Politics
Out of context: Reply #625
- Started
- Last post
- 33,769 Responses
- TheBlueOne0
Ah, the abortion issue. Here's my take. I am more or less pro-choice intemperment. I get the arguments made by the pro-life people. They have points. Some good.
But quite honestly,I'm a national interest kinda guy when it comes to national voting and if legalized abortion went away tomorrow it wouldn't, IMHO, change much.Someone above made the argument above that then it woudl fall to states, which is probably true...
The deeper issue here with this issue is one of the key defining differences in Constitutional law - which is this- Is there an inherent Right to Privacy in the Constitution. Roe Vs Wade hinges on this exact point. Roe V Wade is important not because of the abortion issue but rather bc of the legallogic used to justify it. RvW stands on the issue that there is indeed a Right to Privacy implicit in the Constitution. That is the current law of the land.
Liberal and moderate justices tend to believe that Privacy is in the constitution - the "COnstitution is a living document" kind of thinking. The right wing "original text" guys do not (Think Scalia, Roberts, etc..). If RvW gets overturned, not only does that take abortion off the federal table of issues, but it challenges everyones Right to Privacy. Just stop and think about that one,especially in the context of what the US government just did under the guise of keeping us "safe from terrists". Many other cases have been ruled in many courts basedon what is and isnot said to be includedunder this implficit Right to Privacy. It all gets challengable then.
Oddly enough,and in this issue Scalia always cracks me up bc he is the height of rightwing hypocrisy - these guys all claim to be "strict constitutionalists",in other words if it's not explicitly written in the Constitution then it doesn't exist in the legal framework. However, Judicial Review by the Supreme Court is definitely NOT in the Constitution. It came into existence in 1803 in Marburry V Madison. Someone called Scalia on this once at a talk at a law school and he started laughing and said to the effect "Oh yeah, that stuff came later,but it's so good that we keep it." It's the absolute height of dishonesty and lack of intellectual rigor and integrity - but I always expect that from these rightwing reactionaries. "Yeah we get to say what is and is not law in this country based only on what this document says, however this document definitely does say we do not have the power to do exactly that, but fuck it, we'll do it anyway. Because we're dicks like that."