Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Political Discussion
Reply to "“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft"
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]To the PP who just can’t keep it straight. [b]Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn[/b]. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing. Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable. [/quote] That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever. But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled. [/quote] No, you have it wrong. Legislation has nothing to do with it. First, comes the Constitution. That give us some rights. Sometimes various parties' Constitutional rights come into conflict, or a law is passed that violates someone's Consitutional rights, and the Court is left to sort it out. That's what Roe did. The Court was called upon to answer whose Constitutional rights prevail when they are in conflict. To do so, it had to first determine whether, and, if so, when, those Constitutional rights were in conflict. That is not a matter for legislation; it is a matter of Constitutional interpretation as to whether one or the other or both have rights regarding their physical bodies. It is not for the legislative body to decide whether or when someone has Constitutional rights. By saying states can pass any abortion law they want, the Court is saying women do not have Constitutional rights to bodily autonomy. Otherwise, the ruling would mean that the Court thinks it is fine for states to strip women of Constitutional rights, which is clearly wrong. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics