From the JB's link, there is this quote from Trump: "I promised to nominate judges and justices who would stand up for the original meaning of the Constitution."
|Posted: 26 June 2022 at 2:58pm | IP Logged | 9
First: this originalist crap is dangerous. First of all, the original meaning of the constitution as drafted by the founding fathers inarguably intended to allow slavery. The nation made progress. Wiser thinking prevailed and the constitution was altered away from its original form to remove a great evil. This alone blows out of the water any notion that the original meaning of the constitution is valued above all else.
Second: the debate hinged almost entirely on the 14th amendment's right to privacy. The fourteenth amendment, part of the reconstruction amendments, was added in 1868, more than 80 years after the original constitution was drafted.
Third: to accept the majority argument that the right to privacy did not cover abortion, you have to believe that the right of woman to privacy over what is going on in her womb deserves to be taken away in favour of the government having oversight over what is going on in her womb.
Fourth: rights granted by substantive due process has been a principle adhered to by the Supreme Court for close to a hundred years. It seems outrageously egotistical of Thomas and co. to claim all the preceding Supreme Courts have been wrong on this and they are now right. It undermines the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. It seems a rogue decision, not based in law.
Fifth: the law should not be applied arbitrarily. Thomas an co. are fond of wading through hundreds of years of law to establish what is a part of American tradition (as an aside, substantive due process seems something of a tradition when it's been around for nearly longer than 99% of the population) and the concept of arbitrary application of the law being wrong goes all the way back to the Magna Carta.
Now, a pregnant woman in, say, Missouri, who booked an appointment for an abortion last week for next week was doing so with a constitutionally-protected right on her side that had stood for almost half a century. Overnight she finds that her appointment is now cancelled because the procedure is illegal down to a trigger-law. Had the appointment been for Thursday, it would have gone ahead. Booked for Friday, it's illegal. I would suggest this is arbitrary.