Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Looks Like I Picked a Bad Week to Return to Twitter
I thought the meltdown over Musk possibly ending censorship on Twitter was ridiculous, but the response to the prospect of Roe being overturned is truly absurd.
Of course, people on Twitter don’t understand that not everything is mentioned in the Constitution. Some things just aren’t in there, things like “abortion” and “misinformation” and “freedom of speech” —
Oh, wait. Yeah, I guess that’s in there.
Published in Culture
But “privacy” is in the Constitution, right? Someone on Twitter assured me it was.
Well, no, of course “privacy” isn’t in there. But you have to be a bit more subtle to understand the reasoning of the Court when Roe was passed.
While the words “privacy” and “abortion” do not occur in the Constitution, the phrase “for obtaining” does occur in the Constitution. It’s tucked away in Article VI.
And, as every judicial scholar knows, “for obtaining” is an anagram of “aborting info,” suggesting that the right of
womenbirthing people to be aware of their options for terminating a pregnancy was of paramount importance to the framers.Q.E.D.
IIRC, there is something in the Constitution about speech.
How many of these scholars have actually read Roe v. Wade? How many have read the US Constitution? Anyone? Bueller?
There’s still an amazingly widespread fallacy that this will “outlaw abortion”. All it does is revoke a national guarantee of being able to have an abortion.
For decades, this was the ultimate imaginable defeat for the left, after which the world would end. Now it’s here and the sun still rises, birds still chirp, and the Yanks and Phillies fans still hate each other.
Yes. The misunderstanding is fueled by wild hyperbole on the left. That’s unfortunate, because it’s needlessly divisive: the nation isn’t as divided on the subject of abortion as the strident pro-abortion voices would have us believe.
They do not care. Most people really do not care about legal or law or constitutions like we do. They just want their way and for the law to allow it to be the way they want it. The rest does not matter much.
There was a time that I believed in science, logic, truth, justice and reality. It was later in life that I realized none of that matters. All that matters is the animal emotions and the masses getting what they want and the elite using the masses to accumulate power. The rest is, well, almost nothing….
Of course, I don’t share your dismal cynicism, as you know.
But the post was intended as a joke. ;)
Re-post:
With Reo v Wade in place, there has been no price for pro-choice Republicans who vote for anti-abortion candidates (who pass anti-abortion laws which then can’t be implemented because of Roe v Wade). That’s made the conflict between pro-choice Republicans and the Evangelical base on this issue completely theoretical, and made it easier to mai[n]tain that coalition of voters.
If Roe v Wade is indeed overturned, that’ll no longer be the case – people will need to cop the results of their vote. How that impacts the votes of the 59% of republicans who are pro-choice will be interesting. And also, I guess, the statements and behaviour of the Republican politicians who have been able to cater to the Evangelical portion of their base without de facto impacting that 59%. It’ll be interesting how that plays out in the lead up to the mid-terms.
Hoc ex se intellegitur.
Since there will be very few states — if any — in which abortion is prohibited, and since unrestricted abortion is a litmus test issue for very few on the right, and since politicians are good at straddling on contentious issues, I suspect it will have relatively little impact on voting on the right. My concern is about turnout in 2022 and 2024.
But the Constitution is important, Roe was legally speaking a terrible ruling, and the rights of the citizens of the individual states matter, so I’m good with Roe being overturned.
I don’t think any will outright ban, but severe constraints is as good as for most cases of abortion.
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/05/03/us/state-abortion-trigger-laws-roe-v-wade-overturned/index.html
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2021-12-10/the-states-likely-to-ban-abortion-if-roe-v-wade-is-overturned
https://time.com/6173196/abortion-trigger-laws-bans-roe-v-wade/
Mayhap. I weas more interested in the political fall out.
I acknowledge the risk of political fallout, but I’m really more interested in sound Constitutional governance, and in giving the people the right to make their own laws without unconstitutional controlling federal authority.
I don’t think the world would be a terrible place with abortion entirely illegal. I don’t consider it a fundamental and essential right.
Yes, but making it part of the democratic process is an assault on democracy because . . .
Every day is a bad day to return to Twitter.
No matter how much sympathy one has for the pregnant single woman, one can’t overlook the harm abortion has caused to civil society. Do I need to elaborate?
Almost echoed my thought. I do think Twitter might be the social media worth saving so the current effort is interesting.
This is a good illustration of the perilousness of “clever” lawyering and judging. There is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution, but the 4th Amendment search and seizure language (“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated…”) is suggestive of a right to privacy in certain circumstances. All it takes is a shift or two in the level of generality, and voila!, we can find a broad right to privacy to fit the whim of a particular group on the Court. Of course, the Court is more than happy to (at times) condone warrantless searches (something explicit in the text), but forbid more generalized laws on the books for eons (like sodomy), because, well, privacy.
Edited to remove an inadvertent reference to a stringed instrument.
Sounds like a band name.
Good point, but I’ll nitpick a little. The 59% number is almost certainly NOT comprised of abortion absolutists. The vast majority of that 59% would be comfortable with reasonable restrictions (15 week ban, parental consent for minors, etc.) similar to the Mississippi law in Dobbs. I suspect that the abortion question will not be the wedge issue that you suggest. But time will tell.
Whoops. Good catch.
Nah, that’s the album name from the band Dismal Cynics.
…featuring the catchy track “Death and Taxes”?
Come to think of it, maybe that was The Fatalists.
So many are concerned about violins against women.
The Yankees do not hate the Phillies, dislike perhaps. The Yankees hate the Red Sox.
And everyone (but for their home fans) hates the Yankees, even Mets fans.
And justifiably so.
You’re both mistaken. The band name was “Damsel Cynics,” and it’s one of the 1980’s darker all-girl bands.
I, too, count myself among those in favor of school choice, believing that if we can rally that pro-choice educational majority we can make great strides in improving the future lives of our children and nation. Oh wait… were you talking about something else entirely?