What, _exactly_, did Ruth Bader Ginsburg say about Roe v. Wade?
I've seen:
1. She approved of the decision but found the reasoning weak (or invalid)
2. She would have supported Roe in the specific case, but NOT set up >guidelines (which had the force of law)
3. She supported using a different clause in the reconstruction amendments >to support Roe, and possibly a different framework
and a few other possibilities.
What, really, did she say?
I'm NOT asking how the members of this group would have ruled if they were
on the Court. That might not be a violation of the group guidelines, but I >see no point in asking.
--
Arthur L. Rubin
Confused in Brea
Read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html
On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
Read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html
Paywall.
On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
Read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html
Paywall.
On 6/27/2022 10:31 AM, Rick wrote:
Read this:
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-v-wade.html
Paywall.
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have the votes to overturn the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion proposes, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still on the court. But Ginsburg was not a fan of the reasoning behind the 1973 ruling.
She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.
Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality rather >> than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.
So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
and mother in abortion decisions?
On June 28, Rick wrote:
The Supreme Court probably wouldn’t have the votes to overturn
the right to abortion in Roe v. Wade, as a leaked draft opinion
proposes, if Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg were still on the court.
But Ginsburg was not a fan of the reasoning behind the 1973
ruling.
She suggested a ruling protecting abortion rights would have been
more durable if it had been based on the Equal Protection Clause
of the Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on
gender equality rather than the right to privacy that the
justices highlighted.
So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
and mother in abortion decisions?
According to RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com>:
Constitution — in other words, if it had focused on gender equality
rather
than the right to privacy that the justices highlighted.
So, Ginsburg advocated equal consideration to father
and mother in abortion decisions?
Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to bear
a child agaist his or her will.
Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to
bear a child agaist his or her will.
But suppose that child has developed in the womb to the point
where it is viable and able to exist on its own? By the time the
child has been in the womb, say, seven or eight months, I think in
this situation many people would argue that the person carrying
the child should indeed be forced to bear that child.
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:ta5buu$ne6$1@gioia.aioe.org:
Don't be silly. Nobody, regardless of gender, should be forced to
bear a child agaist his or her will.
But suppose that child has developed in the womb to the point
where it is viable and able to exist on its own? By the time the
child has been in the womb, say, seven or eight months, I think in
this situation many people would argue that the person carrying
the child should indeed be forced to bear that child.
And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the Court is
saying that, no matter how early, no matter how undeveloped, a
fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient person, and it is
permissible to prevent doctors from counseling patients to abort when
it is medically necessary to do so.
And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the
Court is saying that, no matter how early, no matter how
undeveloped, a fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient
person, and it is permissible to prevent doctors from counseling
patients to abort when it is medically necessary to do so.
Well no, the Court is not really saying that. It's not
addressing the rightness or wrongness of abortion per se. What
the ruling essentially says is that the Court is the wrong venue
to decide this issue since abortion is not specifically addressed
anywhere in the Constitution. Since it's not a Constitutional
issue, the Court's ruling returns the issue to the states.
That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
able to predict what is proper and what is not.
This court wants to upend all of that.
And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the Constitution? Ha!
"Rick" <rick@nospam.com> wrote in news:taif1c$pt4$1@gioia.aioe.org:
And that's what the Supreme Court ruled in 1973. But now the
Court is saying that, no matter how early, no matter how
undeveloped, a fertilized egg is to be considered a sentient
person, and it is permissible to prevent doctors from counseling
patients to abort when it is medically necessary to do so.
Well no, the Court is not really saying that. It's not
addressing the rightness or wrongness of abortion per se. What
the ruling essentially says is that the Court is the wrong venue
to decide this issue since abortion is not specifically addressed
anywhere in the Constitution. Since it's not a Constitutional
issue, the Court's ruling returns the issue to the states.
That's a very simplistic and naive way to look at it.
For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
create a privacy issue, and are for the most part between a patient
and his or her doctor. A fetus does have rights that must be
respected, but (they said) that the rights had to be balanced. A
fetus would have rights that the State could protect, but only after
it could live itself outside the womb. For the three months before
that they gave the State the right to restrict abortion but only in
cases that there was some serious state interest. For the initial
three months, the State could not restrict abortions if a woman and
her doctor decided that it was in the woman's best interest.
