Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
******Official SCOTUS Thread****** (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter squistion
- Start date
-fish-
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
The ones that can't move, yes.
Wonder where all the Californians that moved to Texas for the lower cost of living are going to go next.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
The right to privacy is not an enumerated right in the Constitution and even if we agreed that the Framers implied privacy to be a right, it does not extend to abortions as the States interest in the safety of unborn children should control.
The viability standard was just a compromise to both sides until science could come to a consensus on when life begins. The Court's opinion that a fetus is not a person within the context of the Constitution and therefore doesn't have any right to life is a finding to simply further their position without any textual backing.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Roe is an individual right to privacy v. a State's safety powers. So overturning Roe saying that the State's safety powers control here wouldn't do anything to Griswold as there is not safety interest for the State in marriage or birth control or whatever other privacy concern you will try to make up.
-fish-
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Viability has remained essentially unchanged. There has never been a fetus under 22 weeks that survived outside the womb. Seems like a pretty clear line. 15 weeks, heartbeat, etc. are completely arbitrary.
-fish-
Footballguy
-fish-
Footballguy
Either way, you just limited your argument on "wrongly decided" to arguing against a viability standard. Trying to shoehorn state safety concerns in without overturning the implied right of privacy means Roe wasn't "wrongly decided" at all. You're either left with attacking viability or the undue burden standard, and undue burden isn't going anywhere.
Sand
Footballguy
And yet one political party just passed an act that keeps abortion on demand legal until birth. Truly horrific.
Eventually at some point it will probably be up to SCOTUS to determine when a fetus becomes human. Right now it's 2 seconds before the head pops out, which I believe most would agree is a terrible line. If nothing else the line should be moved back to the 20 week range, give or take.
Chaz McNulty
Footballguy
I disagree. Every state gets bluer on election day if you overturn. This will motivate people to vote (especially young people). The Christian Right already votes at a high percentage compared to most groupls.
-fish-
Footballguy
This is absolute nonsense. That bill basically just maintains the current undue burden standard.
Right now the line is viability, not 2 seconds before the head pops out. However, there are still instances where a woman's life is at stake where a doctor has to choose one or the other, and that choice has to be made without a health care provider being at risk of a murder charge. Medical necessity kicks in at viability.
The youngest surviving fetus in history was just over 21 weeks. I wouldn't have a problem with a 20 week bright line.
-fish-
Footballguy
I'm assuming that a fair amount of people who strongly object to these laws will simply leave red states.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
"enumerated right in the Constitution" seems to me to be an odd standard, though, especially if applied to the 2nd Amendment and gun control. For example, there's no enumerated right to own a semi-automatic weapon in the Constitution, nor an enumerated right to own ammunition. If "enumerated right" is the standard, why couldn't Massachusetts ban anything beyond weapons that existed at the time the 2nd Amendment was written?
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
You have a right to bear "arms". Arms is intentionally vague to cover different types of weapons, even weapons that the Framers couldn't know would exist in the future. So there are certain types of "arms" that survive a ban, according to Miller the arms needs to have some reasonable relationship to use in a well regulated militia and more recently in Heller, for individual self-defense, you need to show that the weapon is "in common use" at the time. So the right to bear "arms" isn't limitless, but "arms" covers many types of weapons and is therefore an enumerated right in the Constitution.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
You cannot ban abortion BEFORE viability but you can certainly keep abortion legal AFTER viability.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
And why can't Trump ban the Washington Post from the internet. The first amendment doesn't say anything about the internet. Freedom of the press should just mean actual paper made from wood pulp that come off those big spinning presses like we remember from old-timey films, and freedom of speech just means the right to force air through your vocal cords the way God intended. None of this modern stuff.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Has anybody ever actually tried to raise the "there's no enumerated right to buy ammunition" in front of an actual judge before? How was that received?
supermike80
Footballguy
supermike80
Footballguy
I think every person born in the US should be issued a handgun at birth thats biometric controlled. Like a ss number. Thats it. If you lose it break it etc you get to apply for a new one from the government.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Oh, I get the humor. "Ha ha, guns are legal but you didn't say we couldn't ban ammunition ha ha." It's a funny line.
It's just kind of jarring to see somebody make that argument for real. As if it wouldn't be laughed out of court by your local circuit judge.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
My point being that "semi-automatic weapons" isn't a specifically enumerated right. A court had to create reasoning that "arms" includes "semi-automatic weapons" and a subsequent court could apply a different standard such that arms includes fully automatic weapons or does not include semi-automatic weapons.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Agreed. That was my point. "It's not an enumerated right" is a poor standard. I was using the 2nd Amendment as an example to show why it's a poor standard.
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Here's how this works:
"Freedom of speech" is a real thing that appears in the actual bill of rights. The founders didn't anticipate the telegraph, radio, television, the internet, or whatever comes next. But we all recognize that those are just mediums for speech -- the basic protection of free speech extends beyond any particular medium.
"Freedom of the press" is a real thing that appear in the actual bill of rights. The founder didn't anticipate . . . . same argument.
"The right to keep and bear arms" is a real thing that appears in the actual bill of rights. The founders didn't anticipate semiautomatic weapons, automatic weapons, rockets, grenades, nuclear devices, etc. Courts have had to use reason and logic to decide what weapons are protected by the second amendment and which ones aren't. Nobody actually believes that the second amendment protects your right to own a nuclear warhead, and hardly anybody thinks that it doesn't protect your right to own a shotgun.
"Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures" is a real thing that exists in the actual bill of rights. The founders didn't anticipate the invention of the automobile, but the Supreme Court correctly recognized that the same right that applies to your home should logically apply to your car, too. Also your cell phone.
Unlike all of those topics, the bill of rights never says anything about abortion. It doesn't say anything about related topics like contraception, child-bearing, child-rearing, access to medicine, or whatever. If you think that a right to abortion is somehow implied by emanations from penumbras that's fine, but at least do us the courtesy of acknowledging that it's not the same thing textually as the freedom of religion or the freedom from having to quarter troops in your home.
"Freedom of speech" is a real thing that appears in the actual bill of rights. The founders didn't anticipate the telegraph, radio, television, the internet, or whatever comes next. But we all recognize that those are just mediums for speech -- the basic protection of free speech extends beyond any particular medium.
"Freedom of the press" is a real thing that appear in the actual bill of rights. The founder didn't anticipate . . . . same argument.
"The right to keep and bear arms" is a real thing that appears in the actual bill of rights. The founders didn't anticipate semiautomatic weapons, automatic weapons, rockets, grenades, nuclear devices, etc. Courts have had to use reason and logic to decide what weapons are protected by the second amendment and which ones aren't. Nobody actually believes that the second amendment protects your right to own a nuclear warhead, and hardly anybody thinks that it doesn't protect your right to own a shotgun.
"Freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures" is a real thing that exists in the actual bill of rights. The founders didn't anticipate the invention of the automobile, but the Supreme Court correctly recognized that the same right that applies to your home should logically apply to your car, too. Also your cell phone.
Unlike all of those topics, the bill of rights never says anything about abortion. It doesn't say anything about related topics like contraception, child-bearing, child-rearing, access to medicine, or whatever. If you think that a right to abortion is somehow implied by emanations from penumbras that's fine, but at least do us the courtesy of acknowledging that it's not the same thing textually as the freedom of religion or the freedom from having to quarter troops in your home.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Using the term "arms" is equivalent to saying, "including but not limited to" in a list. The Court didn't have to create anything. "Arms" was already in there. They had to interpret what "arms" meant to include. That's different than making up a right out of thin air like they did with privacy. If anything, the Griswold Court shouldn't have made privacy a Constitutional right and put it on the Legislature to make a Constitutional Amendment to make privacy a right. That's the way it's supposed to work. That's the same principle in Roe.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
. . . and it's not at all obvious why a hypothetical "right to privacy" would protect the right to abortion. If you think that personhood begins sometime before birth, then this isn't a private decision that affects only the person getting the abortion, so that principle doesn't even apply anyway.
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I think the Mississippi law will stand but they won't overturn Roe/Casey. I think Robert's is on the right path when he questioned, "Why isn't 15 weeks enough?"
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I actually agree with you on this point. While I'm pro-choice, I've always thought that hinging abortion on the right to privacy was a weird way to get there.
Sand
Footballguy
95% of abortions happen before 15 weeks and another 4% happen between 15-20, which one would think would get moved back to under 15. So if this did stand it would have essentially no real effect on abortions in this country.
Though the media would certainly scream to the hills about "attacks" and "curtailments" in a carefully choreographed set of propaganda to affect the November elections. Book it.
Last edited by a moderator:
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Agree. The actual affect on abortion if the Mississippi Law is allowed to stand is negligible in the short term. What it does do is open the door for future laws to limit abortion even further. If 15 weeks is ok, why not 10. If 10 weeks is ok, why not 5.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
There won't be a ruling until probably June. I don't know that there's anything to do in the meantime except sit around and argue with one another.
the moops
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
Sherif Gergis, Alito's former Law Clerk said he thinks they're going to overturn Roe and Casey and leave it up to the States.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/former-justice-alito-law-clerk-discusses-supreme-court-abortion-case
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
It's December, so I think that means that it's officially time for our annual debate over the gender politics of the song "Baby It's Cold Outside."
-fish-
Footballguy
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Well, there's always alcohol and other substances?IvanKaramazov said:
Rich Conway
Footballguy
Whether whatever Starbucks printed on their holiday cups this year is appropriate or not?the moops said:
BladeRunner
Footballguy
the moops said:
let's talk about a subject that's not controversial and that we can mostly agree on. I vote for religion.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
bigbottom
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
the moops said:
There are remaining argument dates next week Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, and five more argument dates in January. https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/2021TermCourtCalendar.pdf
There is a somewhat interesting case being argued next week that involves a school tuition-assistance program in Maine that is limited to "non-sectarian" schools (so it excludes religious schools.) That's Carson v. Makin.
There's a really arcane case involving Medicaid that I'm interested in purely for professional reasons - being argued in January.
There are a couple immigration cases, a case involving religious freedom/first amendment (Christian group flying a cross/flag at City Hall), and a campaign finance case involving Ted Cruz (which I think is maybe @fatguyinalittlecoat's case?)
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
Yeah, it was my case in the district court but I don’t work at the FEC anymore and the Solicitor General does everything now anyway.
fatguyinalittlecoat
Footballguy
But more than happy to answer any questions about it. It’s about a pretty obscure law not really something a lot of people care about. The more interesting parts are just about Cruz and his motivations and everything.
I deposed his campaign manager but we didn’t end up deposing Cruz himself. That would have been fun.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Snotbubbles
Footballguy
I'm working on a case now where I'm hoping we get to depose Leonardo DiCaprio. Just kidding, we definitely aren't deposing DiCaprio, but he is a tangent part of the case I'm working on. Check out Billion Dollar Whale. It's a book about the case we're working on right now.
