This is Huge?!! OMG this court got it Right 💥 Thank you, Chris, I really needed some Good News tonight, and you just Delivered ! Thank you, and will reStack ASAP 🙏💯👍
The question is forcing its female citizens to breed a legitimate state interest. The Musk types already say it is. Also, sooner rather than later some state is going to try to enforce fetal personhood, and get the courts to rule that denies a woman all her bodily autonomy, up to and including death. Not sure why a fetus being a person would obligate another person to provide it life support, but they can invent a reason. This is sick, sick stuff at the core of the anti-abortion movement. But we'll take this (expected) win for today.
It's a bit of a shame that whenever I see a decision like this my first instinct is to look at what president appointed the judge - as if it should matter with a case dealing with this type of overreach.
Good for Judge Thompson! Alabama's efforts here were nothing better than an unconstitutional tyranny of the majority oppressing people under the mere pretense of the rule of law. That also is what should be said of the so-called judgment of the SCOTUS majority responsible for Dobbs.
The Dobbs decision was a blatant fraud based on an outright lie. SCOTUS justices fraudulently deprived people of their rights based on the justices' lie about the Ninth Amendment. I could barely believe my eyes when I saw them lie in Dobbs about the Ninth Amendment and then knowingly violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The Tenth Amendment obviously emphasized that federal judges could not exercise any "powers" that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The Ninth Amendment obviously emphasized that a particular power was not delegated to federal courts.
The majority in Dobbs (twice) knowingly and absurdly misrepresented that the Ninth Amendment stated a mere "reservation of rights to the people." The Ninth Amendment clearly was not merely (or even primarily) a "reservation of rights." The Ninth Amendment clearly is what judges commonly call "a rule of construction." It expressly and emphatically commanded how "the Constitution" absolutely "shall not be construed."
The Ninth Amendment expressly and emphatically commanded judges not to do exactly what the Dobbs majority did, i.e., not construe our Constitution "to deny or [even] disparage" any right "retained by the people" on the grounds that a right was not expressly included in any "enumeration in the Constitution." That command was clearly directed especially at judges whose duty is to construe the law (say what the law is).
After the Dobbs majority lied about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, they knowingly violated it. They deceitfully focused our attention on the obviously irrelevant fact that “[t]he Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion." Then, they lied again. They knowingly misrepresented the consequence (dictated by our Constitution) of the foregoing irrelevant fact: "therefore those who claim that [our Constitution] protects [any] right [at issue] must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.”
The Dobbs majority abused the foregoing lies about the law and their violation of our Constitution to pretend to justify shifting the crucial burden of proof--from the government (when it infringed on rights) onto citizens (asserting rights). The misrepresentation of law and violation of law by the Dobbs majority was clearly barred by the plain text and plain meaning of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's almost unbelievable that those judges dared to do what they did in writing.
The Dobbs majority did not--and cannot--prove that their conduct and contentions did not violate our Constitution. Amendment I (freedom of and from religion) especially clearly denied judges any power to abuse their positions and powers for the "establishment" of their own "religion" or imposing their religious viewpoints on other persons (as they did in Dobbs). The First Amendment (freedom of association) also denied public servants the power to compel people to associate with other people (for about 18 years). Amendment XIII clearly denied all public servants (including judges) any power to impose "involuntary servitude" on any person except after conviction for a crime. Compelling a woman (or a couple) to involuntarily support a fetus (for some 9 months) and then a child (for some 18 years) necessarily is involuntary servitude.
Moreover, our Constitution also clearly does guarantee a woman's right to use deadly force (even against another actual person and even against a citizen) for self-defense or self-preservation. That was the emphatic point of a decision by the same SCOTUS majority separated by only one day from their Dobbs decision. See all the many references to defense (or defence) or preservation in the analysis of the meaning of Amendment II in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (and even far more so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).
“Expressive” in a constitutional case? Taking a course of action that arises from holding an opinion of the rightness of the action and the accompanying subsets of the action, these make the action equivalent to speaking about the action and its results?
The more we fight back, the more we win. Don’t stop fighting.
This is Huge?!! OMG this court got it Right 💥 Thank you, Chris, I really needed some Good News tonight, and you just Delivered ! Thank you, and will reStack ASAP 🙏💯👍
Thanks for covering this case.
Bravo!
Wonderful that you bring attention to this opinion. I hope it’s understood correctly by Kavanaugh et al .
