16 29

The Justices that overturned Roe are “Constitutionalists.” They believe in taking the original Constitution literally, word for word. Their reasoning for overturning Roe is because “abortion” is not mentioned in the Constitution and, therefore, is not a “right” guaranteed to the people. But the right to urinate is not mentioned in the Constitution. Nor is the right to drink water. Nor the right to have indoor plumbing. Nor highways, bridges, airports, and many other things Americans have a right to. Their Constitutionalist “reasoning” is a delusion. They have been indoctrinated to slavishly follow that delusion, which they let override their own judgment and common sense, and renders them essentially unable to apply the principles of "justice" to their rulings.

mischl 8 June 26

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


Just like religious fundamentalists. But neither religious fundamentalists nor legal originalists can pass the sniff test. They would have to reject all amendments including the first 10.

And Amy Coney Island Barrett couldn't vote, couldn't serve on a jury, couldn't own property, and certainly could not be a judge!


Maybe some input from an attorney might help? First of all, as was mentioned below, unfortunately you are wrong that all of the things you mentioned are "rights." But those are beside the point. My constitutional law professor was a strict constructionist. Under that theory as stated in the 10th Amendment, anything not precluded by the Constitution was left to the States.

Consequently, 50 years ago had the Supreme Court decided that because it wasn't delegated to the United States or precluded by the states, abortion should have been left to the States.

But, and this is the important part, the Supreme Court 50 years ago decided that under the Fourteenth Amendment the right of privacy and other rights entwined in the right of privacy, like the right to abortion were therefore in the Constitution, the living Constitution philosophy.

Under the doctrine of stare decisis all following Supreme Court Justices took an oath and swore to follow stare decisis and opinions that are settled law and precedent. As Kavanaugh and Barrett Etc lied about in their Senate hearings. So technically, overturning Roe versus Wade under a strict constructionist theory was correct, but under stare decisis was incorrect.

So, just like judges have to interpret the meaning of "unreasonable" searches and seizures in the Fourth Amendment, and how the court has interpreted "a well regulated militia..." regarding 2nd Amendment cases, the Supreme Court 50 years ago and every Court since was allowed to interpret privileges and immunities as a right to abortion and a right to privacy. So unless it can be proven that under no possible interpretation could that Court have been right, Roe versus Wade stands.

In 1927 the US Supreme Court decided that it was okay for states to sterilize inmates involuntarily. Amazingly that case Buck versus Bell has never been overturned but States stopped doing it.

lerlo Level 8 June 27, 2022

Thank you for your input, counselor. The term "Constitutionalist" has been bandied about a lot lately, and its meaning has been blurred, at least as I've observed. It's also often used as in "strict Constitutionalist." In almost any sense of the word, it implies "kinda stupid," because that entails pretending nothing happened and nothing changed over the last 233 years. Meanwhile, the mechanisms for ensuring our system of laws stay true to the original intent of the Constitution have been weakened (IMHO) or subverted, causing what I see as significant losses of personal freedoms. During my travels in Europe, I see countries where personal freedoms are greater, and I chalk that up to governments that are newer and were able to take certain advantages from our mistakes.

@mischl well as the Constitution was written, according to the 10th Amendment if it's not in the Constitution it's left of the states. I'm guessing you're on this particular site for a reason and if the Christian conservative right controls all of our government they are also against the rule of law and only like the laws they like and only pay the taxes they like. We have learned from the last election that 40% of our population is racist and idiotic. It doesn't mean that states can't give us the right to privacy and the rights to go with it but apparently 40% of the country doesn't like that idea


I have heard Alito's arguments. It makes no sense. Why would abortion or anything else have to be a part of our Constitution? If we are using that document to prove our point then stopping women from voting is next. Maybe we can even bring slavery back if we try hard enough. People need to see and understand that when you vote GOP you are throwing away your rights. Mark my words that there will be something on the ballot next time about "for or against" on this issue.

How does the question of slavery relate in any manner to the abortion ruling?

@Alienbeing Only in the sense of the Supreme Court rolling things backwards instead of all of us moving forward.

@DenoPenno Prohibition of Slavery is specifically mentioned in the Constitution. No Court could negate that, thus abortion and slavery are not comparable.

@Alienbeing OK.


Amend the Constitution and keep the issue out of the courts.

