Most people know about Roe v. Wade but have little understanding of this decision and why it matters so much, especially to the degenerates and radicals on the left.
Roe was a woman who sued the State of Texas to invalidate a law that made abortion a crime. In the eyes of Texas, just like in the eyes of a pregnant woman who is the victim of a car crash, the life of the fetus is worth protecting.
(Roe wasn't her real name. Roe is a convention, its the female version of John Doe.).
Ultimately, the case went to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court generally hears two types of cases - does the government have the power to pass this sort of law, or is there a limit on government power that applies in this particular case?
This was not a powers case because this was a state law. States are generally assumed to have plenary (absolute) power to regulate their citizens, especially regarding crimes and especially regarding conduct that has historically been prohibited. This is because prior to those states joining the United States, they were assumed to have this power and to retain it unless they specifically ceded this power to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment says this, although it does not give the context that I just did.
Anyway, what was at issue whether there was a limit on the right of the government to prohibit abortion.
When deciding these cases, it matters greatly whether a fundamental right is impacted. Up until a short time before Roe, a fundamental right was limted to rights listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to a jury trial, etc. However, a few years before Roe the court overturned a Connecticut law that banned contraceptives. (Griswold, 1965). To overturn the ban, the Court had to find a fundamental right. Basically, the court said that recreational sex was a fundamental right!
Roe was a tougher case because instead of a sperm they had a fetus. Texas, like a pregnant crash victim that is suing you, argued that they had an interest in protecting the life of the fetus. Roe argued that she had a fundamental right to kill her fetus. The Court split the baby so to speak. They found that Roe had a right to kill her baby, calling it a right to privacy, but that the Government had an equal right in the life of the fetus. The government's right was compelling, and worthy of outweighing Roe's right, at viability of the fetus, which the court in 1973 assumed was the beginning of the third trimester.
Later, in 1992, the Court revisited Roe. It was ripe to be overturned. Regan and Bush had appointed conservatives (they thought) to the Court. However, Justice Kennedy sided with the left and basically cemented Roe. The one major change is that the trimester assumption was discarded for a viability standard. But the court, with the Republican-appointee Kennedy casting the swing vote, upheld the view that there is an imaginary right to privacy. (Hilariously, the Roe court even described the location of this right - between the penumbras (shadows) and emanations (light) of the First and Fifth Amendment (self incrimination).
Think about this. With the stroke of a pen, the court invented rights that didn't exist before. Don't worry about amending the Constitution. Don't worry about voter referenda supporting bans on gay marriage. We found an invisible right and we'll tell you what to do!
The reason why Kavanaugh matters is because he is Kennedy. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, so while he is likely to be a fine justice, its a wash. (Roberts replaced O'Connor, which was a win, but we were in a deficit so it didn't have much impact yet). Kavanaugh becomes the swing vote! And the Democrat lifestyle is built on a house of cards.
First, as it pertains to abortion, even under existing law the court can take judicial notice of the improvements in medical science since 1973. The medical profession recognizes viability at about 22-24 weeks, or 1.5 trimesters.
Second, it would be quite reasonable for the Court to say there is no such thing as "penumbras and emanations." The Griswold court made this up. Its completely unprincipled, because once you find a right to privacy, there is suddenly the right to sodomy, gay marriage, the right to discriminate against whites and Asians in employment and school admissions, a right to force normies to pay for sex changes, etc. There is no limit, because there is no text. Its literally in the shadows.
The entire Democrat Diversity Everybody But Straights industry is at risk. As a simple example, I bet there is a shortage of white male professors at most universities because of systematic reverse discrimination. Probably Asians too, but I'm not sure you can call that reverse discrimination. So when the crazy lying cunt from California perjures herself, among other things its to keep her job which exists because of "diversity."
This is why they are willing to perjure themselves. This is why they are in bed with Avenetti. This is why Seth Rich was murdered, and why Strok devised an "insurance policy."
Roe was a woman who sued the State of Texas to invalidate a law that made abortion a crime. In the eyes of Texas, just like in the eyes of a pregnant woman who is the victim of a car crash, the life of the fetus is worth protecting.
(Roe wasn't her real name. Roe is a convention, its the female version of John Doe.).
Ultimately, the case went to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court generally hears two types of cases - does the government have the power to pass this sort of law, or is there a limit on government power that applies in this particular case?
This was not a powers case because this was a state law. States are generally assumed to have plenary (absolute) power to regulate their citizens, especially regarding crimes and especially regarding conduct that has historically been prohibited. This is because prior to those states joining the United States, they were assumed to have this power and to retain it unless they specifically ceded this power to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment says this, although it does not give the context that I just did.
Anyway, what was at issue whether there was a limit on the right of the government to prohibit abortion.
When deciding these cases, it matters greatly whether a fundamental right is impacted. Up until a short time before Roe, a fundamental right was limted to rights listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to a jury trial, etc. However, a few years before Roe the court overturned a Connecticut law that banned contraceptives. (Griswold, 1965). To overturn the ban, the Court had to find a fundamental right. Basically, the court said that recreational sex was a fundamental right!
Roe was a tougher case because instead of a sperm they had a fetus. Texas, like a pregnant crash victim that is suing you, argued that they had an interest in protecting the life of the fetus. Roe argued that she had a fundamental right to kill her fetus. The Court split the baby so to speak. They found that Roe had a right to kill her baby, calling it a right to privacy, but that the Government had an equal right in the life of the fetus. The government's right was compelling, and worthy of outweighing Roe's right, at viability of the fetus, which the court in 1973 assumed was the beginning of the third trimester.
Later, in 1992, the Court revisited Roe. It was ripe to be overturned. Regan and Bush had appointed conservatives (they thought) to the Court. However, Justice Kennedy sided with the left and basically cemented Roe. The one major change is that the trimester assumption was discarded for a viability standard. But the court, with the Republican-appointee Kennedy casting the swing vote, upheld the view that there is an imaginary right to privacy. (Hilariously, the Roe court even described the location of this right - between the penumbras (shadows) and emanations (light) of the First and Fifth Amendment (self incrimination).
Think about this. With the stroke of a pen, the court invented rights that didn't exist before. Don't worry about amending the Constitution. Don't worry about voter referenda supporting bans on gay marriage. We found an invisible right and we'll tell you what to do!
The reason why Kavanaugh matters is because he is Kennedy. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, so while he is likely to be a fine justice, its a wash. (Roberts replaced O'Connor, which was a win, but we were in a deficit so it didn't have much impact yet). Kavanaugh becomes the swing vote! And the Democrat lifestyle is built on a house of cards.
First, as it pertains to abortion, even under existing law the court can take judicial notice of the improvements in medical science since 1973. The medical profession recognizes viability at about 22-24 weeks, or 1.5 trimesters.
Second, it would be quite reasonable for the Court to say there is no such thing as "penumbras and emanations." The Griswold court made this up. Its completely unprincipled, because once you find a right to privacy, there is suddenly the right to sodomy, gay marriage, the right to discriminate against whites and Asians in employment and school admissions, a right to force normies to pay for sex changes, etc. There is no limit, because there is no text. Its literally in the shadows.
The entire Democrat Diversity Everybody But Straights industry is at risk. As a simple example, I bet there is a shortage of white male professors at most universities because of systematic reverse discrimination. Probably Asians too, but I'm not sure you can call that reverse discrimination. So when the crazy lying cunt from California perjures herself, among other things its to keep her job which exists because of "diversity."
This is why they are willing to perjure themselves. This is why they are in bed with Avenetti. This is why Seth Rich was murdered, and why Strok devised an "insurance policy."