The question is forcing its female citizens to breed a legitimate state interest. The Musk types already say it is. Also, sooner rather than later some state is going to try to enforce fetal personhood, and get the courts to rule that denies a woman all her bodily autonomy, up to and including death. Not sure why a fetus being a person would obligate another person to provide it life support, but they can invent a reason. This is sick, sick stuff at the core of the anti-abortion movement. But we'll take this (expected) win for today.
Looks like “money as speech” cuts both ways. Let’s see how the appeals court handles that. 👀
This is very good news and also I am blanching at the words "Carter appointee"
Fr, he was president when my dad was a kid XD
Fantastic! Thanks Chris.
Alabama A.G. Marshall seems to me to wish to impose a regime that is strikingly reminiscent of fugitive slave laws. See, e.g., https://www.history.com/articles/fugitive-slave-acts
It's a bit of a shame that whenever I see a decision like this my first instinct is to look at what president appointed the judge - as if it should matter with a case dealing with this type of overreach.
This really isn't a surprise, since this case didn't appear in front of a certain Texas judge.
Even Gorsuch and Thomas have admitted that people in the US can actually travel across state lines.
Big of them, I know.
Good for Judge Thompson! Alabama's efforts here were nothing better than an unconstitutional tyranny of the majority oppressing people under the mere pretense of the rule of law. That also is what should be said of the so-called judgment of the SCOTUS majority responsible for Dobbs.
The Dobbs decision was a blatant fraud based on an outright lie. SCOTUS justices fraudulently deprived people of their rights based on the justices' lie about the Ninth Amendment. I could barely believe my eyes when I saw them lie in Dobbs about the Ninth Amendment and then knowingly violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
The Tenth Amendment obviously emphasized that federal judges could not exercise any "powers" that were "not delegated to the United States by the Constitution." The Ninth Amendment obviously emphasized that a particular power was not delegated to federal courts.
The majority in Dobbs (twice) knowingly and absurdly misrepresented that the Ninth Amendment stated a mere "reservation of rights to the people." The Ninth Amendment clearly was not merely (or even primarily) a "reservation of rights." The Ninth Amendment clearly is what judges commonly call "a rule of construction." It expressly and emphatically commanded how "the Constitution" absolutely "shall not be construed."
The Ninth Amendment expressly and emphatically commanded judges not to do exactly what the Dobbs majority did, i.e., not construe our Constitution "to deny or [even] disparage" any right "retained by the people" on the grounds that a right was not expressly included in any "enumeration in the Constitution." That command was clearly directed especially at judges whose duty is to construe the law (say what the law is).
After the Dobbs majority lied about the meaning of the Ninth Amendment, they knowingly violated it. They deceitfully focused our attention on the obviously irrelevant fact that “[t]he Constitution makes no express reference to a right to obtain an abortion." Then, they lied again. They knowingly misrepresented the consequence (dictated by our Constitution) of the foregoing irrelevant fact: "therefore those who claim that [our Constitution] protects [any] right [at issue] must show that the right is somehow implicit in the constitutional text.”
The Dobbs majority abused the foregoing lies about the law and their violation of our Constitution to pretend to justify shifting the crucial burden of proof--from the government (when it infringed on rights) onto citizens (asserting rights). The misrepresentation of law and violation of law by the Dobbs majority was clearly barred by the plain text and plain meaning of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. It's almost unbelievable that those judges dared to do what they did in writing.
The Dobbs majority did not--and cannot--prove that their conduct and contentions did not violate our Constitution. Amendment I (freedom of and from religion) especially clearly denied judges any power to abuse their positions and powers for the "establishment" of their own "religion" or imposing their religious viewpoints on other persons (as they did in Dobbs). The First Amendment (freedom of association) also denied public servants the power to compel people to associate with other people (for about 18 years). Amendment XIII clearly denied all public servants (including judges) any power to impose "involuntary servitude" on any person except after conviction for a crime. Compelling a woman (or a couple) to involuntarily support a fetus (for some 9 months) and then a child (for some 18 years) necessarily is involuntary servitude.
Moreover, our Constitution also clearly does guarantee a woman's right to use deadly force (even against another actual person and even against a citizen) for self-defense or self-preservation. That was the emphatic point of a decision by the same SCOTUS majority separated by only one day from their Dobbs decision. See all the many references to defense (or defence) or preservation in the analysis of the meaning of Amendment II in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) (and even far more so in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)).
“Expressive” in a constitutional case? Taking a course of action that arises from holding an opinion of the rightness of the action and the accompanying subsets of the action, these make the action equivalent to speaking about the action and its results?