re: Florida Judge Blocks Governor Ron DeSantis’s 15-Week Abortion Ban

quote:

---

The judicial branch runs our country.

---

quote:

---

(not under "right to privacy"; due process, etc.)

---

quote:

---

Roe, however, was remarkably loose in its treatment of the constitutional text. It held that the abortion right, which is not mentioned in the Constitution, is part of a right to privacy, which is also not mentioned.

---

quote:

---

Finally, after all this, the Court turned to precedent. Citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy,” id., at 152, but it conflated two very different meanings of the term: the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600 (1977). Only the cases involving this second sense of the term could have any possible relevance to the abortion issue, and some of the cases in that category involved personal decisions that were obviously very, very far afield.

---

quote:

---

When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, very little of Roe’s reasoning was defended or preserved. The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846. The Court did not reaffirm Roe’s erroneous account of abortion history. In fact, none of the Justices in the majority said anything about the history of the abortion right. And as for precedent, the Court relied on essentially the same body of cases that Roe had cited. Thus, with respect to the standard grounds for constitutional decision making—text, history, and precedent—Casey did not attempt to bolster Roe’s reasoning.

---

quote:

---

Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity.

---

quote:

---

States can recognize such a right as they choose.

Florida appears to have done so

---

quote:

---

More judicial activism. frick these clowns

---

quote:

---

Yep, pretty much any of these cases should have been tossed immediately...

---

quote:

---

More judicial activism.

quote:

---

Yep, with no consequence to the "judges", absurd.

---

---

quote:

---

Pretty sure that Florida state court judges are elected and must face re-election every few years. If their constituents don't like their rulings, the constituents can remove them.

---

quote:

---

I find that a huge amount of angst regarding legal proceedings on here come from ignorance of the process more than anything else.

---

quote:

---

Yep, pretty much any of these cases should have been tossed immediately...

---

quote:

---

A lot of angst comes from the fact that law schools are little neo Marxist factories. And the judges aren’t ruling on merits but rather what they want the outcomes to be.

---