May I ask you what you think about Blackmun’s opinion in Roe v. Wade’s case? Was it correctly argued as a matter of constitutional law and historical practice?
It is not easy to understand, but I think Blackmun got it right. But the Court should have said more in establishing Constitutional privacy. It is undeniable that the right to privacy lives in the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 9th Amendments. What is easy to see is that Dobbs v. Jackson not only violates the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, it is also an extremely rare case of blatantly violating the 9th Amendment.
What is worse is the Court ignoring the fact that at least one of its members is illegitimate and Merrick Garland should have been seated. Barrett is not the only untrustworthy Justice that claimed to support women's rights to choose in order to be confirmed and then apparently couldn't break her word fast enough (we had such high hopes, but it turns out she's as ineffective and as big a fruitcake as Thomas). Alito and Roberts are the surprise. Just what are they thinking? I'd like to know how they think history is going to remember them for making such an impotent and (expectedly) short lived ruling.
The Court also ignores the current state of the country for the last 20 years at least that conservatives are distinctly in the minority and likely will remain so indefinitely. They should not make decisions that are so painfully obviously unlikely to stand. Row v. Wade stood for very nearly half a century. Dobbs v. Jackson will be lucky to make it a decade and a half before it is either overturned or made irrelevant by Congress, either by law or a new Amendment.
Ignoring details, abortion is clearly wrong, but there are some things the government can not do, and saying anything about what a woman can or can't do with their body is one of them. The government is prohibited from doing so by the Constitution as it stood in 1789. Roe v. Wade should not have been necessary, but we have too many intellectually dishonest tyrants that must be put into submission through case law.
It is ironic that there are individuals refusing COVID vaccination, claiming the government has gone too far and has no right to mandate vaccination, crying their rights are being violated, yet by and large these are the same individuals that would have their government tell women they have no choice. It is ironic, but it is also absurd that a vaccination mandate is an intolerable infringement on privacy and the 4th Amendment while at the same time insisting on killing children for the sake of unborn fetuses.
Pro Life and Pro Gun movements go together, and they are each internally logically inconsistent, each reveal cognitive dissonance, and when both ideologies are held by the same individual that individual is necessarily a hypocrite, a twice cognitively dissonant hypocrite as well as a bully and a coward. The Pro Life control freak bullies say: we tell you what you can or can't do; The scared Pro Gun cowards say: don't tell us what we can or can't do. Ridiculously, their sworn political enemies are those that are tolerant of others, including them.
Okay, and can you name any decision by SCOTUS that was decided egregiously incorrectly in favor of liberal/progressives? And any decision by conservative SCOTUS that was decided correctly, to a detriment of liberal/progressive cause?
My point is that if your arguments and positions about matters or law always just so happen to align along partisan lines, why should anyone even pay any attention to the arguments long comments you write, when the conclusion is preordained anyway? Why should anyone even bother to answer to the Gish gallop of wrongheaded arguments, if no arguments would ever get to change your position?
Of course, you can prove me wrong, by pointing to any opinion of Court, written by Justice Scalia, that you think is correct, but most Democrat voters would prefer to have been decided differently. Can you?
> prove me wrong, by pointing to any opinion of Court, written by Justice Scalia, that you think is correct, but most Democrat voters would prefer to have been decided differently.
You're asking for a contradiction. If he had written any decisions correctly, no one would disagree with him. Scalia consistently wrote horrible decisions, but one stands out that is correct, Crawford v. Washington, 2004.
> If he had written any decisions correctly, no one would disagree with him.
This is absurd, and only a complete partisan could write something like this. There is absolutely no point in discussing anything with you, because you literally are unable to concede that your side can ever be wrong. This attitude is extremely corrosive to peaceful coexistence: when more people understand that for you, the only “correct” court decisions are the ones that go according to your preferences, why would they want continue to participate in the rule of law? The whole point here is to solve disagreements by appeal to shared rules and procedures. If you are unable to concede that rules and procedures can ever result in an outcome that is against your preferences, you’re effectively telling people that you do not care one damn about these. Why should then anyone else? This will cause the judiciary to devolve into pure partisanship, with some latin words sprinkled on top.
> The whole point here is to solve disagreements by appeal to shared rules and procedures.
Rules and procedures are merely for civility. Not sure where you get your pejoratives, but partisanship is a very good thing. Things only get better when individuals disagree. Without adversity nothing would ever change, nothing would ever improve, and there would be no such thing as technology. Sometimes disagreements can only be solved by democracy where the majority rules, not like the current State where the constantly shrinking conservative minority has somehow turned that on its head.
