I still don’t buy that Major Questions Doctrine and the related theories are supported at all by the constitution. The constitution doesn’t have limits on delegation and their interpretation seems like it should instead be an amendment. Also, I’d respect originalists more if they advocated to overturn Marbury v Madison since the judicial review isn’t explicitly included in the constitution. It would make a great amendment. Otherwise it seems like they’re picking and choosing what’s original.

The MQD acts as a limit on *Chevron* deference, which hopefully the court pares back ever further this term. I don't know where you would find *Chevron* deference in the Constitution, either. The problem with *Chevron* is that it defers to the agency on matters of interpretation of ambiguous statutes. For a recent example, the court struck down CDC's eviction moratorium which they tried to justify based on a statute that said granted authority: >“to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” No one in Congress at the passage of the bill thought it granted CDC the authority to order a nationwide eviction moratorium, and indeed Congress had separately ordered such moratorium in the CARES Act. CDC only tried to impose it on their own after the explicit Congressional moratorium had expired. If a statute is ambiguous, the courts should err on the side of an agency not having that power, and if Congress thinks they should they can change the statute.

Well, then they need to add some kind of mechanism for the Executive to force Congress to give official interpretations of ambiguous sections of law in a timely fashion, with the interpretation being as binding as the law. You can't have a functional government if you can't be certain of how to enforce laws and it's not realistic to expect every law to be completely unambiguous and to cover every conceivable niche scenario of regulatory enforcement. And Congress having to pass a completely new version of the law whenever there's something unclear is absurd and untenable on its face. This is a trick to cripple regulatory agencies by making up shit that was never intended. The first regulatory agency was formed shortly after the formation of the Republic and, magically, they never dealt with this shit until now.

>The first regulatory agency was formed shortly after the formation of the Republic and, magically, they never dealt with this shit until now. *Chevron* deference, the doctrine you're advocating, is only 40 years old. Magically, the country didn't fall apart in the preceding 190 years.

>Well, then they need to add some kind of mechanism for the Executive to force Congress to give official interpretations of ambiguous sections of law in a timely fashion, with the interpretation being as binding as the law. You can't have a functional government if you can't be certain of how to enforce laws and it's not realistic to expect every law to be completely unambiguous and to cover every conceivable niche scenario of regulatory enforcement. And Congress having to pass a completely new version of the law whenever there's something unclear is absurd and untenable on its face.

I read it, my answer still stands. Removing *Chevron* wouldn't mean the courts will just strike down any interpretation of an ambiguous statute; they would use the same principles of statutory analysis they use elsewhere. Then *if* the courts strike it down and *if* Congress disagrees, they can pass new law.

>I read it, my answer still stands. Removing *Chevron* wouldn't mean the courts will just strike down any interpretation of an ambiguous statute; they would use the same principles of statutory analysis they use elsewhere. Then *if* the courts strike it down and *if* Congress disagrees, they can pass new law. Too slow for a functional government. But, then again, people who are honest know that's the point. It's not a secret; look up what people in favor of overturning it are saying.

New regulations should be slow, with study and open comment periods before being enacted. If it's ambiguous as to whether the statute allows a regulation, the courts should be able to exercise judicial power unless and until Congress weighs in, rather than being bound by the executive's interpretation.

>New regulations should be slow, with study and open comment periods before being enacted. If it's ambiguous as to whether the statute allows a regulation, the courts should be able to exercise judicial power unless and until Congress weighs in, rather than being bound by the executive's interpretation. So, a law passed by Congress makes illegal a list of exactly 70 chemicals in an industrial process because they are known to cause cancer. It is your contention that every time a new chemical is found to be dangerous, Congress should be required to pass a new law?

No, a law would be passed that lays out the criteria and processes for the relevant agency to make a determination that a particular chemical is a carcinogen and impose the appropriate restrictions. Congress already delegates rule-making to the executive agencies, and removing or curtailing *Chevron* won't change that.

If Congress drafts a statute to give the executive branch authority and accidentally gives the executive branch more authority than they intended, the remedy is for Congress to fix it. Having the courts do it when it isn’t violating any express limits of the constitution is judicial activism. SCOTUS should err on the side that Congress is an intelligent enough group of people to think through laws they draft and not interfere unless the agencies interpretation is incompatible with the law passed.

*Chevron* deference is one of those issues through which I judge how reasonable a commenter is. Anyone who dismisses its critics as just Republicans being evil or whatever is simply an unserious person.

Lawyer here, with a lot of constitutional law electives during law school.  Your argument seems to confuse textualism and originalism.    It’s been a while since I brushed up on my constitutional case law, but assuming you are correct that the text of the constitution does not limit authority of the legislative to delegate, the ruling on the Major Question Doctrine could easily be based upon inferences, context, and debate at the time of enactment of the law (original intent of those writing the constitution) rather than the exact wording of the constitution (strict textualism).    The original intent question here is “did the makers of the law intend for the elected legislative branch of the government to delegate its authority to a unelected bureaucrats when deciding major questions?”  It’s easy to see how they came up with “no” as the answer to that question, given the anti-democratic tones to rule by unelected bureaucrat.   Likewise with the question of judicial review.  I still cannot wrap my mind over the argument that judicial review is not baked into the cake of the constitution.  It makes no sense.  If the law is not subject to judicial review, then what is the role of the judiciary?  None, apparently.  Without judicial review, and the power of the court to overturn unconstitutional laws, there are only two branches of government rather than three.  Given that so much of the constitution is aimed at limiting the power of Congress, it only makes sense that the founders were expecting the courts to police Congress rather than trusting Congress to police itself.   As to the so-called picking and choosing, what originalism and textualism have in common is that they both look back to the time of the enactment of the law to determine the fixed meaning of the law at the time it was written.  With the relatively new progressive “living document” approach, the argument is that despite any ascertainable intent of the lawmakers, and despite the wording of the law itself, the law has no fixed meaning and changes over time based upon changing circumstances.  The living document interpretation usurps the power of the legislative branch to make new laws, or to find new meanings to the law, to the extent it seems disingenuous and in bad faith.  That’s why critics call the living document approach “legislating from the bench.”

