Analysis, comments and summary: US Supreme Court overturns Roe v Wade case!

Spread the love

Author: Chairman rabbit source: tuzhuxi (id:chairman rabbit)

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and “returned” the legislative power on the right to abortion to the state government. People who pay attention to American politics know that this is a huge thing. First, it will affect the political ecology of the United States. Then, if the domestic politics of the United States is not well resolved, and there is a split and implosion, it will generally be transformed into an anti China / Anti China Policy for various reasons and mechanisms (turning back to “beating the panda”). After all, the United States is now divided into two halves, a typical 50:50 country. On almost all major political policy issues, people hold 180 degree opposite views. There is only one issue on which there is almost a consensus, that is, against China. Therefore, the more chaotic and divided the United States is, the more anti China it will become. Therefore, don’t look at the fact that abortion has nothing to do with China. These things will eventually affect China in unexpected and inexplicable ways.

1? Discussions between the two factions around Roe v Wade:

As for the Supreme Court’s overthrow of Roe v Wade, the United States has fallen into a big debate again. However, the issue of abortion and anti abortion is not a new one; This ruling of the Supreme Court was circulated in a strange way in early May and has been debated for a round. It can be said that American society has fully expected Roe v Wade to be overthrown, but many people are still a little surprised at the moment when his boots fall to the ground.

When criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning Roe v Wade:

1. Democrats / leftists who support the right to abortion: the argument is result oriented.

The Democratic Party uses moral / ethical grounds, that is, they focus on making arguments and discussing about abortion itself: their grounds are that, anyway, abortion should be a woman’s right and must be protected. The act of the Supreme Court – to “return” the legislative power of abortion to the state government is objectively reducing, weakening and restricting women’s rights, reversing history. The core here is: the reality of American society is that more than half of the States restrict or prepare to restrict women’s right to abortion, and the Supreme Court gives up the protection of women on this issue and throws them back “It is a fact that women’s rights will be reduced in all States. In fact, the Democrats / leftists are right: if most states in the United States support the right to abortion, there is no need for the conservative led Supreme Court to involve Roe v Wade. Their judgment has no impact on the outcome, so they will not even take the case at all. It is precisely because they see that most states do not protect the right to abortion, but They are all restricting the right to abortion, so as long as the Supreme Court eliminates the “imperial sword” at the federal level, the purpose of anti abortion can be achieved. These are all clear signs. Therefore, the Democratic Party / leftists’ argument is in the right direction.

Here, the Democrats / leftists want specific results (the right to abortion), but they do not care about the procedures and means of realization.

They will also play down the discussion on the legal level of the incident (the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade).

The public is not controlled by legal technology. They do not understand, care about or understand the technical problems. For them, the results are the most important. The results can also point directly to their hearts.

Therefore, Biden can appeal to the American public and reprimand the supreme law.

It is common for the president to attack the Congress and the Supreme Law (and its judges), but that is rare. Let us return to the casualty of this case.

2. supreme law majority and anti abortion Republicans / rightists: the argument is due process / procedural justice orientation.

The core arguments of the majority of the Supreme Court and the Republicans / rightists are legal / jurisprudential. That is, to make abortion irrelevant to the constitution, the Supreme Court, even the separation of rights and democratic mechanisms, you can go back to each state and each mother.

Look carefully, the reasons put forward by the supreme majority (justice Alito wrote the judgment) also have their own reasons. The two most important aspects are:

——The Roe v Wade case in 1973 was mainly based on the “right to privacy” derived from the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution, which “created” the right to abortion through privacy. In fact, this argument logic has been criticized and attacked by countless people since its inception, and it is very fragile. However, the majority of the supreme law believes that the right to privacy cannot be found in the U.S. Constitution; In particular, the right to abortion involves “embryonic life”, which is obviously different from other rights or freedoms derived from the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution. In short, this matter is untenable. If we are a legal technical controller, from the perspective of procedural justice orientation, the views of justice Alito and other justices are actually the consensus of many people.

