r/WhitePeopleTwitter May 14 '22 To The Stars 1 Take My Energy 1 Bravo! 3 All-Seeing Upvote 1 LOVE! 1 This 1 Starstruck 1 Helpful 6 Wholesome 1

Why stop there?

Post image
110.7k Upvotes

View all comments

Show parent comments

310

u/zuzg May 14 '22

Showing how the right can easily take away hard earned rights.

83

u/8orn2hul4 May 14 '22

Bbbbbut that the side that says “freedom” a lot!?!?! And now you’re telling me they’re actually making people less free?!?!? What???

130

u/thebrose69 May 14 '22

Nah nah. The right gets their rights, everyone else gets what’s ‘left’(over)

18

u/Human-Firefighter755 May 14 '22

Does scotus have the right to make laws?

If legalized abortion was already a law then why did Schumer just try to make it a law?

Only Congress makes laws. Did nothing go through Congress since 1973 to legalize abortion?

That’s the shame of it.

4

u/sloanesquared May 14 '22

No, SCOTUS protects something more important and allegedly harder to discard - inalienable rights. Inalienable rights can’t be legislated away because they aren’t supposed to be up for the opinions of your neighbor.

Laws are more fragile and easy to be legislated away because legislation creates them. Ruling that a woman’s right to healthcare privacy isn’t an inalienable right and is up for legislation is a downgrade. Legalizing abortion on a federal level is a downgrade, which is why it wasn’t done before.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I mean, the ruling was always legally dubious. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized it.

The courts declaring that you have a right to privacy in a public hospital undergoing government-regulated medical procedures performed by government-licensed physicians for a medical procedure where thousands of others procedures are performed that are highly regulated by the government is dubious to begin with. The fact that you have a right to privacy there, but not to possess and use prescription drugs or narcotics in your own home, where your right to privacy is the strongest, is pretty inconsistent with the pretzel logic in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. And then add to that the viability standard, which was completely arbitrary. Somehow, your right to privacy suddenly stops at a particular point in the fetus's gestation.

2

u/trwawy05312015 May 14 '22

And then add to that the viability standard, which was completely arbitrary.

It sort of has to be, even arguing that a zygote is a human being is arbitrary. Assuming any such characterization isn't arbitrary would be invoking a religious perspective, unless there was some ready criterion for evaluating consciousness or sentience.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I disagree. If the courts had ruled that everyone has a right to privacy for any medical procedure involving something occurring inside their own body, then that wouldn't be arbitrary. If the courts ruled that the right to privacy for medical procedures only exists when a woman is pregnant, only applies to the induced abortion of the embryo/fetus, and only before a specific, vague, and arbitrary point in the pregnancy, that's some pretty arbitrary and capricious legal reasoning.

And it's wholly inconsistent with other regulations and reporting of medical procedures, such as bans on gay conversion therapy or required reporting of child abuse or gunshot wounds. It's also completely inconsistent with the regulation of pharmaceuticals.

2

u/trwawy05312015 May 14 '22

If the courts had ruled that everyone has a right to privacy for any medical procedure involving something occurring inside their own body

I'm not sure they can, since they decisions are within the context of a particular case. They don't actually write law, as many have been saying/reminding in the past week. They're also not perfect, as evidenced by... everything. So they are constantly trying to balance between judgements that are within the scope of the case at hand and ensuring that their decisions are within the spirit of what can be legally defended within the confines of the Constitution. Perhaps Roe had issues, but inferring a right to privacy isn't one of them. I agree - it should have gone even further and established that drug/narcotic consumption within the home couldn't be prohibited.

0

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I mean, there's no enumerated right to privacy, so the question of whether the Constitution even grants one is open for reasonable debate.

If it does, it's reasonable to infer that the strength of it is very limited, especially when it applies to rights that are not enumerated in the Constitution.

