All I've said about Roe was that my non-expert understanding of it is that it seemed very legally dubious, and a product of its political times.

No, you've never said that.

Yes, I did.

But what I did not say was the Dobbs decision was 'legally correct'. But if I thought it were legally correct, I'd say 'it is legally correct'.

 

[Metaphor]

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

That is true. What is ironic is that exactly your defense for the lying SCOTUS justices .

They didn't lie, and also you don't know what irony is.

 

[Metaphor]

Model Rules of Professional Conduct - Table of Contents

Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Table of Contents with links to the rules

www.americanbar.org

Rule 8.4: Misconduct​

Share:

Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession​

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:
(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;
(b) commit a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects;
(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;
(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
(e) state or imply an ability to influence improperly a government agency or official or to achieve results by means that violate the Rules of Professional Conduct or other law;
(f) knowingly assist a judge or judicial officer in conduct that is a violation of applicable rules of judicial conduct or other law; or
(g) engage in conduct that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know is harassment or discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, gender identity, marital status or socioeconomic status in conduct related to the practice of law. This paragraph does not limit the ability of a lawyer to accept, decline or withdraw from a representation in accordance with Rule 1.16. This paragraph does not preclude legitimate advice or advocacy consistent with these Rules.

Hmmmmm...

Hmm what, exactly?

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it". If they had, they'd have violated part d) of what you have highlighted.

 

[Metaphor]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

Do you think it's reasonable legally to tell women they have no control over their medical decisions?

The Court did not 'tell' them that.

The Court said that there was no federal Constitutional right to abortion.

Abortion is an essential tool used by the medical profession for womens health and well-being.

That doesn't and can't make abortion a federal Constitutional right.

As far as errors, virtually every case cited by Alito to bolster his decision was from a time when women had no right to vote, let alone take seats on our government. Half the country, probably more than half if you include minorities, had no say in the government. Hell, he even cited a guy that sentenced women to death for witchcraft and said men have the right to rape their wives.

Are these legal errors? What makes them legal errors?

Do you believe it to be fair to bind half the country to decisions they had no say in?

I didn't say "fair" or anything like it. I said "what makes them legal errors"?

1. You are not a constitutional authority.
2. Abortion is healt care.

I don't need to be a Constitutional authority to reason that "I wish it were so" does not mean "it is so".

I don't even understand your second point. Is there a Constitutional right to health care?

Aus'splain 101

Ah yes. The desperate pulling of epistemological rank is surely the mark of somebody with principled ideas he is willing and able to defend.

 

[ZiprHead]

I haven't read the Dobbs decision and I am not 'defending' it. All I've said about Roe was that my non-expert understanding of it is that it seemed very legally dubious, and a product of its political times.

No, you've never said that.

Yes, I did.

I'm going to need a post number to believe that.

But what I did not say was the Dobbs decision was 'legally correct'. But if I thought it were legally correct, I'd say 'it is legally correct'.

It's the Supreme Court. They don't have to be "legally correct". They can just drop their turds in the punch bowl and tell the country to fuck off.