BD66 Level 8 June 26, 2022

Amendment is REAL tough. Codifying it by federal law is way more practical.

They couldn't even get the ERA passed. The point of the post is that the same argument the illegitimate SCOTUS used to undo Roe and Casey could just as easily end gay marriage, restore sodomy laws (those are certainly on the wish list), take away women's right to vote, restore segregation, make interracial marriage illegal again, etc.


Simple ideas for (very) simple minds.


In more plain language, they will make it up as they go along as far as coming up with some dishonest reason for whatever policy they want to impose, regardless of the law or precedent.


It has nothing to do with being Constitutionalists and everything to do with being Christian Nationalists.


Constitutional originalism does not address the simple reality that times change and conditions differ. And, while the framers were exceptionally smart, they could not foresee all the changes that would take place two or three hundred years down the line. To remain relevant, interpretations of the document have to evolve.

Which is where amendments come in….

@Buck Yes, amendments may he made, but it is extremely difficult. Can you see an amendment legalizing abortion passing in today's polarized political environment?

Our bipolar government can’t get shit done period. I’m merely suggesting that the need for laws to evolve was recognized early on, hence amendments.

@Buck ✔️

@Flyingsaucesir It is difficult to amend the Constitution because at the Federal level we are a Republic, NOT a Democracy. At the time the Constitution was written small States distrusted large States, and wanted to be sure they had a voice.

Today (but for different reasons) States still distrust each other.

The Constitution is a living document. It can be amended.

Perhaps you might want to read the 10th Amendment.

@Alienbeing ✔️✔️

@lerlo Perhaps you can be more specific.

@Alienbeing the 10th Amendment is pretty clear. If you want more please read my post above

@lerlo OK anything not specifically addressed in the Constitution is automatically left to the states to decide. I get that.

When Gorsuch, Kavenaugh, and Barret stated in their confirmation hearings that Roe was "settled law," implying that they would respect stare decisis and let Roe stand, was that a lie under oath? Can they be impeached for that?

@Flyingsaucesir please see my comment on the post above. Yes they should be charged with perjury and yes they should be impeached. Will they, of course not. They'll say they were persuaded that legally the decision had to be overturned which while technically correct violates stare decisis.

@lerlo Having practiced law for over 40 years I am positive I am much more acquainted with the Tenth Amendment, (or any other legal issue) than you are.

What I am not acquainted with is what point you are trying to make, vis-a-vis anything I said.

If you wish to be a wise guy, just run along, and play with the other children.

@Alienbeing I'm sure that quick legal mind will figure it out eventually. If you read my comment to the original post and the 10th Amendment and you don't understand my point maybe after my 40 Years of the practice of law I can't communicate anymore.

@lerlo If you are referring to your 6/29 reply, it is obvious you have no clue about how the 10th Amendment relates to the remainder of the Constitution. If that is not your reference, then you prove you have no point, so go back to playing with yourself.

@Alienbeing the only dick here is you

@lerlo Your childish remarks and obvious attempt to chage the subject so as not to show your legal ignorance is obvious to the most casual observer.

Your continued ignorance is invited, it is a delight to see a person make a fool of himself.


Your understanding is very flawed. Rights do not include urinating (a bodily function) plumbing, highways, or airports. Rights MUST be political, never economic. This is obvious because everyone has exactly the same rights. If a right was economic someone wold have to pay for it for you to enjoy and that is not equal is it?

If you said the government has no business regulating its citizens bodies, you'd have a good argument. The argument you posted is poor, at best.

Read the reply Matias gives you. His explanation is correct.

I'm willing to chip in $5 USD to send Alienbeing back to whatever in hellish planet he thinks he came from. Who's with me? Can we get a GoFundMe account going to ship this twat of a twit back to his home planet of Totalitarianism?

Economic issues are political issues.

@FreethoughtKaty, @SnowyOwl Instead, why not put up a cognitive arguement. Maybe because you can't?

@SnowyOwl, @FreethoughtKaty They are political in the sense that budgets are passed by elected officials, but they are not a Rights issue. The key point that you missed is everyone must be able to enjoy a Right in the same manner, because everyone has exactly the same Rights.

@FreethoughtKaty Let me give an example of the point.

First, we must agree that I do not have any more Rights than you do, or anyone else, and vice verse. In other words we all have the exact same Rights.

