We are asking the wrong things of the Constitution. 

The question is not, as the originalists on the Supreme Court suggest, whether there is constitutional support for protection of equal rights based on gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. The question is whether there is support for discrimination based on those things. And if there isn't, the law needs to be applied fairly and equally to everyone, regardless of whether that fairness and equitability is spelled out with specificity in a 250 year old document, written by people who were clearly not prescient, even by their own admission.

Originalists are saying we should focus on what is not in the Constitution, and how the Constitution doesn't offer protection for certain rights. That's why they reversed Roe vs Wade, because they argue that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to an abortion.

This is reductive reasoning. If the Constitution doesn't guarantee certain rights, then it stands to reason it guarantees no rights, unless specifically called out. This fails to acknowledge the fundamental principle that the law applies equally to all citizens. For there to be an exception to this - permitting discrimination - that discrimination would have to be enshrined in constitutional law, establishing why the law in specific cases does NOT apply equally to everyone. And as we know, the Constitution does no such thing. In fact, its amendments even prevent the government from taking rights away - such as in the case of owning guns.

So... how is it OK for a State government to deny women bodily autonomy, for instance? This means selective discrimination, which is an exception to the law applying equally to everyone. Such an exception surely ought to be spelled out very clearly in the Constitution? Or do originalists also mean that NOONE is guaranteed bodily autonomy according to the Constitution, since that right is not explicitly spelled out in it...? It seems to me, this would then have to mean that men could be forced to undergo a vasectomy. Pretty sure Clarence Thomas is not onboard with that.

And, if we take that argument one step further - that a right has to be spelled out in the Constitution for it to be protected - then this basically means that we don't have a right to anything. Breathing? Not a right protected by the Constitution. Having children? Not a right protected by the Constitution. Making money off the labor of others? Not a right protected by the Constitution.

It's utter nihilism. By conservative reasoning, the Constitution is literally a logical Ouroboros: it eats itself.

If we have rights to nothing, then what good is the Constitution? What is its purpose? I would argue that, by conservative logic, the Constitution has no purpose.

It is frequently argued that the protection of citizens against gun violence is "a political thing". I disagree. The law should not be political.

Treating this as a political issue is based on a willful misreading of the Constitution. Besides, politics should afford real solutions and be based in reality, but this issue is apparently not. The highest judicial instance in the country has now wrapped itself so completely in a bubble of abstract, originalist fiction that the practical application of the law is no longer based in reality, and has therefore become subject to political interpretation and gamesmanship, and the corrupting influence of lobbyists.

a) The Constitution was always intended to be amended (and, as we all know, it has been - the 2nd Amendment is but one example of many). Gun ownership advocates ironically argue against further amendment based on the Constitution itself, but this clearly has no basis in reality. Where's the amendment that offers protection against gun violence - protection that is a core principle of the law to begin with? Or are we only concerned with the protection of the rights of gun owners...? 

b) The Constitution (or the 2nd Amendment) includes no definition of what is considered a weapon, and what is covered in its supposed protection of gun ownership rights. Are nuclear arms included in this protection...? Weapons have evolved since the 18th century, and so has the Constitution - except for on this specific issue. It is quite clear that the Constitution is out of step with reality here (a reality that unfortunately includes the invention of weapons far more powerful than anything the founders could have imagined). 

c) The very amendment that supposedly protects gun ownership also states very clearly that gun ownership should be permitted only through "well regulated militias". So, where's that regulation...? And where are those mandated militia memberships...?

I find it interesting how many pro-choice candidates are speaking about federally making reproductive rights ”the law of the land”.

Meanwhile, we have a current Supreme Court which apparently sees no issues with overturning established precedents - even invalidating its own past rulings. We have conservative candidates looking to systemically roll back past legislations, where policies get caught in what seems like a perpetual tug-of-war. A "peek-a-boo" / now-you-see-it-now-you-don't type of legislative ebb and flow. 

The Inflation Reduction Act, which included much wanted and much needed provisions for Medicare to negotiate drug prices, was immediately countered with a no doubt lobbyist-sponsored Republican proposal titled The Protecting Drug Innovation Act, which argued that pharmaceutical companies should be free to set drug prices however they see fit. 

Can we really feel confident that enacted policies are to be trusted as permanent? It seems to me, more or less all policies are doomed to become temporary arrangements when considering the current political winner-takes-all gamesmanship. 

I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if this makes voters wonder: what's the point of even voting at all? A sentiment which we know favors authoritarian and anti-democratic factions. 

