Roe v. Wade overturned -- this is some BS - Page 7

Random · 29th June 2022, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Right now you need 2/3 vote in both Houses. That won't happen under current conditions.

As for claiming they changed their minds, one could present their history of saying they wanted to overturn Roe. I don't think the Senate investigated seriously the last 3 justices for their anti-Roe views. The Democrats followed tradition of voting to install the SCOTUS regardless of who appointed them. Yes they balked at Bork, and maybe there were others I'm forgetting. It's moot now unless impeachment becomes a serious option.

Bork is the one that people remember, but others have failed to get the nod over the centuries for various reasons. Bork is the most recent one to get outright rejected however, as they didn't vote on Garland and Meirs withdrew her nomination.

bruto · 29th June 2022, 07:34 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Why would one expect a conservative court to advance a progressive project?

True, I suppose, but how sad it is that human rights in general are seen as an impermissible "progressive project."

psionl0 · 29th June 2022, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)

Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.

It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.

Parsman · 30th June 2022, 02:46 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.

In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them.

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 06:19 AM

I good explanation from a source I largely trust:

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

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 06:35 AM

Originally Posted by Parsman

In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them.

This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning.

cosmicaug · 30th June 2022, 07:20 AM

Originally Posted by Upchurch

I good explanation from a source I largely trust:

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

Thank you.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning.

I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 08:38 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning.

No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed.

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 08:45 AM

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)

Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.

How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences.

Brainster · 30th June 2022, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences.

I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land.

Delphic Oracle · 30th June 2022, 09:03 AM

Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

slyjoe · 30th June 2022, 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Brainster

I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land.

And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals.

cosmicaug · 30th June 2022, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

And this is just one reason why all hormonal contraception will eventually be in the cross-sights:
https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/using-oral-birth-control-pills-ec/

https://www.uptodate.com/contents/im...Key=PI%2F74604

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed.

Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.

crescent · 30th June 2022, 09:31 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

I hear talk of impeaching the SC justices for "lying" about their intentions over Roe vs Wade when questioned.

As a matter of curiosity, were any of them asked directly if they would overturn Roe vs Wade if a case came before them?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur

I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect)

Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though.

I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one.

Not honest, but not really lying either.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.

Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 09:41 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one.

Not honest, but not really lying either.

The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer.

Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway.

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by slyjoe

And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals.

Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.

Ziggurat · 30th June 2022, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

Where do you live (as in what state, I don't want your home address)?

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough

Idiot Dems nothing. This line of questioning about Roe vs Wade has been going round and around for decades. Do you really think they didn't force an answer because they are not clever enough, and they repeat the mistake for Justice after Justice? They asked the questions they intended to ask, to the depth they intended to probe, and got the answers they knew they were going to get. The purpose of those questions isn't to detect justices who, should the stars align, would overturn Roe vs Wade. They know that already before the first question is asked.

The questions and answers are almost always performative.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 09:45 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend.

The conversation was not about whether the party who had no power to prevent these judges from becoming Justices was fooled. That's simply what the people trying to shift blame onto them want to claim.

Of course you don't blame the Reps for pushing through the Justices, but also of course you do blame the Dems for not stopping what they had no power to stop.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 09:49 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer.

Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway.

It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone.

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

The conversation was not about whether the party who had no power to prevent these judges from becoming Justices was fooled. That's simply what the people trying to shift blame onto them want to claim.

Of course you don't blame the Reps for pushing through the Justices, but also of course you do blame the Dems for not stopping what they had no power to stop.

No. I haven't blamed anyone. That wasn't what the discussion is about.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 10:04 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

No. I haven't blamed anyone. That wasn't what the discussion is about.

Yes, that is certainly what the discussion is about. Right now you're doing a "bothsides" dance, pointing out how bad the Dems are for their supposed performance questions while deliberately ignoring the fact that the Dems were not fooled. Apparently only one, single Senator was fooled by those answers, and that was Susan Collins, of the "Trump has learned his lessons" gullibility award. And she is a Republican.

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.

Of course, the obvious consequence is the question of whether someone without functioning kidneys has a right to a functioning kidney from someone who has two good kidneys.

psionl0 · 30th June 2022, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by Parsman

In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them.

The difference is your mum can still punish you for being a smart alec. These justices got away with implying that they would not change Roe vs Wade when their intention was the opposite.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by psionl0

The difference is your mum can still punish you for being a smart alec. These justices got away with implying that they would not change Roe vs Wade when their intention was the opposite.