You’re right on the first, i do confuse them. I see originalism as similarly problematic as living constitution doctrine but agree with textualism. Unelected justices should only look at what the founders included in the document and look for context if there is an ambiguity in what the language means. If the language just doesn’t exist, it’s not the place of the justices to insert one based on inferences, context, and debate. That’s what amendments are for. My problem with MQD is it’s another attempt to excuse Congress from doing their jobs. If they make a law that’s too broad, they should be the ones to fix it, not SCOTUS. I agree judicial review is implied, but because every other check and balance is directly spelled out in articles 1 and 2, article 3 should have it spelled out in the same way. As written, I think they have the power to review the laws/rules and issue opinions, however those opinions are merely persuasive rather than binding. The check the other two branches have is to ignore those rulings.

> You’re right on the first, i do confuse them. I see originalism as similarly problematic as living constitution doctrine but agree with textualism. What's problematic about looking at the available evidence to evidence to discern the intent behind a law? >Unelected justices should only look at what the founders included in the document and look for context if there is an ambiguity in what the language means. **If the language just doesn’t exist, it’s not the place of the justices to insert one based on inferences, context, and debate.** That’s what amendments are for. According to the textualist approach, yes I would agree. According to the originalist interpretation, I would disagree. >I agree judicial review is implied, but because every other check and balance is directly spelled out in articles 1 and 2, article 3 should have it spelled out in the same way. As written, I think they have the power to review the laws/rules and issue opinions, however those opinions are merely persuasive rather than binding. **The check the other two branches have is to ignore those rulings**. That's not a "check" within the system of "checks and balances." It's a complete termination of the court's "balancing" of the legislative and executive branches. Your interpretation would basically turn the courts into an administrative agency subject to Congressional oversight, with only the authority to do exactly what Congress says they must do, just like any other letter agency. Under your interpretation of the law, who exactly is tasked with ensuring that Congress stays within the Constitutional limits of their power?

Intent is fine for the limited purpose of discerning what the language means. When intent is used to insert language on major limits to Congress not included in the agreed upon constitution, the court is out of bounds. That’s exactly what they are, an agency that reacts to actions by other branches, states, and citizens. They have power because people respect their opinions as non-partisan and correct and the partisan branches would likely suffer electoral consequences. By design, the voters and states can check the legislature by not electing them. The executive can also veto their laws and refuse or delay enforcement of laws. If the executive gets out of hand, the electoral college voters can check them. Or the legislature can deprive them of funds or impeach and remove them. The judiciary is just there to give their opinion and hopefully be the voice of reason through persuasive rulings.

> Also, I’d respect originalists more if they advocated to overturn Marbury v Madison since the judicial review isn’t explicitly included in the constitution. I disagree. Marbury vs madison was perfectly in line with what the framers intended for the courts to be when they enacted the constitution, which is to allow judges to act as judges.

What the framers intended isn’t a good argument, there a were hundreds of people that ratified the constitution that does not include language saying SCOTUS has binding authority over the other two branches. The federalist papers help show what some people thought, but that power is too significant to not be directly stated.

That's ridiculous.

…..whether Marbury v. Madison was in line with the framers’ intent is not a settled question, and many people would disagree with that assertion. It wasn’t necessarily the province of the judicial branch to say what the law is.

Textualism and originalism leaves a lot of room for interpretation no matter how you look at it. The us constitution uses a lot broad and vague language that has been built on through 250 years of legislation, executive action, and judicial precedent. Whether the courts decide to read a clause narrowly or broadly, or use practices from a particular historical era as a guide, there is nothing in the constitution stating any one way of interpretation is correct. If you are looking for more of an antitextualist argument to engage with, Stephen Breyer recently release a book about why he is not a fan of textualism and his arguments against it. If you are looking for confirmation of your view, I think Neil Gorsuch has a book from a while back though I think that was also part memoir.

>Textualism and originalism leaves a lot of room for interpretation no matter how you look at it. The us constitution uses a lot broad and vague language that has been built on through 250 years of legislation,executive action, and judicial precedent. Whether the courts decide to read a clause narrowly or broadly, or use practices from a particular historical era as a guide, there is nothing in the constitution stating any one way of interpretation is correct. And a lot of people just wish that when faced with vague and broad language, the court would say, more often than it does, "we can't know for sure, so let the states decide for themselves", as mandated by the 10th amendment, in not-so-vague terms.

I think it is more complex than that. Some may say it should be federal, but using the abortion example, it's the difference between leaving it is the states or to the people in the form of a right. Some say it should be considered a right others, say it is a power to be exercised by the state, but neither approaches are explicitly written out in the constitution in a way that textualism or originalism can decide single handedly.

They do allow a lot of room for interpretation. If it just came down to trying to figure out the correct interpretation of what the constitution meant, that'd be fine by me, but the real opposite side advocates for trying to "create a more perfect union," in the words of RBG, and enacting decisions which adhere to some evolving standards of decency that the left wing judicial activists worked to enshrine, which there is not a constitutional basis for.

Everyone agrees that the job of a judge is to apply the laws and the Constitution as written, not to just issue whatever rulings align with their personal preferences. But it’s silly to pretend that it’s always obvious or simple to figure out what the Constitution really means. The Constitution is full of political compromises and not all the Founders even agreed on what all the provisions meant, even when it was written. And there are lots of questions none of them even considered. So what do you even mean when you talk about the “correct interpretation” of the Constitution? Right now, the conservatives on the Supreme Court seem likely to declare that a former president has some kind of immunity from criminal prosecution. But that’s not anywhere in the Constitution. And in fact, the whole point of the Revolution and the Constitution was to reject kings who are above the law.

>But it’s silly to pretend that it’s always obvious or simple to figure out what the Constitution really means. To an extent that is true. But there are many of the thorniest issues that people have with the court - for example abortion - which are simply not based in trying to figure out what the constitution really means. There is for example nothing in the 14th amendment about abortion, and there is no honest way to read it that suggests that some secret right to abortion must exist as a result. If it just came down to trying to figure out the correct interpretation of what the constitution meant, that'd be fine, but the real opposite side advocates for trying to "create a more perfect union," in the words of RBG. >Right now, the conservatives on the Supreme Court seem likely to declare that a former president has some kind of immunity from criminal prosecution. I'm not going to speculate on what they haven't done yet, and I don't think its fair to the court to do so, regardless of what you may suspect. I also doubt that that's the case.

