Collection of bad takes:

Hmmmm...Americanistan just around the corner. — Agent Smith

If the Dems do not kill the US Senate's jim/jane crow Filibuster Rule asap, then ... Welcome to Gilead. — 180 Proof

And some additional ones:

---

:up: It's amazing how many people have been propagandized into forgetting that 'the economy' just is people; instead, having watching too much CNBC, they think 'the economy' means some combination of Walmart, Amazon and Google. As if these kinds of rulings will not have massively detrimental effects on the economy in the form of healthcare, welfare payments, keeping people in poverty, and so on. The people who distinguish these things from some imaginary 'economy' have a toy concept of the economy, made by Santa Claus.

What these people mean by 'the economy is more important' is: 'the things that affect me directly are more important'.

An unfortunate reality:

1. Abortion ought be afforded to those women who choose it in certain circumstances.
2. The US Constitution doesn't speak to that right.

You can believe in 1 and 2 at the same time.

That you see the Constitution as a vehicle to justify a progressive morality, regardless of the the actual content of the text, is a political position. I'm not condemning the sentiment and an argument can be made that the harsh rule of law should be bent by those wise enough to see its injustice, but so too can an argument be made that the rule of law ought be followed and not be overturned upon subjective notions if fairness.

That is, the ruling was a reasonable result if one sincerely holds to the position that the Constitution doesn't say whatever we think it ought to say. — Hanover

Is it reasonable to believe that there is no substantive due process in the constitution?

A sure sign that something's not quite right: unhappy girls/women. They're the canary in the coal mine à la sentinel species (vide wikipedia for more).

That said, women can be as vicious as men (romance scams, etc.) and they get away with it (sometimes).

C'est la vie, c'est la vie.

it's purely political and caters only to a relatively small group of people living in the USA. — Benkei

Indeed. Although I wouldn’t say it’s a small group of people.

One doesn’t have to read the text— as I have. It’s plainly obvious what would happen, given the selection of justices. It’s not that they’re not sincere — they are, and that’s why they were selected to begin with.

The rest is just a great example of motivated reasoning. We dislike big government— so abortions must go back to the states. But gun restrictions? No— apparently states can’t restrict them. Why? Dozens of pages of legal mumbo jumbo— all of which was predictable. All you have to do is figure out who appointed the justices, and do the math.

There will be plenty of 6-3 absurdities to come. All with very “principled” and complex reasoning to justify a philosophy of life that the 6 individuals have adopted— a Christian-neoliberal one. The rest follows from that.

Imagine thinking that American fascism is the work of "a few bad actors" and not a deliberate, systemic outcome of tens of millions of Americans who simply like fascism and despise women. This is not "a few bad actors". This is who and what the US is, and it will only continue to get worse. — Streetlight

The anti-abortion agitation began in earnest when Roe vs. Wade was passed, 50 years ago. It was primarily conservative Roman Catholic for at least 30 years, but then came to include very conservative Protestants. (Conservative catholics and conservative protestants have more politics in common than liberals and conservatives within dominations.)

I'm never quite sure where conservatism fades into fascism, but rolling back abortion is another significant retrograde movement.

The anti-abortion movement has demonstrated exemplary consistent persistence--not doubt with the help of conservative Catholic hierarchy. It has been implacable.

The Court isn't finished with its agenda. Barring an outbreak of plague on the bench during liberal presidencies, we can expect to see other rulings overturned. It is quite possible that the legality of homosexual activity and gay marriage (at the federal level) will be repealed. Rulings in favor of the environment (over commerce) are also likely to be overturned. And more.

A core of conservatives have never reconciled themselves with New Deal programs, and if social security is offensive (they would like to privatize it) not much else is safe. (And it isn't just the SCOTUS we have to worry about.)

