International Skeptics Forum

International Skeptics Forum (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumindex.php)
-   USA Politics (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=359834)

smartcooky 26th June 2022 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841805)
I welcome the decision as a long-overdue step toward removing the ugly, sickening stain of abortion from our country. Over 95% of abortions are performed purely for convenience (i.e., elective abortion), not because of rape, incest, or endangerment. The science of embryology has destroyed all justifications for elective abortion.

If there's been no rape or incest, and if there's no endangerment, then no mother has a "right" to kill her own baby. How can any humane, enlightened person believe otherwise? How can any humane person believe that a mother has a "right" to kill her own child merely because she "wasn't planning on having a baby" or because "a baby doesn't fit into her life plans"?

Abortion makes slavery look like child's play. Slavery killed tens of thousands of people over the course of 89 years in the U.S. (1776-1865). Abortion has killed at least 25 million babies since the Supreme Court ignored all precedent and the Constitution in Roe v. Wade.

Isn't remarkable how duplicitous Republicans are, the party you support, the so-called "Party of Small Government" that wants the Government to stay out of people's lives, but is quite happy to have that same government...

- Control a woman's right to exercise her own health choices.
- Control a persons right to love/marry/ whom they choose.
- Control the education of young people to prevent them from learning the inconvenient truth about their history.
- Control businesses whose messaging conflicts with the government's messaging.
- Control schools' efforts to prevent transmission of disease by banning mask mandates
- Control business' efforts to keep workers safe by banning vaccine passes and vaccine mandates

This is what American Freedom really looks like, the ripping away of human rights to satisfy a political agenda...

America.. The land of the free (free to do and say anything you like so long as we agree with it)
America.. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but only if they're white and Christian!

While the rest of the civilized world progresses to greater and greater freedoms and liberties for its peoples, the USA takes a step back towards the dark ages. When the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, uses the opinions of jurists from centuries ago - opinions that were used to justify the prosecutions and execution of witches, you know they have lost the plot, and the end is near. It won't be long before y'all will be burning witches at the stake again.

Tero 26th June 2022 05:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hercules56 (Post 13841475)
I think the SCOTUS decision was legally correct, but morally reprehensible.

:(

If the last three justices lied about their abortion stances during confirmation hearings, they should be impeached.

They did not lie. They used some phrase such as "settled" which means nothing in legal terms. They just need to look at it again and "settle" it differently!


https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...ions-rcna35246

Andy_Ross 26th June 2022 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza (Post 13841807)
so in your opinion, it's a baby right after fertilization?
Or maybe before?

Every little sperm is sacred.

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13841869)
Every little sperm is sacred.

A TrueTM Pro-Lifer would ban menstruation.

shemp 26th June 2022 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nessie (Post 13841758)
Republican politician thanks Trump for;

"On behalf of all the MAGA patriots in America, I want to thank you for the historic victory for WHITE LIFE life in the Supreme Court"

https://twitter.com/AamerAnwar/statu...74543786500097

Not even gonna pretend there's no racism anymore. Of course, if you're a useful idiot like Herschel Walker, they'll continue to pretend.

mikegriffith1 26th June 2022 06:26 AM

And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.

Ideally, I think abortion should be illegal from the moment of conception, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. But, being the deep purple centrist that I am, I could support allowing abortions at any point before a heartbeat and brain waves are detected in the baby, which is usually no later than week 6 of pregnancy. (FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")

I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.

kookbreaker 26th June 2022 06:47 AM

So laughable that you call yourself a centrist.

newyorkguy 26th June 2022 06:50 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Something else I think important to point out. Friday SCOTUS upheld the Mississippi law that bans abortion after fifteen weeks by a 6-3 vote. Then the Court overturned Roe. Two separate decisions. Overturning Roe was by just one vote, 5-4.
Quote:

The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative majority, upheld a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The vote was 5-4 to overturn Roe, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts writing separately to say he would have upheld the Mississippi law without taking the additional step of erasing the Roe precedent altogether. Reuters news link
Overturning Roe was by one vote. Chief Justice John Roberts joined the other three justices in dissenting. Kavanaugh is considered to have been the swing vote on Roe. Apparently he waffled a bit.

Meanwhile polling continues to show, the majority of the American public support a woman's right to have an abortion as they almost always have.

Myriad 26th June 2022 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841881)
(FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")


"Fetus" is Latin for offspring, specifically the offspring of animals, not "baby" (infans) or "child" (pueri).

But regardless, is your not using a word because it had a different meaning in Latin a matter of general principle with you, or just in this one particular case for some reason?

