SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[John Dule]

The legally correct result, sadly enough.

[John Dule]

Absolutely horrendous, and the Court has just surrendered its last ounce of legitimacy.

Name the provision of the constitution where it guarantees abortion rights

Why are you challenging me to elaborate on an argument I didn't make?

Well, that would be the only relevant, legitimate argument for your case.

[John Dule]

The legally correct result, sadly enough.

With all due respect, if you really believe this then you simply have no idea what you’re talking about.

Yeah, yeah, I know. The Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, which in turn guarantees the right to abortion. The First Amendment doesn't give you the right to shout "fire" in a crowded theater. The Second Amendment only applies to militias. The Commerce Clause means Congress can regulate family farms on private property, as well as the consumption of marijuana. Forgive me for questioning a century of wise and well-reasoned jurisprudence.

[John Dule]

Absolutely horrendous, and the Court has just surrendered its last ounce of legitimacy.

Name the provision of the constitution where it guarantees abortion rights

Why are you challenging me to elaborate on an argument I didn't make?

Well, that would be the only relevant, legitimate argument for your case.

For the record I do believe there is a constitutional right to an abortion, but when I said "legitimacy" I meant that this decision was motivated by political belief rather than jurisprudence, which is made abundantly clear when reading through the draft.

True, though it just so happens that here Alito's bias and prejudice accidentally led him to the correct conclusion.

[John Dule]

(The constitutionality of this is a separate debate, which I'm more than happy to have with you in DMs so we don't clutter this page.)

Even if you agree with the legal outcome, wouldn't you agree that Alito's motivations here at least make this ruling somewhat illegitimate? What happens when he uses his bias and prejudice to make a ruling you think is unconstitutional? Him "getting it right" (which as I said I don't agree with) doesn't make the outcome less illegitimate. 

I will not defend Alito-- or for that matter, any Justice in the past fifty years. They are all slaves to bias and prejudice, as is evidenced by the fact that they so conveniently manage to find new legal rules and reasoning to justify the precise outcomes they desire. The true measure of a principled person is whether he is willing to follow the law even when it goes against his own policy goals (see: Barry Goldwater).

I only defended the legality of the outcome here. If this opinion is illegitimate on the grounds you name, then it stands to reason that Roe was illegitimate for the same reasons.

[John Dule]

I am a big believer in the 10th Amendment and I would love to see someone argue that I am a theocrat or an enabler of theocracy.

[John Dule]

I am a big believer in the 10th Amendment and I would love to see someone argue that I am a theocrat or an enabler of theocracy.

You’re not a theocrat, you just don’t know what you’re talking about with respect to this issue, legally speaking.

I'm not interested in the legal analysis of anyone who opposes overturning West Coast Hotel v. Parrish.

[John Dule]

Another reason to support this decision: I am currently in my first week of finals, and my class groupchat is blowing up with people saying they're going to protests. While my fellow students are picketing, I shall be finishing my Administrative Law outline. Alito just gave me a big chance to wreck the curve.

[John Dule]

Oh my god, stop with the stupid semantic arguments about human beings. A fetus is a human life in an extremely early stage of development. Only a fool would deny that. The issue is whether or not we want the government legislating away women's bodily autonomy over an unviable fetus.

We're well on the way to conservative legislation that requires police-state oversight of all female behavior during pregnancy, all in the name of making sure the fetus is preserved. If you care about individual rights and liberties (which we all know conservatives don't) then this is terrible news.

If that's the first argument, then the second argument is whether the best way to protect this right is by (A) Passing a Constitutional amendment or other federal law, or (B) Having five unelected elderly people in robes read a 250-year-old document in such a way so as to construe a nonexistent right and then hope that five other unelected elderly people in robes don't someday decide otherwise. I know which approach I prefer.

[John Dule]

Oh my god, stop with the stupid semantic arguments about human beings. A fetus is a human life in an extremely early stage of development. Only a fool would deny that. The issue is whether or not we want the government legislating away women's bodily autonomy over an unviable fetus.

