This is a completely spurious argument "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It obviously did take a right away. It declared that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion. So on the face of it is false.
The intended meaning, that this right was not given up, but that "this is literally Power to the People." The …
This is a completely spurious argument "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It obviously did take a right away. It declared that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion. So on the face of it is false.
The intended meaning, that this right was not given up, but that "this is literally Power to the People." The incorrect idea here is that the exposing a right to democracy means the right is not taken away. However, this is not what a right is. A Constitutional right is meant to *prevent* the tyranny of the majority from removing our freedoms. Exposing a right to the tyranny of the majority can result in the loss of that right.
One role of the Supreme Court is to protect these rights from laws and the application of laws in such a way that the use the power of representative majorities to remove these rights from individuals. They have abdicated their duty in this case.
You don’t make a persuasive argument. There is no such enumerated right in the Constitution. Perhaps one can argue it is an unenumerated right. One can also argue that there is not, which is what the SCOTUS just determined. If you want there be such an explicit right, there is a well established procedure for amending the Constitution. This is a fact, not my opinion.
Probably not as well as I should have, apologies. I still feel it’s fair to conclude that Dobbs did “take away” an unenumerated established by Roe. Obviously each side feels the other was wrong. But as a legal matter, Dobbs did cause a legal right to cease to exist.
No worries. And I don't want to get caught up debating words, but, I have read a lot on this issue, from lawyers, some of them constitutional lawyers, and 1) the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); and 2) the new Dobbs decision is much more sound. So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right, then the next option, if there is enough support, is an amendment to the Constitution, which we know how to do.
> the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); the new Dobbs decision is much more sound.
This is irrelevant to whether people had that right. There are a lot of poorly worded parts of the Constitution and case law, the rights still exist from both de facto and de jure perspectives.
> So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right,
It is obviously an unenumerated right, in the sense that it is right people can have and did have, even if it is not judged to be a right that is protected by the Constitution. Rights and Constitutional Rights are very different things. You seems to be making a false equivalence between the two. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization entirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.
I mean, I’ve certainly read many legal scholars who don’t think Dobbs was well-reasoned either ;) But I agree that if a vast majority of Americans feel that medical privacy or bodily autonomy are rights worth enumerating, then we should do it. And I admit that a significant minority do not feel those are rights.
Well, be careful with blanket statements. For example, it is also true (if polls are to be believed), that a vast majority of Americans do not think a later term abortion should be legal. So then this implies there is in fact a variety of views on exactly what length of term, circumstances (e.g., rape), etc. Which is why we have a federal system. Better to grapple with it at the state level than try to come up with a one-size-fits-all Constitutional mandate. But, as I have already stated, people should feel free to do the hard work do enact such an amendment if they feel strongly. Funny, though how so many folks these days don't actually want to put in hard work, including our US Senators and Representatives!
I agree, I’m personally I’m ok with a federalist solution, though I generally favor constitutional or federal-level protections for minority populations whose interests are not always protected when put up for a vote. Personally I feel that includes both women who are of childbearing age AND post-viability unborn children. But I’m one of those people in the middle on this one. But it still feels like there’s some sort of unenumerated right about controlling your body so long as you don’t endanger others. Million dollar question, of course, is if/when a fetus qualifies as an “other”…. Anyway thanks for the dialogue. I do appreciate that FAIR prioritizes respect and listening.
And Marie, you are right - philosophically, this does boil down to whether a fetus qualifies as a separate being with the right to live, which alas is not a factual matter which can be objectively proven, but a judgement call or opinion.
The constitution doesn't mention women. Women could not vote in eighteenth- century America. In practice, tolerance for abortion was much higher than it is now. See Leslie J. Rogan's book, When Abortion was a Crime
Which argument? My primary point, that the author was incorrect to state "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It took away de facto rights. People that had that right no longer do. It took away de jure rights, because the interpretation of the law was changed. In either sense, you offer nothing to defend the author's statement.
Furthermore, my secondary point was that exposing a right to democratic process can result in the loss of a right. You offer nothing to contradict that.
You are confusing the idea that the de jure interpretation has changed with the idea that the right itself never existed.
This is a completely spurious argument "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It obviously did take a right away. It declared that there was no Constitutional right to an abortion. So on the face of it is false.