For instance, do you call people who are running for office "candidates," or do you consistently refer to them instead as "whites," because candidus is simply the Latin word for "bright white"?

Shalamar 26th June 2022 07:22 AM

Another big government right wing extremist happy at the removal of rights and freedoms.

Upchurch 26th June 2022 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841318)
Whaaat??:eek::confused::eye-poppi

What does that mean or even come close to having anything to do with the subject at hand???

Because it's blaming anyone but the people who actually did the bad thing.

Lukraak_Sisser 26th June 2022 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841881)
And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.

Ideally, I think abortion should be illegal from the moment of conception, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. But, being the deep purple centrist that I am, I could support allowing abortions at any point before a heartbeat and brain waves are detected in the baby, which is usually no later than week 6 of pregnancy. (FYI, I don't use the word "fetus" because "fetus" is simply the Latin word for "baby.")

I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.

This is I presume also why you support a large increase in taxes and social welfare programs to help the now forced mothers who are desperate enough to wanted have an abortion raise and support children they did not want?
Combined with mandatory sex education in ALL schools, even home school programs and free access to birth control to anyone over 14?

Upchurch 26th June 2022 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841881)
And we should keep in mind that a number of red states have only banned abortion after a certain point in pregnancy, ranging from six weeks to 15 weeks. Thus, mothers who are determined to kill their babies have between six weeks and 15 weeks to do so in those states.

False.
Quote:

Abortion in Missouri is illegal except in cases of medical emergency.
(source)


eta:
Alabama: ban except for mother's health
Arizona: Total ban
Arkansas: ban except for mother's health

...and that's just the A's.

shuttlt 26th June 2022 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by newyorkguy (Post 13841891)
Meanwhile polling continues to show, the majority of the American public support a woman's right to have an abortion as they almost always have.

Doesn't this tend to get a bit more complicated if the polls ask what that actually means? If you ask about 2nd trimester that support drops way down. Is this an argument that abortion should be radically restricted in a bunch of liberal states?

psionl0 26th June 2022 08:16 AM

Hmmm. I had some trouble deciding which of the two threads I should post in so after tossing a coin, I chose this one.

From the posts that I have read, this is clearly an abortion issue and not a legal issue. Just so that I can understand what the general consensus is on the legal front, let us suppose that this was a more benign issue. The legality of aspirin for example.

So we have a case where the SC rules decades ago that state governments can not ban the use of aspirin (presumably any attempt by the Federal government to ban aspirin would be a different case). This is a clear case of the SC making laws (that aspirin is legal).

Decades later, with new judges on the bench, they review the original ruling and decide that it was a bad ruling. So now the states are free to regulate aspirin again. Is it wrong to allow states to regulate aspirin if the constitution doesn't actually prevent it? Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?

I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.

slyjoe 26th June 2022 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13841929)
Hmmm. I had some trouble deciding which of the two threads I should post in so after tossing a coin, I chose this one.

From the posts that I have read, this is clearly an abortion issue and not a legal issue. Just so that I can understand what the general consensus is on the legal front, let us suppose that this was a more benign issue. The legality of aspirin for example.

So we have a case where the SC rules decades ago that state governments can not ban the use of aspirin (presumably any attempt by the Federal government to ban aspirin would be a different case). This is a clear case of the SC making laws (that aspirin is legal).

Decades later, with new judges on the bench, they review the original ruling and decide that it was a bad ruling. So now the states are free to regulate aspirin again. Is it wrong to allow states to regulate aspirin if the constitution doesn't actually prevent it? Are some states so untrustworthy that we must use the SC to override them - even if we don't live in those states?

I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.

Yes. Remember slavery? That is exactly where the phrase "states rights" came from.

psionl0 26th June 2022 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by slyjoe (Post 13841931)
Yes. Remember slavery? That is exactly where the phrase "states rights" came from.

Er - wasn't there a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed slavery? I don't recall any SC ruling that emancipated slaves (at least not prior to the 14th amendment).

Upchurch 26th June 2022 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13841929)
The legality of aspirin for example.

Not a great analogy, because one, generally speaking, does not choose to have a headache in any situation.

To be an appropriate analogy, you would need an activity that people often choose to engage in, but can happen by accident or can be forced upon them. Then the legal question is whether or not they can choose to stop engaging in that activity.

shuttlt 26th June 2022 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13841929)
I personally feel uneasy at the prospect of unelected judges taking over the role of legislatures. Sometimes they will make a popular decision (as with the original Roe vs Wade) but at other times they will make an unpopular decision like they did this time and nobody can do anything about it.

