Abortion and COTUS

[steve_bank]

I do not want judicial activism on any side. The role of COTUS is to rule on the legality of laws, not decide which laws shoud be upheld because it rpresents something that should be done.


COTUS says all things not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to te states. I If I were on COTUS I would put my personal views and and say there in nothing in COTUS that gives a right to have an abortion, and until Ci ogress enacts national laws it is up to the states.

On the flip side conservatives especially the extremes chronically claim a COTUS right to act badly and refuse anything mandated by govt.

Progressive protestors and rioters in Seattle claimed a COTUS right to cause damage. COTUS gives a right to adrees govt with grievances, not cause anarchy.

 

[Swammerdami]

As a "centrist", I've always agreed with Steve's position here. The model of several states, each finding its own way, has a robustness that is sacrificed when Scotus dictates to all the states at once. If there is to be a federal mandate for Freedom of Choice it should be passed by Congress, not by judicial edict. To be clear, I AM pro-Choice. But I am also pro-Constitution.

(If I were a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, I might feel differently, but so what? Nobody can expect laws to kow-tow to their own preferences.)

Another practical reason why Roe-v-Wade was a huge mistake is that it has given the enemies of liberal democracy a huge talking point. Anger at abortion and Roe-v-Wade is a major source of votes for QOPAnon.

I do have one big concern. If Roe-v-Wade is overturned, and a girl from Alabama visits California to get an abortion, will Alabama be able to prosecute her on her return? IANAL, so won't speculate on that legal question.

 

[ZiprHead]

As a "centrist", I've always agreed with Steve's position here. The model of several states, each finding its own way, has a robustness that is sacrificed when Scotus dictates to all the states at once. If there is to be a federal mandate for Freedom of Choice it should be passed by Congress, not by judicial edict. To be clear, I AM pro-Choice. But I am also pro-Constitution.

(If I were a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, I might feel differently, but so what? Nobody can expect laws to kow-tow to their own preferences.)

Another practical reason why Roe-v-Wade was a huge mistake is that it has given the enemies of liberal democracy a huge talking point. Anger at abortion and Roe-v-Wade is a major source of votes for QOPAnon.

I do have one big concern. If Roe-v-Wade is overturned, and a girl from Alabama visits California to get an abortion, will Alabama be able to prosecute her on her return? IANAL, so won't speculate on that legal question.

I suggest you look up the constitutional reasons the SCOTUS used to come to their decision in RvW, specifically the 14th amendment.

 

[laughing dog]

The OP is confusing me. It seems to be using COTUS (Constitution Of The United States) interchangebly with SCOTUS (Supreme Court Of The United States) on a topic caused by coitus.

 

[blastula]

I do not want judicial activism on any side. The role of COTUS is to rule on the legality of law

 

[zorq]

COTUS says all things not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to te states.

Almost. It's not that simple.

Don't forget about amendment number 9.

There are powers reserved for the federal government (fully enumerated), powers reserved for the states (partially enumerated) AND powers reserved to the people (AKA Rights, partially enumerated). Row v Wade involves some of those rights reserved to the people. You can't forget about those unenumerated rights that belong to the people. The states aren't allowed to trample on the rights reserved to the people whether they have been enumerated or not.

 

[Trausti]

Mistakenly read "COITUS."

 

[Bomb#20]

I do not want judicial activism on any side. The role of COTUS is to rule on the legality of laws, not decide which laws shoud be upheld because it rpresents something that should be done.

COTUS says all things not enumerated in COTUS are relegated to te states.

If a judge made your contention it would be judicial activism in spades. It's not the role of a judge to simply declare on her own authority that part of the COTUS is a dead letter, unless there's a duly enacted amendment abolishing it. What the COTUS says is:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."​

Where the heck do you see an amendment abolishing those four little words at the end, "or to the people"?

Antiabortionists currently* want the power to determine whether a woman will carry a pregnancy to term to be reserved to the States respectively. Roe v. Wade instead reserves that power to the people.

When some specific power is not delegated to the United States, who the heck is supposed to determine whether that power is a power reserved to the States respectively, or a power reserved to the people, if not the SCOTUS? Roe v. Wade is clearly in compliance with the Tenth Amendment -- it transparently does not arrogate the disputed power to the United States.

I If I were on COTUS I would put my personal views and and say there in nothing in COTUS that gives a right to have an abortion, and until Ci ogress enacts national laws it is up to the states.

