The New Dred Scott?

 I heard a MSNBC announcer say the Supreme Court's abortion decision had done something never before done. Er, Dred Scott v. Sandford comes to mind.

(1857), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court in which the Court held that the United States Constitution was not meant to include American citizenship for people of African descent, regardless of whether they were enslaved or free, and so the rights and privileges that the Constitution confers upon American citizens could not apply to them....

 I heard an MSNBC guest say the Democrats need to take back the Senate and pack the Supreme Court. This is an idiotic solution. It worsens the current problem of the politicized Supreme Court. It worsens the problem of the Supreme Court Justices as creators of our federal rights instead of interpretors of those rights. The reactionaries are correct in saying privacy and its related rights are not in the Constitution. They are not to be trusted to find them in the Ninth Amendment. A filibuster proof Democrat means the ability to amend the Constitution. Anything else continues the death spiral of our constitutional rights.

Speaking of MSNBC, Senator Warren seems to be going in my direction 

Mother Jones has a wide range of articles.

Here are some headlines this morning: 

Indiana poised to limit abortion access after Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade

The only questions appear to be whether they will allow for exceptions for rape, incest or health of the pregnant person. 

The majority of Republican legislators penned a letter to Republican Gov. Eric Holcomb ahead of the ruling, asking for him to call a special session if Roe v. Wade was overturned instead of waiting until January. 

These are the states where abortion rights are still protected after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade 

Here’s Google’s letter saying employees can relocate to states with abortion rights

And what of the poor or those others who cannot otherwise relocate?

The Supreme Court has overturned Roe v. Wade

In a concurring opinion (which begins on page 117 of the full ruling), Justice Thomas argues the ruling’s narrow interpretation of the US constitution’s due process clause should also be applied to overturn previous Supreme Court rulings that established a right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut in 1965), enacted nationwide same-sex marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015), or overturned laws banning sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas in 2003).

‘A revolutionary ruling – and not just for abortion’: A Supreme Court scholar explains the impact of Dobbs 

The ruling signals a massive change in how we read the Constitution, from a living reading to an original reading. The court has firmly rejected the theory of the living Constitution, which argues that the meaning of the document’s language changes as the beliefs and values of Americans change.

***

Originalism, which is the approach taken by the justices who overruled Roe, rejects the living Constitution. In the originalist view, the Constitution is static until officially altered by amendment. It does not evolve on its own without public approval. The role of the justices is to determine the original public meaning of the text, but to leave other decisions to democratic representation through elections.

Welcome to 1789, you who thought this might be a good idea. Substantive due process covers a wide area - practically all your federal rights.

State courts from Oregon to Georgia will now decide who – if anyone – can get an abortion under 50 different state constitutions 

What the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion means for women’s health and well-being: 4 essential reads

sch