If it's silent on the point, all the more reason not to use it as a basis for literal interpretation, which is the error Anglo-Saxon lawyers keep making. They believe literal interpretations are necessary where these are woefully inadequate and then even call it the "golden rule". This is why so many decisions in the UK and the USA are divorced from justice, because literal interpretations only provide legal certainty as if justice is static and not localised and time dependent. It totally ignores context. So yes, dumb cunts on the SCOTUS.

A core of conservatives have never reconciled themselves with New Deal programs — Bitter Crank

This is what it’s all about.

Behind the culture war “issues,” guns, abortion, the environment, and even Christian beliefs — lies the absolute contempt for the “stupid and ignorant” masses. It’s a commitment to taking power “back” from the New Deal era, returning it to its proper place: to the elites.

It’s really that simple, in my view. This is all about power, and always has been. It’s not about the constitution, or consistently applied principles, or “both sides,” or the love of freedom. It’s about one group of people wanting to keep/increase their power.

Dobbs is one symptom of this, and an important one with devastating consequences. Allowing guns to proliferate so that a few manufacturers can profit off the death of children (Heller; Bruen), allowing corporations to buy elections (Citizens United), preventing any governmental action on climate change (coming soon in West Virginia v. EPA), restricting unions from collecting dues (Janus), etc etc. — all perfectly predictable if one views things from the assumption above.

If it's silent on the point, all the more reason not to use it as a basis for literal interpretation, which is the error Anglo-Saxon lawyers keep making. — Benkei

I don't understand this. If the Constitution doesn't say that States cannot establish a law against smoking then it is correct for the Supreme Court to rule that the Constitution doesn't say that States cannot establish a law against smoking, and so allow any State law against smoking to go into effect.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision Friday to strike down Roe v. Wade will help further create a single class of Texans able to terminate their pregnancies with little financial hardship: the wealthy.

Even before the ruling, a person living in Texas could expect to spend between $1,000 and $4,000 to cover the costs of obtaining a surgical abortion, shutting out all but the most financially secure residents and cutting off access to an already disadvantaged population of Texans.

[…]

Traveling out of the state or country to obtain abortion services will simply be beyond the reach of many Texans. That includes people who will find it difficult or impossible to leave the state on short notice, if at all; those working in wage-based jobs with no paid time off; those with no access to child care; those living in rural areas with no airports and few options for public transportation; teenagers with little or no parental support; and those without enough in their savings accounts to cover expenses.

Reflects what I mentioned above. Further evidence.

https://apple.news/A5WfqI89ZRU2GyhQmpDHSOg

You're not attacking SCOTUS specifically, but Anglo rules of construction generally, calling all who inherited the great traditions of the Kings and Queens of old (the UK, Ireland, Australia, Canada, the US, and I'm sure others) cunts. That's a lot of cunt. The better (or shall I say best) part of the Western world weeps at the insult

Since the document was written by Anglos for Anglos with full understanding of how Anglos would be expected to interpret it, doesn't it make sense that that be how it should be interpreted?

If it were meant to be interpreted broadly with an eye toward evolving standards, wouldn't a good Anglo analytical cunt just have written that into the document? It's not that Anglos can't behave like the well mannered Dutch, they just insist upon those rules be more plainly stated.

it reasonable to believe that there is no substantive due process in the constitution? — Michael

Yes, that is reasonable. The only way we arrive at these unspoken rules (like the right to have an abortion) is through a biblical sort of sensus plenior exegesis upon a fairly limited document. If 100 otherwise uninitiated interpreters were asked if abortion were protected under the US Constitution, I can't imagine anyone would write an opinion remotely close to Roe v. Wade, especially with regard to trimester framework described in it.

But even if I grant you that substantive due process is reasonable, that doesn't negate the reasonableness of those who reject it, but you're instead left with a reasonable disagreement, although few describe the dispute in that way.

I'm sorry you don't like reality, but closing your eyes to it — Streetlight

The irony...

Yes, that is reasonable. The only way we arrive at these unspoken rules (like the right to have an abortion) is through a biblical sort of sensus plenior exegesis upon a fairly limited document. If 100 otherwise uninitiated interpreters were asked if abortion were protected under the US Constitution, I can't imagine anyone would write an opinion remotely close to Roe v. Wade, especially with regard to trimester framework described in it.