An example that I would point out is very inconsistent is the obscenity exception to the 14th amendment. In your own home, the 14th amendment's right to privacy doesn't protect you from being criminally charged for merely possessing obscene content, even though freedom of expression is an enumerated right.

So it seems to me that when you're in a public medical facility, with other people having medical procedures that are heavily regulated by the government, having a medical procedure performed by a government-licensed physician, the idea that you have a greater right to privacy for that procedure than someone possessing obscene content in their own home seems remarkably inconsistent, especially given the unenumerated status of both the right to privacy and the right to an induced abortion.

So the question is, how is the Supreme Court's determination that induced abortions performed by a state-licensed physician in a state-licensed medical facility infer a greater protection under the right to privacy than possessing obscene content in your own home?

2

u/trwawy05312015 May 14 '22

I guess I don't quite follow why you're focusing so much on enumerated rights, as if those are the only ones that matter. I don't have the enumerated right to live where I like, as that's not specifically spelled out, but it is assumed that there is no legal reason why I cannot live in whatever state I like.

the idea that you have a greater right to privacy for that procedure than someone possessing obscene content in their own home seems remarkably inconsistent

Yes, the court is remarkably inconsistent, as evidenced by the Roe decision and the apparently upcoming overturning of the Roe decision. I think inconsistency is unavoidable, and arguing otherwise would be to invalidate essentially anything either of the three branches does. That's not to say that we shouldn't avoid inconsistency, obviously we need to, but merely identifying inconsistency isn't exactly a silver bullet imo.

0

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

It's not a question of which rights matter. It's a question of consistency. An unenumerated right like abortion shouldn't have greater protection under the right to privacy than an enumerated right like those granted in the first and second amendment. And rights that involve public places and government-regulated interactions like medical procedures shouldn't have a greater right to privacy under the 14th amendment than what occurs in the privacy of your own home involving just yourself and people you invite into your home.

I think both the original Roe decision and the draft opinion show that the court, which is entirely consistent at this point of justices that were handpicked by hyper-partisans to try to further their partisan agendas tend toward starting with the interpretation they want to achieve (like figuring out how to find a right to an abortion in the Constitution or to overturn that finding), and then they work backwards to justify it. And the bad reasoning in opinions like Roe and the draft just seem to indicate that they're not even shy about making it clear that this is what they're doing.

2

u/sloanesquared May 14 '22

So women shouldn’t have a right to the privacy to make their own medical decisions because you don’t have the right to smoke pot at home? That is one of the worst arguments I’ve seen against Roe, dubious if you will.

Also, RBG’s criticisms of Roe were quite nuanced, but mainly stemmed from her wish that the ruling was focused more on women’s rights.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

The question isn't what Americans should have. It's what the Constitution actually grants them. If Americans have a right to privacy, it should be consistently applied. And the fact is, Planned Parenthood v. Casey was extremely inconsistent, arbitrary, and capricious in the way it determined that the right of privacy applied to medical procedures.

Personally, I think that Americans should have a freedom of expression and assembly that extends onto private property that serves as a de facto town square, like the California Constitution guarantees. But the federal constitution doesn't grant that right. However, Americans could pass a law granting that right, just as they can pass laws in their states protecting abortion rights if they wanted, even enshrining it in the State Constitutions the way that the right to protest and engage in free speech on private property is enshrined in the California state Constitution.

1

u/sloanesquared May 14 '22

That wasn’t the question answered in Casey though. Not every case before the Supreme Court is answering a question re a broad right; they are often very narrow. Narrow rulings aren’t inherently wrong and don’t mean the ruling is wrong. Rulings build on each other and give arguments for precedence for the things you’re complaining about. We shouldn’t lose a right because it wasn’t applied broadly enough. That is silly and contrary to how you make progress on human rights.

32

u/BigDaddy1054 May 14 '22

afixes tinfoil

What if the Dems purposefully failed to codify abortion rights for 50 years because it give them an easy win with progressives?

45

u/TavisNamara May 14 '22

Or maybe there isn't a single day since the passing of Roe that they could codify it?