Next let's consider two items:

  1. Freedom of Speech
  2. Healthcare

By recognizing your Right to say anything you care to say about the Government, it costs no one a penny.

Now healthcare I personally believe should be universally available to everyone. However, healthcare is not free. Doctors, hospitals, etc get paid for their services. Let's now presuppose you are very rich, while I am very poor. I can't afford healthcare, but I still need it to be healthy, and possibly even to continue to live. I say healthcare therefore should be an entitlement, actually I suggest Medicare for all. However since in this example you are rich, you and other rich people will have to subsdize or maybe entirely pay for my healthcare. Hence you pay, I get it for free. We are not enjoying healthcare equally are we?

Again, since I truly do believe healthcare is a "must" provide, it must be provided as an entitlement, not a Right, and I say that is OK, because we can't let humans die just because they can't afford healthcare, but in doing so we didn't establish a Right, we established an entitlement.

@Alienbeing we as a species and then as societies decide what a right is. For example, the rights to liberty and the pursuit of happiness are not universal, right? And if my tax burden is higher than yours but we both have equal access to the system that tax dollars are funding, then that is absolutely equally “enjoying” healthcare. An entitlement, in the U.S. anyway, is something we put money into so we can use it later, like social security. It’s certainly a misnomer.

@FreethoughtKaty You did not address the facts presented that say everyone must be able to enjoy a Right is the exact same manner or it cannot be a Right, although it can be an Entitlement.


Alito cited some bullshit 16th century English dude as some sort of "explanation". Along with a lot of other bullshit.
Fuck the 6 justices who ruled to strip basic rights from Americans.
They're all liars and scumbags.
I hope they die painfully, and soon.

KKGator Level 9 June 26, 2022

To be fair, John Roberts did vote in favor of upholding Roe, even tho he is still a conservative asshole. He probably did so in order to make the SC look less partisan and extreme, but he already knew, I'm sure, that voting with the liberals would not affect the outcome.

@TomMcGiverin No offense, but fuck "fair".

@KKGator I hear ya. That's why I'm a socialist, not a Dem, because I believe in fighting these assholes by all means necessary, as Malcom X would say, rather than this centrist Dem Party bullshit of bipartisanship and civility...

@TomMcGiverin That's why I'm an independent and not a democrat or a republican.
Contrary to a lot of what some people may think, I'm also a moderate.
I don't like extremes in any direction.

I just believe that everyone is entitled to equal rights, and equal protection under the law.
That includes bodily autonomy and the right to live their lives as they see fit, as long as they aren't harming anyone else.

@KKGator Can't agree with you on extremes, but I do on the rest of it.

@TomMcGiverin Roberts voted in favor of Citizens United, one of the worst decisions ever.

@Flyingsaucesir That's a damned fact!
He's a giant pos, too.

@Flyingsaucesir I remember that, which is why I still referred to him as a conservative asshole..

@Flyingsaucesir Citizens United, otherwise known as How to Dissolve Democracy in One Easy Ruling.

@mischl That continues to be one of the WORST decisions of all time.
If we lose this nation, that will be one of the biggest reasons why.


The concept is called "originalism" and it does not mean that things not mentioned in the Constitution do not exist or that there cannot be rights except those in the constitition, but it's about the interpretation of what is written in this text: that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted".
The alternative would be to interpret these statements anew in the light of new situations .

Matias Level 8 June 26, 2022

I'm pretty sure that EVERY Supreme Court ruling ever has been about interpretation.


This is NOT about abortion. It was never about Pro-Life, which is obvious. This was ALWAYS about having a dog-whistle to mobilize fascist Christian voters.

And NOW, that has morphed into a culture-war sledge-hammer. The fascist Christian judges have openly admitted they intend to undo every progressive measure EVER issued by SCOTUS, and to vindictively enable the MAGA White Christian Nationalist agenda. They have a big bundle of sticks and they intend to put out every eye they can think of. They get the vengeance they've sought for decades and Putin gets what he wants.

racocn8 Level 8 June 26, 2022

That is why, even tho I have always been antiwar, if it comes down to fighting these pricks in the street, I am willing to buy a gun, learn to shoot and give my life if necessary, to kill a few of them to take with me if I end up dying for it. This is the first war that actually would be worth fighting in during my lifetime. I will not die passively or let them take me to a camp.