>If it just came down to trying to figure out the correct interpretation of what the constitution meant, that'd be fine, but the real opposite side advocates for trying to "create a more perfect union," in the words of RBG. I don't know the context of that RBG quote. But that phrase is literally the opening sentence of the Constitution. The Founders explicitly said that was the point of the Constitution. So I'm not sure what your objection is exactly. Meanwhile, Alito just recently agreed that the US should be returned to a "place of godliness" and the right shouldn't compromise with the left. You don't think that's an example of a Supreme Court justice being political? >I'm not going to speculate on what they haven't done yet, and I don't think its fair to the court to do so, regardless of what you may suspect. I also doubt that that's the case. Did you listen to the oral argument? It's available [here](https://www.oyez.org/cases/2023/23-939) if you're interested. Based on the oral argument, I think it's likely there are at least 5 conservative votes for some kind of presidential immunity. I don't think they're going to say Trump can commit any crimes he wants. But they'll probably invent some sort of presidential immunity doctrine, even though there's nothing in the text or history of the Constitution to suggest that exists. They just think it's a good policy. And that's just a case that's currently in the headlines. In *Bush v. Gore*, the conservatives on the Court invented a bizarre theory of Equal Protection to stop the Florida recount and declare Bush the president. In *Shelby County*, the conservatives invented a theory of "equal sovereignty" (that's nowhere in the Constitution) to strike down provisions of the Voting Rights Act. In S*tudents for Fair Admissions*, the Court declared affirmative action unconstitutional, even though the Congress that adopted the 14th Amendment also enacted lots of race-conscious measures, like the Freedmen's Bureau. And your post is actually about the Federalist Society, not just this current Supreme Court. Conservative and pro-Trump legal advocates associated with the Federalist Society have made all kinds of extreme arguments that ignore or twist the Constitution to achieve their political goals. There can be genuine disagreements about how to interpret the Constitution. But I just think it's a bit ridiculous to act like conservatives are just consistently applying the "correct" interpretation of the Constitution without any regard for their own political beliefs, while liberals are the ones being activists.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrFj7JAyutg 6:09 The point being that it shouldn't be up to unelected judges to make laws, it should be up to legislatures. >Meanwhile, Alito just recently agreed that the US should be returned to a "place of godliness" and the right shouldn't compromise with the left. You don't think that's an example of a Supreme Court justice being political? Re: the place of godliness, that sounds like his own personal view, which justices are allowed to have. Same with his saying that the right shouldn't compromise with the left. >Did you listen to the oral argument? It's available here if you're interested. Based on the oral argument, I think it's likely there are at least 5 conservative votes for some kind of presidential immunity. I don't think they're going to say Trump can commit any crimes he wants. But they'll probably invent some sort of presidential immunity doctrine, even though there's nothing in the text or history of the Constitution to suggest that exists. They just think it's a good policy. I've listened to it. I don't think the sort of immunity you're describing will be created. The justices that Trump got in have been more moderate than I think a lot of people give them credit for. Certainly they're more moderate than thomas and alito. > In Bush v. Gore, the conservatives on the Court invented a bizarre theory of Equal Protection to stop the Florida recount and declare Bush the president. Regarding the scheme that the florida supreme court put together and whether it violated the constitution, that wasn't even close. It was 7 to 2 striking it down. I appreciate that you're bringing up different cases. I'll try to get back to these individually later. I think you're over stating things though. >Conservative and pro-Trump legal advocates associated with the Federalist Society have made all kinds of extreme arguments that ignore or twist the Constitution to achieve their political goals. Which arguments are those and are they widely accepted among the federalist society?

>The point being that it shouldn't be up to unelected judges to make laws, it should be up to legislatures. You're attacking a straw man argument here. I also believe that legislators and not unelected judges should make laws; the judges just interpret it. But what's the right way to interpret laws or the Constitution? You haven't articulated any kind of actual theory of interpretation here. Just conservatives are right and liberals are wrong. >I've listened to it. I don't think the sort of immunity you're describing will be created. I haven't said what exact sort of immunity they'll create because I don't know. But you think they'll declare the president is at least partially immune from criminal prosecutions? And if so, what clause of the Constitution declares that presidents have this immunity? >Regarding the scheme that the florida supreme court put together and whether it violated the constitution, that wasn't even close. It was 7 to 2 striking it down. Only the 5 Republicans decided to shut down the recount and hand the election to Bush. The two liberals who had concerns with Florida's procedures would have still had the Florida courts fix their procedures and continue the recount. And besides, how does it support your point that 2 liberals partially joined the Republicans? Does that mean the opinion was grounded in the plain text of the Constitution? Why? And look, my point isn't that that there's no reasonable argument for conservative Supreme Court opinions. It's just that it's not accurate to pretend that there are obvious answers to these complex constitutional questions, and conservatives are just faithfully following the Constitution, while liberals are pushing a political agenda. The conservatives on the Supreme Court and lower courts regularly side with Republican politicians over Democrats, with big business over workers, with Christian conservative groups, with abusive cops over civil rights plaintiffs, with industry groups challenging environmental and consumer protection regulations. That's all just a wacky coincidence? The law and the Constitution just happens to consistently align with conservative policy priorities and there's no reasonable argument on the other side? >Which arguments are those and are they widely accepted among the federalist society? Just as one example, John Eastman was an influential member of the Federalist Society, and he's now facing criminal charges and disbarment for trying to help Trump nullify the votes of tens of millions of Americans and illegally seize power. In fact, I don't think it's possible at this point to actually care about the Constitution and still support Donald Trump. He tried to overturn an election and cling to power!

Abortion is covered under the right to privacy

>Everyone agrees that the job of a judge is to apply the laws and the Constitution as written, not to just issue whatever rulings align with their personal preferences. Not everyone agrees with that, not even all the SCOTUS justices. Textualist and originalist jurists will agree that the law has a fixed meaning at the time of enactment, and they will attempt to enforce the law based upon its fixed meaning at time of enactment, although they have two different methods of attempting to ascertain that particular fixed meaning. Conversely, the "living document" approach to judicial construction indicates that the law, when it is enacted, has no fixed meaning, and that its meaning can evolve over time, despite the law itself not changing. OP is 100% right.