We're well on the way to conservative legislation that requires police-state oversight of all female behavior during pregnancy, all in the name of making sure the fetus is preserved. If you care about individual rights and liberties (which we all know conservatives don't) then this is terrible news.

If that's the first argument, then the second argument is whether the best way to protect this right is by (A) Passing a Constitutional amendment or other federal law, or (B) Having five unelected elderly people in robes read a 250-year-old document in such a way so as to construe a nonexistent right and then hope that five other unelected elderly people in robes don't someday decide otherwise. I know which approach I prefer.

Hopefully this cause outweighs your desire to ban circumcision or religious child-rearing.

I have no interest in using the power of the federal government to ban such things. Those would be unconstitutional.

[John Dule]

Breaking:

CJ roberts released statement verifying document as authentic

BUT AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT

IT IS NOT FINAL DECISION OF COURT, MERELY A ROUTINE DRAFT

he also directs marshal to conduct leak investigation

[John Dule]

2. This is actually legally terrible. Contrary to popular belief, Roe's legal basis is solid. This is the exact sort of thing that a majoritarian legislature *shouldn't* have the right to weigh in on. The commerce clause is also fine, Dule.

If you want to convince me that Roe is legally sound, trying to also justify the Commerce Clause jurisprudence of the past 100 years is not the way to do it.

[John Dule]

Jesus Christ, just say "people". "Birthing bodies" appeals to no one.

Or just say women.

That wouldn't be inclusive to trans men or AFAB non-binary people.

Oh damn well. We're gonna have to sacrifice a tad bit of inclusivity to properly message this very important, winning issue.

And throw AFAB, genderqueer, gender non-binary, gender non-conforming, genderfluid, enbie, AQUA, alloromantic, androgynous, trans, omniromantic/omnisexual, pansexual, polygender, varioriented, questioning, intersex, homoflexible, genderpivoting, MOGWAI, dwarven, quasi-dysphoratic, transnivorous, queer-pending, homonutritious, TUNA, TERF, neurosexual, lesbionic, spectraromantic, furkin, and TANSTAAFL people under the bus?!?! No way, Josx̄!

[John Dule]

I swear this site has a obnoxious pocket of posters with a deeply unhealthy distain for trans people.

did you mean Republicans

I agree, this site does have an unhealthy disdain for Republicans.

[John Dule]

I'm not saying there's a huge appetite for it. I'm just saying that McConnell and a lot of Republicans probably have no problem with changing the law so that each state can make their own choice... even if that results in 50 states keeping it legal.

To be fair, is this really such a bad thing if all 50 states would keep it legal? That would not have been the case 50 years ago, and it shows how much social progress we've made as a country.

If you want to know a person's true nature, you give him the freedom to act. And the same is true for large groups of people (like the states). If we allow Alabama to ban interracial marriage, and it still chooses not to do so, I see that as a much bigger win for American ideals and democracy than Loving was.

[John Dule]

I'm not saying there's a huge appetite for it. I'm just saying that McConnell and a lot of Republicans probably have no problem with changing the law so that each state can make their own choice... even if that results in 50 states keeping it legal.

To be fair, is this really such a bad thing if all 50 states would keep it legal? That would not have been the case 50 years ago, and it shows how much social progress we've made as a country.

If you want to know a person's true nature, you give him the freedom to act. And the same is true for large groups of people (like the states). If we allow Alabama to ban interracial marriage, and it still chooses not to do so, I see that as a much bigger win for American ideals and democracy than Loving was.

Loving was decided correctly though.

I didn't mean to suggest it wasn't.

[John Dule]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ericswalwell/status/1522671337403265030

We have dules favorite congressman with the best takes folks.

At this point, either Swalwell is completely ignorant of basic constitutional law or he is just trying to whip his three followers up into a frenzy through scare tactics. Remember when Democrats used to accuse Republicans of playing the "politics of fear?"

[John Dule]

Take a vote in order to get the misogynists in the Senate on the record.

[John Dule]

36 down, 14 to go!

[John Dule]

Good news out of an unexpected place!

https://twitter.com/meganmesserly/status/1611043673147310098?s=20

Reproductive freedom marches on, despite the efforts of theocrats.

37 down, 13 to go!