Supreme Court Will Strike Down Roe v Wade

[aygart]

9th is too ambiguous to be usable for anything, but it insinuates that all personal liberties not specifically delineated by the Constitution should not be assumed to be a restrictable right.

Restricted right Ftfy. Yet they are not protected either.
At the very least not in the plain reading of the amendment.

And the 5th?how is it plain in there

[yungermanchik]

[drosenberg88429]

Restricted right Ftfy. Yet they are not protected either.
At the very least not in the plain reading of the amendment.

And the 5th?how is it plain in there

nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

Nothing is plain anywhere. The 5th is really discussing defendants, not the liberties that should be afforded all citizens in normal circumstances.

Again, this is all a question of strict or loose interpretation. Restricted vs restrictable is another extension of the same question. I'm not saying it's not partisan, but free access and liberty to do to ones own body as one sees fit can plausibly be seen as a right Americans are entitled to. It isn't so ridiculous as to say the only possible side in this question is the conservative decision (in my highly uneducated opinion).

[S209]

It blows my mind that some really can’t see at least some of the points and rationales that both sides propose.

[imayid2]

9th is too ambiguous to be usable for anything, but it insinuates that all personal liberties not specifically delineated by the Constitution should not be assumed to be a restrictable right.

How can a "personal" liberty possibly be interpreted to mean the liberty to end a life which isn't yours.

[imayid2]

What a beautiful article! Thank you very much for sharing.
Let us keep in mind the words of the Zohar regarding the destructiveness of abortions on the entire world order:
"One who kills his own child, the fetus his wife is pregnant with, and causes the fetus's death, destroying the creation of G-d, there are those that kill, this man killed his own child! Three evils he has committed which the world cannot tolerate, and this causes a slow undiscerned deterioration in the world, G-d removes His presence from the world, war, hunger, and plague come on the world, the one who killed his child destroyed G-d's creation, he pushed away the presence of G-d which now has no rest, on this the spirit of G-d weeps, and the world is judged with the above, woe to that person, it would have been better had he not been born"
-Zohar Shemos-

[PlatinumGuy]

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1541088243873001473

https://twitter.com/CasualLaw/status/1540906020016234496

https://twitter.com/Acyn/status/1541171710547968003

[YitzyS]

You could download the Jewish Observer here: https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JO1989-V22-N04.pdf

[imayid2]

It blows my mind that some really can’t see at least some of the points and rationales that both sides propose.

The core of Roe V Wade, which in short extrapolated from the 14th amendment the "Right to privacy", and somehow managed to include abortion in "the right to privacy", has literally been blowing millions of minds for 50 years.

[WAM]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/08/missouri-abortion-ban-texas-supreme-court/

I think that is nuts.
You make rules for your own state. I don't know that the left even goes so far.

[S209]

The core of Roe V Wade, which in short extrapolated from the 14th amendment the "Right to privacy", and somehow managed to include abortion in "the right to privacy", has literally been blowing millions of minds for 50 years.

You aren’t exactly making a coherent argument as to why one side is partisan and one isn’t. (Which doesn’t actually make sense.)

[jj1000]

I think that is nuts.
You make rules for your own state. I don't know that the left even goes so far.

If someone plans a murder in the US and commits the murder in a different country and comes back to the US. Can they be arrested or tried in the US for a crime?

If a NY resident commits murder in NJ, can NYPD arrest them?

[imayid2]

You aren’t exactly making a coherent argument as to why one side is partisan and one isn’t. (Which doesn’t actually make sense.)

In a perfect non-partisan world, there would be no chance of abortion being seen as protected by the constitution. It simply isn't there, nor does anyone think it was intended to be. It's not "partisan" to point out that it's simply not there and leave the issue to the states.
We can argue (from a purely secular view) why or why not it ought to be there. Those arguments are likely to be based on respective partisan views. But without an amendment it won't be there.
To properly interpret the Constitution is the job the court is supposed to be doing. Or is it partisanship to think that?

[aygart]

You aren’t exactly making a coherent argument as to why one side is partisan and one isn’t. (Which doesn’t actually make sense.)

What it really comes down to is what people consider a fetus to be. Yelling about murder is ridiculous to someone who considers the fetus to be entirely a part of the mother. Similarly, someone who considers it to be a life of its own can't relate at all to anything based on it being a part of the mother. The 2 sides here are talking different languages.

[aygart]

In a perfect non-partisan world, there would be no chance of abortion being seen as protected by the constitution. It simply isn't there, nor does anyone think it was intended to be. It's not "partisan" to point out that it's simply not there and leave the issue to the states.
We can argue (from a purely secular view) why or why not it ought to be there. Those arguments are likely to be based on respective partisan views. But without an amendment it won't be there.
To properly interpret the Constitution is the job the court is supposed to be doing. Or is it partisanship to think that?

If you consider the fetus to be entirely a part of the mother is that still the case?

[imayid2]

If you consider the fetus to be entirely a part of the mother is that still the case?

Is it partisan to say that’s a complex moral question and cannot be a position that can automatically assumed without the constitution saying so?

[drosenberg88429]

If someone plans a murder in the US and commits the murder in a different country and comes back to the US. Can they be arrested or tried in the US for a crime?

If a NY resident commits murder in NJ, can NYPD arrest them?

Article 4, section 2 of the Constitution.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on Demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.

No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, but shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.

A real analogy would be if a citizen of NY would travel to NJ and do something there which is a crime in NY but not in NJ.

[drosenberg88429]

What a beautiful article! Thank you very much for sharing.
Let us keep in mind the words of the Zohar regarding the destructiveness of abortions on the entire world order:
"One who kills his own child, the fetus his wife is pregnant with, and causes the fetus's death, destroying the creation of G-d, there are those that kill, this man killed his own child! Three evils he has committed which the world cannot tolerate, and this causes a slow undiscerned deterioration in the world, G-d removes His presence from the world, war, hunger, and plague come on the world, the one who killed his child destroyed G-d's creation, he pushed away the presence of G-d which now has no rest, on this the spirit of G-d weeps, and the world is judged with the above, woe to that person, it would have been better had he not been born"
-Zohar Shemos-

Thank you for sharing that. Very important for all us Jews to keep in mind. Beautiful.

Just to point out, there are many things which the Zohar and halacha consider to be major sins and atrocities which the law does not outlaw.

There is a basic difference between a religion and a government in that a religion does have rights to define your personal freedoms and responsibilities vis a vis yourself. As your Creator and definer of the purpose of your creation, G-d can delineate and assign you commandments which are outside of a governments jurisdiction. For a government to do so would be a violation of separation between religion and state.

[ExGingi]

Can't wait for the day they overturn some of the other more recent rulings courtesy of Roberts.

In the meantime: https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/japan-court-rules-same-sex-marriage-ban-is-constitutional-/6626551.html

[imayid2]

What it really comes down to is what people consider a fetus to be. Yelling about murder is ridiculous to someone who considers the fetus to be entirely a part of the mother. Similarly, someone who considers it to be a life of its own can't relate at all to anything based on it being a part of the mother. The 2 sides here are talking different languages.

Does it really come down to that? Say it isn't murder, does that make it a right protected by the Constitution? How? Where?
Imagine people started amputating their own limbs for the heck of it, would they have a constitutional right to obtain this procedure? Would states be forced to provide this service without "unnecessary burdens"?