« Latest Alec Baldwin excuse | Main | Homicides up »
Justices raise 2A rulings in abortion case
Transcript in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, argued December 1. Justice Thomas in particular gets in a dig that the liberal wing is so enthusiastic about a right not mentioned in the bill of rights, when it had no problem trying to curtail the express right contained in the 2A:
(Sotomayor, long speech, ending) Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts?
MR. STEWART: I --
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I -- I -- I don't see how it is possible. It's what Casey talked about when it talked about watershed decisions. Some of them, Brown versus Board of Education it mentioned, and this one have such an entrenched set of expectations in our society that this is what the Court decided, this is what we will follow, that the -- that we won't be able to survive if people believe that everything, including New York versus Sullivan -- I could name any other set of rights, including the Second Amendment, by the way. There are many political people who believe the Court erred in seeing this as a personal right as -- as opposed to a militia right. If people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? How will the Court survive?
. . . . .
JUSTICE THOMAS: I understand we're talking about abortion here, but what is confusing is that we -- if we were talking about the Second Amendment, I know exactly what we're talking about. If we're talking about the Fourth Amendment, I know what we're talking about because it's written. It's there. What specifically is the right here that we're talking about?
GENERAL PRELOGAR: Well, Justice Thomas, I think that the Court in those other contexts with respect to those other amendments has had to articulate what the text means and the bounds of the constitutional guarantees, and it's done so through a variety of different tests that implement First Amendment rights, Second Amendment rights, Fourth Amendment rights.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
Fewer civil rights = more government power.
Clearly, many of the founders believed rights were various, not all included in the Bill of Rights, and possibly unlimited. But, then, I am a liberal, like many of the founders, so on their side.
Real issues:
1. Rowe v. Wade was a terrible, ineffective political compromise. Probably is completely ignored.
2. If abortion is a natural right, when & how did that become apparent.
3. Equal abortion rights for men. So why cannot we kill our own babies, too.
4. Rights, powers & responsibilities of physicians: can they do whatever patients ask regarding abortion, in the name of medical consultation & treatment?
5. The limits on the rights of the states to enact statutes declaring homicide a crime.
6. The lack of wise women's impartiality as self-appointed representatives of women generally, and whether they should thus recuse themselves, since their interests are involved.
7. Sotomayor's obvious political interests, meaning that she insists the decision be politically viable according to her political standards, rather than follow the law.
8. SCOTUS has been political since Marbury v. Madison. Isn't it time to change the issues to legal ones?
As I recall, there was a big disagreement at the founding about listing any "rights" since that might degrade any rights not specifically included. Now we have "intent" and "meaning".
Freedom of the "press" and of "speech" have been extended to television, radio, and the internet even when no "press" or "speech" are involved. Medical care, at the founding, included closing wounds, sawing off limbs and bleeding by barbers and leeches. Things have changed a bit so what right to medical care is there? And even what is "medical" care? Chiropractors and orthopods are now included if you so choose. Medical records are protected except when they are not. Abortion is a medical procedure for some and that choice is a personal protected choice, for some. Is there any "right" to medical care? Or to food? The "rights" listed in the Constitution can be treated by textual analysis, but what do they "mean" in any specific instance?
There is always a "word game". Does the Second Amendment apply only to muzzle loaders" Or to the best devices that are available? When does a "right" become a dangerous "hazard"? The second amendment was possibly a way to protect states from more powerful and more populous neighbors and to prevent involvement in foreign wars. Now we have a "standing" army and well armed government agencies plus the "power of the purse". So where is the border for "independant action"?
One way or another, it will be an "interesting", "fun" ride. The "wise Latina" is just a hint of what is coming. Stay alert.
"If people actually believe that it's all political, how will we survive? How will the Court survive?"
This sounds to me like an open admission of her fear that public confidence in the integrity of SCOTUS is at risk.
....We're past the time when public confidence in any branch of the Government will tip the balance towards tolerance and forebearance. Neither side will accept a decision that goes against their core beliefs. That is the meaning of the Dredd Scott decision. Slavery was a question that couldn't be decided by any court or Congress. Only by force of arms.
...And so is gun possession. If the Court rules for Mississippi the Prog States will become havens for abortion. Similar to the New England states support of the Underground Railroad in defiance of the Fugitive Slave Act. That will also be a pattern for Gun Control in the Red States. Massive resistance is coming. As populations shift from State to State based on political beliefs it will set the country up for Balkinization . Soon arguing about these issues won't matter. Put up or shut up ia fast approaching. Rural and Conservative areas have the water, the food and the guns. Blue cities have the homeless, the dope and the agitators.
...As a Conservative I'm glad the Progs have poisoned their own well of martial assets. The military , with perverts in power, and the police, with vaccine mandates and defunding policies. When the balloon goes up , management of both groups will watch the rank and file leave for political reasons, something they haven't done since 1861. The Blue cities will complete their descent into madness and collapse.
there was a big disagreement at the founding about listing any "rights" since that might degrade any rights not specifically included
The Federalists and the Antifederalists both lost.
I think the time when "public confidence...is at risk" has passed.
The public knows very well that EVERYTHING is now political. Perceptions and narratives far outweigh original intent or black letter law.
I take SOTOMAYOR's comment as the veiled threat: if we do what I expect you 6 to it will cause a problem that you will not want to deal with so don't do it.
It is the usual thing that they do against conservatives or actually anyone not toeing the line/ stepping off the reservation.