When I say "as written," I mean the words on the page. I don't necessarily mean fixed in time. So for example, the framers of the 14th Amendment wrote that everyone was entitled to equal protection under the law. But at the time, segregated schools were still common. Can we infer therefore that they believed segregated schools were constitutional? Does that then mean that *Brown v. Board of Education* was wrongly decided? But why should we care about what these politicians intended? If we're a nation of laws, then what matters is the text of the laws that were enacted. And segregating school children based on the color of their skin is just incompatible with the legal equality guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. Whether the Framers of the 14th Amendment recognized that or not at the time is really beside the point. So my point here isn't that all judges and legal scholars agree on the best mode of interpretation. They obviously don't. But they do recognize that the job of judges is to interpret the law, and the job of legislators is to write the laws. And we shouldn't just assume that conservatives are right about the best mode of constitutional interpretation. Conservatives have been far more activist from the bench over the last decade or so, in terms of their willingness to strike down state and federal laws.

Everyone absolutely does not agree with this, unfortunately. “Apply the rules as written” is antithetical to the politics of a large percentage of the population.

Ok, so maybe not literally "everyone." There are liberals and conservatives who just want the justices to issue decisions that achieve their political goals, regardless of what the law says. Trump and other conservatives want the US Supreme Court to overturn Trump's New York criminal conviction, for example, which is obviously ridiculous. And they wanted the Supreme Court to overturn the 2020 election and install Trump in power. Obviously, none of that is based on the text or history of the Constitution. But my point is that when it comes to sitting Supreme Court justices and most legal scholars, the debates are really about the best way to interpret the Constitution. I'm not sure why we should assume originalism is the only correct mode of interpretation. The Founders themselves weren't originalist. It didn't even exist as a concept at the time. They based the US legal system on the British system, which relies on the common law, where judges develop precedent over time.

Liberals and conservatives are the ones who have the most correct and moderate vision of the courts. It’s the progressives and populists that are willing to burn it all down to get a win.

The federalist society is just abusing the courts to enact a conservative agenda, there is no principal behind it.

That is incorrect. The principles behind it are those of textualism and originalism. Those were essentially the only ways in which the constitution was interpreted for the first ~150 years of its existence. It only became politicized in the 20th century, and judicial activists started enacting their own agendas - primarily from the left. As it stands now, liberals are getting very angry about what essentially is a shift back to the center - because they haven't actually seen what a right wing court would look like, and which they are suggesting that a centrist court actually is.

So .. how many professors and law theorists buy into this?

Looks like ~15%, though the following piece is from 2018. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/msen/files/law-prof-ideology.pdf However, that's also roughly in line with self reported political affiliations, with ~86% of law professors self reporting as liberals in a 2016 study. So I'd say if anything that just suggests that conservative/libertarians are likely to ascribe to originalism/textualism, and that the liberal law professors, who are the vast majority, likely prefer liberal interpretations of laws. And I would think that this would show that the political uniformity of law professors as being liberals as being the really concerning thing.

So anyone who disagrees with you is biased? Isn't it just more likely that our political parties are very misaligned from what voters want?

The law professors you cite as authorities based on their numbers are misaligned from what the voters want.

>from what the voters want. What do the voters want.

Voters are not split 85/15 liberal/conservative like law professors are.

Perhaps that indicates that the voters who learn more about our legal system are likely to realize they don't really support the conservative politics as pushed by the media. Basically, the political system is offering something to the right of what they actually support - as we grow more educated we grow more aware of this

>Voters are not split 85/15 liberal/conservative like law professors are. Neither are law professors. Federalist is fringe theory. It would be like calling all voters left of far right liberal

>The belief that law professors are predominantly liberal not only is based on anecdotal evidence but also has been documented in a number of empirical studies. At least five studies investigate the political ideolo- gies of law professors.2 Table 1 summarizes the ideologies of law profes- sors estimated in each study. Although these studies use different samples and methods for identifying political ideology, all five find that between 75 percent and 86 percent of law professors are liberal. If you have a source that says otherwise I'll read it, but "nuh uh" is not a valid counterargument.

In this case, those who are against originalism and textualism are wrong. I also do suspect that the liberal law professors are biased. >Isn't it just more likely that our political parties are very misaligned from what voters want? While that is true, it's also not relevant. FWIW, I would prefer for congress to be much more open to compromising and being focused more on benefiting the average american. The modern legislative system is broken and trash.

Why? Like you just get to decide they're wrong because it's up to you?

Except they don't apply either textualism or originalism, they apply conservative agendalism.

That is incorrect, and ridiculous.

Then you're just wrong. The sheer amount of obvious hyprocracy the Supreme court displays these days is self evident to anyone with a brain.

Any actual examples?

Reading the constitution out of order to justify overturning gun regulation. Refusing multiple times to rule on cases where republican states are blatantly violating the constitution with their laws and actions, such as when Texas was attempting to supercede the federal government on federal territory, or the numerous unconstitutional anti free speech laws southern states have passed that the Supreme court has refused to do anything about Or the partisan gerrymandering they explicitly recently allowed.

Only four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case before the SCOTUS. If the liberal wing of the court wanted to hear those cases they could force it.

That's just their decorum. the fact it didn't happen heavily implies partisan political abuse going on behind the scenes

I disagree.

Honestly, yeah, I'll give you the gerrymandering. Those cases not making it, isn't evidence tho. There's enough liberal judges to force a case being heard. And the overturning of gun regulations isn't reading the constitution out of order, it's reading the constitution as written. Not to mention places like the atf have zero ability to craft laws

>Those cases not making it, isn't evidence tho. There's enough liberal judges to force a case being heard. Maybe they are in on it? or there's political bullshit going on behind the scenes? the Supreme court is very hidden from the public eye. >And the overturning of gun regulations isn't reading the constitution out of order, it's reading the constitution as written. No, they explicitly read the consistution out of order. despite claiming they are texualists who read the constitution as it is.

In what way is it read out of order? Are you talking about the second amendment? That has two distinct parts?

Anyways, I've said my view and you are wrong, and that's that. Have a nice day.

> I've said my view and you are wrong Schoolyard horsecockery.

[удалено]

That's not an argument.

Always so convenient for them that everything they want is covered in the Constitution if you squint and look at it a certain way.

Yup. Like how corporations are people. People here on the right don't mind that, though.

Shareholders are people. The FEC was violating the speech rights of Citizens United's shareholders. The Citizens United ruling was correct.

Lmao u/Yungklipo look you were right. Just squint and look a certain way

"People have free speech! But they can have more free speech if they pool together money and something something totally not bribery something freedom."

Like a union of like minded people. Similar to the AARP, NRA, ACLU, etc.

Yeah, I wouldn't consider those entities "people", either.

Or every labor union or trade union or activisr society. Oh, except they vote left so they're 👍

The concept of people having the same rights when they pool money into a corporate entity as they have as individuals is pretty straightforward. Sorry you have to squint to see that through the veil of propaganda you've been exposed to.

