As demonstrated clearly in the Dobbs decision, Originalism manifestly results in second class citizen status for women and people of color.

When you base laws on laws, precedents, legal theories, cultural norms, cultural theories that are hundreds of years old, when women and people of color had no rights, then the status of their current rights are NOT equal to the rights of white males.

Example. If women drafted the Bill of Rights, Bodily Autonomy would be part of the 1st Amendment.

To say nothing of the advances in the understanding of the human condition since 1783.

Again dobbs which is an originalist argument is based on centuries old precedent norms and laws (and cherry picked at that). From a time that women had no legal power and when child birth was a literal life or death matter for them. Even more so than today

If you don't think bodily autonomy wouldn't have been codified and the norm had women held equal power to men you are lying to yourself, again it was a matter of life or death for many of them.

So to base judicial findings on those laws and precedents irretrievably results in women having fewer rights then men. Period full stop

Misogynists like it that way

Not familiar with the 15th or 19th amendments, I'm assuming?
And as for Dobbs...what exactly is wrong with it? I'm not aware of any amendment protecting the right to abortion at a federal level, so why shouldn't it be left up to the states? Would you support it if there were an attempt to ban abortions at the federal level?

#16 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

It truly is frustrating debating with the willfully ignorant.

Did you read the Dobbs decision? Are you aware that the majority of the justification used in the decision was based on precedent, laws, customs, standards, practices in effect prior to the 15th and 19th Amendments? Do you grasp the implications of that?

I can tell because you then go on to state "I'm not aware of any amendment protecting the right to abortion at a federal level,..."

So, Alito, using precedent, laws, customs, standards, practices in effect prior to the 15th and 19th Amendments concludes, like you, that there is no protection for abortion at a federal level.

Is it beginning to sink in yet?

Are you aware of the mortality rate for women in the 18th century? the mortality rate for pregnant women was as high 2.5%. Do you think that if women had power, real power, at the time of the constitution and an understanding of pregnancy and abortion that they would have permitted a constitution to be passed that did not provide them with an inalienable right to bodily autonomy?

To base current adjudication on precedents, laws, customs, standards, practices in effect at a time when women had no power de facto results in the women having fewer rights then men. That is irrefutable.

A pregnant woman has no rights that the white man is bound to respect.

That condition was altered through the 19th amendment. I would submit that using amendments to change the constitution is an originalist concept.

#18 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Dobbs changed the interpretation of the constitution

Again. 19th amendment. Go ahead and look it up.

#41 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER A

Are you stupid or just plain dumb.

Dobbs used stuff from prior to the 19th amendment to justify overturning roe thus negating any alleged protection from the 19th.

If an equal rights amendment had been passed that would be interesting but my irrefutable point stands

I think you're emotionally invested in this topic, and that makes you biased. Unless you think that a SCOTUS decision supporting federal ban that generally prohibited would have been just as valid as Roe v. Wade, you're only putting your own beliefs over those of the constitution and the court.

In fact I think the Dobbs decision was a good one, in that it would be very hard now for anti-abortion activists to pursue a federal ban. The court has already said that is a decision for the states.

#40 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

A federal ban would not be valid because the 14th includes a right to bodily autonomy. Unless you believe in the logic of Dred Scott A woman or child has no rights the white man is bound to respect" then you should too.

I firmly believe my body belongs to me and not the state I wonder why you don't. I wonder why you support forced organ donation or medical testing or forced vaccination since you no longer have a right to privacy. Not do you have the right to marry who u want or express your love as u see fit or use contraception as you see fit

Because your body belongs to the state

I wonder why you support that

They are all the same arguments btw

Thomas expressly made that argument btw

Supreme Court decisions are not subject to democratic vote. I thought that self evident. And now the sc has decided you don't have a right to bodily autonomy so voting doesn't matter for new laws. Again based on stuff when women didn't have any power

Fairly obvious stuff immune to democracy

"You absolutely have a right to privacy. "

What about the secrecy between a woman and her doctor?

"A pregnant woman or child has no rights the white man is bound to respect "

The Breed Stock Decision

"Dobbs used stuff from prior to the 19th amendment to justify overturning roe thus negating any alleged protection from the 19th."
Does anyone know what this weirdo is talking about? This is the first time I've seen anyone trying to link Roe v Wade or abortion to the 19th amendment, which was only about voting rights, as I recall.

#78 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

--------, ask madbummer, he's the idiot who brought the 19th into the discussion, You of course would do with reading the thread before posting, which you obviously didnt.

Oh dear god, the stupidity, it hurts.

Listen closely stupid, I am getting tired of repeating myself.

Alito (a SC justice) wrote the decision overturning RvW with Dobbs. RvW protected rights for women including a right to bodily autonomy. A federally protected right.

