Then why did it require an amendment to the Constitution to grant women the right to vote?
Texas v abortion
- Thread starter Trunkage
- Start date
"Liberty" being awfully weakly defined considering all the shit women couldn't do...
...and the whole slave thing
Fucker owned hundreds of slaves and put his own rape babies into bondage, you really want to go into a semantic fight over this?
Not a good enough answer. And it also implies to me that you don't believe in democracy as a virtue, just a means to an end.
I mean, it should imply to you that the founders of America didn't believe in democracy as a virtue, just a means to an end. As it happens, I'm inclined to agree with that, but I wasn't talking about my own opinion.
I... ummm... ok? Other users are arguing in a different thread about whether direct democracy is even generally good, and you feel you've somehow outed the Republican in the room for not thinking democracy is a virtue? Sure. You got me.
Guess some are more equal than others.
Like the right to vote?
Also, you're either pretending chattel slavery wasn't how a whole race of men and women were treated or you don't think the enslaved were human. NOT A WHITEWASH AT ALL THOUGH
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2021.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/7e00f6d973d7387a573591c7ff8c1b33/SCOTUS%20Nov%201%20EL%20TT%2028.jpg)
Key U.S. Supreme Court justices express concern about Texas abortion law’s enforcement
Six justices — including two who voted against blocking Senate Bill 8 when it first went into effect — voiced concern that other states could replicate the controversial law’s enforcement mechanism.
www.texastribune.org
Live updates on the Supreme Court's arguments over the law today.
Strictly speaking, it didn't. In fact women had the right to vote to varying degrees in most states prior to the amendment, and all the amendment formally does is make it so sex cannot be a condition on the right to vote. Prior to that it was up to the individual states to decide who should be allowed to vote, including the rather amusing case of New Jersey which had a wealth requirement but no sex restriction meaning a woman with the means could vote freely, at least until the wealth requirement was removed and the law changed to any male of age.
It's also worth noting that if women "didn't have the right to vote" in any meaningful sense prior to the amendment passing then men didn't have the right to vote until the mid-late 1800s. Because before that most men didn't meet the requirements to vote either, and expanding male suffrage was a major political shift of the 1800s.
Id literally suggested that some blue state or another should do exactly that if they want to see a conservative court strike down this idea with the quickness. Honestly, I'm surprised it's took this long and the court didn't basically look at it and say "this is designed specifically to make it procedurally difficult to bring to the court - we'll have none of this nonsense."
As a side note, watch out for the Supreme Court's discussion over the EPA and the Chevron doctrineKey U.S. Supreme Court justices express concern about Texas abortion law’s enforcement
Six justices — including two who voted against blocking Senate Bill 8 when it first went into effect — voiced concern that other states could replicate the controversial law’s enforcement mechanism.
Live updates on the Supreme Court's arguments over the law today.
You think they'll intentionally throw away the authority of the Court because abortion is involved? That would be extraordinarily short sighted of them. Note that Kavanaugh was the one asking the questions about an SB8-like bill being applied to other rights.
If I know one thing about powerful people, it's that usually the last thing they give away is their power and authority.
That was rather my point - if they let this fly and either accept it as immune to judicial review or sufficiently onerous to bring before the Court, then the Court is rendering itself powerless in a way that feels wholly unlikely.
There'd be literally nothing to stop laws abridging whatever rights they want in whatever fashion they want and essentially copying the enforcement bit from SB8 to make it not legal, but impossible to challenge and in effect by default until challenged. Which has some of the GOP practically salivating, until they realize the Dems can do it too.
- May 6, 2020
- 1,133
- 1,213
- 118
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- White Male
A lesson that people will never fail to learn, regardless of their political leanings, is that powers you give the government can be used by other groups if they ever gain control of the government.
If you set the precedent that you can essentially evade judicial review with laws of this nature, all rights in the BoR are on the chopping block, from religion and speech to guns and much much more.
Unless one side is blatantly hypocritical, sure.
Good thing we don't have to worry about that