Thanks for admitting that parts of your post were indeed strawmanning and thus proving that your statement that I incorrectly complained is not true... appreciate the admission!!!

Do you know what the SCOTUS' function is in the three branches system of the USA governance???

If the rights to bodily integrity and choice for one's freedom and pursuit of happiness were codified as LAW instead of leaving it as a SCOTUS opinion whim ruling ... then the SCOTUS would not be able to do anything other than "interpret and determine the constitutionality" of it... instead of being able to change their ruling on another whim.

And it would have been a lot harder for any pretend zealot cult members inserted into the SCOTUS to deem the rights to bodily integrity and choice unconstitutional than it is for democrats to codify those rights into law.

So your false dichotomy has a third option... for the democrats to have codified the right to choice as a law...

Passing things into law is not easy but it is what the legislative branch is supposed to do... it is their job... and fear of the opposition opposing them is not a rational or valid apologetic for them not having done their job.

I think democrats should go ahead and vote on a bill that allows abortion. I had some ideas above about "allowing" by blocking bans to 15 weeks. But 20 weeks would be fine.

It would then be law. Challenges to the law would be difficult. You can get surgeons to refuse to abort or pharmacists to dispense pills. That is as far as it would go. No person suing the government over the law would have any standing in court. The law does not force YOU to have an abortion. Your sister having an abortion and that hurting your religious views? No, not your right.

Where it would go from there is states vs the USA. If states claim they have this right, the Supreme Court would then have to rule that states do have the right on abortion. Then that at least would be established. We are then back to abortion tourism.

As I understand it, Lindsey Graham's bill would allow individual states to have stricter requirements but not allow them to have broader than 15 week restrictions. It's identical to the Lost Cause concept of States Rights. "You can have em' so long as the states do what we say."

That might be ok. But there are other factors. Do those who need it have access to low-cost healthcare providers who can provide them with good consultancy. Will it be complemented by efficient birth-control services. We are talking about a nation that upholds the rights of pharmacists and sundry medical professionals to deny birth control products or services to those who need them because it "hurts their religious fe-fes." A frightened minor girl cannot even buy birth control without parental permission.
Lindsey Graham knows that ultimately all this doesn't matter when they can easily ensure access to birth control products or abortion services can be made difficult.

Yes, I can see how it would be very difficult to overturn.

The style of argument on this forum certainly is different.

A: [Makes an argument]

B: That's outrageous! How could you suggest that....

A: That's only a strawman version of my argument!

B: 'Tis not! Furthermore, your characterization of my argument as a strawman argument is, itself, a strawman argument!

A: If everyone calls your argument a strawman argument, maybe there's something to it?

B: I know you are, but what am I? Besides, that was an argumentum ad populum!

A: The fact that you would suggest I would do such a thing is insulting! That makes it an Ad hominem!

[ad infinitum]

That’s why I decided to no longer engage

Who are you quoting in that quote? Or did you just make it up?

They already did. It passed the House and was killed in the Senate, 51-49. Famed lovable scamp Joe Manchin was the sole dissenting Democrat. The party line is we're all supposed to roll our eyes at him and go "Oh, Joe!" and then go vote harder or something.

Had Manchin stayed onside the cloture vote would've failed by ten instead of eleven, as it did.

Just made it up. It was meant to show how I thought the general gist of overturning the law would sound like. Maybe I shouldn't have used the quote markdown for it?

It is not that simplistic... there are laws and a constitution... and this country is alleged to be a country of laws... if it were that facile this country would be a lawless insane asylum where whenever power is exchanged the whole legal system is toppled topsy turvy .... oh... wait... hmmmm!!!

Well... now that might explain why the democrats have not bothered to do their jobs as representatives of the people and law makers for the last 50 years... why bother when it is a den of lunatics anyways...

Or... this could be another explanation for their lack of any meaningful action...

It's not redundant. There is a huge difference.

Being anti-abortion wasn't the dominant position in the GOP pre-Reagan. If Congress during the Carter administration passed a comprehensive women's healthcare act that protects the right to abortion and bases it on both protecting the rights in Roe as well as the commerce clause, it would be a massive diversion from our present timeline. A single party change wouldn't be significant because they'd need the presidency and a filibuster proof majority.

A law protecting abortion rights and defining what those rights would preclude state regulation. It would take even more than a wholesale overturning of Roe for a state to at all restrict abortion. With the commerce clause as a justification they'd also have to tinker with the basis for almost all federal legislation.

These rights are personal in nature but a nation where women have total control over their reproductive choices is going to be a wealthier less reactionary nation than one where they do not. Preventing the chipping away of abortion rights in our timeline not only makes ending those rights a harder sell, it also allows us longer benefit of those rights.

Less women trapped in abusive relationships for economic reasons, less overwhelmed single mothers, etc. The societal benefits would have a compounding effect and change things in ways hard to fathom.

In a reversal, you are making a difference with no distinction.

This SCOTUS does not care how unpopular their ruling is or how ingrained it is in law, precedent, or society. They have made that abundantly clear. Literally nothing you wrote makes it any harder for them to strike down women's rights with the stroke of a majority opinion.

We can erect as many legal walls and barriers to protect women's rights as we can think of, but without a Constitutional amendment or re-aligning the composition of SCOTUS, it wouldn't change anything.