There's nothing in the COTUS that "gives" a right to anything. The COTUS recognizes certain rights; the COTUS puts us all on notice that we all have certain rights; the COTUS bans the government from violating certain rights; but our rights existed before the COTUS was enacted, and our rights are what they are whether the COTUS explicitly mentions them or not.

Obviously some people philosophically disagree with my contention on this point, but what of that? They can take their philosophy, insert it into their belly buttons, and intone "Aum". Because any judge who disputes my contention, who allows his personal viewpoint on that contention to affect his professional judgment, who fails to do his legal job and set his personal views aside, and who fails to act on the presumption that my contention is the law of the land, is engaging in judicial activism. The Ninth Amendment counts as part of the COTUS too.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."​

(* If antiabortionists ever succeed in their current goal of getting that power reserved to the States respectively, they will, almost to a man, immediately lose interest in reserving it to the States, and start campaigning for federal laws restricting abortion even in the pro-abortion States.)

ETA: zorq said it first.

 

[Swammerdami]

Regarding my own views:
(1) I support Women's Choice. If the question of abortions were up to the States instead of the Feds, I would certainly want States to pass pro-Choice laws.
(2) I believe in the stability of settled law. Whether Roe-v-Wade was correctly judged or not, it is now a precedent — the Law of the Land — and should not be overturned lightly.

My post above was to claim that the ruling in Roe-v-Wade was judicial over-reach. Yes, the Constitution ambiguously mentions "rights ... retained by the people" but what does this mean? Do the people have the right to drive when drunk? If you argue "No, drunk driving can cause injury or death" then I reply that — at least in some people's opinion — abortion causes death.

Roe-v-Wade was a MORAL judgement, and NOT a constitutional requirement. This fact isn't changed just because you agree with the morality.

 

[jonatha]

Yes, the Constitution ambiguously mentions "rights ... retained by the people" but what does this mean?

What the Supreme Court says it does...

 

[Bomb#20]

My post above was to claim that the ruling in Roe-v-Wade was judicial over-reach. Yes, the Constitution ambiguously mentions "rights ... retained by the people" but what does this mean? Do the people have the right to drive when drunk? If you argue "No, drunk driving can cause injury or death" then I reply that — at least in some people's opinion — abortion causes death.

Lots of things that can cause injury or death are constitutional rights. Keeping and bearing arms. Refusing to quarter soldiers in your home. Remaining silent when arrested. If SCOTUS judges are acting as judges and not as moralists, then what "rights retained by the people" means is that when the COTUS doesn't make explicit whether something is a right judges need to be prepared to look elsewhere for evidence of rights, because the COTUS isn't the only source of evidence. So obvious places to look are the legislative history of the COTUS, English Common Law, the English Bill of Rights, and the Bills of Rights of the original colonies. To these sources, each SCOTUS judge presumably adds others that seem legally reasonable to him or her, and what those should be is a legitimate debate on which reasonable people can differ.

Roe-v-Wade was a MORAL judgement, and NOT a constitutional requirement. This fact isn't changed just because you agree with the morality.

I don't think anyone here claimed it was a constitutional requirement; what was claimed is that Roe-v-Wade going the other way was a constitutional requirement because reserved-to-states/judicial-activism/yada-yada. That claim has been refuted. If anyone here wants to show Roe-v-Wade going the other way was a constitutional requirement for some better reason, or if anyone here wants to claim Roe-v-Wade going the way it went was a constitutional requirement, then he's going to have to dive into the nitty gritty details of the Roe-v-Wade ruling itself, and refute or justify the actual legal arguments that were made.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As a "centrist", I've always agreed with Steve's position here. The model of several states, each finding its own way, has a robustness that is sacrificed when Scotus dictates to all the states at once. If there is to be a federal mandate for Freedom of Choice it should be passed by Congress, not by judicial edict. To be clear, I AM pro-Choice. But I am also pro-Constitution.

Roe vs Wade was done because all the existing abortion laws were seriously unconstitutional, thus showing there was no legitimate state reason to ban abortion. (If there was somebody would have done it right.) They didn't want to keep whacking reincarnations of the bad laws. Unfortunately, they have had to anyway until now when we have a bunch that should be impeached. (Whatever you think of abortion, SB8 is a constitutional abomination.)

 

[laughing dog]

Roe-v-Wade was a MORAL judgement, and NOT a constitutional requirement. This fact isn't changed just because you agree with the morality.

Apparently you believe that constitutional ruling protecting a right (the right to privacy) is a moral judgment.