As I pointed out to shuttIt, they "got away" with nothing. They fooled no one. Well, except for one famously gullible Senator on their own side.

Beelzebuddy · 30th June 2022, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by wareyin

Apparently only one, single Senator was fooled by those answers, and that was Susan Collins, of the "Trump has learned his lessons" gullibility award. And she is a Republican.

Susan Collins knows exactly what she is doing. Despite her "disappointment" and "outrage" following the leaked Roe ruling, when a belated abortion protection bill was put to a vote she said nay.

crescent · 30th June 2022, 10:23 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Idiot Dems nothing. This line of questioning about Roe vs Wade has been going round and around for decades. Do you really think they didn't force an answer because they are not clever enough, and they repeat the mistake for Justice after Justice? They asked the questions they intended to ask, to the depth they intended to probe, and got the answers they knew they were going to get. The purpose of those questions isn't to detect justices who, should the stars align, would overturn Roe vs Wade. They know that already before the first question is asked.

The questions and answers are almost always performative.

Originally Posted by wareyin

As I pointed out to shuttIt, they "got away" with nothing. They fooled no one. Well, except for one famously gullible Senator on their own side.

Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy

Susan Collins knows exactly what she is doing. Despite her "disappointment" and "outrage" following the leaked Roe ruling, when a belated abortion protection bill was put to a vote she said nay.

If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

shuttlt · 30th June 2022, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

Very often people, particularly politicians say these things performatively. They don't actually think it was perjury. They aren't actually going to do anything about it. It's an opportunity for a storyline they think is going to play, so they run with it. That's all it is. People shouldn't listen to politicians, or opinion journalists as if they are giving us their actual opinions.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 10:27 AM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone.

I wanted to circle back to this one. So...the Dems who fundraise and campaign off of the threats that Republicans would overthrow Roe v. Wade were just posturing, you say? In a thread discussing the fact that the Reps actually did overthrow Roe v. Wade, even?

And...all those Dems who campaign and fundraise and (more importantly) vote against those Justices because they claimed that Reps want to overthrow Roe v. Wade, those Dems were just actually finding it politically useful to pretend what they said would happen, what they voted against happening, they were pretending it wouldn't happen, you say? Again, in a thread discussing how what they literally said would happen actually did happen?

Yeah, tell me again how this isn't just chaff to deflect blame from the Republicans who also knew this would happen, and forced it through explicitely so that it (and much worse) would happen for decades to come.

wareyin · 30th June 2022, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...h=7a8a361f5420

Max_mang · 30th June 2022, 11:11 AM

Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle

Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims.

So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

Do you have a link for this? My right wing co-workers keep insisting stuff like this could never ever happen.

Segnosaur · 30th June 2022, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by crescent

If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

The fact that the Democrats didn't believe Drunky Mcrapeface or the Stepford wife when they said Roe v. Wade was "settled" doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's nominees weren't LYING. Its still a lie even if not everyone believes you.

Skeptic Ginger · 30th June 2022, 11:36 AM

For the Oracle.

Kansas City area health system stops providing Plan B in Missouri because of abortion ban

Quote:

Editor’s Note: Saint Luke’s has resumed offering emergency contraception as of Wednesday, June 29. Read more here.

A leading health system in Kansas City is no longer providing emergency contraception in Missouri after the state banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.

Bob001 · 30th June 2022, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by Max_mang

Do you have a link for this? My right wing co-workers keep insisting stuff like this could never ever happen.

It's not widespread, but it's starting to happen.
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ption-85963071

dudalb · 30th June 2022, 11:52 AM

Now the SC has gutted the EPA

Upchurch · 30th June 2022, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by dudalb

Now the SC has gutted the EPA

I recently subscribed to r/scotus. This was the last few days of the session and the decisions have been coming fast and furious.

SC has also did not put a stay on a "Independent State Legislature" theory case, which is a Trumpian theory that state legislatures can pick who won a federal election in their state, despite the actual vote. (My characterization may not be 100% accurate. IANAL)

dudalb · 30th June 2022, 12:08 PM

I keep on telling you people, there is no peaceful solution to this.
You will have to choose between your freedom and your pacifism.

29th June 2022, 06:18 PM	#241
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,563	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Right now you need 2/3 vote in both Houses. That won't happen under current conditions. As for claiming they changed their minds, one could present their history of saying they wanted to overturn Roe. I don't think the Senate investigated seriously the last 3 justices for their anti-Roe views. The Democrats followed tradition of voting to install the SCOTUS regardless of who appointed them. Yes they balked at Bork, and maybe there were others I'm forgetting. It's moot now unless impeachment becomes a serious option. Bork is the one that people remember, but others have failed to get the nod over the centuries for various reasons. Bork is the most recent one to get outright rejected however, as they didn't vote on Garland and Meirs withdrew her nomination.
Random Illuminator Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 3,563	__________________ The road to Fascism is paved with people saying, "You're overreacting!".

