The Dobbs majority, contrary to your assertion, invoked historical evidence to sufficiently arrive at a historical meaning contrary to Roe.
Did they though? Again, via hyper-technicality, they created an argument. Great. So did the Liberals. Had the Liberals had the majority, that would be law. Having a partisan majority is relevant to legal interpretation, but that doesn't mean the argument is sound (see every decision that has been reversed). In a more meaningful way, looking more broadly, the question is 'is a woman privy to herself?' Where does the line of Government intrusion into her life no longer violate the implied Constitutional right to privacy. You can't get blood from a person without a warrant! Yet, somehow, I'm supposed to rise and provide grand applause to a hyper-technical argument that somehow implies that a woman has no right to treat herself as she deems reasonable? If the state can't take my blood without due cause, how in the hell is logical to say a state can enforce my wife to endure pregnancy and give birth, with all of the consequences involved... without relying on pretzel logic? Having personally given a blood sample and observed my wife's pregnancy and daughter's birth, I can easily conclude which one was more involved.
In judicial review, interpretation of the law must make sense. It is contradictory to suggest invading the privacy of someone to take their blood is more invasive that forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and birth...
not without first legally recognizing there is a third party involved, which was not done in Dobbs. It makes no sense! So again, the Roberts court took something that was working and broke it.... and broke it in a manner so brazenly offensive, as not to draw up boundary lines, letting the states try to figure it out for themselves, all the while Thomas was fantasizing about Obergfell and Griswold.
Are you familiar with the Lawrence v Texas decision? This case ignored years of its own precedent, decades of its own precedent, to recognize a privacy interest within the Liberty Clause of the 14th Amendment DPC. See opinion here
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html
The Lawrence decision fits within your parameter of “creative writing exercise and a rather poor look into history” as it overturned a 17 year old precedent of Bowers v Hardwick. Based upon your parameters there’s a reasonable expectation you’ll have similar derision for the disdain for the “breaking of Precedence like it didn’t mean anything.”
Again, this is an issue of you being under the illusion that constitutional law is objective. I care what is right. Adherence to constitutional law is important, but such an adherence can not be an excuse to violate people's rights. Justices O'Conner and Kennedy were conservative as all heck, but they understood the importance of rights.
This isn’t to deny SCOTUS conservatives as “partisan hacks” as I can’t show such a negative. However, these decisions do not demonstrate “partisan hacks” as at least two of those decisions you reference have a reasonably sound foundation within the text and meaning of the law(s). In other words, they reached a meaning/interpretation of the law consistent and in adherence to discovering and discerning what the law says. As opposed to a meaning and interpretation not supported by the plain text and historical understanding and conjured within the mind of a justice and inspired/conceived because of their own personal/political/ideological beliefs.
They are meddling with laws that were working and functional, for partisan reasons, because they (and their benefactors) wanted it that way. SCOTUS's job is to see to unresolvable constitutional questions and issues. This court is just paving the road with the wish list of The Heritage Foundation.
I get that my response is soft on Judicial citations, but as I explained, the subjective nature of Constitutional Law really makes those things less important than the broader application of oversight on Constitutional Law. Again, I thank you for your reply as it was stuffed with content and observations that were worth reading.
Not much of that coming from those supporting this court these days.
I would not construe my position as “supporting this court these days.” Rather, I’m addressing the underlying issue of the Court is partisan based upon a facile reason, dislike or disagreement with the Court rulings, yourself ostensibly excluded. Given the paucity of substantive replies, indeed the prominent nonsense replies, speaks for itself.
Yeah, here is the thing, unlike yourself, I'm not under the illusion that Constitutional Law is remotely objective. We wouldn't need SCOTUS otherwise. The nine Supreme Court justices are obscenely skilled and could successfully argue that a cat was actually a dog in court.
Textual interpretation, whether the Septuagint, Dead Sea Scrolls, Plato’s “Republic” in original Greek, “Best Poor Man’s Country” by Lemon, “God, Evil, and Free Will” by Plantinga, a statute, a novel, are amenable to the same practices of interpretation, some utilized daily, such as plain text meaning.
Plain text meaning, the words of a text are paramount, what the words express and/or what they convey, including contextual definitions, their definitions from common usage as revealed in a dictionary, etc, is what the words mean. Words do have a limited range of meaning, rendering highly capable the efficient communication of a message, prose, writing, speech, etcetera.
The Constitution is amenable to the same practices of interpretation. We can read various provisions and understand a meaning: 1.) “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” A rebellion or invasion and public safety is necessary to suspend the Writ of Habeas Corpus. 2.) “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,” Every 2 years those in the HOR are required to again be “chosen” for another 2 years and election of a new person every two years for those not presenting themselves to be “chosen.”
Of course, I do not suggest the entire exercise of reading and interpreting the Constitution is so easy was cave man can do it. A definition or concept of what words and phrases mean or reference is at times required to interpret the Constitution.
“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
What does “rebellion” mean? What does “rebellion”‘reference? What does “Invasion” mean? What does invasion reference?
Again, words have a limited range of meaning. The words “Invasion” and “Rebellion” were defined at the time the Constitution was composed and ratified. I’m not merely referring to dictionary meanings of the era, but the writings of people of the era revealing how they used those words, writings discussing what those words mean, debates, writings of this provision, writings and debates at the ratification conventions, etcetera, along with the legal meanings.
This process revealed the word “speech” in 1790 didn’t include libel, slander, illuminating for us today what isn’t protected by the Free Speech Clause. The phrase “due process of law” enjoys a long history of legal writing, from England, the colonial U.S., and subsequently U.S. jurisprudence, or inform us the phrase regarded procedural protections.
Now, I have no pretense this is a scientific method. However, it is a method closer to any semblance of objectivity in relation to another approach of making up meanings for the words or redefining words. It is said for those Senate laws/edicts Nero disfavored he would affix them to the top of the posts in the Roman Forum. The point being no or only the very few can know what is in the law or what the law says or protects since the law is practically concealed, much like an interpretative method of redefining words or new meanings.
The approach of making up meanings or redefining contravenes a characteristic of placing the law into writing, to reasonably fix rights, obligations, privileges, in the law, thereby protecting those rights, privileges, and announcing obligations etc. the Free Speech Clause offers illusory protection where its meaning isn’t fixed in the written law and subject to a redefining the phrase to protect nothing, or a new meaning that protects nothing.
Otherwise, absent any such notion there is a meaning that existed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified, all the rebukes here are vacuous, as fhe allegations of partisan Court is then based upon their partisan beliefs that are contrary to the opinions.That is very well true, but it is so vacuous that renders it meaningless. As you concede, there is no "scientific method" for this and when one is interpolating and extrapolating the writings of people from centuries ago, it feels quite absurd to suggest strict adherence to textual interpretation. Trying to create a rigid guide on regulatory management of crypto currency based on the writings of James Madison seems impossible. There are ways to observe and judge by it, but like I said, these SCOTUS justices can argue a dog is a cat in the court, and another justice could prove the "cat" was actually moose on appeal. So we get back to the issue of objectivity in law, it doesn't exist. The mountain of SCOTUS judicial review proves it.
