Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Very

6 (50%)

Some

4 (33.3%)

Not sure

0 (0%)

Not really

1 (8.3%)

Not in the slightest

1 (8.3%)

Total Members Voted: 11

Voting closed: February 15, 2022, 10:51:36 AM

[Yankguy1]

Abortion was a constitutionally protected right affirmed by SCOTUS countless times.
States acted before the reversal of the ruling.
Alito's "foreshadowing" is dicta and means nothing legally.

[Espnthree]

Abortion was a constitutionally protected right affirmed by SCOTUS countless times.
States acted before the reversal of the ruling.
Alito's "foreshadowing" is dicta and means nothing legally.

Roe was upheld but watered down by Casey and overturned by Dobbs
SCOTUS now turns the fate of abortion over to the states as prescribed by the Constitution.
State action up until now was centered on restricting elements of Roe but were bound by the Roe ruling that Abortion was  a protected right .
Dobbs changed that.
Each state now can choose what to do.
Alito s opinion is dicta? I think you misuse the word.
It is the majority opinion of the court laying out its reasoning and giving guidelines on how to proceed in carrying out the decision, and more.
It also advises other courts of the relationship between Dobbs and preceding and future cases involving unenumerated rights so it legally carries a lot of meaning.

[Yankguy1]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

[Holly Martins]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

Makes sense.  And it's not really Alito's court, so to me (layman) it would seem that he can't really foreshadow anything.  Obiter dictum, right?

[facilitatorn]

When ward tries to shiv you he does not want you running away or kicking his ass so he says the opposite.

[kidcarter8]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

Makes sense.  And it's not really Alito's court, so to me (layman) it would seem that he can't really foreshadow anything.  Obiter dictum, right?

yeah

Alright.

Well done, guys.

[Espnthree]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

Pretty narrow interpretation since Dobbs now establishes a clear road map, if you will, to examine future cases involving unenumerated rights.

And Dobbs has shut the door on the so-called LIVING CONSTITUTION

Specifically the majority decision says The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives.
In other words the Constitution does not evolve without approval of the governed.

BTW foreshadowing was my word choice, not that of Alito.
I will stick with that.
Especially since other Justices expanded on the statement.

[Espnthree]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

Makes sense.  And it's not really Alito's court, so to me (layman) it would seem that he can't really foreshadow anything.

He wrote the majority opinion which defines the decision and how it applies to lower courts.
He was selected to write for the COURT by Clarence Thomas who is the Senior Justice on the majority given the Chief Justice was in the minority.

[Hairy Lime]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

Pretty narrow interpretation since Dobbs now establishes a clear road map, if you will, to examine future cases involving unenumerated rights.

Which is precisely the point everyone else here has been making. Gay marriage is not an enumerated right. Access to birth control is not an enumerated right. Interracial marriage is not an enumerated right. Gay sex is not an enumerated right. None of those is any more deeply rooted in our history or.tradition than Roe was. There is now a."clear road map" to eliminate or limit those rights, and the Democrats are moving to prevent that from happening.

[kidcarter8]

...while allowing the rest of the nation to go to shit.

[Holly Martins]

Erm, if you're following the chat, it points towards a Supreme disregard of the 9th amendment that would pave  a ten lane freeway to Shit Central.

[Yankguy1]

...while allowing the rest of the nation to go to shit.

It was nice to discuss this stuff. Alas, my return to the sidelines has been hastened.

[Holly Martins]

Which is precisely the point everyone else here has been making. Gay marriage is not an enumerated right. Access to birth control is not an enumerated right. Interracial marriage is not an enumerated right. Gay sex is not an enumerated right. None of those is any more deeply rooted in our history or.tradition than Roe was. There is now a."clear road map" to eliminate or limit those rights, and the Democrats are moving to prevent that from happening.

So, if I'm following this, states could easily move to limit rights which the SCOTUS has essentially ruled don't exist and never had a constitutional basis to exist.  This, to me, creates what time travel sci-fi fans call a Djinn Object.  It seems to have come from somewhere, a certain well understood right, but in fact was never created by the hand of man if one is to believe certain radical conservative justices.  Which seems mindbending.  Laws are agreements between people, so it would seem to me you can establish any sort of right, if society moves that way.  IOW, don't all rights start out unenumerated?  In the big picture.

[Espnthree]

I didn't say Alito's opinion was dicta.  I said his "foreshadowing" was dicta.  I know exactly what dicta is.   

The holding in Dobbs only concerns abortion.  And his statement that "nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion" holds no precedential value especially for those states inclined to make gay marriage illegal.   

Pretty narrow interpretation since Dobbs now establishes a clear road map, if you will, to examine future cases involving unenumerated rights.

Which is precisely the point everyone else here has been making. Gay marriage is not an enumerated right. Access to birth control is not an enumerated right. Interracial marriage is not an enumerated right. Gay sex is not an enumerated right. None of those is any more deeply rooted in our history or.tradition than Roe was. There is now a."clear road map" to eliminate or limit those rights, and the Democrats are moving to prevent that from happening.

You are really at sea  on this one.
I suggest you actually read the decision.
You might also be helped by researching Washington v. Glucksberg https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/521/702/
Happy reading.

[Espnthree]

Erm, if you're following the chat, it points towards a Supreme disregard of the 9th amendment

Just the opposite.