29th June 2022, 07:34 PM	#242
bruto Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Way way north of Diddy Wah Diddy Posts: 33,779	Originally Posted by shuttlt Why would one expect a conservative court to advance a progressive project? True, I suppose, but how sad it is that human rights in general are seen as an impermissible "progressive project."
	__________________ I love this world, but not for its answers. (Mary Oliver) "There is another world, but it's in this one." (Paul Eluard)

29th June 2022, 08:08 PM	#243
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 19,888	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect) Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though. It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

30th June 2022, 02:46 AM	#244
Parsman Muse Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bonnie Scotland Posts: 889	Originally Posted by psionl0 It sounds like you are saying that they were never asked directly. If they were allowed to be evasive then they didn't lie. In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them.
	__________________ I was not; I have been; I am not; I am content - Epicurus When you're dead you don't know that you're dead, all the pain is felt by others....................the same thing happens when you're stupid.

30th June 2022, 08:45 AM	#250
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,021	Originally Posted by Segnosaur I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect) Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though. How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 06:35 AM	#246
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by Parsman In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them. This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning.

30th June 2022, 07:24 AM	#248
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by shuttlt This kind of questioning is ex-lawyers asking other ex-lawyers questions that everybody knows are coming, and everybody knows the correct non-answers. If their questions aren't specific enough to force an answer, then that is intentional. If the answers aren't specific enough to hold them to a particular meaning, then that is intentional. Both sides know this. It is a dance. The intention of the questioning isn't to find out what the SC nominees opinions are. They already pretty much know before the questioning starts, and if it isn't obvious from the nominees record.... they are hardly likely to be fool enough to reveal something wildly informative during the questioning. I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning.

30th June 2022, 08:38 AM	#249
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by wareyin I mean, every single Democrat voted against the Judge Handmaiden and Judge Beer boof and all but three voted against Gorsuch, so you can't really claim that the Dems were fooled or were responsible for not holding the nominees' feet to the fire hard enough in questioning. No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed.

30th June 2022, 08:58 AM	#251
Brainster Penultimate Amazing Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 19,576	Originally Posted by Ziggurat How can "settled" mean anything else? No Supreme Court can ever bind a future Supreme Court. No interpretation of the law by the court can ever be settled in a way that it cannot change in the future. All Supreme Court rulings are subject to possible change in the future. And you aren't going to complain about that when a change of what was once settled favors your preferences. I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land.
	__________________ My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

30th June 2022, 09:03 AM	#252
Delphic Oracle Philosopher Join Date: Sep 2016 Posts: 6,286	Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims. So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either.

30th June 2022, 09:22 AM	#253
slyjoe Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Near Harmonica Virgins, AZ Posts: 3,430	Originally Posted by Brainster I think pretty much everyone is pleased that Plessy, Dred Scott and Korematsu are no longer law of the land. And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals.
	__________________ "You have done nothing to demonstrate an understanding of scientific methodology or modern skepticism, both of which are, by necessity, driven by the facts and evidence, not by preconceptions, and both of which are strengthened by, and rely upon, change." - Arkan Wolfshade

30th June 2022, 09:23 AM	#254
cosmicaug Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2012 Posts: 1,899	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims. So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either. And this is just one reason why all hormonal contraception will eventually be in the cross-sights: https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/using-oral-birth-control-pills-ec/ https://www.uptodate.com/contents/im...Key=PI%2F74604
	__________________ -- August Pamplona

30th June 2022, 09:30 AM	#255
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by shuttlt No. The process is just bread and circuses. It's goal is to produce soundbites where some politician or other raises their profile, or some storyline that is currently being pushed get's progressed. Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess.

30th June 2022, 09:31 AM	#256
crescent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,295	Originally Posted by psionl0 I hear talk of impeaching the SC justices for "lying" about their intentions over Roe vs Wade when questioned. As a matter of curiosity, were any of them asked directly if they would overturn Roe vs Wade if a case came before them? Originally Posted by Segnosaur I suspect their answer would be the same... "I cannot comment on a hypothetical case" (or words to that effect) Of course, they were asked about Roe v. Wade and they all claimed it was "settled". Now, the MAGAchud will try to justify things by playing some sort of word game, like "settled means it was decided at the time, not that it couldn't change in the future". We all know it was bunk though. I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one. Not honest, but not really lying either.