At the risk of being nave, if popularity is the key thing... why even have a Constitution? Constitutions, if they are worth anything, make it difficult for a legislature, elected by the popular will, to get their way. Surely half the point of having a Constitution and an SC is to frustrate the popular will?

alfaniner 26th June 2022 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13841869)
Every little sperm is sacred.

I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

psionl0 26th June 2022 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13841935)
Not a great analogy, because one, generally speaking, does not choose to have a headache in any situation.

It wasn't meant to be a "great" analogy. It was just meant to be a neutral question so that we could focus on the legal aspect.

psionl0 26th June 2022 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13841940)
At the risk of being nave, if popularity is the key thing... why even have a Constitution? Constitutions, if they are worth anything, make it difficult for a legislature, elected by the popular will, to get their way. Surely half the point of having a Constitution and an SC is to frustrate the popular will?

It is one thing to have a constitution that limits the power of the government but quite another to have a court that arbitrarily does the same.

Upchurch 26th June 2022 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13841940)
At the risk of being nave, if popularity is the key thing... why even have a Constitution? Constitutions, if they are worth anything, make it difficult for a legislature, elected by the popular will, to get their way. Surely half the point of having a Constitution and an SC is to frustrate the popular will?

It would be, if the Supreme Court hadn't become a political tool of the GOP, interpreting the Constitution at the whim of the evangelicals and the NRA. Now that concept of precedent is out the window, there is no objective understanding of what is constitutional. It'll change every generation or so as we relitigate rights under different courts.

At this point, the Constitution is about as authoritative as a religious text. It will be interpreted by every sect differently but each will have 100% surety that only they have the True understanding.

shuttlt 26th June 2022 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13841950)
It would be, if the Supreme Court hadn't become a political tool of the GOP, interpreting the Constitution at the whim of the evangelicals and the NRA. Now that concept of precedent is out the window, there is no objective understanding of what is constitutional. It'll change every generation or so as we relitigate rights under different courts.

At this point, the Constitution is about as authoritative as a religious text. It will be interpreted by every sect differently but each will have 100% surety that only they have the True understanding.

That has always been the case. You think when progressive justices where "discovering" new right in the Constitution that was untainted by politics? They were genuinely finding things that were objectively their rather than seeing patterns in tea leaves? Did they often discover new protections that they profoundly disagreed with?

The Constitution has no meaning in the absence of a culture to interpret it. That cultures normative assumptions flesh out the Constitution and make it work. This has always been the case. For a long time the Justices were WASPS and you had their cultural assumptions interpreting the Constitution, then it became much more heavily Jewish and Catholic and the Constitution was interpreted differently. If the justices do not come from a fixed group with a more or less fixed set of cultural assumptions, then the interpretation of the Constitution is necessarily going to swing wildly. This was true when the decisions you like were getting made, and it is true now.

Fundamentally, the rule of law is incompatible with a truly multicultural country since different cultures have different ideas about what is reasonable.

shuttlt 26th June 2022 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13841948)
It is one thing to have a constitution that limits the power of the government but quite another to have a court that arbitrarily does the same.

There is no Constitution without the court. The Constitution has no meaning without the court. It is just symbols on a page written in funny old timey handwriting. Obviously a court that has different cultural assumptions to you is going to produce results that you feel are unreasonable, just as the court in 1973 produced a result that seemed unreasonable to some other people. This is one of the fundamental obstacles to centralising power.

shuttlt 26th June 2022 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13841945)
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

If she wanted to start an anti-masturbation, anti-promiscuous sex drive, I would think she'd get quite a bit of buy in from the pro-life crowd.

Lurch 26th June 2022 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13841950)
It would be, if the Supreme Court hadn't become a political tool of the GOP, interpreting the Constitution at the whim of the evangelicals and the NRA. Now that concept of precedent is out the window, there is no objective understanding of what is constitutional. It'll change every generation or so as we relitigate rights under different courts.

At this point, the Constitution is about as authoritative as a religious text. It will be interpreted by every sect differently but each will have 100% surety that only they have the True understanding.

:thumbsup:

shuttlt 26th June 2022 10:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Upchurch (Post 13841950)
Now that concept of precedent is out the window, there is no objective understanding of what is constitutional.

It has always been possible to overturn precedent. It's not like this is some shocking "never happened before in the common law" occurrence. The law is not built on precedent being being irreversible. Are you outraged at the damage to the law done by Brown v. Board of Education?

bruto 26th June 2022 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by psionl0 (Post 13841933)
Er - wasn't there a constitutional amendment that specifically outlawed slavery? I don't recall any SC ruling that emancipated slaves (at least not prior to the 14th amendment).