Alito, in writing his decision, used laws, precedents, customs, cultures etc. from prior to women having any rights including prior to the 19th amendment.

Therefore, Alito, in 2022, i.e. AFTER the 19th Amendment, removed a protected right from women, based on laws precedents, cultures, customs, etc. from a time when women had no rights, no power.

Therefore, the 19th Amendment is irrelevant. There is no democratic solution to that conundrum dummy, because Alito said the right does not exist-thus it is a matter for the states. The right does not exist because in the 15th century some ------- believed in witches. Therefore, since a judicial decision, made by the highest court in the land decided women don't have that right, it cannot be reviewed (as their is no higher authority).

And again, using Alito's "logic" there is no basis for a federal law protecting abortion period. The right does not exist because... witches.

Thomas went even further saying gay marriage, gay sex and contraceptive use were likely next on the chopping block (ironically not inter racial marriage-lol)

So, once again, A pregnant woman or child has no right that the white man is bound to respect.

You think that play on the Dred Scott quote is absurd? States are moving towards criminalizing travel and healthcare beyond abortion-ie a woman has to be near death to receive care, medicines that have been proven safe for 20 years on the theory that a doctor might have to possibly maybe treat a woman who took mifepristone and had a reaction-iow they want a court to throw out nationally a federally approved drug based on an absurdity.

Ok, once again, into the breach.

Basic civics.

The supreme court interprets laws. The SC found that the federal government does not have the authority to protect a woman's right to privacy or bodily autonomy BECAUSE THOSE ARE NOT THINGS, THOSE ARE NOT RIGHTS THAT WOMEN HAVE. THAT IS THE DOBBS DECISION!!! Do you understand that?

The supreme court in it's Dobbs decision, using originalist "theory", which really isn't a theory but a word the right-wing extremists apply to partisanship, eviscerated a right that was acknowledged by RvW. That being the right to privacy and the inherent right to bodily autonomy.

Those things no longer exist. Do you get that? Women no longer have the right to privacy or bodily autonomy. they are no longer unenumerated rights that a state cannot take away, therefore. THEY DO NOT EXIST. Because an insane person believed in witches 500 years ago.

And this is where the 19th comes into the discussion of originalism "theory"

Alito's decision makes the 19th Amendment irrelevant, because the use of originalist "theory" cannot be rectified by voting. You get that right?

Since the unenumerated rights do not exist, the federal government cannot vote to protect those rights. DO YOU ------- UNDERSTAND YET?

SINCE THE RIGHTS DO NOT EXIST NO AMOUNT OF VOTING CAN CHANGE THAT.

Alito used Originalist "theory" and based the dobbs decision on ---- from the 15th to the 18th century-predating the 19th Amendment. You understand that right?

So, originalist "theory" eviscerated women's rights WHICH CANNOT BE RECTIFIED BY VOTING. You understand that right? Alito, USING ORIGINALIST "theory" concluded that women DO NOT HAVE A FEDERALLY PROTECTED RIGHT TO BODILY AUTONOMY. do you understand that? therefore, any federal law passed that says women have a right to bodily autonomy or privacy or an abortion will HAVE TO BE STRUCK DOWN BY THE SC, because originalist "theory" states that the only thing that matters are the laws, customs, precedents in effect in the 18th century. Therefore, the 19th Amendment does not ALLOW for voting to correct that interpretation.

DO YOU UNDERSTAND YET? Or is your ignorance dug in like a tick on a Kentucky bloodhound?

And since the SC can base its decisions on laws, precedents, customs prior to the 19th amendment, women are, irrevocably second class citizens. BECAUSE THERE IS NO WAY TO REMEDY THAT.

And again, do yourself a thought exercise. Imagine if women had power from the 15th through the 18th century, and given that the maternal mortality rate was around 2.5% as it was, is it not reasonable and likely that women would have insisted on a right to abortion? As a matter of life and death to them? And if they had the power and established laws, precedents, etc. back in the 15th to 18th centuries that protected their right to abortion, wouldn't those precedents support a vigorous protection of abortion rights in the modern day?

Explain unenumerated rights then

I take it as those rights held by the individual or state not specifically numerate or listed

I place the right to bodily autonomy on that list. My body belongs to me

I wonder why you don't

"Does anyone know what this weirdo is talking about?"

Not really. I think Truthhurts is trying to suggest that, by claiming a precedent prior to the 19th (and 14th) amendments, the court invalidated both. Or something like that.

It's kinda stupid.