But what are voters supposed to think or feel, when policies they go to the polls to enact become pawns in a fundamentally undemocratic game of sequential cancellations? Where back-room political machinations and lobbyist corruption enable decisions to be made over their heads, overruling the will of the people?

Yet another aspect of the ongoing sabotage of democracy.

Across the world, we have the thoroughly corrupt president of a rogue, terrorist state threatening nuclear war. 

And from the US, we immediately hear those hawkish threats echoed - from a country that was very recently presided over by a corrupt, self-serving authoritarian liar, very much like his underwear-poisoning counterpart in the east. A president who trampled every conceivable democratic norm, violated his oath of office and defied every established ethical principle for his own selfish benefit. Who rose to the highest position of power simply to feed his bloated ego.

In the face of this unmitigated bullshit, we're supposed to somehow take comfort and believe in some imaginary "exceptionalism"...? We're supposed to trust in some magically protective powers of this nation's revered Constitution, which so-called "originalists" constantly seek to whittle down to near complete irrelevance and pointlessness? A nation whose democratic institutions very recently came within inches of unravelling , and whose societal fabric has all but been torn to shreds? A nation who still holds the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the collective neck of humanity?

This is the "exceptionalism" to which we're supposed to entrust the future of our planet...? 

Give me a break.

It seems most of the legal arguments supporting overturning Roe v. Wade are centered on the fact that the Constitution does not specifically call out abortion as something that is a protected right (along with oodles of other things, since the Constitution is far from comprehensive in this regard). 

This is in some respects a punt. The court is withdrawing the federal protection of reproductive rights (the first time in history a SCOTUS has ever rescinded rights of any kind), and kicking the decision to the states.

That is where it gets interesting.

I'm wondering what happens if you FLIP that argument. What support is there in the Constutition for a state government RESTRICTING such rights? Because a lot of the legal aftermath following the SCOTUS decision is indeed leading directly to many states actively restricting the healthcare rights and bodily autonomy of its citizens. 

How can there be support in the Constitution (or in any state constitution) for this, and how can anyone argue that states should have that right (Clarence Thomas, looking at you)?! To argue that citizens do not have the right to make decisions involving their own bodies and their own health, and that states have the right to make that decision for them...?

I can to some degree at least understand the minimalist/literalist position that the Constitution should dictate laws only to a very limited degree, even if I REALLY don't agree with it (what use is a nation’s Constitution if it does not treat its citizens universally the same?!). 

But what I absolutely CANNOT understand is how people can then make the jump to suggest that states should have the right to mandate that citizens carry pregnancies to term, often at significant risk to their health.

It makes absolutely no sense, and it reveals a perspective on government that is really quite oppressive, as well as profoundly inegalitarian.

I'd genuinely like to know: 

Was there ever a time in history when conservatives actually stepped up and tried to prevent something bad, something immoral, from happening, or actively work towards something good happening? Or are they just perpetual nay-sayers? Have they not in fact consistently been on the wrong side of history when it comes to major landmark changes like ending slavery, stopping child labor, instating 8h workdays, creating social security, establishing environmental regulations, preserving the ozone layer, etc etc?

Being conservative (wanting things to remain the same, or go back to ”how it was”) means you rue change. The thing is, good change should be encouraged, whereas bad change requires pro-active adaptation. At no point is change handled best by sticking your head in the sand and refusing to deal with it. Everything changes, all the time, as the greek philosophers noted already 500 years before modern reckoning began. And yet, conservatives still haven't learned. Their knee-jerk reaction remains to reject change whenever they are faced with it.

Leaders come and go, parties change, ideologies stay the same. I just don't see how a future can be built on an ideology that constantly looks backwards.

Here's a fascist tale-of-fairy

'bout the 6th of January

Tell the people "Fight like hell"

It's a sign that you mean well

Stop the vote certification

It's what's best for all the nation

Storm the capitol with force

Turn democracy's due course

You believe in all this crap?

You're in fascism's icy lap

As July 4th approaches, hundreds of millions of Americans prepare to renew their patriotic pledges to a supposedly ”united” republic, and reassert their faith in their Constitution – the interpretation of which has already split the population in half. The 246th anniversary of its founding finds this nation in a state of complete national schizophrenia, its institutions seemingly waging what amounts to a politically entrenched civil war.

