RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.

This is opinion masquerading as fact.

The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights.

It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

How so? The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to murder.

The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.

Contraception prevents their being a third party.

All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.

Alito's opinion maintains the constitutional separation of power between federal and local governments. It more consistently maintains the integrity of the Constitution. And it doesn't outlaw abortion, or sexual intimacy, or interracial marriage, or contraception.

All rights are in jeopardy when left to the whim of Progressive interpretation. You, or who you're parroting, sound like a Progressive and would tolerate any SCOTUS decision that allowed whatever you prefer. Those things you listed are less "in jeopardy" by Alito's constitutional opinion than by a Progressive basis for constitutional interpretation regarding any of them when under the scrutiny of Progressive jurors who see the constitution as an ever changing, living and breathing, legal prescription whose main purpose is to uphold the power of the central government's desire to improve the lives of the people depending on what the experts of the day decide is currently considered "good."

Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.

Progressives like to have it both ways. Precedent (that they approve of) is sacrosanct and must not be overturned (until they deem it as musty remnants of old dead white men). But, on the other hand, the Constitution must constantly change to somehow suit the time.

Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "history and tradition" of constitutional separation of powers that limits the central power and gives more power to the states has had a bad name in the view of Progressives ever since their beginning in this country.

[wdmso]

yep that's about right

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yep that's about right

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t talk to them. can’t.

Thanks TDF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

i said garland should have had a hearing. and then been rejected.

but, you know what the biden rule is. What McCinnell did, literally and exactly, was to enact the Biden Rule.

if it was swell for biden, please explain why it was bad for McConnell.

Spence here’s a very simple question. Do you think i oppose abortion because i want to enslave women, or because I’m a racist? or because i’d prefer babies be born, to their being slaughtered by the tens of millions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

so you wouldn't be upset, if they gave Garland a hearing and voted him down? That's a sincere question.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yep that's about right

Yup. Our government has been turning into a carnival of stealing. Stealing elections, the people's money and livellhoods, freedoms and rights--one big Progressive power grab filtering into the megaplex of power and control by the few who enrich themselves while distracting us with cartoonish entertainments to keep us reasonably happy as they pull the phony wool over our eyes.