• kmkz_ninja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Supreme Court also justified that abortion should be policed at the state level despite 50 years of it being protected at the federal level, so I wouldn’t use their ability or reason as jutsification. “They can easily tell”, when it agrees with what you agree with. In the same way the Constitution can be read to agree with digital 4th amendment rights, or not.

    • hakase
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Of course they did. It’s clearly the correct legal decision, regardless of whether abortion is good or bad or whatever.

      Congress has never had the balls to actually enshrine the right to abortion in legislation, and so 50 years ago the Supreme Court took it upon themselves to write the law themselves by nonsensically putting it under the umbrella of “medical privacy”.

      This incredibly hacky “solution” is clearly outside of the Court’s jurisdiction and mandate, and legal experts have been saying for decades that the right to abortion should be enshrined in statute, and not rest solely on this flimsy precedent.

      Note also that the Court’s opinions specifically note that a federal law legalizing abortion would be perfectly acceptable, if it existed, which it doesn’t.

      If people want abortion to be legalized federally, they should elect representatives who will sign that into law instead of relying on the Supreme Court to yet again overstep its bounds and write bad law. The Dobbs v. Jackson outcome is very clearly the correct one, legally.

      Unfortunately, though, your point that the Court doesn’t always follow its mandate or stay within its jurisdiction is well taken. For an actual recent example of the Supreme Court writing even more bad law, look no further than Citizens United.