——Although the American society was trying its best to carry out the civil rights liberation movement at that time, abortion was still a new thing in the legal system, politics, society and concepts of the United States. At that time, anti abortion was a common practice, and no state had the legislative tradition of abortion right. In the Roe v Wade case, the Supreme Court did not “follow” the legislation produced under the election mechanism of each state. As a follower, on the contrary, it gave full play to its subjective initiative, created new laws, derived new powers, and changed American society at one fell swoop through a new interpretation of the constitution. In this sense, the Supreme Court has actually assumed the function of legislator. This kind of judicial activism is not only a simple “usurpation”, but also undermines the separation of rights and democratic mechanisms.

Therefore, they believe that roevwade is fundamentally wrong and fallacious, which has produced huge negative consequences. It must be eliminated, set things right, return to the original point, and help the Supreme Court return to its original intention.

These are the angles of legal technology control. In fact, across the political spectrum, professionals have no different views on this. For example, in 2013, the legendary RBG (Ruth Bader Ginsburg), a liberal Supreme Court judge, discussed roev wade in an interview. She said:

“At the time of Roe v. Wade, this issue was all over the state legislatures. Sometimes, the choice people won, sometimes they lost, but they were out there organizing and getting political experience. The Supreme Court’s decision made every law in the country, even the most liberal, unconstitutional in one fell swoop. So the people who prevailed said, “How great, we’re done, we’ve got it all. The Supreme Court gave it to us.” What happened? Opposition mounted, and instead of fighting in the trenches, state by state, to retain restrictive abortion laws, there was one clear target to aim at: the unelected justices of the Supreme Court. This is a decision that should be made, so the argument went, by the people’s elected representatives and not nine, at the time, old men.” (in the Roe v Wade case, this issue flooded the state legislatures. Sometimes, pro abortion people won, sometimes they lost, but they were actively organizing and gaining political experience. The Supreme Court’s decision suddenly made all the laws in the United States at that time – even the most liberal / progressive laws at that time – unconstitutional. Some winners said, ‘look, how tough it is No, we’ve done it. We’ve done it in one fell swoop. The Supreme Court gave us everything! ” What happened? As a result, all the opposition voices came. Before, people were still fighting in trenches state by state to try to preserve the anti abortion law. Now, people have found the most obvious goal: the judges in the Supreme Court who have not been elected by the people. Opponents believe that this decision should be made by people’s elected legislators, not by nine unelected people, and at that time, it was a group of old men.)

RBG saw it very clearly: in the roevwade case, the Supreme Court in 1973 exerted too much force and rushed too far forward. On the one hand, it interfered with, disturbed or even destroyed the “correct opening direction” of the American women’s liberation movement at that time. On the other hand, it created a very vulnerable and huge goal that was easy to be criticized. On the other hand, from the perspective of the American regime, it may not be a very good practice for the practice and credibility of the Supreme Court itself.

In addition, if the historical protagonist changes to RBG – she is willing to promote the right to abortion in the role of supreme law judge, she will certainly choose to argue for the right to abortion from the perspective of women’s equality and women’s rights in a broader sense, rather than choose the ambiguous “right to privacy”.

In short, this makes roev Wade very vulnerable. Although it has a history of 50 years and is part of American law and social practice, both the left and the right feel that it may be a matter of time before the case is overturned.

This shows that those who only pursue results and do not follow the right path may eventually lose their footing and be beaten back to their original shape. “Too much is not enough”, “abandon everything after all”, “come out and mix it up, you will have to pay it back sooner or later”, can be used to describe roevwade.

Therefore, the supreme majority (led by Alito), the Republican Party, conservatives / rightists killed procedural justice / due process and overthrew roevwade through this article.

