Roe v. Wade overturned?

[B00Mer]

By the way. . .

A good show-stopper for a rightard who bawls "There's no right to abortion in the Constitution!" is "There's no right to self-defense in the Constitution either."

Hold up..

The “right” to abortion has been moved to each state.. and local voters of that state.. in short back to the people.

However, my opinion on abortion is 1. I don’t believe in abortion, however 2. I do believe that everyone has a right to their own body..

My body, my choice.. 100% for abortions, vaccinations and suicide..

An person’s individual right trumps the governments right to your body.

I also believe that when BLM and Antifia were looting and burning down businesses, the business owners had a right to self defence and shoot to kill.

 

[Dixie Cup]

I know. It sucks that this couldn't be done while Roe was still in effect. But that's one of the consequences of the fact that the courts are, and should be, slow to act, and act as narrowly as possible to resolve the specific question before them. The Supreme Court's decisions are inarguable, and can rarely be changed (only when they interpret a Federal law, in which case Congress can amend the law). The only greater threat to what democracy and freedom we have than false and illegal attempts to overthrow free and fair elections is the rule by diktat, be the dictator a President or a Supreme Court.

For example, Korematsu v US, upholding the right of the government to intern people, including U.S. citizens, for no reason other than their national/ethnic ties to a hostile country, is still good law in the U.S. I think we've realized that it's a bad idea, as demonstrated by the Congressional apology and reparation payments, but the bleak fact is. . . we could do it again, legal as church on Sunday.

The problem with outcome-determinative thinking (i.e., "I don't care how it happens, as long as it happens") is that without a sound basis for an action, it can be undone as soon as the political winds shift.

Ya, a lot of people are saying that Roe vs Wade was a bad law and now, if the "leaked" memo is right and the law is reversed, it goes to each State as is stated in the Constitution. So I don't know what the issue is - abortion will never be outlawed and the "leaked memo" does not mention anything else but abortion. So the Leftists are freaking out for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's actually quite silly and immature, that's for sure because nothing has actually been done as of yet and maybe won't be at all. Jumping to conclusions does no one any good and could actually result in lawlessness based on nothing.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Ya, a lot of people are saying that Roe vs Wade was a bad law and now, if the "leaked" memo is right and the law is reversed, it goes to each State as is stated in the Constitution. So I don't know what the issue is - abortion will never be outlawed and the "leaked memo" does not mention anything else but abortion. So the Leftists are freaking out for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's actually quite silly and immature, that's for sure because nothing has actually been done as of yet and maybe won't be at all. Jumping to conclusions does no one any good and could actually result in lawlessness based on nothing.

You don't know what you're talking about. But your view is valid for your level of knowledge.

 

[pgs]

You don't know what you're talking about. But your view is valid for your level of knowledge.

Why not explain where she is incorrect rather than insult her ?

 

[petros]

You don't know what you're talking about. But your view is valid for your level of knowledge.

Has abortion been criminalized? Yes or No or you're just farting (speak out yo' ass)?

 

[B00Mer]

Ya, a lot of people are saying that Roe vs Wade was a bad law and now, if the "leaked" memo is right and the law is reversed, it goes to each State as is stated in the Constitution. So I don't know what the issue is - abortion will never be outlawed and the "leaked memo" does not mention anything else but abortion. So the Leftists are freaking out for absolutely no reason whatsoever. It's actually quite silly and immature, that's for sure because nothing has actually been done as of yet and maybe won't be at all. Jumping to conclusions does no one any good and could actually result in lawlessness based on nothing.

You’re incorrect as in some states may outlaw abortion and or make it extremely difficult for their residents to obtain one, unless they go to another state..

Also it does put strain on other states to provide services to none resident patients..

However, it put the issue back in the hands of the people and the voters of those states..

Some may see that as a good thing.. others may not.. Federalist or people who want the Government to have more control won’t like this law being overturned

 

[Serryah]

You don't know what you're talking about. But your view is valid for your level of knowledge.

Considering Louisiana is already poised to make the second an egg is fertilized, it's protected, which would make abortion illegal... (if, admittedly, it's signed into law)

You're right, but it's Dix, knowing what is being discussed is not a virtue of theirs.

 

[pgs]

Considering Louisiana is already poised to make the second an egg is fertilized, it's protected, which would make abortion illegal... (if, admittedly, it's signed into law)

You're right, but it's Dix, knowing what is being discussed is not a virtue of theirs.

Is that what the people of Louisiana want ?

 

[petros]

Considering Louisiana is already poised to make the second an egg is fertilized, it's protected, which would make abortion illegal... (if, admittedly, it's signed into law)

You're right, but it's Dix, knowing what is being discussed is not a virtue of theirs.

Are they declaring a fertilized egg a Person or declaring it Human with Human Rights?

Do you have an issue with Rights and Duties of the Person under our current Canadian Charter and Bill of Right defining the Status of Persons or do you have issues with Human Rights?

What's your beef?

 

[spaminator]

anybody hungry for a scrambled egg samich?

 

[petros]

anybody hungry for a scrambled egg samich?

Maybe with leftover brisket.