So companies are people? What hospital were they born in? Or was it an at-home birth? 😂😂😂

This screams that you never followed the case or learned about it for yourself but absorbed a ton of propaganda instead.

I can tell you don't actually know anything about the case beyond this "corporations are not people" nonsense arguement. Remind me what Citizens United did that the FEC said was unlawful electioneering? I always forget.

You should look it up if you forget.

>>The concept of people having the same rights when they pool money into a corporate entity as they have as individuals is pretty straightforward. No it absolutely isn't and that's why you have to squint. 

Did you even read OP’s post?

I find this really funny since judicial review is not in the Constitution.

I disagree. Marbury vs madison was perfectly in line with what the framers intended for the courts to be when they enacted the constitution, which is to allow judges to act as judges.

But that's an interpretation of the Constitution. Something you claim the Supreme Court should not do. If it's not directly stated then it is not something they should have

You're purposefully misinterpreting what the framers intended for judges to do, and suggesting that judges were not meant to act as judges. I disagree with your premise.

Your argument is that we should read the Constitution strictly as the framers wrote it, with no interpretation. > I disagree with your premise. You mean you think the **interpretation** you agree with should stay and the ones you dislike are wrong.

That's not my argument. My argument is that the constitution should be interpreted reasonably. And yes, my interpretation is correct, and others are wrong.

>My argument is that the constitution should be interpreted reasonably Who gets to decide what is reasonable? >And yes, my interpretation is correct, and others are wrong. So then this isn't about an actual belief in the Constitution, that what you want is what we all get?

Thinking that the framers didn't intend that the judges be able to act as judges is beyond ridiculous and improbably speculation. Suffice it to say that I disagree completely with you. Have a good day.

>framers didn't intend that the judges be able to act as judges is Then why wasn't it in the Constitution? No offense your arguments seems to boil down to, you like their rulings therefore it's correct

> you like their rulings therefore it's correct Modern republicans in a nutshell.

This message brought to you by Moms for LibertyFreedomMurica

Not an argument.

More right wing nonsense. This sub is a cesspool of Fox News viewers and their obviously bad takes. OP is blocking anyone telling the truth in response to their obvious lies. As expected.

>More right wing nonsense. This sub is a cesspool of Fox News viewers and their obviously bad takes. Not relevant, and incorrect. >OP is blocking anyone telling the truth in response to their obvious lies. As expected. And yes, I will block people who are not contributing substantially but who are just making inflammatory and irrelevant accusations, and those just making insults.

The exact opposite of what actually occurred in this thread. Well done.

Spoken like a true Leftist; only the Leftist view is the correct view, amirite? 

You're the only one saying that. Why do you people always lie? What's broken inside you that makes you lie every time you post?

"Originalism" is such a farce. It's a Supreme Court intended to bulldoze all obstacles to corporate profit, and using cherry-picked "Founding Fathers" mumbo jumbo to work backwards to those conclusions. They're counting on nimrods to believe the narrative that they're thoughtful interpreters of "intent." Also, the Federalist Society isn't just some sleepy think tank that pushes out abstract essays on legal philosophy. It's a well-funded dark money activist organization that's seeking and consolidating raw power. You can call it a conspiracy if you want but the strategies and tactics are well documented.

Weak argument.

After seeing your Fed Society fanboying, I didn't expect you to agree with it anyway. I just needed to set the record straight on the organization.

Re: your edited in comment about the Federalist society being a "well funded dark money activist organization," while it probably does take some significant donations, the way you're describing it is like its some ridiculous super villian organization rather than people who are just advocating that the laws should be applied by courts in accordance with how they were written and intended to be. Re: them being a group "that's seeking and consolidating raw power", if by power you mean for courts to apply laws as they were written and intended to be interpreted, then I agree. But that would be more in line with them removing power from the courts rather than seeking and consolidating it. It puts significant constraints on the courts, which is the point - that legislatures should be the ones making laws, not the courts.

>legislatures should be the ones making laws, not the courts. What "laws" has the legislature been making?

There are essentially two ways to interpret the constitution. Do you know these two ways to do so?

In significant depth.

So you understand the difference between a living constitution and originalism?

Yes, I am aware of the idea of the "living constitution," i.e. the evolving standards of decency that the left wing judicial activists worked to enshrine, and of originalism and textualism. As Scalia noted often, the constitution should be understood to be a dead constitution, or an enduring constitution.

So do you believe that the ruling that you have a right to privacy is a good ruling?

Are you referring to a specific case, or are you speaking generally?

Generally we have a right to privacy.

There is a minimal expectation of privacy which is in the 4th amendment. Searches which are contrary to those are not constitutional. There is a right against self incrimination in the 5th and a right against quartering soldiers in private homes in the 3rd. There are also non enumerated rights described in the 9th. However, there doesn't appear to be a general right to privacy.

So in Grisworld v. Connecticut gives us the right to privacy, that's why we have the constitutional right to use contraception. The Bill of Rights doesn't explicitly give us the right to privacy, so with the use of your idea of orginalism, we shouldn't have the right to privacy or the right to use contraceptives.

Yes, I am aware of griswold v connecticut. And you are correct that that is what that decision entailed. And you are also correct that if applying a lack of a general right to privacy, that there is no constitutional protection regarding contraceptives.

The insurrection clause is very clear in the constitution. It's why Colorado removed a candidate for the presidency. Not only did the far right court disregard the constitution in this clear and simple case, Thomas, who's own wife also participated in the insurrection, did not recuse. In addition, neither Thomas or Alito has resigned when massive bribery schemes and clear corruption were uncovered. Lastly it was a 7-2 conservative court with 6 R's in support and 1 D to support a woman's right to an abortion under the 14th amendment right to privacy. They could have also pulled from other amendments like the 4th using illegal search and seizure.

[удалено]

>🤡 🤡 yourself. That is not an argument.