It certainly does. I'm not exactly an optimist when it comes to the depravity of the present Court, but overruling Roe is a way simpler thing than what they'd have to do to overturn a federal law justified on commerce clause grounds. It would totally give away the game. Even the most appeasement minded Democrat would be forced to concede that the Court had gone totally rogue. It's a massive escalation.

Even to get to that point this all assumes we'd still have forty years of allowing the GOP to drive all abortion discourse and the entrenched right to abortion not affecting policy. The political landscape would be so different that assuming present conditions would be a stretch at best.

Conservative states would in the 80s and 90s be floating restrictions and having them unceremoniously spiked on supremacy clause grounds. No Casey v. Planned Parenthood. It would take a ton of change to manage to even get to the point where Roe could be directly challenged. It is more likely that abortion rights stop being an issue than conservatives muster the kind of support they would need to make outlawing abortion seem attainable.

The Court becomes the least of their worries. Roe would be a side issue. Getting five justices willing to overturn Roe has been a reasonable quest since Reagan, but getting five that would be willing to totally blow up the foundation of the vast majority of federal legislation would have been unthinkable and undesirable for even the GOP.

Indeed!!!

And not to mention Amendment 14 of the current constitution as it is without any further change needed.

So because it is hard the democrats never bothered to do anything about it whatsoever for 50 years despite having had full out power for 10 years out of these 50 and most of the power for 14 more years... total of 24 years out of the 50... nary a whimper of an attempt???

Incorrect.

Dems never had a majority of members willing to codify Roe.
They still don't.

I agree because as I said...


Not to mention this fact too....

From https://twitter.com/HeartlandSignal/status/1572246813163548672

But....... here is the REAL way they do it.... which in the end boils down to the image above.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The Consequences of Corrupt Mafioso Minion Judges
 

This is what happens when mafiosos get to install their minion judges...

Lord have mercy. This reads like something for the CT forum.

Perhaps. Yet, somehow, all of the quoted checks out. Thanks, Republican voters, for turning actual reality into something that resembles CT crankery!

"The Mary Sue". LOL. Yeah. This place is a clown show.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-mary-sue/

Yet as another poster points out, everything that was claimed appears to be well sourced.

If you have any evidence that the accusations are false by all means present them.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

:big:

It is not a theory... it is proven facts that we watched take place right in front of out eyes.... and it is ONGOING...

However.... of course the theistic ethos never allows reality to be seen as it is but rather prefers to spin it into "alternative facts".... while their cult masters tell them...

While the Mary Sue may not necessarily be a mainstream source, the linked articles provide base references to other more well regarded sources.

The article suggesting that drunky mcrapeface wasn't properly investigated has a reference to Esquire magazine to back up it's claims.

The article about Ginny Thomas (wife of right wing supreme Court Justice, and long dong silver fan Clarence Thomas) trying to overthrow the election is supported by references to the Washington Post .

And both Esquire magazine and the Washington Post are pretty highly regarded.

Waiting to see your evidence that either of the claims was wrong....

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

It is a bit. The quoted is pretty well backed up, though, even if you don't like easily verifiable points being made or the one who is saying them.

People around here hate FOX, but jump on this **** like a bitch in heat. Comical.

:rolleyes: You got nothing, eh?

People dump on fox because, unlike the previous articles referenced in the Mary Sue (where they backed up their claims with references to mainstream sources), fox often makes inaccurate statements unsupported by evidence. (Hence the lawsuits against them by Dominion voting, and the claim that they should be absolved of claims of lying because "nobody should trust them".

Still waiting to hear your evidence that any of the claims are incorrect. You will be providing some won't you?

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

You noticed that too... It's like he wants to distract people from the accurate claims that several of the right wing supreme Court justices are of questionable integrity by bringing up irrelevant claims of media inaccuracies.

Sent from my moto e using Tapatalk

For what it's worth, I definitely wouldn't offer blind trust to the Mary Sue. With that said, equating it with the disgust towards Fox is a false equivalence in many ways. To poke at one more of them, the Mary Sue's reach is fairly certainly negligible, for example, and thus any BS it puts forth is of relatively little consequence. On Fox's side, Fox's BS and "business practices" have been harming people en masse for quite the extended period of time and has had significant negative real world effects. Even then, Fox generally isn't simply dismissed out of hand as a news outlet (and certainly not to the point where we would reflexively deny reality just because they reported something, not even Russia actually gets that "honor"), though the well known biases behind what it actually reports are certainly kept in mind. Thus, Warp12's attempted diversion and attempt to claim hypocrisy is even more worthless.

Yeah, I hate facts too. Those meanie liberals.

Claim 1: "robbed of their bodily autonomy":

Roe v Wade overturned. States imposing strict abortion laws forcing women to carry fetuses and give birth regardless of their own desires. Check.

Claim 2: "One Supreme Court Justice was a member of a misogynistic religious cult"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ople-of-praise
Check.

Claim 3: "another was only confirmed after the FBI pretended to (but absolutely did not) investigate claims of sexual harassment and assault."
https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/ne...-investigation
Check.

Claim 4:"the wife of another justice was just questioned for her alleged role in an ongoing attempt to overturn an election." https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ginn...ry?id=90700957
Check


Yes, it does read like a CT forum but, it turns out this one is true.

Nice links... :thumbsup:

Ah, the sweet sound of disgust.

While I'm equally disgusted at what SCOTUS has done and is doing, another part of me wants to laugh at Americans complaining about a system they've only had 234 years to fix.