@TomMcGiverin Right on. Hope it doesn't come to that, but if it does I'll be right there with you.

@Flyingsaucesir As will I.


Absolutely 100% agree. Nor does the constitution explicitly lay out the right to have high powered semi auto rifles. It's an application of law that they only apply to certain things and not others. Very intellectually dishonest.

Very essentially Xtian.

Intellectually dishonest. You know that is the definition of every conservative I've ever encountered. I hope you are not naive enough to still think that intellectual honesty means anything to conservatives...


Maybe those assholes have no right to breathe. Color me not sympathetic if any of them are assassinated, not that it will ever happen. They have too much security provided them by now, and anyway, the left gave up violence decades ago, unlike our own modern domestic terrorists on the right.

Let's not forget that it was liberals who won the Civil War and WWII. Standing up for democracy is a liberal project.

That’s an insult to assholes everywhere!?🤠

@Buck That's true, I am often an asshole and I am offended to be lumped in with these pricks and bitches..


Who paid Kavanaugh's debts? Why does the Federalist Society have so much power? The Deep State is a crock of shit but there are an awful lot of Deep Pockets with an awful lot of influence.

MizJ Level 8 June 26, 2022

They are not. They are “Originalists”. And their assumptions about what was originally intended are wrong. They want to take away civil rights of a vast group of people, especially non-binaries. Women need to stop this shit.

Unfortunately, they have brainwashed a lot of women on their side to their way of thinking.

@misstuffy Think of the ''Stockholm syndrome." Think of how women can be ''groomed.'' We make it far too easy for them.

@LucyLoohoo Warren Zevon got it wrong when he wrote "Patty Hearst heard the burst of Roland's Thompson gun." This implies a political conversion, when what really happened was Stockholm syndrome.

@LucyLoohoo You are so right. Most of these women celebrating are part of the religious right. I myself ama carrier of a genetic disease that is XY chromosome based. Females are carriers with afflicted males. The disease cripples the body and the victims die a slow miserable death. I watched my eldest brother suffer from this and when I was married, we were expecting a child. As it turned out, this was an afflicted male. We opted to abort. That baby was very much wanted. I had already bought some baby clothes, we had a name chosen, everything. But we knew we did the best thing, the most humane thing for him. As much as it broke my heart, I knew I did the right thing. Now, other women, facing that same decision, may be forced to carry and give birth under similar circumstances. Be forced to watch their children suffer and die miserable. I would really love to hear how these justices think this is more humane. How this is any kind of life they so want to protect. I believe they are misguided and this precedent is dangerous for women.

@misstuffy They would claim it was “gods will”, and that there is some sort of lesson to be learned from the suffering. That is precisely what I was told about my deformed fetus. These people are so deluded and make every excuse in the book for why things happen and how we need to always trust their God. Religion is a Sickness that has taken over peoples minds. I don’t know how to reach them.

@Redheadedgammy And yet they claim God does not make mistakes. What is funny is that so many people planning to go into the ministry, go through religious studies only to come out Atheists. When they get a good education that is.

@misstuffy I had read somewhere years ago that what you say is true. Once they get into their Buybull, and really study it, more than a third of them drop out. It may be more now though as I think I read that article back in the early 2000’s.

@misstuffy I'm so VERY sorry to hear this! How horrible for you and your family! And yet, it was the most compassionate, loving solution anyone could choose.

BUT then....there's Oklahoma and Mississippi, et al....where ''loving xtians'' would have thrown you into the slammer!

@Redheadedgammy I agree, some of our biggest activists have come out of seminary schools. They went in believing they would come out to save all these souls for Jesus and got their eyes opened, and being both intelligent and able to think for themselves. Deconverted thanks to their educations.

@LucyLoohoo Thank you, had he been a healthy fetus, my son would have been turning 33 years old this year.

@misstuffy And some of the most intelligent atheists have that same background---heavily indoctrinated in religion, etc. They're our ''nurseries," aren't they? 🙂

@LucyLoohoo Yes that is true. These are the ones that our now our leaders, like Dan Barker, or Seth Andrews, my fave podcaster. Seth has stated that he learned more about the Bible as an Atheist than he ever knew as a Christian.

Write Comment More
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:673774
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.