But even if I grant you that substantive due process is reasonable, that doesn't negate the reasonableness of those who reject it, but you're instead left with a reasonable disagreement, although few describe the dispute in that way. — Hanover

Well, the Ninth Amendment does say "the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people" and was explicitly adopted because there was the concern that without it it would be interpreted that only enumerated rights were rights. So with that in mind it seems unreasonable to deny substantive due process, a view shared by Justice Goldberg:

While the Ninth Amendment – and indeed the entire Bill of Rights – originally concerned restrictions upon federal power, the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the States as well from abridging fundamental personal liberties. And, the Ninth Amendment, in indicating that not all such liberties are specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments, is surely relevant in showing the existence of other fundamental personal rights, now protected from state, as well as federal, infringement. In sum, the Ninth Amendment simply lends strong support to the view that the "liberty" protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments from infringement by the Federal Government or the States is not restricted to rights specifically mentioned in the first eight amendments. — Griswold v. Connecticut

. It’s a commitment to taking power “back” from the New Deal era, returning it to its proper place: to the elites. — Xtrix

Since when have the elites not had the power?

Don't know enough about the legalities...

The Missouri law, which provides no exception for rape or incest, classifies the act of inducing an abortion as a class B felony, meaning it could result in a five- to 15-year prison sentence. It applies to abortion providers, though it’s unclear whether someone could be prosecuted for using abortion-inducing medications, per the NPR station. — Republican-run US states move to immediately ban abortion after court overturns Roe v Wade (Jun 24, 2022)

It's "a monumental day for" regressive conservatism, religious sentiments being imposed upon others apparently, no mention of sober bioethics either.

Since when have the elites not had the power? — ssu

Never.

Never. — Xtrix

Exactly.

And the real problem is that these elites don't even change so much.

It's "a monumental day for" regressive conservatism, religious sentiments being imposed upon others apparently, no mention of sober bioethics either. — jorndoe

I wonder what the reaction would have been if a Republican would be in the White House.

Exactly. — ssu

Hence “back” in quotation marks. They believe they lost power during the New Deal era, and were under threat in the 60s. There’s some truth in that.

literal interpretation, which is the error Anglo-Saxon lawyers keep making. They believe literal interpretations are necessary where these are woefully inadequate and then even call it the "golden rule". This is why so many decisions in the UK and the USA are divorced from justice, because literal interpretations only provide legal certainty as if justice is static and not localised and time dependent. It totally ignores context. So yes, dumb cunts on the SCOTUS. — Benkei

:100:

They believe they lost power during the New Deal era, and were under threat in the 60s. There’s some truth in that. — Xtrix

Some, but only partly.

I think the problem is that there's a huge difference in the actual policies and objectives which one side has and what the other side portrays these objectives to be. Just "who" these people are is a genuine question as people just love the stereotypes they create of "the other" as the enemy.

The Court has previously held that the unenumerated rights have to be "deeply rooted in the nation's history."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_v._Glucksberg

This was a 1997 case where the Court unanimously held that physician assisted suicide was not a protected right.

The problem with unenumerated rights is in deciding what they are, and this standard by the Court in Glucksberg is the one previously unanimously accepted.

The current Court does not believe abortion to satisfy the Glucksberg standard. While you may disagree, how is the decision patently unreasonable? Just because you don't like the result?

The problem with unenumerated rights is in deciding what they are — Hanover

I’m addressing your claim that one can believe that one ought allow for abortion and that the Constitution does not grant that right. If it is unreasonable to believe that the Constitution does not grant unenumerated rights, i.e rights that are “fundamental”, and if one believes that one ought be allowed to have an abortion, then it is unreasonable to believe that the Constitution does not grant the right to an abortion.

Unless by “one ought be allowed an abortion” you mean something other than “there is a fundamental right to abortion”?

