Roe v Wade ??-Re: Bunny Trails
Posted: Wed May 18, 2022 8:17 am
i’m confused about the source of this post (Bunny Trails?) -
and, Falco, did you write all of this post below, or are there quotes within?? Is all of this your opinion?
great post, thank you.
“Truth does not belong to the one who shouts the loudest.”
UNKNOWN
Falco, i have no idea who you are. but, i’m gratefyl that you are.
“gratefyl.” haha. a typo turns into a moment of Olde English fun.
and, Falco, did you write all of this post below, or are there quotes within?? Is all of this your opinion?
great post, thank you.
Falco Underhill wrote: ↑Wed May 18, 2022 12:59 am Okay, here's an update on the leaked draft and what it means for the things we've been discussing.
The leaked Supreme Court draft explicitly overturns Roe v Wade.
It thoroughly demolishes its arguments and explains why it was bad law, a naked power grab, and unworkable anyway.
It even quotes noted constitutional scholars, including liberal ones such as Laurence Tribe,
who argued in scholarly papers why it was bad law.
It explains why precedent is no guarantee a bad law can't be overturned and gives examples of when the Court overturned bad law before.
It deals directly with the substantive due process issue.
It saves the substantive due process doctrine by laying out standards for deciding when a right can be said to be protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
The standards are drawn directly from precedent.
Accordingly, it lays out that the Due Process Clause protects two categories of substantive rights.
1. Rights guaranteed by the first 8 amendments.
2. A select list of rights that are not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.
For a right to fall into any of these 2 categories there are 2 conditions that must first be met.
The court must determine whether it is ...
1. deeply rooted in our history and traditions
2. essential to our nation's "scheme of ordered liberty."
These are the standards that must be applied to determine whether a right that is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution is nevertheless protected by the 14th Amendment.
The draft goes through the arguments made in Roe, thoroughly explaining why it failed to meet these standards.
I won't go further into the details of the arguments right now, but my opinion, as a nonexpert armchair lawyer?
As an authoritative precedent that the Court must follow from here on out it should serve as a pretty good check/restraint on judicial activism anywhere in the future.
Assuming this draft turns out to be the real thing, it's a brilliant decision. (Just my opinion.)
“Truth does not belong to the one who shouts the loudest.”
UNKNOWN
Falco, i have no idea who you are. but, i’m gratefyl that you are.
“gratefyl.” haha. a typo turns into a moment of Olde English fun.
unnerving, knowing about the well-documented “terrible twos” stage. 