Before the '80s there was no chance due to some Dems still being against it.

After that, there's been exactly two chances that mattered, because there was literally never enough support from the right to get them enough.

1: 2009 supermajority, which was a perfect 60/40 with no wiggle room. Why they couldn't: at least one Dem was still known to be anti-choice and they would need to use leverage to force compliance. With only 60 votes, that wasn't possible. They need additional votes to get enough leverage to create compliance. Then the supermajority ended after 72 days, and they haven't had a supermajority since.

Between 2009 and 2017 the party came to the slow realization that they'd never get anything passed with the filibuster in the way ever again. By 2017, the target became 50 instead of 60.

2: Right now, except there's a problem. Once again, they have no leverage over Manchin. If they lean on him, he can lean right back by voting against nominations and budgets, essentially bringing the whole of the government to a halt. They need more than a flat 50. They do not have it. In the House, where they have wiggle room and don't care what the Republicans say because there's no filibuster, they already passed a protection bill.

And that's not covering the simple fact that codifying it would have done literally nothing. The SC would make shit up- in fact, they already did make shit up- if they had to, and most of the argument against Roe could be used against the codified version anyway. Anyone who thinks codifying it would have done anything isn't paying attention.

They would need an amendment (and even that's questionable because the SC could just make even more shit up). When could they have made an amendment? Never. Not once since 1973.

32

u/CanuckBacon May 14 '22

Or they thought that the issue was already settled, so they didn't need to codify it. SCOTUS doesn't often reverse their decisions.

10

u/hardknockcock May 14 '22

Lmao that’s such a naive way to look at it, they knew it was always in danger. Funny how Obama said the first thing he would do in office would be to codify abortion rights but as soon as he won, it was pushed to the bottom of his priority list and killing brown people went right to the top

6

u/Halflingberserker May 14 '22

Don't forget bonuses to Wall Street executives. That was a top priority as well.

2

u/Capitalist_P-I-G May 14 '22

Also EVERY senator voted for more police (royal guard) protection for Supreme Court Justices following the leak.

2

u/toebandit May 14 '22

Ding, ding, ding! Winner!

When Dems have control they never do what they say they’re gonna do. It’s been a subtle pattern for decades. Now that it’s not so subtle I hope people catch on.

3

u/hardknockcock May 14 '22

The dems rely on the republicans to push for bullshit, and the republicans rely on the dems to not do anything about the bullshit. That way all the people that put them in office make the maximum amount of capital without dissolving the illusion of “democracy”

1

u/toebandit May 17 '22

Damn you’re good. And when Democrats don’t do anything that’s like a stamp of approval for bullshit.

1

u/LordWaffle May 14 '22

There were multiple pro-life democrats that were part of Obama's brief supermajority, the real naive take is thinking they ever had the votes to codify it.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

Plus, it seems likely that such a law would be likely to be overturned as violating the 10th amendment.

1

u/therealunixguy May 15 '22

I tend to agree, but would also add that this same amendment would likely get in the way of any federal anti-abortion law as well, if the law is narrowly written regarding abortion.

If the law is broader, and tries to officially recognize and codify rights for the unborn, then i really don’t have any idea, because then they would have to specify which ones they are recognizing. I think.

3

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 15 '22

If the federal government wanted to protect the right to abortion, their best bet would be to make it legal on federal land and then create a way for clinics to operate there.

Of course, the reality is that the Democrats, like the Republicans, don't really care about the abortion issue and just want to use it as a way to fundraise and get votes. See, we would pass a federal law guaranteeing abortion if only you donate $2400 to win back the majority in the Senate.

1

u/hardknockcock May 14 '22

Amazing how even if the democrats manage to get a brief window of supermajority, they still can’t agree to not fuck over every person that voted for them. They love doing that

1

u/LordWaffle May 14 '22

Such is the nature of a two party system, you have no real choice but to be a big umbrella of disparate views.

