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)

newyorkguy 25th June 2022 06:06 PM

Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Tina Smith of Minnesota are calling on President Joe Biden to declare a public health emergency as almost half the states move to ban abortion following the overturning of Roe v Wade.
Quote:

Ending the constitutional right to abortion has brought the nation to “a perilous time that threatens millions of women,” Warren and Smith wrote in the [New York Times] op-ed, adding that now "the government — not the person who is pregnant — will make the critical decision about whether to continue a pregnancy." NBC News link
I feel very badly for women who had abortions planned and now may be unable to have the procedure. It's a life-changing event of seismic proportions. It just doesn't seem at all fair. :(

Stacyhs 25th June 2022 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841040)
I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

Same sex marriage GRANTED MORE rights to people. Annulling R v W takes AWAY a right.

Same sex marriage secures a right to two consenting adults. Annulling R v W removes a right from an UNconsenting adult. See if you can spot the difference.

ZiprHead 25th June 2022 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841470)
Maybe you don't know this, but SCOTUS isn't there to legislate. They exist to determine if the constitution and US laws have been properly interpreted and/or implemented.

Then maybe they should start doing so.

newyorkguy 25th June 2022 07:04 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Looks like just over half the states are prepared to effectively outlaw abortion thanks to SCOTUS.
  • Alabama—Pre-Roe ban, Near-total ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Arizona—Pre-Roe ban
  • Arkansas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Near-total ban
  • Georgia—Six-week ban
  • Idaho—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Iowa—Six-week ban
  • Kentucky—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Louisiana—Trigger ban, Near-total ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Michigan—Pre-Roe ban
  • Mississippi—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Missouri—Trigger ban, Eight-week ban
  • North Dakota—Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Ohio—Six-week ban
  • Oklahoma—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban (effective November 1, 2021), Near-total ban, Six-week ban
  • South Carolina—Six-week ban
  • South Dakota—Trigger ban
  • Tennessee—Trigger ban, Six-week ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Texas—Pre-Roe ban, Trigger ban, Six-week ban
  • Utah—Trigger ban, Near-total ban
  • West Virginia—Pre-Roe ban, State constitution bars protection
  • Wisconsin—Pre-Roe ban
  • Wyoming—Trigger ban

The six week ban outlaws abortion after six weeks of pregnancy. Pre-Roe bans are laws that prohibited abortion and were never removed after the original Roe v Wade ruling by SCOTUS. Trigger bans are laws designed to take effect if and when Roe v Wade was overturned.

Source is the Guttmacher institute. Link

newyorkguy 25th June 2022 08:10 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Apparently, judging by the AP map below (source is the Guttmacher Institute) abortion will be permitted in about twenty states, banned in twenty, yet to be decided in ten. AP reports Alabama has one of the toughest anti-abortion laws:
Quote:

Abortions became almost entirely illegal in Alabama on Friday. A 2019 state abortion ban took effect making it a felony to perform an abortion at any stage of pregnancy, with no exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. All three clinics stopped providing abortions Friday morning under fear of prosecution under the 1951 state law...Doctors who violate the law could face up to 99 years in prison. AP News link
The one exception Alabama makes is if continuing the pregnancy would endanger the mother's health.

The Great Zaganza 25th June 2022 09:33 PM

Prepare for Red States calling Blue States "baby murdering factories"

smartcooky 25th June 2022 09:37 PM

If y'all think this is all they want - to overturn Roe v Wade, think again. They will be going after other precedents as well.

Griswold v Connecticut (the right to use contraception)
Lawrence v. Texas (the right to same-sex intimacy)
Obergefell v. Hodges (the right to same sex marriage)

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/sup...trac-rcna35228

The corrupt sex-pest, Justice Clarence Thomas has made this clear in his concurring opinions, effectively inviting anyone to bring cases that might lead to the overturning of those precedents.

If Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned, homosexuality will once again be a criminal offence in Texas - (its already Texas law but currently unenforceable) but would immediately become enforceable if Lawrence v Texas were to be overturned

You can be 100% certain that if were to happen, a whole bunch of peckerwood redneck states like Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee etc will follow suit!

Brainster 26th June 2022 12:18 AM

Since this seems to be the politics thread on the overturning, here are my thoughts:

1. This should be a big shot in the arm to statewide Democratic parties in moderate red states to moderate blue states. While there is not a lot of focus on the states yet, that is the new battleground on abortion, and it is far from certain that favors the Republicans.

2. Should be somewhat problematic for the GOP with the single-issue anti-abortion crowd. Once you win the war, the need for you evaporates as Winston Churchill discovered.

3. Obviously every other political wind favors the Republicans nationally, but this does seem to be a case where the focus should be local anyway.

Lurch 26th June 2022 12:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leumas (Post 13841001)
Actually ... not in America... they get what the Electoral College and gerrymandering chicanery gives them.

Edit to add: and of course the SCOTUS itself when they decide who is president.

This reply was in response to my, "A People gets the Government it deserves." Yet in your post immediately preceding the quoted, you point out how the Dems warrant blame for not legislating when they had the opportunity. In a fashion, therefore, you agree with me.

I should clarify the a People comprises the totality of a population. If a political system has 'evolved' to the point where unfair and nefarious means are employed by one side, it is the result of the combination of the unscrupulous and the inattentive folk across society. The fairer side has not fought hard enough, and so they 'deserve' the fruits of their lackadaisical inattenriveness.

Democracy and progress must ever be fought for. Americans are discovering--possibly too late--that vigilance can never be relaxed. Taking for granted the comparative calm of the post WW2 period has resulted in the losing sight of the way ructious upheaval is historically cyclical.