30th June 2022, 09:37 AM	#257
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by wareyin Sure, as long as your aim is to deflect blame from those who had the power to control who became a Justice to those who did not have the power to stop it, I guess. Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend.

30th June 2022, 09:41 AM	#258
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by crescent I don't think it was bunk. They were using the term "settled law" to avoid really answering the question. And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough, or if they did then the SC candidates just went with "I can't answer a hypothetical". They were asked one question, but answered a different one. Not honest, but not really lying either. The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer. Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway.

30th June 2022, 09:42 AM	#259
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,021	Originally Posted by slyjoe And Dobbs is similar to the three you cited. They all removed rights and freedoms from individuals. Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms.
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 09:44 AM	#260
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 53,021	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims. So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either. Where do you live (as in what state, I don't want your home address)?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

30th June 2022, 09:44 AM	#261
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by crescent And the idiot Dems didn't press the issue enough Idiot Dems nothing. This line of questioning about Roe vs Wade has been going round and around for decades. Do you really think they didn't force an answer because they are not clever enough, and they repeat the mistake for Justice after Justice? They asked the questions they intended to ask, to the depth they intended to probe, and got the answers they knew they were going to get. The purpose of those questions isn't to detect justices who, should the stars align, would overturn Roe vs Wade. They know that already before the first question is asked. The questions and answers are almost always performative.

30th June 2022, 09:45 AM	#262
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by shuttlt Could you stick to a point and follow it through? Argument is impossible if when somebody replies to a point, you shift what the conversation is about and treat their reply as if it was about your new topic. This wasn't a discussion about blame. I don't blame the Republican's for pushing through those Justices, of course they were going to. The discussion was about whether the Democrats who asked them about abortion were mislead by the lying judges. They weren't mislead because the whole process of asking questions is pretend. The conversation was not about whether the party who had no power to prevent these judges from becoming Justices was fooled. That's simply what the people trying to shift blame onto them want to claim. Of course you don't blame the Reps for pushing through the Justices, but also of course you do blame the Dems for not stopping what they had no power to stop.

30th June 2022, 09:49 AM	#263
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by wareyin The "idiot" Dems all voted against the nominees. It's not like the Dems fell for the evasiveness, or that the Reps would have changed their minds had any Dem stood up and demanded a plain yes or no answer. Again, let's not deflect blame for these Justices from the party who voted lockstep for these candidates to the party who voted lockstep against them but lost anyway. It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone.

30th June 2022, 09:54 AM	#264
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by wareyin The conversation was not about whether the party who had no power to prevent these judges from becoming Justices was fooled. That's simply what the people trying to shift blame onto them want to claim. Of course you don't blame the Reps for pushing through the Justices, but also of course you do blame the Dems for not stopping what they had no power to stop. No. I haven't blamed anyone. That wasn't what the discussion is about.

30th June 2022, 10:04 AM	#265
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by shuttlt It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone. Originally Posted by shuttlt No. I haven't blamed anyone. That wasn't what the discussion is about. Yes, that is certainly what the discussion is about. Right now you're doing a "bothsides" dance, pointing out how bad the Dems are for their supposed performance questions while deliberately ignoring the fact that the Dems were not fooled. Apparently only one, single Senator was fooled by those answers, and that was Susan Collins, of the "Trump has learned his lessons" gullibility award. And she is a Republican.

30th June 2022, 10:09 AM	#266
Upchurch Papa Funkosophy Join Date: May 2002 Location: St. Louis, MO Posts: 33,439	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Depends on who you count as an individual. If a fetus is an individual worthy of consideration, then Dobbs has significantly protected their rights and freedoms. Of course, the obvious consequence is the question of whether someone without functioning kidneys has a right to a functioning kidney from someone who has two good kidneys.
	__________________ "There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes. "It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.

30th June 2022, 10:09 AM	#267
psionl0 Skeptical about skeptics Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E Posts: 19,888	Originally Posted by Parsman In that case, I never ate the cookies in the kitchen as I clearly told my mum I scoffed them not ate them. The difference is your mum can still punish you for being a smart alec. These justices got away with implying that they would not change Roe vs Wade when their intention was the opposite.
	__________________ "The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975

30th June 2022, 10:12 AM	#268
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by psionl0 The difference is your mum can still punish you for being a smart alec. These justices got away with implying that they would not change Roe vs Wade when their intention was the opposite. As I pointed out to shuttIt, they "got away" with nothing. They fooled no one. Well, except for one famously gullible Senator on their own side.