To say, "well, it's not in the Constitution so we won't deal with
it" goes against almost 250 years of Supreme Court precedent. Almost
every Supreme Court case that ever existed dealt with issues that
weren't specifically mentioned in the Constitution.
Even religious freedom. It's not expressly mentioned in the
Constitution either. Yes, people can't be restricted from
"exercising" their religion. But that could mean that they won't
stop you from going to court, but everything else is off the table.
It's the right of privacy that actually creates our current notion of >religious freedom. If you get rid of the right of privacy, then
everything else is on the table. The government can tell you (as
state laws had done in the past) what kind of sex you can have with
your spouse, for example. The government can regulate almost
anything and everything unless it is clearly and specifically stated
in the Constitution.
That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
able to predict what is proper and what is not.
This court wants to upend all of that.
And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the >Constitution? Ha!
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion
or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And for that reason, the issue is back with the states.What an... interesting... approach.
The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence
v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!
Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to
be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you
have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.
And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide
you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard
truth
is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one.
Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to
abortion
or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And
for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
What an... interesting... approach.
The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection". That >surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence v. Texas >and Obergefell v. Hodges!
Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to be >"compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you have a >right to be warned about it before the cops question you.
And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide you >with one if you can't pay for it yourself.
...
Or is she allowed to evict this trespasser?
Ultimately the abortion question is the same as the rent control
question. Should somebody who will die without a suitable residence (the
womb or the apartment) be legally allowed to stay there until they move
out (get born)? Or does the landlord/mother have the right to evict
them, even if this means they will die in the winter snow/in the non-nurturing environment outside the mother's body?
On Friday, July 22, 2022 at 1:01:07 AM UTC-4, Barry Gold wrote:
On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth >>> is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. >>> Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the ConstitutionWhat an... interesting... approach.
literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion >>> or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And >>> for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with Lawrence
v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!
Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not to
be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that you
have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.
And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to provide
you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.
--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
And you think that at least four members of the current Court wouldn't think ALL of these (and a good many more) are judicial and federal overreach?
"Barry Gold"Â wrote in message news:tbcpio$2me86$1@dont-email.me...
On 7/21/2022 11:09 AM, Rick wrote:
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard
truth
is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. >>> Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to
abortion
or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period.
And
for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
What an... interesting... approach.
The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex with
consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal protection".
That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of sodomy. Away with
Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!
Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right not
to be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't mean that
you have a right to be warned about it before the cops question you.
And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the Assistance of
Counsel for [your] defence." But the government doesn't have to
provide you with one if you can't pay for it yourself.
Those are valid points, but it obscures what I think is unique about the abortion debate. It isn't just about equal protection or privacy rights
- it is about the fundamental issue of when does life begin.
I think we all agree that killing another human is generally wrong. Of course there are exceptions for self-defense and whatever, but the basic concept is well established that we don't allow people to kill other
people. So the issue is when does life begin? I think just about
everyone would agree that aborting a viable 9-month old fetus who is
about to be born is generally not okay since you have an actual person
who can exist outside the womb. Similarly, I think a majority of people (though not all, certainly) would argue that aborting an embryo right
after fertilization is reasonable since you effectively only have the potential for life at that moment.  So the question is where between
those two extremes do we start the clock on life? Is it when major
organs start to form? When the heart starts beating? When brain
activity begins? When actual thinking occurs? This is not a Constitutional issue in the sense that this definitional question is not
even hinted at anywhere in the document. The Constitution talks about
equal protection for what we assume are human life forms, but it is
silent on the very fundamental question of when does life actually start?
So it's not so much a legal issue as a definitional issue. We agree
that life should be protected under the law, but when does life begin?
Since this issue is not addressed or even hinted at in the Constitution,
it has to be defined somewhere else in some other legal document. Now
that could be the Constitution through an amendment. Or it could
perhaps be through some federal legislation passed by Congress and
signed by the President, though that could raise 10th Amendment
concerns. But in the absence of any such explicitly defined federal law
or the Constitution itself, the Court has decided the issue is properly handled by the states.  Now those who defend abortion rights are
attacking the ruling and those who oppose abortion rights are defending
the decision. But hardly anyone is addressing the central problem which
is that the definition of when life begins is clearly not in the Constitution.
Those are valid points, but it obscures what I think is unique
about the abortion debate. It isn't just about equal protection
or privacy rights - it is about the fundamental issue of when does
life begin.