They can justly say: Roe v Wade is fundamentally inconsistent with the Constitution and democratic spirit of the United States. How can the supreme court decide on matters that should have been decided by the people’s election legislation? Therefore, to overthrow it is to safeguard the democratic system of the United States, but it has nothing to do with anti abortion or the right to abortion itself! After the overthrow of Roe v Wade:

First, abortion is not illegal in the United States. It is the decision of each state; You can also have abortions in many states of the United States as needed. But you must respect the laws of the states;

Second, if you want to promote the right to abortion, please follow the Democratic / electoral mechanism in the United States. First, you can seek to establish an abortion rights act in your state; Second, you can also seek to establish an abortion rights act at the national / federal level.

“I don’t agree with you on the right to abortion, but I will defend to the death your right to seek legislation for the right to abortion through a formal electoral / democratic system! See you in the election!”

Does it look all right? Fair game?

Indeed, the Republicans / conservatives / rightists also know that it is not feasible to legislate on the right to abortion at the federal level, and the Democrats have no such status and ability. At the same time, about half of the state legislations in the United States are anti abortion / restricted abortion, and the disk is firmly in the hands of Republicans / conservatives.

Firmly adhering to the rationale of “procedural justice” is a great argument empowering the anti abortion people. They can raise the latest decision of the Supreme Court to the level of defending the American system.

So we can see that in the debate on this case, the Democrats / leftists / liberals talk about the results, and the Republicans / rightists / conservatives talk about the procedures.

In fact, the Republican / conservative anti abortion group also wants the result. We remember that on january6,2021, trump supporters stormed the Congress, hoping to overturn the election results.

After the supreme law overturned roevwade, liberals (including politicians) also shouted in Washington that they would defy the Supreme Court.

What do they do differently from Trump supporters? There are differences between violence and non violence in form, but they are the same in logic:

When the result is unfavorable to me, I will talk about the procedure;

When the procedure is not good for me, I will tell you the result.

Therefore, the representative democracy in the United States is a “little girl dressed up for others”. There is no principle, nor does it admit defeat by gambling. Everyone takes what they need according to their own interests and preferences.

3. both parties (correctly) accuse the other party of political manipulation

Both parties / factions have (rightly) pointed out the truth: the other is ideologically and politically driven.

The Democrats / leftists / liberals are right. The Republicans / rightists / conservatives play a clear card. They have always been ideologically and politically driven. The core is that they know that half of the state’s disk is firmly in their own hands. You have no choice.

Moreover, the Republicans / rightists / conservatives are “treating people with their own way”, seizing the grounds of procedural justice and effectively overturning the accusations from the Democrats / leftists / liberals – that is, they believe that the Supreme Court justices are not elected by the people and should not participate in legislation and affect politics and public policies. Republicans / rightists / conservatives (correctly) pointed out that the 1973 judgment itself was that the Supreme Court justices, driven by ideology and ideas, made politicized acts that exceeded the authority and original intention of the Supreme Court. Their arguments were far fetched. In contrast, it was a minor issue. The key was that it destroyed the separation of rights and the democratic election mechanism, which was a major issue that needed to be addressed. Today, the Republicans / rightists / conservatives are just eliminating influence, bringing order to order and restoring the status quo ante.

The Republicans / rightists are right.

However, although the 1973 case has been controversial, it has indeed become a fait accompli and has become a part of American society, system, practice and even culture. Fifty years later, overturning this case is indeed “eliminating influence” and “returning to its original form”, but it will also have a huge impact on American society, system, practice and even culture. If the judicial activism of the Supreme Court in 1973 was wrong, the new case law of the Supreme Court in 2022 is still a judicial activism, so it is still wrong under the same principle. On this issue, negative cannot be positive.

And according to this standard, can all the precedents related to progress and empowerment involved by the Supreme Court in the past be overturned? Where is the boundary? Will it open Pandora’s box and cause the judicial war of the supreme law? Should we also consider the political stability of the United States and the people’s confidence in the Supreme Court and the political system?

In any case, the same accusation is applicable to both factions and parties. In the eyes of those third people who eat melons, their views (abortion right and anti abortion) are at most different. Although they accuse each other of being abusive, their practices are not fundamentally different.

4. seeking guidance and reference for abortion from historical tradition

One last word or two about abortion. Those who try to seek an understanding of abortion from the “historical tradition” of the United States are seeking reasons to prohibit abortion from an old era when medicine is very backward and maternal mortality is very high.

Let’s look at historical figures on maternal mortality.

???????????????10????800???0.8%????1930???????????????????????????????????/???????????

??

As shown in the figure above, the maternal mortality rate of black American women is significantly higher than that of white women. Even after the post-war maternal mortality rate fell significantly, the mortality rate of blacks was still about three times that of women.

Why is the maternal mortality rate high among black women? Naturally, it is because the medical conditions obtained are poor.

Look at the earlier data of England and Wales, starting from 1840.

??

In the 19th century, the maternal mortality rate was 1-1.2%.

When was the US Constitution drafted? Answer: 1787.

Did the drafter of the 1787 Constitution have these concepts in mind? Obviously not. In their minds:

——Although maternal mortality is a tragedy, we can only face it calmly as part of human life and survival;

——The concept of human being is backward, and there was no option and concept of abortion, but it is equally important that there is no safe abortion due to backward medical conditions, which makes abortion very dangerous and an important factor leading to maternal mortality. Based on the conditions at that time, in order to protect pregnant women, abortion should be restricted and opposed;

——Women have no political status, no right to vote, and no equal human rights at all. It was not until 1920 that the Ninth Amendment to the constitution established women’s right to vote.

It is obvious that the medical level, social environment and ethical choices faced by legislators at the end of the 18th century are completely different from today. We cannot mechanically apply the ideas of human beings at that time to shape modern society.

How can you find favorable information supporting women’s rights and the right to abortion from a text drafted by white men at the end of the 18th century?

And why do you want to find favorable information supporting women’s rights and abortion rights from a text drafted by white men at the end of the 18th century?

Conservatives laughed: you are stupid. It is because we can never find information supporting abortion from that text, so we have to go back to the text at that time!

As an outsider, we should be clear that this practice of the American conservatives is completely against the historical trend, an enemy of human progress and a disgrace to human civilization.

2? Some small conclusions and deduction (“take away”)

1. it is impossible for the two parties / factions in the United States to reach a consensus. They have been talking about the same thing for a long time, and there is no dialogue at all. Now, they are just adding weight to each other and mobilizing their respective forces to fight for the mid-term elections in November this year and the general elections in 2024

2. the Biden administration is in a very unfavorable situation, first the epidemic, then the Russian Ukrainian problem. It is faced with the severe problems of high energy and food prices, serious inflation and hard landing of the economy. Biden’s physical condition is obviously poor, and the 2024 general election is very unfavorable. There is no doubt that the Democratic Party hopes to use this matter to mobilize voters in an attempt to rally. But I think its influence can be offset by the mobilization of the Republican Party, because the Republican Party / conservatives have tasted the fruits of victory when they see the supreme law successfully overthrowing Roe v Wade, and may further mobilize all the staff to consolidate the fruits of the war. It should also be considered that the Democratic Party’s traditional base is that Latinos are Catholic, and many hold a negative attitude towards abortion. If the Democratic Party mobilizes “excess” around the issue of abortion, it may hurt itself

3. American society is completely divided. At this time, the Constitution can no longer be amended and has been completely “petrified”. Under this premise, the power to interpret the constitution has evolved into the supreme power. Then:

——Who has the highest power? Of course, those justices who are not elected by the people but serve for life. Their current power is similar to that of religious leaders under theocracy (the great rabbi of Judaism, the Pope / Archbishop of Christianity, the Imam of Islam, etc.), who can decide the direction and destiny of the country and society. The current system of the United States is actually the “legal theocracy” I wrote “origin, legal theocracy and the” reactionary “of the American system”. Through this case, the “legal theocracy” has been further upgraded and strengthened

——Who will benefit from “legal theocracy”? Naturally, it’s a Republican / conservative. Because “legal theocracy” is based on the text of the US Constitution, which is the work of white men who lived centuries ago. If the text of a hundred years ago is regarded as a classic and everything is based on it, it will certainly benefit conservatives, not progressives. Without the interpretation of progressivism and keeping pace with the times, the US Constitution will increasingly become a “reactionary text” against modernity, progress and change

4. at first, the American people have very mistrust of American political institutions. The situation of the Supreme Court is not much better, but people at least have a little thought about its independence and impartiality. The Supreme Court itself is actually the biggest victim of this overthrow of roevwade – which will further reduce the trust of the American public in the Supreme Court. Referring to the figure below, only 25% of Americans still have trust in the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, it is hard for them to trust this institution – even for conservatives who “benefit” from this case. It is now clear to all that the Supreme Court has no independence at all. It is a political and ideological driven party institution. No one will believe that judges will uphold justice any more. They are all people whose bottoms decide their heads. There are two things left in people’s minds: one is how to put their own people into the Supreme Court as lifetime judges; the other is to see if there is any way to bypass the judgment results made by “rival judges”

??

5. now it seems that in the divided United States, the federal level legislation is basically paralyzed, and it is difficult to make progress on major issues (especially the social / cultural issues that cannot exempt filibuster, such as gun control). It seems that the president is useless, the members of Congress are useless, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court is the most useful. But how can you put your own justice in it? First, we should have our own president. Second, we should have our own Senate. In the end, American politics may unknowingly evolve into a “proxy war” in which all political institutions, including the president and the Senate, will become tools and means of fighting for the seat of Supreme Court judge.

6. if the overall / average wisdom level of American society is consistent and matched with that of contemporary general and typical developed economies / political bodies / civilizations, it will not deviate significantly from other countries / societies on the issue of abortion; If so, the problem (Roe v Wade) would not be a problem from the beginning, because states have long legislated to protect the right to abortion. In fact, about half of the state and social legislations in the United States are dominated by backward and anti intellectual political forces – they are the real mainstream in these places in the United States. They have successfully defended the anti abortion or abortion restriction laws, making it impossible for women to obtain rights protection locally, so they need to go to the Supreme Court for help. Once the Supreme Court lets go and “throws” women back to American States, they can only accept the cruel reality of American society. And these cruel realities are also the real United States.

7. let’s look at the United States. A large part of society does not respect the most basic rights of women. In essence, it will be regarded as a reproductive and reproductive machine. In the 21st century, it is extremely ridiculous to still be so anti intellectual, anti primitive, anti progressive, anti scientific and regarded as a modern disgrace, but turn yourself into a “teacher” of human rights and accuse other countries of not talking about human rights. However, looking at the United States, it does have the ability to turn black into white: clearly, anti abortion means discriminating against women and restricting women’s basic rights. It is reversing women’s Liberation and suppressing human rights, but it can be beautified as “defending the right to life”, which has become a righteous act of “safeguarding the rights” of embryonic life. To put it bluntly, it is clearly a matter of harming human rights. In the United States, it can not be described as a matter of defending human rights.

They are the same with their own people (women and people of color), and there is no need to say anything about China. Therefore, no matter what China does or how well it does, the United States can legitimately demonize China.

8. the overthrow of the Roe v Wade case and the issue of abortion will certainly further accelerate, deepen and intensify the political and social divisions and even implosion in the United States. At this time, China is not only a spectator, but also ready: a country full of hostility, unable to solve its own internal problems, and difficult to unite its people, will only externalize its internal contradictions and lead the conflict to China, the hostile country it identifies.

(end)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.