I had a long, beautiful response all typed out and ready when my new apartment's stupid wifi messed up getting rid of it all. So life goes.
Whats your view on the constitutionality (if that's the right word) of abortion in Atlasia?
"If that's the right word" is the right way to think of it. The Atlasian constitution doesn't protect the right to privacy used in
Roeto justify abortion rights. When I look past the talking points, my interpretation of the debate is that its really an argument about when life begins. If it begins at birth, abortion should be justified. If it begins earlier than that, abortion becomes virtually unjustifiable. Personally I think it does begin before life; if I as a legislator or citizen had to vote on an abortion bill I'd vote pro-life. As a member of the Court? I'd have to see strong constitutional (and possibly scientific) evidence to justify a vote either for banning or allowing it generally.
Basically, my conclusion is that it is legal (as everything is) until it is banned by either the regional or federal governments. I'd wait to hear arguments as to federalism and which rights were involved before concluding anything on specific bans.
Do you believe that the decision in Obergefell v Hodges (2015) was the correct ruling?
It was the right ruling but done in the wrong way. Here I went in to a long rant on current Due Process case law; I'd rather not reprint it unless you want to know more. Essentially, the way its used now especially by Justice Kennedy, a violation of due process can be used to justify literally anything as fundamental. For the same reason the Court eventually got rid of
Lochner I'm against the use of due process. There's a very good argument between young(er) Scalia and the libertarian law professor Richard Epstein
here as to whether the Right should use Due Process to invalidate economic laws such as minimum wage under "freedom to contract". Instead, the court should have done one of three things.
1. Done nothing and let the People's representatives sort it out as they are bound to do, as the Conservatives said.
2. Brought back the Privileges and Immunities clause and used it to justify the action, as Justice Thomas wanted.
3. Used the Equal Protection clause and declared homosexuals a protected class. This would require much stronger justification from legislatures when making laws that disprivilege homosexuals and could have been used to invalidate DOMA and the state legislatures that have passed anti-gay laws.
By not going all the way and doing 3, the Court chose a path that was confusing, muddled case law further, and set up a whole new round of lawsuits on other laws that prejudice homosexuals. I see no reason for "marriage" to be FUNDAMENTAL to liberty as due process was supposed to require; it was a dumb copout so Kennedy could give gay marriage but didn't have to declare gays protected. I wouldn't have joined the majority in Obergefell.
Lastly a rather hypothetical question- the 2003 ruling in Lawrence v Texas outlawed anti-sodomy laws in 14 states. Ignoring your own personal views, how would you have ruled on this case?
Ugh, you throw another Kennedy Due Process case at me. I would have invalidated Lawrence under the Equal Protection Clause; the majority even mentions it and had the recent example of
Romer v. Evans to follow up on. This would mean I would be joining Justice O'Conner in using a rational basis plus test; if there was no legitimate government interest (using SERIOUS analysis, not the hyper deference normal Rational Basis gets) for the Government's action in banning same-sex sodomy that isn't just attacking a protected class it should be overturned.