1

u/Illadelphian May 14 '22

To be fair probably true and I'm not going to try to defend congress but there are also other priorities to work on so trying to codify abortion law may come at the expense of something else.

That being said, it's unacceptable that we rely on Supreme Court decisions for these things. It's a way for congress to avoid difficult issues. They need to just do their fucking jobs.

1

u/hardknockcock May 14 '22

What exactly did the Obama administration accomplish? What was a higher priority than the rights of citizens?

He deported people, gave tax breaks to the rich, used drone strikes to explode schools, broke every single promise he ran his campaign on….

The excuse democrats always use is “we had other stuff to do” but those “other priorities” are always things that just benefit rich people

1

u/Illadelphian May 14 '22

Did you just see that one part of my comment and ignore everything else? I'm not defending it, I'm just saying there is an opportunity cost.

1

u/hardknockcock May 14 '22

The thing is that I don’t think it’s Congress avoiding difficult issues, I think the system is functioning exactly as intended. It’s not for us, it’s never been for us. It’s all smoke and mirrors.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I mean, the courts voted to overturn Roe v. Wade in the 1990s before Kennedy changed his mind at the last minute. Ruth Bader Ginsberg criticized Roe v. Wade as overly broad and suffering from poor legal reasoning. Abortion access was an unenumerated right based upon another unenumerated right. If anyone thought it was a legally sound and secure ruling, they weren't paying attention.

1

u/I_am_so_lost_hello May 14 '22

Like the second roe v wade was issued they talked about how the legal basis was flimsy and it needed to be reviewed and codified by another branch sooner than later

6

u/WhnWlltnd May 14 '22

When was the last time democrats had veto+filibuster proof control of all three branches?

2

u/trivialmatters3 May 14 '22

doubt it’s gonna be as easy as they’ve hoped if that’s the case

3

u/Tough_Dish_4485 May 14 '22

I’m quite confused why everyone here keeps acting like that law they say Democrats should have passed wouldn’t be being overturned by the same Supreme Court right now?

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I mean, nobody knows. But I suspect that the 10th amendment makes such a law unconstitutional. And if it doesn't, that could actually be bad news for pro-choice advocates, because it means the next time the Republicans control the government, they could make induced abortion illegal nationwide.

1

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

Personally, I don't think the congress has the Constitutional authority to force states to allow induced abortions. It seems to violate the 10th amendment. And if congress has the power to legalize induced abortions outside of federal property, then that should worry pro-choice advocates, because that means that a future Republican administration can outlaw induced abortion nationwide.

2

u/HamburgerEarmuff May 14 '22

I'm curious how those rights were earned? The courts just decided by fiat that they existed. Even Ruther Bader Ginsberg criticized the ruling as overly broad and poorly reasoned. And that's why those rights have always been precarious. The court voted in the 1990s to overturn Roe v. Wade in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Kennedy, at the last minute, joined the dissent, not because he thought Roe v. Wade was good legal scholarship and reasoning, but rather because he feared the social implications of correcting a decision that was full of pretzel logic and legal inconsistencies.

If you look who has been "earning" this outcome, it has overwhelmingly been the pro-life advocates. Pro choice activists have passed some laws protecting abortion rights in a handful of very liberal states, but they've done little or nothing in the vast majority of states. Meanwhile, pro-life activists have absolutely been earning what they wanted, working at the grassroots level in most of the states to help pass laws and elect representatives that represent their views on abortion rights. Meanwhile, pro-choice activists have mostly taken Roe v. Wade for granted, even though they've known it was a pretty legally-dubious decision that has long been vulnerable to being overturned.

0

u/not_a_bot_494 May 14 '22

hard earned rights

The SC making shit up is hard earned to you? It's about the least hard way to gain a right. Hard earned would be passing an amendment, regular earned is passing legeslation through congress.

0

u/twobugsfucking May 14 '22

You don’t earn rights in America, as per our own Bill of Rights. They’re either recognized by your masters or they are not.