Supreme Court's Legal Terrorism: Appealing to "Tradition" on Abortion Is Obscene

[babylonsister]

Supreme Court’s Legal Terrorism: Appealing to “Tradition” on Abortion Is Obscene
by Lucian K. Truscott IV | June 26, 2022 - 6:19am

— from Salon

snip//

It's tempting to say that the justices handed down these two decisions because they could, but what they did and how they did it is even worse: Just a month after 19 elementary school children and their two teachers were shot dead with a semiautomatic military weapon of war, they mumbled about life and provided for the mechanics of death and. over a 24-hour period, set forth the new outlines of an obscene legal regimen.

They threw out 50 years of precedent and two of their previous decisions and concluded that since "the Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion," such a right does not exist. But the right to "keep and bear arms" is spelled out clear as a bell by the musket-owning founders in the wonderful Second Amendment.

What the six so-called conservatives are relying on these days are two words not found in the Constitution: history and tradition. Both are suddenly seen as absolutely necessary in determining whether certain rights deserve to be preserved. The decisions are rife with phrases like, "We then canvassed the historical record, and found yet further confirmation," and you know what the "historical record" confirmed, don't you? Exactly what the majority wanted it to. It turns out that in order for a constitutional right to be enjoyed by American citizens, it must be old, and the older the better. If a right existed in the 18th and 19th centuries, well, this court is fine with it. But if that right wasn't enjoyed by the citizens of, say, 1816 — like the right to privacy, under which various other so-called modern rights exist, such as the right to purchase and use contraceptives, the right to have sex in the manner you choose, and the right to marry a person of your own sex — then those rights simply don't exist.

The majority leaves out the inconvenient truth that abortions, legal or otherwise, have been performed since the beginning of history as we know it, and the ownership of guns and other weapons of death and destruction have been restricted by class, income, social standing and political power for just as long.

more...

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/lucian-k-truscott-iv/102145/supreme-court-s-legal-terrorism-appealing-to-tradition-on-abortion-is-obscene

[Phoenix61]

1. It's so much worse than that. Abortion was legal when the

constitution was written. It was considered “women’s business” and men stayed the hell out of the conversation. What Alito did was cherry pick, and very carefully at that, to support a decision he had already made.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. According to Alito's decision

although no statues against abortion existed, it was against common law. Was he wrong on that?

Still a lousy decision, but he seemed to be using the notion that across the history of the country, it was barred by statute longer than it wasn’t .

[C_U_L8R]

2. Hey Supremes, you know what's also not in the Constitution

Outlawing abortion.

[msongs]

3. so is clarence gonna appeal to tradition on interacial marriages...like his?

[bucolic_frolic]

5. Smirking Chimp is still going

i recall them from Campaign 2000