IME, in light of this last week of wingnut rulings from SCOTUS, Biden and the Dems have no choice but to take these "emergency" actions asap (no later than August 1st, 2022) in the following sequence:

1A. By Executive Order of POTUS, issue permits to set up mobile abortion clinics on easily accessible federal lands in all states where abortion and abortion services are outlawed.

1B. CIC orders all miilitary bases, accessible to civilians, located in states where abortion and abortion services are outlawed, to immediately set up, within base hospital facilities, secure abortion clinics to be staffed by civilian abortion providers and open to both civilians and military personnel seeking reproductive healthcare.

2. Kill the US Senate's jim/jane crow Filibuster Rule.

3. Pass the Judiciary Act of 2021 which expands SCOTUS by four or more justices.

I think this achievable list constitutes a reasonable criterion by which to judge the political will and governing competence of POTUS and the Congressional Democratic Leadership. Are they antifascists or fucking collaborators?

@Maw @Hanover @Ciceronianus @Bitter Crank ... :chin:

Some, but only partly. — ssu

This is saying very little.

What I mentioned has been fairly well studied. When concentrations of power feel threatened, you bet there will be some changes. See Harvey, Brown, Chang, Gerstle, etc.

Just "who" these people are is a genuine question as people just love the stereotypes they create of "the other" as the enemy. — ssu

I’m not stereotyping, nor do I consider the ruling class enemies.

Odd that this is your knee-jerk reaction.

If the 2014 age-specific abortion rates prevail, 24% of women aged 15 to 44 years in that year will have an abortion by age 45 years

Wow, that’s actually a lot more people having abortions than I would have expected. Pretty surprising to me.

1. Abortion ought be afforded to those women who choose it in certain circumstances.
2. The US Constitution doesn't speak to that right.
You can believe in 1 and 2 at the same time.

This is how I see it as well. The Supreme Court isn’t explicitly “restricting” abortion rights by overturning Roe v Wade (although this is the effect of allow states to make their own laws). Politically and legally, it comes down to peoples’ belief in how rigid or flexible the constitution “should be” in making or enforcing law on a federal level. Not only do we want the laws to reflect our opinion, but we also want the justification to be sound as well, as this sets a legal precedent for further laws and decisions.

In the evangelical community, those who take a very literal interpretation of the Bible may also take a very literal and textual interpretation of the constitution.

However, an “elastic” constitution that is open to more interpretation means it is easy to bend when liberals *or* conservatives have a majority in the senate, Supreme Court, etc. A more rigid or literal one may be more difficult to amend and take more legal “inertia” to make changes, potentially keeping things from swinging far left or right too quickly, but also delaying quick reactions to changing technology or loopholes.

For instance, if the liberty clause allows the federal government to use the 14th amendment to restrict states’ rights blocking abortion, then could a conservative senate majority use the 14th amendment to impose a federal ban on abortion because it restricts the unborn baby’s right to liberty or life in the constitution?

Excellent! Do it immediately. This would, of course, require all the necessary actors having enough balls to do it. 2 & 3 will require a few more progressives in the Senate. Memo to progressive voters: You'd better vote. It would help to have a batch of the paleoconservative troglodytes subject to post-natal abortions.

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades.

The bad news: More mouths to feed.
The good news: More consumers translates to a stronger economy.

Doctors in Alabama Already Turn Away Miscarrying Patients. This Will Be America’s New Normal. (May 17, 2022)

Whiff of fascism.

I think this achievable list constitutes a reasonable criterion by which to judge the political will and governing competence of POTUS and the Congressional Democratic Leadership. Are they antifascists or fucking collaborators? — 180 Proof

You really think this is an open question?

With Roe vs. Wade squashed, we should expect a population explosion in the US in the coming few decades. — Agent Smith

Between the defunding of social security, healthcare, daily mass shootings, and uncontrolled climate change (all Republican priorities), I kind of doubt that.