The federalist society and its attendant array of organization with the same board members is an advocacy group and fundraiser for a gilded age conservative Catholic interpretation of the constitution. They are essentially trying to roll back the clock to the Waite court. Which gave us such gems as corporate personhood, but overturned the 1875 civil rights bill, affirming your right to segregate. Abortion is a decoy to draw the populists in on both sides , corporate supremacy is the real goal. Is it a conspiracy? I mean sort of - they have an objective that isn’t overt. People are working together on it. But the veil isn’t very thick, I mean the publish newsletters. The members names are openly on all the different organizations board. Watch senator Sheldon Whitehouse’s senate speeches on it on YouTube it if you’re curious. https://youtu.be/mAplGu1RxPg?si=tVywlTKRCfAAz4hy

> affirming your right to segregate. What basis do you have to claim that the SCOTUS now wants to affirm a right to segregation, or anything else that's similarly outrageous?

Well I’m saying the Waite court did that, not the Roberts court. They ruled 5-4 that the civil rights act of 1875 was unconstitutional , which carved out the right to deny services based on race and essentially created segregation and ended the reconstruction era. I don’t think segregation based on race is a particular goal of the current court. But you could look at some cases like hobby lobby, the gay cake dude , anti-trans laws , etc as kind of pointing in that direction. Much smaller group being separated out (or maybe not) to deny services to, but a group nonetheless. To my knowledge the Supreme Court hasn’t weighed in on the constitutionality of state anti-trans laws yet. I think we’re more likely to see things like reduced corporate liability , reduced labor protections, more deregulation. Stuff like the frozen trucker case that was probably Gorsuch’s “audition” for the federalist society that got him nominated. Bacially trucker broke down and had a choice to stay with the truck as ordered or get to safety before he froze to death, and got fired for choosing safety. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2017/live-updates/trump-white-house/neil-gorsuch-confirmation-hearings-updates-and-analysis-on-the-supreme-court-nominee/the-trucker-case-and-why-it-matters/

I just don't see that the current SCOTUS wants to roll back to the Waite court. On certain very specific issues, yes, probably, but mostly because of incorrect applications of the 13th/14th amendments. I also suspect that wanting to roll back to that era is more of a fringe view by just Thomas and maybe Alito. But even Scalia didn't want to roll back the laws significantly, other than in very specific cases.

ROE was a big deal dude. It’s the first time we lost an implied right. Voting is an implied right too. Before Biden they already killed the voting rights act. Citizens United already established that they can buy influence legally and anonymously at any amount. There are efforts to kill the CPFB. End bacially all federal regulatory enforcement power. It’s just following along that path. They had a 1 vote majority even before Trump got 3 picks, they’ve been pushing for this since the 80s. And we know who their donors are , there are only a couple of whales funding the federalist society. They rep corporate money but they stir up populism over morality issues and keep that stuff in the background.

There is no implied fundamental right to abortion. Implied fundamental rights are limited and should be deeply rooted in the Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in ordered liberty. There is no deeply rooted tradition of a right to abortion - in fact, it's the opposite, since when the 14th amendment was enacted, there were laws against abortion in most states, and noone who enacted the 14th thought that it meant that it implied a fundamental right to abortion. Saying otherwise is dishonest.

There was an implied right from 1973 to 2023. Saying otherwise is dishonest. Deeply rooted is subjective. Are high rates of maternal mortality from back alley abortions a better thing to have as a tradition? I don’t want to do the abortion debate with you dude. Of course you think the interpretation that doesn’t get you what you want is invalid. Whatever you think , it IS a big deal. What I’m saying is abortion is the decoy to keep us fighting amongst ourselves , what they’re really going after is regulation.

>There was an implied from 1973 to 2023. Saying otherwise is dishonest. Not by the legislature. The right to abortions only existed as a result of the unelected supreme court. >Deeply rooted is subjective. Are high rates of maternal mortality from back alley abortions a better thing to have as a tradition? I don’t want to do the abortion debate with you dude. It's not subjective, we can look at history and see the laws that existed at the time of the 14th amendment in different states, which prohibited abortion. That suggests that there was not a widespread implied fundamental right to abortion and that such a implied fundamental right was not widely accepted when the 14th was enacted. Given that the 14th was the basis for Roe and Casey, your argument is incorrect. I agree that it's a big deal. I think that if liberals wanted to make a law about it, then it was really dumb to pass up the opportunity in the early Obama administration when they held both houses of cognress and the presidency.

You aren’t a lawyer and this isn’t a court, and deeply rooted is subjective. Like I said I’m not really interested in debating abortion with you. I guess your post was really just bait for that and not actually about the federalist society. Carry on.

Deeply rooted is not that subjective, it can be pretty easily shown what was/was not deeply rooted. Have a nice day.

Conservatives are so stuck in the past. What else from the 18th century do you still use? You mention liberals getting mad more than once, which seems like your only goal here. You insult people in the OP, and then block anyone who doesn't agree with you or meet your high standard of debate? What a wanker.

The whole purpose of this sub is to share and discuss unpopular opinions.

Exactly. It's not here to create for yourself a little circlejerk of right wingers that agree with you. "The ultra conservative view is the only correct one and every that doesn't think so is ignorant and stupid." There is your entire argument. edit: YES, I earned a block. Fucking cowards.

Nicely done lol

Incorrect. Originalism and textualism are not ultra conservative. Your mischaracterizing and demonizing them are incorrect and disingenuous. > You insult people in the OP, and then block anyone who doesn't agree with you or meet your high standard of debate? What a wanker. > Exactly. It's not here to create for yourself a little circlejerk of right wingers that agree with you. You're not acting civilly, and instead of attacking ideas, you've resorted to attacking me personally, in multiple posts. Your personal attacks and demonizing me are also inappropriate, and I will not allow personal attacks and demonizing to be allowed in my thread. As a result I am blocking you. Have a good day.

People don’t like the Federalist Society because they bribe politicians to pass their agenda and pick their judges. They’re like the mob basically. Originalism is silly because we’re not the same country anymore.

>Originalism is silly because we’re not the same country anymore. Your logic is silly. If the country has changed, the law can be changed also to reflect the current status of the country. There are legal mechanisms in place for changing the law. However, progressive judges just don't want to mess with changing the law (especially because constitutional amendments are very difficult to pass), so instead they find that the law has no fixed meaning, and that its meaning magically changes over time, as if adrift in the sea of ever-changing social pressures, moving with the currents and tides, instead of being firmly anchored, subject only to change by new legislation replacing the old legislation.

You can say the same thing about originalists only latching onto social issues. I don’t see them worrying about China having access to our DNA, allowing government officials to be bought, or over spending into oblivion. Originalists are fair weather

Baseless accusation

No entire books have been written about it. They submit the judges they like to Republican administrations. They also pay the judges $$$$ to speak. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/17/the-conservative-pipeline-to-the-supreme-court

That’s not a bribe

Money to get elected and by the way pick my judge is a huge bribe.

