Question

I haven't read the draft that's reported to be a reflection of the majority of the SCotUS. I'm avoiding it because it isn't the actual RULING of the Court. It's a cut at it; it's a version--as best I can tell--generated by one team of clerks, under the leadership of one justice, assigned to capture the basic legal theory that would refute the legal theory on which Roe was built.

Roe is based on interpretations of various clauses of the Constitution that have roots. The Roe decision is the fruit of some tree or other--some framework of understanding that is a NON-literal interpretation of the text on which the arguments underlying the decision were built. A ruling that overturns Roe will be either the fruit of a different tree, or it will be every bit as flawed as Roe itself.

Theory. Critical Theory. Critical Literary Theory and Critical Legal Theory. Those were, at least in part, the lenses through which the Constitution was being interpreted by the Court, even prior to Roe, to discover the almost shadow of a right to privacy emanating out of the the enumerated rights protected with the various amendments. The Roe decision didn't use the rights reserved (in the 9th) to dream up privacy as extending to whether a medical procedure might be allowed by the States which otherwise have authority over the governance of the actual practice of medicine within each respectively. The Roe court used instead a method of reading into a text, through a lens of political expediency, content never inserted by the authors nor understood and adopted by the States which ratified the texts.

When this current Court eventually provides a ruling in the current case, I'm very interested in how far back there textual interpretation "theory" reaches. We've existed within a Constitutional Crisis for generations and it's possible that one ruling has a tsunami effect on jurisprudence for generations to come...IF it is well rooted and bears different fruit than the tree the courts have been nurturing during this period of the current generational cycle which is "weak men mak(e(ing)) hard times."

We have a "by the roots" problem that needs to be eradicated from the very center of our culture. Is the current majority of the Court, given this one topic, possibly a vanguard, a rise of strong "men" coming of age through "hard times" to make better decisions that might make for better times going forward? Only hindsight will tell?

#Constitution #Generations #medicine #justice #authors #culture #rights #dream

govols 8

Answer 1

More bad decisions to overturn. Affirmative action needs to be banned.

supreme-court-roe-v-wade-and-seven-other-terrible-precedents/

[revolver.news]

Answer 2

We have a "by the roots" problem that needs to be eradicated from the very center of our culture.

This sentence seems to say that literal reading of the US Constitution is no longer relevant and needs to be discarded.

It implies that "brave modern men" who deign to take up the gauntlet of the "antiquated ideologies" that informed the composition of the US Constitution and toss it aside - Presumably in favor or a "new morality."

This kind of language is terrifying. Figuratively speaking it makes the hairs on the back of my neck stand up.

The very meaning of that statement clearly explains why I am absolutely AGAINST the idea of calling for an article 5 of the US Constitution. Below I will paste the synopsis of Article 5 - after reading it you will see that it is self explanatory and why it evokes fear and loathing on my part:

Article V says that “on the Application of two thirds of the Legislatures of the several States, [Congress] shall call a Convention for proposing amendments.” The convention can propose amendments, whether Congress approves of them or not.

Now I ask - given the fallacious, corrupt failures of our body politic does ANYONE here trust that the members of our Gov't will NOT completely destroy the document that has guided USA for more than 225 years. The Document that really set the template for the magnificent successes that USA has had throughout history?

Answer 3

I first read Roe in law school, and quickly concluded it was qualitatively different from other case law. By that I mean it was not well reasoned or justified by logic; it was a result first and a justification concocted after the fact. Apologists struggled mightily to provide a foundation in reason, using the concept of a “penumbra of rights” somehow derived from the spirit of the constitution rather than its actual words.

At that time, I was entirely agnostic (even apathetic) on the subject of abortion. So my conclusion was not based on any preconceived (so to speak) idea or concern. The logic simply was not there. And the portions of the leaked opinion that I have read show that Alito has reached the same conclusion.


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Chat room is open

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

3 comments

Recent Visitors 8

Photos 11,797 More

Members 9,403Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore