zlacker

[parent] [thread] 5 comments
1. superc+(OP)[view] [source] 2020-06-01 19:59:38
You could teach a whole course on Roe alone. Let's not just generalize a monumentus court decision like that with a hand wave.
replies(2): >>andrew+de >>rayine+qe
2. andrew+de[view] [source] 2020-06-01 21:14:22
>>superc+(OP)
That's rather the point of GP, but applied to QI instead of Roe.
3. rayine+qe[view] [source] 2020-06-01 21:15:23
>>superc+(OP)
Not to mention, two of the champions of Roe (O’Conner and Ginsberg) have thrown its reasoning under the bus.
replies(1): >>bhupy+xB
◧◩
4. bhupy+xB[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 23:33:38
>>rayine+qe
Do you have any resources on that? I find this genuinely interesting.
replies(1): >>selimt+BE
◧◩◪
5. selimt+BE[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-01 23:56:01
>>bhupy+xB
RBG has always been a fan of abortion rights via incorporating the privileges and immunities clause of the 14th Amendment to the states, a path blocked after the 19th century Slaughterhouse cases. Reva Siegel at Yale Law School is good to read about this.
replies(1): >>selimt+XQj
◧◩◪◨
6. selimt+XQj[view] [source] [discussion] 2020-06-08 18:36:24
>>selimt+BE
*privileges or immunities clause, sorry (Not to confuse this with Article IV of the Constitution). And I guess RBG wants to use the equal protection clause directly.
[go to top]