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brainster (Post 13841749)
Since this seems to be the politics thread on the overturning, here are my thoughts:

1. This should be a big shot in the arm to statewide Democratic parties in moderate red states to moderate blue states. While there is not a lot of focus on the states yet, that is the new battleground on abortion, and it is far from certain that favors the Republicans.

2. Should be somewhat problematic for the GOP with the single-issue anti-abortion crowd. Once you win the war, the need for you evaporates as Winston Churchill discovered.

3. Obviously every other political wind favors the Republicans nationally, but this does seem to be a case where the focus should be local anyway.

I agree.
About 2. , I think the only problem is the time it will take to find another single -issue topic that GOP voters will be told they were always passionate about. Drag Queens seem to be latest&greatest threat to the Most Christian Nation.

I also think that anti-abortionists will try to take the Fight federally, with pushing for bills in Congress that would ban abortion in the Blue Baby Killer States.

Lurch 26th June 2022 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joecool (Post 13841040)
I thought you were better than that?

Doesn't SCOTUS rule on law and the constitution? Were they wrong or do you disagree simply because you don't like the ruling?

When the same sex marriage law was passed, I heard that it's the law of the land and the courts have spoken so everyone needs to be an adult and accept the ruling of the high court.

Does the ruling of the high court only count if you and yours agree with it?

Is that why democrats are now whining and moaning that the court is not legitimate and it must be dismantled or left members added to make the decision "right"?

And democrats complain that the GOP is a threat to democracy.

Suck it up buttercup. Law of the land. The court has spoken.

This court is reversing what it had formerly settled. This court is not taking to heart to "Suck it up, Buttercup." This court is not accepting what had been the "law of the land."

You are disregarding history, treating this particular court as though it's the first to rule on the matter.

And it appears other reversals of what were formerly the laws of the land will come in short order. This court is politically activist to a degree beyond what the right would accuse of a left leaning court. Actually stripping away rights formerly granted is heinous. If nothing else, it delegitimises the court by effectively stating it cannot make up its mind, engaging in whip-saw lurches between progress and retrenchment. This court is spitting on its former jurists.

I hold this court in contempt of the nation. It has become a tool of a political party, evoking shades of the frantic People's Court in that fatal spasm of early '40s Germany.

Lurch 26th June 2022 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Olmstead (Post 13841482)
In that case, why do the judges disagree, and why is this disagreement based on their ideology?

BINGO!

Lurch 26th June 2022 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bruto (Post 13841599)
I've been thinking a bit about this, and I think this is an important point. Much of conservative support comes from those who are convinced that "liberal" government is meddlesome, complex, and expensive. But that's really because repression is applied only to certain parties.

I think one way around this would be malicious compliance. If the state owns your uterus, demand in writing permission to use it. Demand written guarantees that your gynecologist may have access to government property. Demand that, if it's illegal to cross state lines for an abortion, the state issue a paper granting you permission to cross state lines without search and seizure. Demand a written declaration of what measures are required or forbidden for a fertile woman to perform on her body in anticipation that an embryo that does not exist but might at some future time will find a welcome. Everything should be in writing. If the state wants to own our bodies, then it damned well better put its money where its mouth is. That should include by default that any medical procedure involving the reproductive system that is required for the health of any person should be the sole responsibility of the government that has asserted ownership.

In a state like Texas, where every neighbor of every potentially pregnant woman apparently has standing to initiate a lawsuit based on the suspicion of abortion, every potentially pregnant woman who is not planning an abortion should be able to phone every neighbor every night to assure them of this fact.

If birth control is made illegal, men should demand in writing permission to wear socks to bed. Demand written codes on what it is and is not legal to wear in case of sex, and be prepared to file complaints against anyone suspected of not following the codes. Hat colors, pajama styles. There should be a written guarantee that premature ejaculation, for example, is not grounds for criminal charges. Demand written clarification of whether vasectomy is permitted. After all, vasectomy is as much a physical barrier to the passage of sperm as other birth control.

Demand that agencies be established to codify and issue permits for activities, and that specifics be established for all of them, and printed. The administration of these laws should be expensive and complex.

If stupidity carried a financial or inconvenience expense to its promoters even a fraction of the emotional, spiritual, cultural expense it imposes on its victims, it would be dead in the water.

I like the thrust of this.

Nessie 26th June 2022 01:17 AM

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

Lurch 26th June 2022 01:29 AM

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.

smartcooky 26th June 2022 01:46 AM

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.

Cut them peckerwoods in the South-East loose I say, let 'em have their straight, white, racist, Christian promised land. California, Oregon, Washington and Nevada together would make a viable country, as would Delaware, Maryland, New York, New Hersey and the New England states together.

mikegriffith1 26th June 2022 03:42 AM

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.

The Great Zaganza 26th June 2022 03:46 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.

so in your opinion, it's a baby right after fertilization?
Or maybe before?

Planigale 26th June 2022 04:08 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.

So would you make intra-uterine contraceptive devices and oral contraceptives illegal because they cause the 'death' of the ferlilised ovum?

Samson 26th June 2022 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Planigale (Post 13841820)
So would you make intra-uterine contraceptive devices and oral contraceptives illegal because they cause the 'death' of the ferlilised ovum?

Bet your life they would ban just such a device.
Actually are they a meat eater?
Because they might consider all mammalian life sacrosanct.

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

Captain_Swoop 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 naïve, 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 naïve, 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 naïve, 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!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:39 AM.

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