Can the SCOTUS actually create new law?

[TommyLucchese]

@FreeAndClear

Blackmun. The right to privacy is a rational cogent argument. I understand that many disagree with it.

Substantive due process is a tricky argument to make though.

[BillBrown]

@FreeAndClear

That would be Brown v. Board of Ed. Roe has its basis in the right to privacy.

Which does not exist in the constitution. And how would privacy = abortion?
If I beat my wife to death is that protected under the right to privacy?

[Samm]

@Guilds

I understand that.

If Roe Wade (or Casey) is overturned, and states can decide for themselves,
Safe abortions, performed by professionals, will most likely be banned in those states.

(meaning those with the means will always be able to get an abortion, those w/out the means, are screwed. (pun intended)

Only if the people in those (unnamed) States wish abortion to be banned. And that is very unlikely … even most people who are personally against abortion, do not want it to be abolished. Most likely what would happen is that first trimester abortion would still be readily available in those States, but second and third trimester abortion would become severely restricted. Only if the SCOTUS ruled that human rights begin in the womb would abortion be criminalized as murder.

[Safiel]

@TommyLucchese

@Bill.in.PA

The Supreme Court continually makes new laws. Roe v. Wade and other rulings created new law based on what a majority of justices decided based on alleged rights not found in the constitution. The ruling mandating government recognition of same-sex marriage is another example.

These ruling can be reversed by a similar majority. Reversing Roe v Wade would mean that abortion regulations would return to being a matter for states to decide. Some may ban abortions, others may do nothing.

Except with Casey, the majority opinion had already been written Scalia before O’Connor and Kennedy switched their votes and it banned abortion nationally.

You guys are just praying that’s how it’ll work out with nothing to back it up.

It would have done no such thing.

Scalia starts out his dissent in Planned Parenthood v Casey thus:

The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so.

Scalia certainly had no intention of writing an opinion banning abortion nationally. He simply would have sent the issue back to the States to decide for themselves.

[Plasmaball]

Lol…sigh sadly you are serious…

[Samson_Corwell]

@Guilds

A handful of cases over the last 30+ years, determined by the SCOTUS, made the legal claim that corporations are persons like us, blending the prior distinction of corps being “artificial” persons, into breathing living persons, enjoying the rights dictated in the Bill of Rights and the amendments.

They also concluded, money is equal to speech. Giving wealthy individuals and corps, thru various means, to literally have a lot more speech than the average person.

Hence, why now the legislative and election process is now for sale to the highest bidder.

We are no longer a democracy or republic. We are an oligarchy.

Thanks conservative members of the SCOTUS!

This could be rectified by an amendment, simply stating corporations are not people, and money is not speech.

But that would return us to a democratic republic. Conservatives are generally not in favor of that happening.

An amendment that says “money is not speech” would not achieve what you want.

[Samson_Corwell]

@FreeAndClear

Blackmun. The right to privacy is a rational cogent argument. I understand that many disagree with it.

The “liberty” part of the Fourteenth Amendment makes more sense as a justification.

[Eagle-Keeper]

High school was a quite a long time ago

[Guilds]

Please elaborate.

[Samson_Corwell]

If an Amendment to the United States Constitution that says “money is not speech” were to be passed, the effect of Citizens United would remain in effect. “Money is not speech” is not a construction that would have an effect on it because what was overturned was a prohibition on showing a politucally expressive film.

[Samson_Corwell]

Every legal decision is political, without exception.

[Guilds]

It is not just citizens United. There have been several cases that have made this abhorrent rulings.
However,
Doing a quick search on CU:

@Samson_Corwell

If an Amendment to the United States Constitution that says “money is not speech” were to be passed, the effect of Citizens United would remain in effect. “Money is not speech” is not a construction that would have an effect on it because what was overturned was a prohibition on showing a politucally expressive film.

Do you disagree with that?

Also, there is an entire movement dealing with this issue.

Move to Amend

[Guilds]

@Guilds

If an Amendment to the United States Constitution that says “money is not speech” were to be passed, the effect of Citizens United would remain in effect. “Money is not speech” is not a construction that would have an effect on it because what was overturned was a prohibition on showing a politucally expressive film.

That was odd…did not post correctly.

I’ll try again:

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections.

[gooddad409]

@Guilds

Roberts is doing a bang up job deciding in favor of corporations over people, nearly every time.
just as Gorsich is doing now.

You guys fight to get abortion made illegal, as they screw you in every other economic matter.

(FYI, abortion with never be banned. Only safe, legal abortion can be banned)

The lives of those babies are far more important than money.

[gooddad409]

@BillBrown

@FreeAndClear

That would be Brown v. Board of Ed. Roe has its basis in the right to privacy.

Which does not exist in the constitution. And how would privacy = abortion?
If I beat my wife to death is that protected under the right to privacy?

Yeah I don’t get where “privacy” includes the right to kill one’s unborn child.

[Guilds]

Do you really think if abortion is banned, abortions will stop?

In states to do ban them, (and some will), safe abortion, by trained professionals will be banned.

And of course, in those states, those with the means ($$$) will easily get their abortions.

I believe you have stated in the past being a Christian.
What is your opinion of Israel not only allowing abortion, but the state paying for it if necessary?

[gooddad409]

@Guilds

Do you really think if abortion is banned, abortions will stop?

In states to do ban them, (and some will), safe abortion, by trained professionals will be banned.

And of course, in those states, those with the means ($$$) will easily get their abortions.

I believe you have stated in the past being a Christian.
What is your opinion of Israel not only allowing abortion, but the state paying for it if necessary?

I think less abortions will be performed. Every life saved is worth it!

Israel? If that is what they are doing then I disapprove just like I do with the US doing it.

[Guilds]

@gooddad409

I think less abortions will be performed. Every life saved is worth it!

Israel? If that is what they are doing then I disapprove just like I do with the US doing it.

What logic did you use to to “think” that?
Are you for more Birth Control and effective sex ed being taught, to decrease unwanted pregnancies?

I am surprised you are unaware of how Israel handles abortion.

[dantes]

The Republican platform definitely puts money before the welfare of children.

[gooddad409]

@Guilds

@gooddad409

I think less abortions will be performed. Every life saved is worth it!

Israel? If that is what they are doing then I disapprove just like I do with the US doing it.

What logic did you use to to “think” that?
Are you for more Birth Control and effective sex ed being taught, to decrease unwanted pregnancies?

I am surprised you are unaware of how Israel handles abortion.

What logic? Common sense. Some people just aren’t going to travel to other states to have their child killed.

You know that.