Alito is using states rights as part of the draft, so yes.
So was abortion under the 14th.
Same reasons.
Yet here we are.
Roe v. Wade overturned?
- Thread starter Serryah
- Start date
Alito is using states rights as part of the draft, so yes.
So was abortion under the 14th.
Same reasons.
Yet here we are.
Interesting speech by Pete.
Goes up to 7.45 or so; after that it's opinion.
But a great question.
Has the US reached the "high watermark" of rights in the US?
You are wrong plain and simple
It was an accepted argument in the SC that it could be seen as a right under the 14th and a couple of other amendments.
The Senate adopted an amendment to add to the Bill of Rights for women and other minorities have a right to vote
For advocating for racial segregation? Racial integration of public schools also violated "states' rights." as T-bones alluded too?
Gotta call you on that one, Serryah. Women's right to vote is in the Nineteenth Amendment. It's part of the Constitution. As is voting for 18-20-year-olds and for all races (except Natives). So it's explicitly in the Constitution.
Here are some rights and protections that aren't, but are only in Supreme Court Decisions. . .
The protection from facially-neutral statutes with racially discriminatory purposes (Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 1886).
The prohibition of racially restrictive covenants in property sales (Shelley v. Kraemer,1948).
The prohibition of racial segregation in public schools (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954).
The prohibition on requiring a selectee for public office to declare a belief in God (Torcaso v. Watkins, 1961).
The prohibition of racial segregation in intrastate public transit (Bailey v. Patterson, 1962).
The prohibition of mandatory prayer and bible readings in public schools (Engel v. Vitale, 1962 and Murray v. Curlett, 1963).
The protection of the right of married couples to use contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965).
The protection of interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967).
The prohibition of all racial discrimination in sale or rental of property (Jones v. Mayer Co., 1968).
The prohibition of "excessive entanglement" between government and religion in funding religious schools (Lemon v. Kurtzman, 1971).
The prohibition of the use of conditions of employment unrelated to job performance to discriminate racially in hiring (Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 1971).
The protection of the right of everyone to use contraception (Eisenstadt v. Baird, 1972).
The protection of the rights of women with regard to abortion (Roe v. Wade, 1973).
The prohibition of mandatory maternity leave rules for pregnant women (Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. LaFleur, 1974).
Requiring provision of English language instruction in public schools for children who did not speak English (Lau v. Nichols, 1974).
Prohibition of racial discrimination in providing goods or services commercially (Runyon v. McCrary, 1976).
The prohibition on trying non-White criminal defendants with all-White juries (Batson v. Kentucky, 1986).
Upholding, and limiting, the use of racial "affirmative action" in education (University of California Regents v. Bakke, 1978 and Grutter v. Bollinger, 2003 et al.).
The prohibition of writing discrimination against homosexuals into a state constitution (Romer v. Evans, 1996).
The prohibition of criminalization of "sodomy" (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003).
The protection of the right of same-sex couples to marry, and the requirement that all states honor such marriages (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015).
Bleah. Enough. Suffice to say that all of these decisions involved the Supreme Court ruling on rights or interpretations of rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution. There are dozens more, and that's just at the Supreme Court level. Many, many more in lower courts that didn't make it up to the Supremes.
The "states' rights" or "local community decision" crowd would overturn all of these cases because all of these cases "violated" the "rights" of states and local communities to discriminate on racial, religious, or sex grounds.
They want to re-instate Jim Crow. Full stop. It's part of their religious belief that everything was just wunnerful until the Marxist Commie Kenyan Muslim Socialists took over, Knee-grows, Meskins, Injuns, and JOOOOOZ! forgot their place, and the weemins quit providing hot meals and spreading their legs on command.
And they will stop at nothing to go back to 1953.
Last edited:
Here's an idea. Why don't you shut your face until you find out how the Constitution is amended? You'll look slightly less stupid.
HINT: The procedure is, oddly enough, in the Constitution. Article V. It's ONE PARAGRAPH, ferfuck'ssake.
Yes those Democrats and their racism was wonderful .
Hmm. Interesting.
Upon reflection and reconsideration, I agree with Alito and the presumptive majority.
Upon reflection and reconsideration, I agree with Alito and the presumptive majority.