30th June 2022, 10:15 AM	#269
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286	Originally Posted by wareyin Apparently only one, single Senator was fooled by those answers, and that was Susan Collins, of the "Trump has learned his lessons" gullibility award. And she is a Republican. Susan Collins knows exactly what she is doing. Despite her "disappointment" and "outrage" following the leaked Roe ruling, when a belated abortion protection bill was put to a vote she said nay.
Beelzebuddy Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 9,286

30th June 2022, 10:23 AM	#270
crescent Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Colorado Posts: 5,295	Originally Posted by shuttlt Idiot Dems nothing. This line of questioning about Roe vs Wade has been going round and around for decades. Do you really think they didn't force an answer because they are not clever enough, and they repeat the mistake for Justice after Justice? They asked the questions they intended to ask, to the depth they intended to probe, and got the answers they knew they were going to get. The purpose of those questions isn't to detect justices who, should the stars align, would overturn Roe vs Wade. They know that already before the first question is asked. The questions and answers are almost always performative. Originally Posted by wareyin As I pointed out to shuttIt, they "got away" with nothing. They fooled no one. Well, except for one famously gullible Senator on their own side. Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy Susan Collins knows exactly what she is doing. Despite her "disappointment" and "outrage" following the leaked Roe ruling, when a belated abortion protection bill was put to a vote she said nay. If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury?

30th June 2022, 10:27 AM	#271
shuttlt Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 10,094	Originally Posted by crescent If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury? Very often people, particularly politicians say these things performatively. They don't actually think it was perjury. They aren't actually going to do anything about it. It's an opportunity for a storyline they think is going to play, so they run with it. That's all it is. People shouldn't listen to politicians, or opinion journalists as if they are giving us their actual opinions.

30th June 2022, 10:27 AM	#272
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by shuttlt It allows the people who fundraise and campaign off them (Democrats and Republicans) overthrowing Roe vs Wade to continue to do so, and it allows people for whom pretending to believe they would not repeal it is more politically useful, to continue pretending. Getting a specific statement on it is no help to anyone. I wanted to circle back to this one. So...the Dems who fundraise and campaign off of the threats that Republicans would overthrow Roe v. Wade were just posturing, you say? In a thread discussing the fact that the Reps actually did overthrow Roe v. Wade, even? And...all those Dems who campaign and fundraise and (more importantly) vote against those Justices because they claimed that Reps want to overthrow Roe v. Wade, those Dems were just actually finding it politically useful to pretend what they said would happen, what they voted against happening, they were pretending it wouldn't happen, you say? Again, in a thread discussing how what they literally said would happen actually did happen? Yeah, tell me again how this isn't just chaff to deflect blame from the Republicans who also knew this would happen, and forced it through explicitely so that it (and much worse) would happen for decades to come.

30th June 2022, 10:32 AM	#273
wareyin Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2013 Location: Georgia, USA Posts: 10,928	Originally Posted by crescent If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury? https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisond...h=7a8a361f5420

30th June 2022, 11:11 AM	#274
Max_mang Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 517	Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle Hospitals where I live are deciding to no longer make emergency contraceptives available to sexual assault victims. So they can't prevent fertilization or implantation in time, and then the law says they can't use an abortofacient, either. Do you have a link for this? My right wing co-workers keep insisting stuff like this could never ever happen.
Max_mang Muse Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 517

30th June 2022, 11:16 AM	#275
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 19,525	Originally Posted by crescent If that's true, then why is there all this talk of perjury? What did any of the SC candidates say that was perjury? The fact that the Democrats didn't believe Drunky Mcrapeface or the Stepford wife when they said Roe v. Wade was "settled" doesn't necessarily mean that Trump's nominees weren't LYING. Its still a lie even if not everyone believes you.
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppins Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

30th June 2022, 11:36 AM	#276
Skeptic Ginger Nasty Woman Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 93,022	For the Oracle. Kansas City area health system stops providing Plan B in Missouri because of abortion ban Quote: Editor’s Note: Saint Luke’s has resumed offering emergency contraception as of Wednesday, June 29. Read more here. A leading health system in Kansas City is no longer providing emergency contraception in Missouri after the state banned abortion with no exceptions for rape or incest.
	Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 30th June 2022 at 11:37 AM.

30th June 2022, 11:36 AM	#277
Bob001 Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: US of A Posts: 16,336	Originally Posted by Max_mang Do you have a link for this? My right wing co-workers keep insisting stuff like this could never ever happen. It's not widespread, but it's starting to happen. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/...ption-85963071