I think we all agree that killing another human is generally
wrong. Of course there are exceptions for self-defense and
whatever, but the basic concept is well established that we don't
allow people to kill other people. So the issue is when does life
begin? I think just about everyone would agree that aborting a
viable 9-month old fetus who is about to be born is generally not
okay since you have an actual person who can exist outside the
womb. Similarly, I think a majority of people (though not all,
certainly) would argue that aborting an embryo right after
fertilization is reasonable since you effectively only have the
potential for life at that moment. So the question is where
between those two extremes do we start the clock on life? Is it
when major organs start to form? When the heart starts beating?
When brain activity begins? When actual thinking occurs? This is
not a Constitutional issue in the sense that this definitional
question is not even hinted at anywhere in the document. The
Constitution talks about equal protection for what we assume are
human life forms, but it is silent on the very fundamental
question of when does life actually start?
So it's not so much a legal issue as a definitional issue. We
agree that life should be protected under the law, but when does
life begin? Since this issue is not addressed or even hinted at
in the Constitution, it has to be defined somewhere else in some
other legal document. Now that could be the Constitution through
an amendment. Or it could perhaps be through some federal
legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President, though
that could raise 10th Amendment concerns. But in the absence of
any such explicitly defined federal law or the Constitution
itself, the Court has decided the issue is properly handled by the
states. Now those who defend abortion rights are attacking the
ruling and those who oppose abortion rights are defending the
decision. But hardly anyone is addressing the central problem
which is that the definition of when life begins is clearly not in
the Constitution.
TheMightyAtlas wrote:
Barry Gold wrote:
Rick wrote:
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but theWhat an... interesting... approach.
cold, hard truth is that this Court is taking a different
approach from the previous one. Whether you like it or not,
this Court is reading the Constitution literally, and the
literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion or
fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution.
Period. And for that reason, the issue is back with the
states.
The Constitution doesn't say people have a right to have sex
with consenting partners. Just this little thing called "equal
protection". That surely doesn't cover the awful crime of
sodomy. Away with Lawrence v. Texas and Obergefell v. Hodges!
Similarly with Miranda v. Arizona. Just because you have a right
not to be "compelled" to be a witness against yourself doesn't
mean that you have a right to be warned about it before the cops
question you.
And Gideon v. Wainwright. You have a right "to have the
Assistance of Counsel for [your] defence." But the government
doesn't have to provide you with one if you can't pay for it
yourself. --
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...
And you think that at least four members of the current Court
wouldn't think ALL of these (and a good many more) are judicial
and federal overreach?
That was exactly my point. If you're going to take an extreme
literalist viewpoint, then we the people have almost no rights.
On 7/22/2022 10:41 AM, Barry Gold wrote:
...
Or is she allowed to evict this trespasser?
Ultimately the abortion question is the same as the rent control
question. Should somebody who will die without a suitable residence
(the womb or the apartment) be legally allowed to stay there until
they move out (get born)? Or does the landlord/mother have the right
to evict them, even if this means they will die in the winter snow/in
the non-nurturing environment outside the mother's body?
There is a difference A person evicted by a landlord has some chance of continue to live. A fetus being aborted has a 100% chance of death.
One thing that's not in the Constitution but has long been
interpreted to be its meaning, is that the restrictions there apply
to local and state governments as much as the federal government. If
you take a literalist approach, we have no rights under state laws,
and states are not required to follow the Constitution.
On 7/22/2022 1:19 PM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
One thing that's not in the Constitution but has long been
interpreted to be its meaning, is that the restrictions there
apply to local and state governments as much as the federal
government. If you take a literalist approach, we have no rights
under state laws, and states are not required to follow the
Constitution.
That's based on the "due process" and "privileges and immunities"
clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.
government. If you take a literalist approach, we have no rights
under state laws, and states are not required to follow the
Constitution.
That's based on the "due process" and "privileges and immunities"
clauses in the Fourteenth Amendment.
Of course. But it doesn't mean the current court will keep it as is.
200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.
On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.
For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the Constitution
implies (but does not specifically state) that there is a right to
privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical treatments
create a privacy issue, and are for the most part between a patient
and his or her doctor.
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
For almost 100 years the Supreme Court has held that the
Constitution implies (but does not specifically state) that there
is a right to privacy. In Roe v. Wade the Court said that medical
treatments create a privacy issue, and are for the most part
between a patient and his or her doctor.