Being a Canadian in Canada, I’m looking at Roe vs Wade from the outside looking in with a foreign (to the US) bias & fully admit that.
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is genuinely concerned about maintaining access to abortions for Canadian women, there are things he can do, as opposed to virtue-signalling about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has no relevance to Canada.
In response to the American court’s reported decision striking down Roe v. Wade which established a constitutional right to abortion in the United States in 1973, Trudeau and the Liberals are again trying to stoke fears that some future Conservative government will ban abortions, which neither the Brian Mulroney nor Stephen Harper governments did.
apple.news
Canadians today face some of the longest medical wait times in the developed word for health care, despite the fact they also pay through taxes for one of the world’s most expensive health-care systems.
Provinces deliver medical services, but it’s the responsibility of the federal government to ensure the five principles of the Canada Health Act apply nationally — accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.
Provincial premiers have asked the federal government to restore funding for specified hospital and diagnostic services to its original level of 50% of costs, now at 33% using Ottawa’s own figures.
Co-operation between federal and provincial governments is needed to fix a system where Canada lags behind comparable countries not just in wait times, but in the number of hospital beds, doctors, nurses, MRIs and CT scans relative to Canada’s population, among many other deficiencies which were fully exposed during the pandemic.
These are serious issues requiring serious solutions and a prime minister focused on improving health care for Canadians, not fear-mongering about a U.S. court ruling.
apple.news
There was a sudden outbreak of support for bodily autonomy on Tuesday as Canadian politicians said that medical decisions were up to the individual and government had no role.
No, it wasn’t a group of Canadian politicians saying that vaccine mandates in this country were wrong, it was Canadians reacting to an American court decision on abortion.
Actually, they were reacting to news that the U.S. Supreme Court might change abortion jurisprudence in the United States. Suddenly, though, the phrase was everywhere with politicians reminding Canadians that women have the right to choose.
Now, it’s obvious that these politicians were talking about abortion but if we switch the topic to vaccine requirements, all this talk of “right to choose” will disappear quickly. Millions of Canadians argued that deciding to be vaccinated, or not, was a decision they alone should get to make or that it should be between them and their doctor.
Abortions and vaccinations are not the same thing, yet they are both invasive medical procedures. To argue that one is a purely personal and individual decision but the other requires the community to get involved and force decisions on people is not intellectually consistent.
Unless your idea of being intellectually consistent is choosing what works out best for the political party you support.
Yet the same prime minister who proudly says he will stand for a woman’s right to choose told women who chose not to get vaccinated that they would lose their jobs, or their ability to travel by plane or train. This sudden desire to support individual choice in medical decision-making isn’t based on some underlying philosophy — there is no guiding principle, this is pure partisan politics.
Our political system is different than what they have in the United States, our judicial system is different, our culture is different. That doesn’t stop politicians like Trudeau from importing American issues, like abortion or guns, into our political discourse to try to secure votes.
That is all this outpouring of support for giving people choice in medical procedures is about. If the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that people should have the choice on being vaccinated, he wouldn’t say a word, at least not in support.
Take all these statements of support for what they are — cheap political tactics, nothing more.
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is genuinely concerned about maintaining access to abortions for Canadian women, there are things he can do, as opposed to virtue-signalling about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has no relevance to Canada.
In response to the American court’s reported decision striking down Roe v. Wade which established a constitutional right to abortion in the United States in 1973, Trudeau and the Liberals are again trying to stoke fears that some future Conservative government will ban abortions, which neither the Brian Mulroney nor Stephen Harper governments did.
EDITORIAL: Trudeau's job is to fix our health care — Toronto Sun
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is genuinely concerned about maintaining access to abortions for Canadian women, there are things he can do, as opposed to virtue-signalling about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has no relevance to Canada. In response to the American court’s reported decision...
Canadians today face some of the longest medical wait times in the developed word for health care, despite the fact they also pay through taxes for one of the world’s most expensive health-care systems.
Provinces deliver medical services, but it’s the responsibility of the federal government to ensure the five principles of the Canada Health Act apply nationally — accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.
Provincial premiers have asked the federal government to restore funding for specified hospital and diagnostic services to its original level of 50% of costs, now at 33% using Ottawa’s own figures.