The intended meaning, that this right was not given up, but that "this is literally Power to the People." The incorrect idea here is that the exposing a right to democracy means the right is not taken away. However, this is not what a right is. A Constitutional right is meant to *prevent* the tyranny of the majority from removing our freedoms. Exposing a right to the tyranny of the majority can result in the loss of that right.
One role of the Supreme Court is to protect these rights from laws and the application of laws in such a way that the use the power of representative majorities to remove these rights from individuals. They have abdicated their duty in this case.
You don’t make a persuasive argument. There is no such enumerated right in the Constitution. Perhaps one can argue it is an unenumerated right. One can also argue that there is not, which is what the SCOTUS just determined. If you want there be such an explicit right, there is a well established procedure for amending the Constitution. This is a fact, not my opinion.
The Ninth Amendment explicitly states that rights do not have to be enumerated to exist. https://www.wsj.com/articles/abortion-constitution-dobbs-roe-ninth-amendment-framers-bill-of-rights-11657136465
Did you read my full comment?
Probably not as well as I should have, apologies. I still feel it’s fair to conclude that Dobbs did “take away” an unenumerated established by Roe. Obviously each side feels the other was wrong. But as a legal matter, Dobbs did cause a legal right to cease to exist.
No worries. And I don't want to get caught up debating words, but, I have read a lot on this issue, from lawyers, some of them constitutional lawyers, and 1) the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); and 2) the new Dobbs decision is much more sound. So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right, then the next option, if there is enough support, is an amendment to the Constitution, which we know how to do.
> the original Roe decision was not a well-reasoned, well-supported decision (even RBG said it was poor); the new Dobbs decision is much more sound.
This is irrelevant to whether people had that right. There are a lot of poorly worded parts of the Constitution and case law, the rights still exist from both de facto and de jure perspectives.
> So, given that is is far from a "slam-dunk" that abortion is an unenumerated right,
It is obviously an unenumerated right, in the sense that it is right people can have and did have, even if it is not judged to be a right that is protected by the Constitution. Rights and Constitutional Rights are very different things. You seems to be making a false equivalence between the two. Alito's opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization entirely fails to grapple with this necessary question.
I mean, I’ve certainly read many legal scholars who don’t think Dobbs was well-reasoned either ;) But I agree that if a vast majority of Americans feel that medical privacy or bodily autonomy are rights worth enumerating, then we should do it. And I admit that a significant minority do not feel those are rights.
Well, be careful with blanket statements. For example, it is also true (if polls are to be believed), that a vast majority of Americans do not think a later term abortion should be legal. So then this implies there is in fact a variety of views on exactly what length of term, circumstances (e.g., rape), etc. Which is why we have a federal system. Better to grapple with it at the state level than try to come up with a one-size-fits-all Constitutional mandate. But, as I have already stated, people should feel free to do the hard work do enact such an amendment if they feel strongly. Funny, though how so many folks these days don't actually want to put in hard work, including our US Senators and Representatives!
I agree, I’m personally I’m ok with a federalist solution, though I generally favor constitutional or federal-level protections for minority populations whose interests are not always protected when put up for a vote. Personally I feel that includes both women who are of childbearing age AND post-viability unborn children. But I’m one of those people in the middle on this one. But it still feels like there’s some sort of unenumerated right about controlling your body so long as you don’t endanger others. Million dollar question, of course, is if/when a fetus qualifies as an “other”…. Anyway thanks for the dialogue. I do appreciate that FAIR prioritizes respect and listening.
Thanks to both of you for this discussion.
And Marie, you are right - philosophically, this does boil down to whether a fetus qualifies as a separate being with the right to live, which alas is not a factual matter which can be objectively proven, but a judgement call or opinion.
The constitution doesn't mention women. Women could not vote in eighteenth- century America. In practice, tolerance for abortion was much higher than it is now. See Leslie J. Rogan's book, When Abortion was a Crime
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520387416/when-abortion-was-a-crime
Does the constitution mention men?
See this interesting commentary: https://www.thoughtco.com/constitution-sex-discrimination-3529459
You might say the constitution presumes men.
Which argument? My primary point, that the author was incorrect to state "The Dobbs ruling on abortion didn't take rights away". It took away de facto rights. People that had that right no longer do. It took away de jure rights, because the interpretation of the law was changed. In either sense, you offer nothing to defend the author's statement.
Furthermore, my secondary point was that exposing a right to democratic process can result in the loss of a right. You offer nothing to contradict that.
You are confusing the idea that the de jure interpretation has changed with the idea that the right itself never existed.