If it's a privacy argument, then the Burger court should have
struck down all Drug War programs, in the next case involving
illicit substances.
If it's all about a woman's right to control her own body, how can
Big Brother abrogate a person's sovereignty over his own skin, to
decide for himself what substances he may ingest? If there's any
human right, that's it - talk about privacy -
On 7/23/2022 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
...
On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.
Under current definitions, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic
assault rifle to be carried to the mall. ...
You really can't tell the difference between abortion and drug use?
Abortion really is a private affair and doesn't have a significant
effect on society at large. Drug use, however, does. By your
argument theft, burglary, perhaps even murder, may be private because
they don't involve other people at that specific moment, and so can't
be regulated by the law. That's just silly.
According to Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com>:
On 7/23/2022 12:30 PM, John Levine wrote:
...
On the other hand, this court's selective amnesia works both ways. For
200 years it was clear that "A well regulated Militia, being necessary
to the security of a free State" meant that the 2nd amendment was
about state militias, which we now call the National Guard, and it was
so obvious that there was hardly any case law. But in 2008, somehow
that clause vanished and now we're stuck with a misreading that allows
18 year olds to carry semi-automatic assault rifles to the mall.
Under current definitions, there is no such thing as a semi-automatic
assault rifle to be carried to the mall. ...
I certainly do not claim to be an expert on the details of various kinds
of guns, but I would have thought my point is simple enough.
The interpretation of the second amendment that finds a personal right
to own and carry the kind of guns used to commit mass murder in Uvalde
and in Highland Park and in Buffalo and in 300 other places so far
this year is a highly selective and motivated one, not a literal one.
If anyone is wondering what the amendment is actually about, the
answer is the same as the answer to any question about early American history: slavery. It was to keep northern abolitionists from banning
the state militias that the southern states used to fight slave
rebellions.
See "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment", a well written
paper by law professor Carl Bogus (yes that's his real name):
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1465114
Note that at the other end of the life cycle, lack of brain
activity {"brain death"} is considered [dunno how universally] as
being "dead". So it is possible to consistently extend that view
to the other end: an embryo isn't "alive" until its brain has
started functioning.
Ginsburg actually didn’t think Roe was the best case for establishing abortion rights. She would have preferred a case she worked on as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union in the early 1970s.
In that case, Ginsburg represented an Air Force captain who became pregnant while serving as a nurse in Vietnam. In a twist, Ginsburg championed the woman’s right not to have an abortion; an Air Force rule at the time dictated that pregnant women had to terminate their pregnancies or be discharged.
Ginsburg challenged the rule on behalf of the woman, Susan Struck, in a case called Struck v. Secretary of Defense and won a stay preventing Struck’s discharge while the courts reviewed the case. In December 1972, two years after Struck gave birth to a baby and shortly after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the suit, the military changed the policy and let Struck remain on active duty.
The court agreed to drop the case as moot. The following month, it issued
its Roe v. Wade ruling.
You can call it naïve and simplistic if you want, but the cold, hard truth
is that this Court is taking a different approach from the previous one. >Whether you like it or not, this Court is reading the Constitution
literally, and the literal truth is that there is no reference to abortion
or fetal viability or anything similar in the Constitution. Period. And
for that reason, the issue is back with the states.
--
On 7/12/2022 6:00 AM, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
That is not the common law approach to the law. That is the civil
law approach, but that is not the legal system we have. Under the
common law, laws are often written in an imprecise way. And courts
look at the principles stated in the law, the specific factors
involved in any court case, and come up with a decision based on
common sense and prior court cases - it's important that people be
able to predict what is proper and what is not.
This court wants to upend all of that.
And you think it's just about what is specifically mentioned in the
Constitution? Ha!
"This court wants to upend all of that."
I think that pretty much describes justice Thomas. But based on the
comments of the other four justices who made up the majority, they ONLY
want to overturn Roe. They have explicitly said(*) that they would keep >Loving, Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. In short, they want to
overturn the one ruling that the Republican "base" objects to, while
keeping the other "substantive due process" rulings intact.
The fact that this makes no logical sense doesn't seem to bother them in
the least.
(*) Of course, can we trust what they say? All five of them lied under
oath at their confirmation hearings.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 251 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 35:00:10 |
| Calls: | 5,571 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 11,685 |
| Messages: | 5,129,148 |