Co-operation between federal and provincial governments is needed to fix a system where Canada lags behind comparable countries not just in wait times, but in the number of hospital beds, doctors, nurses, MRIs and CT scans relative to Canada’s population, among many other deficiencies which were fully exposed during the pandemic.
These are serious issues requiring serious solutions and a prime minister focused on improving health care for Canadians, not fear-mongering about a U.S. court ruling.
LILLEY: Trudeau doesn't really believe people should have a choice in medical decisions — Toronto Sun
The same PM who says he will stand for a woman’s right to choose told women who chose not to get vaccinated that they would lose their jobs.
There was a sudden outbreak of support for bodily autonomy on Tuesday as Canadian politicians said that medical decisions were up to the individual and government had no role.
No, it wasn’t a group of Canadian politicians saying that vaccine mandates in this country were wrong, it was Canadians reacting to an American court decision on abortion.
Actually, they were reacting to news that the U.S. Supreme Court might change abortion jurisprudence in the United States. Suddenly, though, the phrase was everywhere with politicians reminding Canadians that women have the right to choose.
Now, it’s obvious that these politicians were talking about abortion but if we switch the topic to vaccine requirements, all this talk of “right to choose” will disappear quickly. Millions of Canadians argued that deciding to be vaccinated, or not, was a decision they alone should get to make or that it should be between them and their doctor.
Abortions and vaccinations are not the same thing, yet they are both invasive medical procedures. To argue that one is a purely personal and individual decision but the other requires the community to get involved and force decisions on people is not intellectually consistent.
Unless your idea of being intellectually consistent is choosing what works out best for the political party you support.
Yet the same prime minister who proudly says he will stand for a woman’s right to choose told women who chose not to get vaccinated that they would lose their jobs, or their ability to travel by plane or train. This sudden desire to support individual choice in medical decision-making isn’t based on some underlying philosophy — there is no guiding principle, this is pure partisan politics.
Our political system is different than what they have in the United States, our judicial system is different, our culture is different. That doesn’t stop politicians like Trudeau from importing American issues, like abortion or guns, into our political discourse to try to secure votes.
That is all this outpouring of support for giving people choice in medical procedures is about. If the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that people should have the choice on being vaccinated, he wouldn’t say a word, at least not in support.
Take all these statements of support for what they are — cheap political tactics, nothing more.
Well put. Down hereabouts it's a fundamental issue of rights. Up there it's just politics.
What does a 16 year old girl and her unborn fetus have in common??
They both think mom’s going to kill me
They both think mom’s going to kill me
So the other shit you spewed has nothing to do with this possible ruling, thought so
Eh, I'm good enough with being called on something I am wrong about.
Glad I am, tbh.
I was actually hoping you'd post more on what's likely to be up to question now. Thanks TB.
Education in Texas is now maybe a 'thing' too apparently...
Being a Canadian in Canada, I’m looking at Roe vs Wade from the outside looking in with a foreign (to the US) bias & fully admit that.
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is genuinely concerned about maintaining access to abortions for Canadian women, there are things he can do, as opposed to virtue-signalling about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has no relevance to Canada.
In response to the American court’s reported decision striking down Roe v. Wade which established a constitutional right to abortion in the United States in 1973, Trudeau and the Liberals are again trying to stoke fears that some future Conservative government will ban abortions, which neither the Brian Mulroney nor Stephen Harper governments did.
EDITORIAL: Trudeau's job is to fix our health care — Toronto Sun
If Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is genuinely concerned about maintaining access to abortions for Canadian women, there are things he can do, as opposed to virtue-signalling about a U.S. Supreme Court decision that has no relevance to Canada. In response to the American court’s reported decision...
Canadians today face some of the longest medical wait times in the developed word for health care, despite the fact they also pay through taxes for one of the world’s most expensive health-care systems.
Provinces deliver medical services, but it’s the responsibility of the federal government to ensure the five principles of the Canada Health Act apply nationally — accessibility, universality, comprehensiveness, portability and public administration.
Provincial premiers have asked the federal government to restore funding for specified hospital and diagnostic services to its original level of 50% of costs, now at 33% using Ottawa’s own figures.
Co-operation between federal and provincial governments is needed to fix a system where Canada lags behind comparable countries not just in wait times, but in the number of hospital beds, doctors, nurses, MRIs and CT scans relative to Canada’s population, among many other deficiencies which were fully exposed during the pandemic.