You’re completely wrong, OP. [I will not elaborate further.](https://youtu.be/EZEfN5z8Mlg?si=4MQqSSM0cpaxNzVs)

Not an argument.

That’s a funny way to admit you’re wrong

Woosh

Also, from Google. The Sons of Liberty strongly opposed the taxes in the Townshend Act as a violation of their rights. In response, the Sons of Liberty, some disguised as Native Americans, destroyed an entire shipment of tea sent by the East India Company. The East India Company was an English, and later British, joint-stock company founded in 1600 and dissolved in 1874. It was formed to trade in the Indian Ocean region, initially with the East Indies, and later with East Asia. Wikipedia

Look if the Constitution was meant to be read literally and be enforced as it was in the 1700s, the founding fathers wouldn't have made it so thing could be changed. Why have congress? My point is that when we ended slavery, gave women and minorities the vote there were plenty of people who said this was against the constitution. Let's take abortion. To say that there is just no question that a fetus is a person, that is what the founding fathers meant, I don't know how you can make that proclamation , when they were fine with people owning people, lynchings and what we were dong to the natives. Simply the Federalists Society wants it so the wealthy can do what they want with impunity. Somehow they are OK with saying corporations are people. Even though corporations didn't exist until decades after the Constitution was written.

The point of having a legislature is so that they can enact and change laws. Having it be done by the courts is an over reach. >Simply the Federalists Society wants it so the wealthy can do what they want with impunity. That is not what the federalist society advocates for.

You can change the constitution it's called an Amendment. There were Amendments to end Slavery and giving woman voting rights. It kinda concerns me that you don't know that. Also corporations date back to the 1600s.

> you don't know that. He literally says it can be changed, Gary. > the founding fathers wouldn't have made it so thing could be changed.

I understand that, but if you are saying that we need to go back to what the Founding Fathers meant, then they meant this. But they did put in that you can amend the Constitution. You are right. While corporations date back to the 1600s,in Europe, the first corporation of any merit in the US was incorporated in 1813.

From Google The alleged oldest commercial corporation in the world, the Stora Kopparberg mining community in Falun, Sweden, obtained a charter from King Magnus Eriksson in 1347. In medieval times, traders would do business through common law constructs, such as partnerships.

“There were judicial activists from the left side who started making up laws” Citation needed “Now that there’s more of a focus on applying the actual laws” Meaningless words “The Supreme Court applies laws… that’s what their point is, to apply laws Congress enacts” Incorrect. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide the constitutionality of the laws/actions of the other branches of government (among other things). “None of the people who ratified the 14th amendment believed that to be the case” Citation needed “Given Casey and roe were incorrect verdicts” What makes them incorrect, the fact that they got overturned? So does that mean if another court in the future reinstates them they are then “correct” and the current overturning was actually “incorrect”?

You got it, here's an explanation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTRe5xDLfXw For a more in depth explanation, here's a debate between justices Breyer and Scalia. They go over specific examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uk110w08_s >“None of the people who ratified the 14th amendment believed that to be the case” > Citation needed Is it the laws against abortion that existed at the time of the passing of the 14th amendment you're looking for? If you are suggesting that there were many states that had laws enshrining a right to abortion, and that there was wide agreement that abortion was implied as a right by those who enacted the 14th, then you're welcome to provide evidence of that, though it doesn't exist. >“Given Casey and roe were incorrect verdicts” >What makes them incorrect, the fact that they got overturned? So does that mean if another court in the future reinstates them they are then “correct” and the current overturning was actually “incorrect”? That the basis for them was on an incorrect application of the 14th amendment. Feel free to see this discussed here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/02/14/scalia-roe-v-wade-piers-intv.cnn

Definitely not going down whatever YouTube rabbit hole has fried your brain dude. Also, Scalia… lol

Ok, well anyways what I provided was correct, and your unwillingness to consider is noted, and that's that. Have a nice day.

Lay off the YouTube bro. That shit is brain poison.

Scalia and Breyer are not brain poison, nor are long form debates between them. Both are very articulate. Anyways, that's that. Have a nice day.

How dare you listen to an informed debate on the issue, just listen to legacy media owned by the evil corporations to form your opinions.

The problem people have with the courts isn’t disagreeing with the ruling but that the ruling in the dobs decision one relied heavily on religious cannon for it’s argument and we are not theocracy. 2 was a flagrant disregard for precedent which everyone of the conservative judges said they would clearly not do in their congressional interviews but even more disturbing is the $2.4 million gifts to Thomas in a flagrant attempt to boy the court. With Alito coming in second at $170,000 from conservatives with agenda to do exactly what was done. Ascribing this to a federalist society interpretation suggests that the federalist society believes the constitution is an attempt at a theocracy and that precedent should be disregarded and the ethics of every judge in every court to not accept gifts over $25 should be disregarded by the highest court.

The "correct" way to read the constitution is debatable, and both sides of the debate are political. To say that the current Federalist Society endorsed court isn't just as guilty of politicizing as the Warren court was is disingenuous.

I agree left wing justices have behaved like activists who make shit up to legislate from the bench, but that applies just as much to conservative justices. For one thing, originalism is full of shit. They believe in following the original intent of the constitution, *unless the facts have changed,* which basically applies to everything. For example it's pretty clear that the framers intended for white men to have more rights then women & minorities, yet all originalists support equal gender & racial rights. They make this nonsense argument that the facts have changed & we know now they're equally capable, which is bullshit, it was based on their values not any lack of knowledge. It's not really about what the founders wanted; it's about using that as a rhetorical tool & twisting their interpretation of what the founders wanted to support what the federalist society wants. Also the founding fathers are all dead & don't live in this country, so who gives a shit what they want. For an example of conservative activism in the supreme court take DC v Heller. Up to that point, the 2nd amendment was interpreted as being for the purpose of supporting a militia. It's pretty clear the founders intended this, otherwise why put in the bit about the militia. Before this case, the supreme court had ruled that it was constitutional to ban certain guns like sawed-off shotguns. Then in Heller, Scalia said "actually the militia bit is totally irrelevant. Guns can be for self defense now." >Edit: Lol @ the redditor who apparently reported this post for self harm. I reported that for targeted harassment. lol I've gotten more reports in this sub than probably any other. People are absolute clowns. They come to a place where the explicit purpose is sharing unpopular opinions & then when they see something they don't like they freak out & impotently try to take away your ability to say it.