Perhaps so, but the Supreme Court did rule against segregation, laws forbidding interracial marriage, and laws forbidding birth control, decisions that many of us would consider consistent with American values, but which the states were, obviously, not prepared to do.

Lurch 26th June 2022 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shuttlt (Post 13841968)
There is no Constitution without the court. The Constitution has no meaning without the court. It is just symbols on a page written in funny old timey handwriting. Obviously a court that has different cultural assumptions to you is going to produce results that you feel are unreasonable, just as the court in 1973 produced a result that seemed unreasonable to some other people. This is one of the fundamental obstacles to centralising power.

Unreasonable to a minority. And now that minority has finally got the reversal it wanted. Is that how a society progresses, by being held back by the minority? Is that democratic? Is a centuries old Constitution forever to be rigidly adhered to? Even when the framers explicitly recognized the necessity of its review and amendment at least every generation?

It seems to me that many folk think the SC is required to interpret the Constitution in the way Bible studies groups try to divine the meaning of the Biblical text. As though there is some as yet not fully divined understanding. Such thinking overlooks the real purpose of a Constitution; the provision of guidance as society evolves. To keep true to basic tenets while accommodating the changing mores over generations. Otherwise a nation might as well remain frozen in time, like a Amish village.

This revocation of a right borne of popular sentiment, and still popular, recognizing the primacy of a woman to make a decision for herself on a matter of the most personal nature, is a heinous step backward. A revealing lurch toward religious control, where bodily autonomy is hijacked. Where the supposed disdain for government intrusion is revealed as an outright lie. Other rights hard won are soon to fall. The path to the Christian version of modern Iran under the Muslim Mullahs is becoming well paved. A State religion will soon enough be implemented. All hail our Christian overlords!

Andy_Ross 26th June 2022 11:21 AM

Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Video in link

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/...02529483640832

shuttlt 26th June 2022 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
Unreasonable to a minority. And now that minority has finally got the reversal it wanted. Is that how a society progresses, by being held back by the minority? Is that democratic? Is a centuries old Constitution forever to be rigidly adhered to? Even when the framers explicitly recognized the necessity of its review and amendment at least every generation?

Sure, but it hasn't been amended to create these rights. What we are talking about is the judicial branch "discovering" new rights in the constitution, and "discovering" that rights they thought were in the Constitution are not in fact there. For the past 100 years that process has mostly favoured progressives, this is an unusual instance where it hasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
It seems to me that many folk think the SC is required to interpret the Constitution in the way Bible studies groups try to divine the meaning of the Biblical text. As though there is some as yet not fully divined understanding.

Isn't that how Roe vs Wade was decided? A new right was discovered that nobody had thought was there? Or Brown vs Board of Education. Interpretation of the Constitution is just like interpreting the Bible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
Such thinking overlooks the real purpose of a Constitution; the provision of guidance as society evolves.

Who interprets what that guidance means in an ever changing world?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
To keep true to basic tenets while accommodating the changing mores over generations. Otherwise a nation might as well remain frozen in time, like a Amish village.

Right, but if the Constitution itself is going to be reinterpreted for each generation, then each generation needs to have some common agreement on "the good". There clearly is no such agreement. The rule of law breaks down in a truly multicultural country because nobody will agree what the right accommodations are to changing times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
This revocation of a right borne of popular sentiment, and still popular, recognizing the primacy of a woman to make a decision for herself on a matter of the most personal nature, is a heinous step backward.

So you think. Other people disagree. The Constitution and the SC are intended, and functioning as, a restraint on the power of the popular will. If you want the popular will to be supreme, then you really don't want to live in a Constitutional Republic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Adams
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

You need a unifying cultural set of moral assumptions for the system to work. If you strip that out it was expected to fail from the start.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841989)
A revealing lurch toward religious control, where bodily autonomy is hijacked. Where the supposed disdain for government intrusion is revealed as an outright lie. Other rights hard won are soon to fall. The path to the Christian version of modern Iran under the Muslim Mullahs is becoming well paved. A State religion will soon enough be implemented. All hail our Christian overlords!

Your vision of progress isn't an intrinsic part of the direction of the system. If your vision of progress doesn't win, it doesn't mean that the system is broken.

newyorkguy 26th June 2022 11:29 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Comment from Barbara Streisand.
Quote:

Streisand...said on Friday following the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade that the court used "religious dogma to overturn the constitutional right to abortion. This Court is the American Taliban." Fox. yes FOX, News link
Religious dogma is the reason some states have outlawed abortion for victims of rape or incest. Oklahoma governor Kevin Stitt said the quiet part out loud recently in an interview with Fox News in defending no exceptions for victims of rape or incest..
Quote:

Stitt said, “We believe that God has a special plan for every single life and every single child...” Rolling Stone link

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smartcooky (Post 13841845)
Isn't remarkable how duplicitous Republicans are, the party you support, the so-called "Party of Small Government" that wants the Government to stay out of people's lives, but is quite happy to have that same government...