These are serious issues requiring serious solutions and a prime minister focused on improving health care for Canadians, not fear-mongering about a U.S. court ruling.
LILLEY: Trudeau doesn't really believe people should have a choice in medical decisions — Toronto Sun
The same PM who says he will stand for a woman’s right to choose told women who chose not to get vaccinated that they would lose their jobs.
There was a sudden outbreak of support for bodily autonomy on Tuesday as Canadian politicians said that medical decisions were up to the individual and government had no role.
No, it wasn’t a group of Canadian politicians saying that vaccine mandates in this country were wrong, it was Canadians reacting to an American court decision on abortion.
Actually, they were reacting to news that the U.S. Supreme Court might change abortion jurisprudence in the United States. Suddenly, though, the phrase was everywhere with politicians reminding Canadians that women have the right to choose.
Now, it’s obvious that these politicians were talking about abortion but if we switch the topic to vaccine requirements, all this talk of “right to choose” will disappear quickly. Millions of Canadians argued that deciding to be vaccinated, or not, was a decision they alone should get to make or that it should be between them and their doctor.
Abortions and vaccinations are not the same thing, yet they are both invasive medical procedures. To argue that one is a purely personal and individual decision but the other requires the community to get involved and force decisions on people is not intellectually consistent.
Unless your idea of being intellectually consistent is choosing what works out best for the political party you support.
Yet the same prime minister who proudly says he will stand for a woman’s right to choose told women who chose not to get vaccinated that they would lose their jobs, or their ability to travel by plane or train. This sudden desire to support individual choice in medical decision-making isn’t based on some underlying philosophy — there is no guiding principle, this is pure partisan politics.
Our political system is different than what they have in the United States, our judicial system is different, our culture is different. That doesn’t stop politicians like Trudeau from importing American issues, like abortion or guns, into our political discourse to try to secure votes.
That is all this outpouring of support for giving people choice in medical procedures is about. If the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that people should have the choice on being vaccinated, he wouldn’t say a word, at least not in support.
Take all these statements of support for what they are — cheap political tactics, nothing more.
The problem with all this though, Ron, is that not getting the vaccine effects everyone around you and potentially could effect the world, should you be patient zero for the new variant.
Though at this point in the end none of it matters; too many didn't care early enough. But point is, it was meant to help protect not just one person, but others.
Abortion is NOT anywhere near this.
You cannot really compare the two, despite it being a 'my body, my choice' issue.
At least, that's my opinion on it. Equating the two is as apples and oranges as you can get while saying both are fruit.
You don't have the education to understand, and you will resist any attempt to wise you up.
I freely admit I kinda got caught up in the furor on this one.
I re-read Alito's opinion today. . . and he's right. He expresses what I've been saying for decades. Roe v Wade is probably the worst-reasoned case in Supreme Court history. The alleged logic is a mish-mash of half-baked concepts, the evidence is laughable, and I have always warned that it's a dumb case to rely on.
Alito's opinion takes the form of a critique of Roe v Wade. And he's right. It's a piece of crap. That's why for some time now I have been pushing Hodes & Nauser v Schmidt, Supreme Court of Kansas 2019, as a vastly preferable alternative. It states a specific right, personal autonomy, places it in the legal context as a right that pre-dates the Constitution or Kansas's constitution (thus making it a "fundamental Constitutional right" in Supreme Court parlance, like the right to self-defense or the right to procreate), and flatly says that, this right being fundamental, it can only be interfered with for the most compelling of government interests, and even then the government action must be tailored to have the minimum impact on the right that is consistent with achieving the government interest.
That is why we need a Constitutional amendment or a Supreme Court case firmly tying freedom of abortion choice to an explicit Constitutional right or fundamental Constitutional right. Not tying the right to another right also not found in the text of the Constitution (privacy), nor using a mishmash of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments to justify it. Hodes & Nauser. . .
1. Personal autonomy is a fundamental right.
2. Decisions on family life and family formation, including whether or not to continue a pregnancy, are part of personal autonomy.
3. Ergo, abortion is a fundamental right.
4. Case closed.
All in all, that summation makes more sense really.
One can only hope this will be a push for such cases and maybe eventually legislation but who knows.