#97 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

This is the problem with me trying to have a conversation with someone so markedly my intellectual inferior-they combine ignorance of my position with an arrogant insult

I did not say invalidate I said the justification for the argument made by alito cannot be remedied by the democratic vote because he used pre 19th amendment justification to invalidate a strictly woman right- the right to abort an unwanted or dangerous fetus

Since voting cannot remedy that decision because the right to bodily autonomy does not exist per alito then voting is irrelevant. Therefore women are by definition second class citizens because decisions made today on what their rights are are based on laws precedents customs in place when they were second class citizens.

It really is a simple concept.

And you wonder why SC nominees from either party give meaningless answers, if any, at their confirmation hearings.

#104 | POSTED BY SENTINEL A

There is a difference between giving non answers and perjury

So iow you have no response to the simple straightforward logic

And you are simply wrong about unenumerated rights

"Unenumerated rights are legal rights inferred from other rights that are implied by existing laws, such as in written constitutions, but are not themselves expressly coded or "enumerated" within the explicit writ of the law."

Are you going to argue that bodily autonomy and privacy are not rights implied by existing laws?

So iow you have no response to the simple straightforward logic"
IF we take your woman logic to its conclusion, then why bother voting? You might as well be discouraging others from voting, because you're literally saying it won't make any difference as far as passing laws at the federal and state.

#114 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

You're not very bright are you?

Voting is effective for issues unrelated to the rights that Alito removed

Voting is ineffective for issues related to the rights that Alito removed.

IOW, voting is effective for putting dems in office to say, pass intelligent fiscal policies.

Voting is pointless vis a vis for abortion rights on the federal level. Because Alito said those rights do not exist.

or perhaps you could explain what authority Congress possesses under the Constitution that would allow them to protect the right to abortion in all 50 states? Interstate Commerce? Spending? Protection of Rights? OOOPs on that one. Declaration of war? To establish Post Offices?

Please, where in the constitution is abortion something that the legislature can regulate, if not an inherent right?

"Are you going to argue that bodily autonomy and privacy are not rights implied by existing laws?"
You need to be specific about which laws you're referring to here. The Constitution does not imply an unlimited right to bodily autonomy and privacy, especially when one's actions adversely affect other human beings.
#115 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Now, now, sentinel, you are soooo close to recognizing the problem.

You are using words that are close to it, but are missing it.

"adversely affect (sic) other human beings"

fetuses are decidedly NOT human beings. I will grant that at some point they MAY become POTENTIAL human beings, but human beings, they are not.

so, the only human being in the calculation is the woman. You know, the one being adversely effected.

Then we have the following:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A broad interpretation of those words would mean that the people have a right to be secure in their persons.
A narrow interpretation of those words would mean that a woman has a right that her body not be searched (i.e. her abortion becoming public knowledge)-i.e. privacy.

REMEMBER a woman does not commit a crime if she has an abortion, the doctor performing the abortion commits the crime.

So, yeah, there is a distinct and clear implication (and there are many many more examples) that a right to privacy and a right to bodily autonomy exist.

to say nothing of the fact that the implications of NOT having bodily autonomy are beyond reprehensible.

then there is this:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;

liberty
1.the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one's way of life, behavior, or political views.

Restricting a woman's ability to an abortion deprives her of liberty without due process of law.

Remember, getting pregnant is NOT a crime. Getting an abortion is NOT a crime (for the woman, yet). Yet, without any semblance of any legal process, oppressive restrictions, up to and including threats to her life and health, are imposed on her, with no legal recourse.

One could almost say that that phrase entitles women to some bodily autonomy (since they are not committing any crime). Certainly the implication is there.

so, yeah, there are plenty of places where bodily autonomy and privacy are implied in the constitution

You know what, I am man enough to admit I was wrong with the affect vs effect

"so, the only human being in the calculation is the woman. You know, the one being adversely effected."
What about the man?
You seem to be arguing that there is no such thing as a father.

#122 | POSTED BY MADBOMBER

Irrelevant as what is at issue is the woman's body.

"fetuses are decidedly NOT human beings."
"negroes are decidedly NOT human beings"
"women are decidedly NOT human beings"

#123 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Fetuses are decidedly not human beings, no matter how much you want them to be

human being
noun
a man, woman, or child of the species ---- sapiens

fetuses are not men
fetuses are not women
fetuses are not children

fetuses are fetuses, they are, and i grant this generously, potential human beings.

That is sort of a given.

Every menstrual cycle for a sexually actively female is likely to receive its own social security number. When they start assigning ssn to every sperm our socials are likely to have as many numbers as pi

Gibberish In, Gibberish Out

#130 | POSTED BY SENTINEL

Oh, I see, you haven't yet grasped the concept that words have meanings.

Start with Fun with Dick and Jane, then get back to us.

And now you resort to racism. ---- off -------

Calling someone a fetus is racist now?

#137 | POSTED BY SENTINEL A

using a racist term is racist you bucket of scum