Legal/scotus thread

[Jaw]

The solicitor for MS has been impressive. Bringing up Safe Haven laws as a new development since the prior decisions and comparing the costs of abortions to birth control was solid work.

[thethe]

What a monster

[Jaw]

Just an inhumane statement.

[sturg33]

Just an inhumane statement.

leftists has simply lost their humanity

[thethe]

I've mentioned it before but the left has devolved.

[Jaw]

Couldn't I use this argument to own my own WMDs, or walk naked down the street, or crap in my neighbor's yard?

[thethe]

"Force her to bear the burdens of pregnancy"

Lets ignore the fact that it was the womens choice to potentially get pregnant.

[sturg33]

Its truly remarkable to me though that the same people are pushing vaccine mandates

[thethe]

Poor souls.

[sturg33]

Poor souls.

Leftist women refusing to bring children to the world is a big part of what makes them so miserable.

It's also a poor long term electorate strategy

[striker42]

Couldn't I use this argument to own my own WMDs, or walk naked down the street, or crap in my neighbor's yard?

That's cringey bad logic. If I was on the SCOTUS and that was the answer to one of my questions, I don't care what side of the issue I was on, I'd let that guy hold it.

First, the guy assumes that outlawing abortion is the government taking control of a woman's body. No, nature has taken control of the woman's body. Banning abortion is limiting an option based on a state interest. If you need a new liver, you can't shoot your neighbor and harvest their liver. That's not the government taking control of your body and forcing you to live with liver disease. It's limiting an option based on a state interest.

Second, the argument assumes that only the woman's liberty is at issue. If the state tried to limit your liberty with no state interest, that would be unconstitutional. There has to be a state interest at play. If there is, then you get into other tests. Rikelman's argument assumes there's no state interest in protecting a fetus. That's the heart of the argument he's just assuming away. It's terrible, terrible lawyering.

The argument I'd be making if I was Rikelman is that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of personhood as they decide when constitutional rights attach so it's the responsibility of the SCOTUS, not states, to set when a fetus' rights can be respected over a mother's.

[Jaw]

That's cringey bad logic. If I was on the SCOTUS and that was the answer to one of my questions, I don't care what side of the issue I was on, I'd let that guy hold it.

First, the guy assumes that outlawing abortion is the government taking control of a woman's body. No, nature has taken control of the woman's body. Banning abortion is limiting an option based on a state interest. If you need a new liver, you can't shoot your neighbor and harvest their liver. That's not the government taking control of your body and forcing you to live with liver disease. It's limiting an option based on a state interest.

Second, the argument assumes that only the woman's liberty is at issue. If the state tried to limit your liberty with no state interest, that would be unconstitutional. There has to be a state interest at play. If there is, then you get into other tests. Rikelman's argument assumes there's no state interest in protecting a fetus. That's the heart of the argument he's just assuming away. It's terrible, terrible lawyering.

The argument I'd be making if I was Rikelman is that the SCOTUS is the final arbiter of personhood as they decide when constitutional rights attach so it's the responsibility of the SCOTUS, not states, to set when a fetus' rights can be respected over a mother's.

Just so you know, Rikelman is a she. It wasn't specified in the tweet, I only know because listened to that part live

[striker42]

I'll also say some of the arguments on behalf of Mississippi were pretty bad too. They're clearly shooting for textualist votes by arguing that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee abortion but if you get rid of protections of things like privacy and autonomy, you end up with the government having a lot more powers in a lot more areas.

Suppose a state wanted to outlaw getting tattoos, dying hair, or getting plastic surgery. If they did and the SCOTUS has done away with these protections as they're not in the Constitution, what else can you rely on? I think you can clearly glean from the Constitution that the state should not have the power to prevent you the liberty to do those things.

You can argue against abortion without getting the right to privacy struck down. Their arguments that there could be state interest in limiting early term abortions is a far better way to go.

[striker42]

Just so you know, Rikelman is a she. It wasn't specified in the tweet, I only know because listened to that part live

Yeah, I noticed that when I googled her after posting. I think her name triggered Rickman in my head so I immediately jumped to dude.

[Jaw]

I'll also say some of the arguments on behalf of Mississippi were pretty bad too. They're clearly shooting for textualist votes by arguing that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee abortion but if you get rid of protections of things like privacy and autonomy, you end up with the government having a lot more powers in a lot more areas.

Suppose a state wanted to outlaw getting tattoos, dying hair, or getting plastic surgery. If they did and the SCOTUS has done away with these protections as they're not in the Constitution, what else can you rely on? I think you can clearly glean from the Constitution that the state should not have the power to prevent you the liberty to do those things.

You can argue against abortion without getting the right to privacy struck down. Their arguments that there could be state interest in limiting early term abortions is a far better way to go.

Do you think the argument about Safe Haven laws occuring since Casey was effective? I thought it might give cover for some of the justices to do what they want to do.

[Jaw]

Oh man

[striker42]

Do you think the argument about Safe Haven laws occuring since Casey was effective? I thought it might give cover for some of the justices to do what they want to do.

The talk of safe haven laws and new scientific understanding of fetuses is all about giving a basis for going against stare decisis. While it's hardly rock solid, stare decisis does still carry some weight. At the very least you want to have some reason not to adhere to it.

One of the generally accepted reasons to go against stare decisis is a change in facts or understanding. If a previous case was based on facts that no longer exist or beliefs or understanding that is now known to be incorrect, then there's no need to be bound to that previous precedent. The safe haven law talk was all about trying to show things have changed since Casey.

[msstate7]

The solicitor for MS has been impressive. Bringing up Safe Haven laws as a new development since the prior decisions and comparing the costs of abortions to birth control was solid work.

Mississippi produces great lawyers like Rudy Baylor, jake Brigance, and Lucien wilbanks. We've also produced a great divorce attorney, Harry Rex vonner

[cajunrevenge]

Wow are we really doing Roe v Wade yet again? I would consider myself Pro-life but theres no putting this cat back in the bag. Best case scenario for Republicans they win big in this case but its reversed as soon as they lose the majority in the court. Then everyone prosecuted under unconsitutional laws is set free but the damage is still done. Who compensates the victims who were prosecuted under unconsitutional laws that we all knew at the time would eventually be ruled unconstitutional.


Also, and I will bring this up in any abortion debate. How can the right to privacy of ones body, the right cited for abortion, not apply to me smoking a joint. It makes no sense whatsoever.

[cajunrevenge]

I'll also say some of the arguments on behalf of Mississippi were pretty bad too. They're clearly shooting for textualist votes by arguing that the text of the Constitution does not guarantee abortion but if you get rid of protections of things like privacy and autonomy, you end up with the government having a lot more powers in a lot more areas.

Suppose a state wanted to outlaw getting tattoos, dying hair, or getting plastic surgery. If they did and the SCOTUS has done away with these protections as they're not in the Constitution, what else can you rely on? I think you can clearly glean from the Constitution that the state should not have the power to prevent you the liberty to do those things.

You can argue against abortion without getting the right to privacy struck down. Their arguments that there could be state interest in limiting early term abortions is a far better way to go.

Its not a right of privacy its a right to abortion. If we had the right to privacy of our own body I could smoke a joint in my own home legally.