 

[Ron in Regina]

Anyway, from the outside looking in, Forest for the trees, etc… With this leak about this proposed decision by the Supreme Court in the US on Roe vs Wade…why now?

Why after almost 50 years, does someone think that:
1) it’s politically expedient to have this draft drawn up and the decision made on this in June or the end of June at least?
2) it’s politically expedient to have this draft leaked to the media?
3) Why now?

What’s the short game?

The long game is potentially losing abortion rights & protection in the US at a federal level, when it reads like about 2/3 of the US population is in favour of keeping Roe vs Wade in place, But somebody somewhere has a short sighted political agenda and it will all go down to timing or else it wouldn’t be happening now… but not being an American or swimming in American politics I don’t know what it is.

I think I might’ve asked this question earlier in this thread, and somebody else earlier may or may not of answered it or asked it also, but I just wanted to dig this out again because somebody much more knowledgable on the subject might have an answer here.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Anyway, from the outside looking in, Forest for the trees, etc… With this leak about this proposed decision by the Supreme Court in the US on Roe vs Wade…why now?

Why after almost 50 years, does someone think that:
1) it’s politically expedient to have this draft drawn up and the decision made on this in June or the end of June at least?
2) it’s politically expedient to have this draft leaked to the media?
3) Why now?

What’s the short game?

The long game is potentially losing abortion rights & protection in the US at a federal level, when it reads like about 2/3 of the US population is in favour of keeping Roe vs Wade in place, But somebody somewhere has a short sighted political agenda and it will all go down to timing or else it wouldn’t be happening now… but not being an American or swimming in American politics I don’t know what it is.

I think I might’ve asked this question earlier in this thread, and somebody else earlier may or may not of answered it or asked it also, but I just wanted to dig this out again because somebody much more knowledgable on the subject might have an answer here.

The "short game" is "win at all costs." They deceive themselves that their "victory" will be permanent.

Short term: more division, right-wing states going harsher and harsher in a spasm of performative righteousness, and leftish states going more and more permissive in a spasm of performative righteousness.

Middle term: an attempt by the right to mandate, as a matter of Federal law, prohibition of abortion, and an attempt by the left to mandate free choice on abortion.

Long term: "In the long run, we are all dead." --John Maynard Keynes

 

[Ron in Regina]

Weird question(s), but why this topic as a hot button rearing it’s head now? This is a 30 year old decision, so why dig it out and threaten it today? Is this to deflect our attention from something else and if so what and why?

Sorry, 50 year old decision….so why now?

It's not just rearing it's head now, it's been like this the entire fifty years.

And then, Trump happened, and the SCOTUS got it's Conservative Majority.

Which has also been in the works for fifty years.

It's a long game plan that the Republicans have been pushing for, for a long time.

It's not a deflect, but rather the end of that same long game plan.

Alito even said it in the draft - Roe v. Wade should NEVER have been law to begin with.

The problem is that how he words his draft decision, it lays out a possibility for OTHER things currently enshrined as law to be brought up and questioned, including same gender marriage, inter-racial marriage and so on. The protections of the 14th - which Roe was under - is suddenly not so protective. Are the fears legit? Depends on who you ask.

But "settled/precedent" is no longer a valid reason not to be afraid, considering the five judges who voted to do this also said this was 'settled/precedent' law.

This is the long game (five decades long). That wouldn’t explain the timing of now which would be the short game, whatever that is?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

This is the long game (five decades long). That wouldn’t explain the timing of now which would be the short game, whatever that is?

The right is having a surge, mostly due to backlash and nostalgia, in my opinion.

How will it play out? Well, the trend in the U.S. for 250-odd years has been to the ascendency of "liberal" values. Maybe this is the turning point, maybe it's just a bump in the road, waiting for the old folk to die off.

Guess we'll see, if we keep breathing in and out.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

This is the long game (five decades long). That wouldn’t explain the timing of now which would be the short game, whatever that is?

Republican balance of court now 5-4 I think. One more appointee and it swings back the other way. Also midterms and this plays into republican stomping points. My guesses.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Republican balance of court now 5-4 I think. One more appointee and it swings back the other way. Also midterms and this plays into republican stomping points. My guesses.

6-3. Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett (6) on the "conservative" side.

Sotomayor, Kagan, and Brown on the "liberal" side.

You could consider Roberts the "swing" vote, but it's funny how the "swing" vote has moved right over the last 30 or so years. Usually, the "swing" vote meant "4-4, and who the hell knows how Justice X will go?"

That ain't the case here. The right is at least 5-4, and in most cases 6-3.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

I guess I lost count somewhere. I always find it funny if the law is absolute how a right or left interpretation of them can be different. It is either legal or its not.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I guess I lost count somewhere. I always find it funny if the law is absolute how a right or left interpretation of them can be different. It is either legal or its not.

Ya know Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (racial desegregation in public schools) was nine-zip?

There is wisdom in the general rule that 5-4 decisions are weak.

Judges, even justices, are human, and they too are victims of their convictions. We did the best we could to insulate them from popular whims, whilst at the same time limiting their reach. But we couldn't write human nature out of the Constitution.

 

[petros]

Morals are morals. You can't legislate morals away.