- Control a woman's right to exercise her own health choices.
- Control a persons right to love/marry/ whom they choose.
- Control the education of young people to prevent them from learning the inconvenient truth about their history.
- Control businesses whose messaging conflicts with the government's messaging.
- Control schools' efforts to prevent transmission of disease by banning mask mandates
- Control business' efforts to keep workers safe by banning vaccine passes and vaccine mandates

This is what American Freedom really looks like, the ripping away of human rights to satisfy a political agenda...

America.. The land of the free (free to do and say anything you like so long as we agree with it)
America.. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, but only if they're white and Christian!

While the rest of the civilized world progresses to greater and greater freedoms and liberties for its peoples, the USA takes a step back towards the dark ages. When the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court of the United States, uses the opinions of jurists from centuries ago - opinions that were used to justify the prosecutions and execution of witches, you know they have lost the plot, and the end is near. It won't be long before y'all will be burning witches at the stake again.

It's really adding up, isn't it. :(:mad:

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Captain_Swoop (Post 13842011)
Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

Video in link

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/...02529483640832

Arm every fetus with an AR-15?

ZiprHead 26th June 2022 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikegriffith1 (Post 13841881)
I simply cannot see any moral or humane justification for abortion after the baby has a heartbeat and brain activity, except in cases of rape, incest, and endangerment. I think states should encourage rape and incest victims to have their babies and give them up for adoption, but I can understand why many victims would not want to do that.

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a uterus or vagina.

ZiprHead 26th June 2022 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13841945)
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

Technically no pregnancy ever occurred without a male ejaculating.

cosmicaug 26th June 2022 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lurch (Post 13841760)
If the SCOTUS goes on a tear to hand back control of more and more rights to the States, the already dis-United States of America will only become further Balkanized. I just cannot see how such a hodgepodge could remain as a homogenous nation working toward a common future.

Why would they do that? They have not done it with firearms. They'll rule for "state's rights" if it serves their ideology and if it serves their ideology they'll also rule for expansive federal powers and against "state's rights" even if it conflicts with some precedent that they may have set the day before.

Seriously, do you really think that if we ever get a federal abortion ban & it gets challenged the SCOTUS will call it a state matter & strike it down?

Cain 26th June 2022 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by alfaniner (Post 13841945)
I saw a picture of a woman holding a sign that said "LIFE BEGINS AT EJACULATION".

I saw a bumper-sticker: "Life begins at conception and ends at Planned Parenthood."

Skeptic Ginger 26th June 2022 02:23 PM

Possible actions by Congress:
NC scholar: With Roe gone, Congress should suspend the Supreme Court
Quote:

I had hoped, intensely, this wouldn’t actually come. But the Dobbs case has been handed down. Unvarnished. Lawless. Dishonest. Heedless of the damage that will now immediately ensue. Hideously ideological, unelected hacks have moved to inflict their politics and their religion on a non-consenting nation. Now we all reap the whirlwind. ...

So, in Washington, Democrats must act. First, the party must clearly state the mission. It must demand, therefore, the enactment of legislation codifying Roe v. Wade. Now. The bill should be as clean and sparse as possible to build the broadest coalition. It’s not time for a Christmas tree. ...

The elected branches of government must fight back. So next, as has occurred before in our history, the Congress should pass legislation postponing the next term of the Supreme Court. A quick and bold shot across the bow; declaring this will not stand. ...

Next, after Roe is codified, the Congress should remove the jurisdiction of the U.S. Supreme Court to hear abortion cases. The constitution grants such power. And the Court that handed down Dobbs will not be hesitant to invalidate a new statute codifying Roe – though it has no conceivable authority to do so. ...

And, it is obvious to state, if these steps fail, the Supreme Court should be packed. Happily. These faux-judges can’t be allowed to do what the Confederacy couldn’t. And if we can’t get Democratic politicians to do all this, we have to get some new ones who will. Immediately.

I concede this sounds extreme. But the fact is, this is the trauma we face. Pretending otherwise won’t help. The clock is ticking. Democracy calls.
Reading the whole article is worthwhile. There's a lot more I didn't quote.

Also, the comments are full of right-wing trolls. They could use a few more intelligent replies.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2015-22, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.