A Discussion on Dobbs

On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court decided this case in a 6-3 decision. The Court reversed and remanded the decision of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, holding that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; that Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey are overruled; and that the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices Thomas and Kavanaugh filed concurring opinions. Chief Justice Roberts filed an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan filed a dissenting opinion.
Featuring:
Prof. Daniel Farber, Sho Shato Professor of Law, University of California - Berkeley; former law clerk, Justice John Paul Stevens
Carrie Severino, President, Judicial Crisis Network; former law clerk, Justice Clarence Thomas
Moderator: Hon. Thomas B. Griffith, former Circuit Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit
Host: Dean Reuter, Senior Vice President and General Counsel, The Federalist Society
* * * * *
As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.

[@gopher7691]

“;nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”. If the word “liberty” in this context includes both enumerated and unenumerated liberties then doesn’t this say the state can deprive you of them as long as it follows due process of law? Isn’t the bill of rights nullified if a state can just pass a law taking away your liberty? Obviously the word liberty in this context has to do with incarceration. Just like the words life and property in this context have to do with execution and fines. If you don’t understand this as listing the three things the state can do to punish you, you inevitably get Dredd Scott

[@hobogod2692]

Good stuff!

[@gopher7691]

Bravo Carrie

[@gopher7691]

Brava Carrie

[@jirkadanek8215]

Ought military draft be deemed unconstitutional? What right does the government have to put innocent young (male) bodies into the path of enemy bullets?! In fact, if inalienable right is involved, people themselves have no right to join the army even voluntarily!

[@catsaresocute650]

Why not vouluntary?

[@catsaresocute650]

I mean the draft is dubious if it's anything but for an existantial crisis and it should certainly be applying equally to both sexes, but what's the problem with vouluntary service?

[@jirkadanek8215]

@@catsaresocute650 Nobody can sell themselves into chattel slavery. Because freedom is an inalienable right. Following that logic, nobody should be allowed to join an army.

[@catsaresocute650]

@@jirkadanek8215 the army is not chattle slavery. I can agree that it would be better if there was an option to forgo the contract, even if that would certainly have to be at a huge cost to make sure no -one light heatedly sigens to the army, but the contract is about a doing work for somone, not selling anything that would be definable as personhood. Soldiers remain free people.

[@catsaresocute650]

There also is in pactice an option to leave, that is breaking the rules. It might mean up to a dishoerable discharge but that's what a forgoing of a contract would mean too.

[@catsaresocute650]

It is not the states or any persons right to arbitrate the body or of any person to any other person. The argumentation that the body of a woman seeking and abortion can be the fetuses right, or the states right, is inherenty wrong.

[@catsaresocute650]

@@ichatterbot I would love to. I think that happend in the anti-slavery provison, but evidently it needs to be spelled out in a way no-one can miss.

[@scepticalbeliever]

But they don't arbitrate the body itself but rather the availability of the medical procedure. You also have to consider the point of viability and whether the baby that can survive outside the womb is a person that needs protection.

[@catsaresocute650]

@@scepticalbeliever where is the differnce between the souverenity over and the usage of the body?

[@scepticalbeliever]

@@catsaresocute650 Not sure what you mean. Are we all slaves because the government restricts the use of medications and substances? How about taxes? Why should I pay at least half of my income? Doesn't it make me half a slave?

[@catsaresocute650]

@@scepticalbeliever I would define natural rights classicly- the right to ones own self. Any humans right is there own body and there own thoghts to an absulut degree. That is no person or goverment can have a right to them, because they are absuluty the persons. They are in-aliable. They can't be made alian from your person.

[@robinhood20253]

We the women of America wish you to note that WE DISSENT! I am a US citizen with certain unalienable rights under our Constitution. A fetus is NOT a citizen. This creates rights for a non citizen that no one else has. This ruling was a blatant violation of the human rights and liberty of all people capable of being pregnant. The cruelty of this decision removes all doubt as to the legitimacy of this court. We as citizens are aware of the intent of the conservative judges. My country, the United States of America, has betrayed me and all American women. We absolutely must expand this court and dillute the power of those judges who favor power over justice. Thomas, Kavanagh and possibly Barrett should be impeached. Thomas and Kavanaugh should be removed. A Code of Ethics and a Oversight Board or Selection Board must be implemented. The Republican Party cannot be trusted to follow the Constitutional intent of our founders. They certainly did not draft our founding document for the power hungry corporations, religous institutions and corrupt men. The SCOTUS is still an entity that is meant to work for We the People. This majority has shown no interest in doing so.

[@oofcloof]

lol. Stay mad that you can’t kill babies anymore.

[@scepticalbeliever]

LOL so much drama. Come to our state, we have constitutional protections for abortion. We don't allow partial abortions for non medical reasons, mind you.

[@robinhood20253]

@@scepticalbeliever I am well past childbearing thank goodness.

[@gopher7691]

We have a law prohibiting killing bald eagles. An eagle is NOT a citizen. This law is a blatant violation of the human rights of all people capable of killing bald eagles. SCOTUS did not declare fetuses to be citizens. It just said a right to kill them isn’t in the constitution. It’s left up to the states to regulate it therefore.

[@williammuthee2474]

Shush