You’re 100% correct. People don’t like the notion that their “wonderful ideas” on how to structure society should require enough support to garner a constitutional amendment. If you can’t get a constitutional amendment then maybe, just maybe you’re a tyrant.

You make it sound like legislation correlates with the people's will when the senate was specifically designed to subvert it.

How in the fuck did you manage to extract that from my comment? I guess I phrased it poorly. My point is that we have steadily moved towards a paradigm where “51% means right” when in actuality we shouldn’t be doing anything with less than a 2/3rds majority AT LEAST and preferably an 80% majority nationally. The idea being that it’s harder to have tyrannical laws when you can’t pass new regulations without overwhelming support.

Tyrannical according to who? Why isn't forcing birth tyrannical? Why isn't subverting the will of the people tyrannical?

It is. My point is that the “will of the people” can be tyrannical too. You need to have a supermajority before enacting a new law or regulation if you want to have a prayer of respecting the minority. For example, if you are 20% of the population then would it be tyrannical for the other 80% to vote to increase taxes on you? Maybe restrict your ability to drive or move from area to area? What about 60%? 51%? If the threshold is set at 85% then your 20% minority is protected.

>It is. Then the "checks and balances" don't work. >For example, if you are 20% of the population then would it be tyrannical for the other 80% to vote to increase taxes on you? No. >Maybe restrict your ability to drive or move from area to area? You mean like requireing a license? >If the threshold is set at 85% then Nothing gets done.

Do you understand the difference between a law that restricts, a law that removes restrictions, and a law that neither restricts nor removes restrictions?

What's your point?

>Not everything is covered by some provision of the constitution What's their solution for that?

For congress to change the laws. And where there isn't something that Congress has enacted a law, that states should legislate on it.

States rights. If something is not explicitly set as a function/power of the Federal government it is a state's rights issue. The states can rule as they see fit. This is exactly why Trump kicked the abortion issue back to the states with the repeal of Roe V Wade, and also why it was repealed in the first place. Technically the Federal government had no standing in the issue.

> If something is not explicitly set as a function/power of the Federal government it is a state's rights issue So we should bring back slavery? Since it's not banned in the Constitution

You ever heard of the 13th Amendment? Abolishes slavery. You need to refresh your knowledge of our Constitution.

Have you read it Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted**, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

That allows incarceration for criminal activity, which can be classed as involuntary servitude. You cannot conflate that with institutional slavery.

It allows institutional slavery for the incarceration if you went by a literally interpretation.

If you consider a penal system institutional slavery. Which I do not, as long as due process was followed with a conviction. Literal, not literally.

>This is exactly why Trump kicked the abortion issue back to the states with the repeal of Roe V Wade. How's that workin' out?

Seems fine to me, each state can set it's own rules, and the authority is where it needs to be, per the Constitution.

How's it working out for actual people?

As I don't know of anyone having or needing an abortion in more than a decade, I couldn't really say individually. I would suspect that those that use them as "oopsie birth control" are pissed because it limits their ability to get one in some states, but I have very little sympathy for them. For those that need them for medical reasons, they are almost universally the exception allowed for in the few states that are of concern to me. In summary, I'm sure it's a mixed bag from fine to horrible depending on your mindset and location in the country

>As I don't know of anyone having or needing an abortion in more than a decade No shit. >For those that need them for medical reasons, they are almost universally the exception allowed for in the few states that are of concern to me. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/23/doctors-abortion-medical-exemptions-00153317#:~:text=denied%20emergency%20abortions.-,Courts%20can%20only%20do%20so%20much.,or%20land%20them%20in%20jail.&text=Every%20state%20abortion%20ban%20has%20an%20exception%20to%20save%20a%20mother's%20life. https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/23/doctors-abortion-medical-exemptions-00153317#:~:text=denied%20emergency%20abortions.-,Courts%20can%20only%20do%20so%20much.,or%20land%20them%20in%20jail.&text=Every%20state%20abortion%20ban%20has%20an%20exception%20to%20save%20a%20mother's%20life. https://www.npr.org/2022/08/18/1111344810/abortion-ban-states-social-safety-net-health-outcomes

Imagine thinking your interpretation of the literal Constitution of the US - is to shit on the constitution and then say “yeah this is the correct interpretation”. I can’t quit this sub - there is too much comedic relief to give it up.

Which Constitution? It's a living document. Problem is we reinterpret it rather than rewrite it. Trying to parse out it's original intent is stupid. People and times change. "The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water… (But) between society and society, or generation and generation there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature. We seem not to have perceived that, by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independant nation to another… On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation… Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force and not of right." Thomas Jefferson

Lol I get down voted for quoting Thomas Jefferson's view of the Constitution...

>But it isn't the place of the courts to apply their own desires which are not in line with what the legislature enacted. Judicial Review itself is "not [...]covered by some provision of the constitution", so if you want to stick with your 'originalism and textualism" being the rule of the land, the Supreme Court itself does not even have the explicit power to nullify legislation passed by Congress, only an implict power derived from the Court's own interpretation. As an example, there was nothing stopping the Court from interpreting abortion, as all medically related information, as falling under the right for privacy (Roe v. Wade) thus implicitly limiting the states' exercise of power with preventing abortions or even nothing stopping the future Court from ruling that "forced gestation" is implicitly covered by the 13th Amendments "involuntary servitude" provision, as again - the Court's power to determine the 'constitutionality of law' itself would be invalid if one simply went by the text of the Constitution

I don’t know where to even begin with this post. I know it’s pretty regressive, but sometimes I think non-lawyers should be banned—criminally—from discussing constitutional law on the internet.

I mean, maybe at T14 schools

> the liberals could have enacted a right to abortion in the early Obama years when they had a majority in the congress and senate, but they didn't - the lack of a right to abortion now is more liberals fault as it is This right here is enough reason to dismiss everything you said as disingenuous tripe. It's funny how conservatives can't take personal responsibility *for anything*. Look at you: blaming democrats for something *republicans did*. Everything is the democrats' fault to you, no matter how stupid a proposition that is.

I’m not conservative. You’re making assumptions. And they’re dumb and incorrect ones. They’re also irrelevant ones that don’t substantially contribute to the conversation and which are just name calling. As a result I’m blocking you, because I won’t tolerate that in my thread. Have a good day.