In my opinion, the original fourth amendment privacy reasoning from Roe is garbage e.g. penumbras/emanations, etc. In fact, the entire privacy jurisprudence is inconsistent with the original meaning of the fourth amendment. I don’t really see any coherent way to find a right to abortion in the constitution. A better grounding in my opinion would be some sort of individual autonomy theory grounded in the ninth amendment. Our jurisprudence has completely ignored the Ninth Amendment. Many originalists argue it protects certain core, inalienable rights that the founders thought were not as likely to be violated by the government as were the the enumerated ones—hence the reason for their enumeration. Such core rights could be things like the right to defend oneself, the right to contract, the right to autonomy, etc. Libertarian originalists argue you could fit some sort of right to contraception in the autonomy prong.
But I've seen Scalia argue he doesn't agree that the 14th amendment originally meant that the bill of rights was supposed to apply to the states. So do you think the fact it is currently interpreted as such go hand in hand with a ruling like Row V Wade?
I don't think so but I'd like a lawyers opinion on why not, unless you think it might...
Another example of an activist court applying probably the most strained reasoning I have ever read—reading the interstate commerce clause which allows for regulation of interstate commerce to allow for the regulation of any economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In other words, the federal government can regulate something under the interstate commerce Clause that is neither interstate nor commerce.
That’s not rumor, its fact. He did publicly threaten to pack the courts. If we had a majority of Justice Thomas’s, there’d be a shot. He’s the only true originalist on the court. If you ever read his opinions, they read and flow so coherently because he is so logical and committed to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He doesn’t play games, he says what the law is regardless of his decision’s outcome. Other justices, even originalists, play games with interpreting the text out of perceived concern re political influence. For example, Roberts would never dare reverse Roe v Wade because he is so afraid of the left and of the court “losing its legitimacy.” That, in my opinion, is indicative of being a spineless coward not willing to stand up for the true meaning of the Constitution against negative political pressure.
What's your opinion of Roe v Wade as a decision, and in your opinion what should constitute an undue burden upon that "right"?
In my opinion, the original fourth amendment privacy reasoning from Roe is garbage e.g. penumbras/emanations, etc. In fact, the entire privacy jurisprudence is inconsistent with the original meaning of the fourth amendment. I don’t really see any coherent way to find a right to abortion in the constitution. A better grounding in my opinion would be some sort of individual autonomy theory grounded in the ninth amendment. Our jurisprudence has completely ignored the Ninth Amendment. Many originalists argue it protects certain core, inalienable rights that the founders thought were not as likely to be violated by the government as were the the enumerated ones—hence the reason for their enumeration. Such core rights could be things like the right to defend oneself, the right to contract, the right to autonomy, etc. Libertarian originalists argue you could fit some sort of right to contraception in the autonomy prong.
Fourteenth amendment right?
But I've seen Scalia argue he doesn't agree that the 14th amendment originally meant that the bill of rights was supposed to apply to the states. So do you think the fact it is currently interpreted as such go hand in hand with a ruling like Row V Wade?
I don't think so but I'd like a lawyers opinion on why not, unless you think it might...
Here.
Fed Soc rocks.
Cocaine Mitch is our hero. Had the pleasure of meeting him at last year’s national convention in dc
Im headed into big law and it seems that the left has completely taken over almost every am law 100 firm. I’d be curious if anyone has any experience.
2nd question:
What's your opinion on Wikard v Filburn as a supreme court decision?
Another example of an activist court applying probably the most strained reasoning I have ever read—reading the interstate commerce clause which allows for regulation of interstate commerce to allow for the regulation of any economic activity that has a substantial effect on interstate commerce. In other words, the federal government can regulate something under the interstate commerce Clause that is neither interstate nor commerce.
I heard FDR was threatening to pack to courts if they started ruling against him, you think that's true?
And what do you think it would take for a modern supreme court to override that ruling?
That’s not rumor, its fact. He did publicly threaten to pack the courts. If we had a majority of Justice Thomas’s, there’d be a shot. He’s the only true originalist on the court. If you ever read his opinions, they read and flow so coherently because he is so logical and committed to an originalist interpretation of the Constitution. He doesn’t play games, he says what the law is regardless of his decision’s outcome. Other justices, even originalists, play games with interpreting the text out of perceived concern re political influence. For example, Roberts would never dare reverse Roe v Wade because he is so afraid of the left and of the court “losing its legitimacy.” That, in my opinion, is indicative of being a spineless coward not willing to stand up for the true meaning of the Constitution against negative political pressure.