The two political parties are bitterly divided over fundamental perceptions of the nation's latest democratic election. Voters are unable to agree on even the most basic and conclusive fact regarding who emerged victorious in the election – despite numerous courts, institutions, neutral watchdogs and elected officials of all stripes painting a uniform picture of it: that there was no significant voter fraud, and that the result was decisively in favor of the current president.

Perceptions are equally split over the nature of the transfer of power – whether peaceful or not – and these views differ so dramatically, you have to doubt whether they are truly informed by the same observations of reality. The peaceful transfer of power being one of the most sacred and constitutionally enshrined principles of this nation, and yet, a substantial portion of the population appears to think it amounts to nothing more than a justifiable ”protest” when a sitting president instructs an armed mob to march on the capitol, and seek to interrupt this transfer of power through any means, including killing police officers and threatening to lynch the vice president.

Political partisans are split over public hearings investigating this unprecedented, armed and violent challenge to the election outcome; one side refusing to even watch the proceedings and denying their legitimacy, despite the fact that the vast majority of the witnesses are from their own political faction, who uniformly paint a thoroughly disturbing picture of the last days of the previous presidency. Another sign of a national persona suffering from a debilitating and destabilizing psychological disorder.

The highest court in the land is asserting states' rights, overturning a landmark 50-year precedent in regards to abortion rights, while paradoxically simultaneously overturning a state law restricting the right to carry a concealed firearm. The court's own decisions clearly inconsistent and at odds with themselves; using a modern definition of what constitutes a viable pregnancy to justify one decision, while clinging to an 18th century definition of what it means to arm yourself to justify another. Context applied selectively, only as it suits the whims of individual justices.

The Supreme Court - the very institution tasked with upholding the legitimacy and consistency of the rule of law - in essence wages a war against its own previous incarnations in regards to the very interpretation of the law, arguing that the court’s current, politically appointed justices are somehow empowered and called upon to make "corrections" of previous rulings, even when this very empowerment stems from a highly partisan slant of a supposedly politically impartial legal institution. Thus, the very essence and purpose of the Supreme Court is at odds with its own rulings.

Furthermore, the court argues that abortion rights should be determined not by federal law, but by local elected officials, yet perversely making an assertion that flies in the face of actual, demonstrable public opinion, both as established in public elections, and in numerous polls. Thus, the Supreme Court is in essence also involved in a legal conflict with the nation's duly elected government, while paradoxically arguing for the will of the people to rule in the matter.

Meanwhile, on the horizon, the nation's historically most toxically divisive pretend-politician prepares to once again run for office, in order to continue to burn down what remains of the norms and institutions that used to represent and define the unity of these 50 American states. Norms observed and shared by all previous presidents regardless of political stripes, but arrogantly dismissed and destroyed by this paragon of political perversity, who narcissistically makes himself a thoroughly and bitterly partisan and undemocratic representative of only the part of the population who pledge their allegiance to him. 

Not to the presidency, not to the party, not even to the country. To him personally.

On the sidelines, people are still willing to go on CNN and smirk and chuckle and affect their best "tut-tut" performance, as if they are commenting on the silly schoolyard antics of a child. But there is NOTHING laughable about what this self-aggrandizing lunatic and his rabble of armed and reckless suppporters are doing to this country. 

Nothing. 

By now, it ought to be eminently clear to each and every one of us just what the perils are of underestimating the consequences of this mass derangement. It needs to be addressed head-on, with the full force of the law and the resolve of a country that is under attack, because that is what we are. 

No more superior smirking. No more incredulous headshaking. No more cautionary fingerwagging. 

Time for the Department of Justice to step up, send in the SWAT team and put an end to this collective national meltdown. This insanity has gone on for way too long, and the shredded fabric of this society is at the breaking point.

There is NO basis for a religious case against abortions. This is not a theocracy; no American has the right to force their religious beliefs on anyone else.

The case against abortion needs to be made on strictly LEGAL grounds. And there is NO legal precedent anyone can point to where it is acceptable to force another human being to use their body in a manner that is against their will, risking their life in the process. None. Regardless of how much the religious zealots and ideologues installed on the Supreme Court get their black robes twisted in a bunch.

This is ideology and religion mixed together in an altogether toxic, anti-democratic concoction. One which, by the way, was explicitly banned in the very first Amendment to the Constitution.

The fact that Evangelical right-wingers can conspire in this manner, to force an ideological slant on the Supreme Court that would ram through a distortion of the law in this outrageous manner, is evidence of just how dangerously politicized the court has gotten. 

This must end. Now.