The Supremes

[Johnny Sack 8397]

14 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just like interracial marriage too, right sack?

No. That's an equal protection issue.  Just like Obergefell.  I agreed with Ginsburg's analysis on that.

And interracial marriage, seriously? I guess I missed the big recent debates over Loving v. Virginia.

 

Edited May 3, 2022 by Johnny Sack

[Brisketexan 106615]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just like interracial marriage too, right sack?

And the right to vote in state and local elections.  The word "vote" isn't in the constitution, and it sure as shit doesn't mention voting in state elections.  So, black folks, sorry to have teased you with that "right to vote" thing.  We'll be taking that back in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama.....

And it sure as shit doesn't mention family planning or birth control.  Or oral sex.  So, states get to regulate those, including full-on bans.  The logic is identical.  Once the right is removed, the consequences are broad.

Which is how they want it.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

The public lack of knowledge about Roe — and its conflict with actual public opinion on abortion — was captured well by a Fox News poll last September, which found that 65 percent of Americans said they oppose reversing Roe. But, absurdly, the same survey found that respondents were perfectly split on whether abortion should be legal, tied at 49 percent. A substantial number of Americans, in other words, both want abortion to be illegal and want to preserve jurisprudence making it essentially impossible to prohibit abortion. This outcome was possible only because a sizable percentage of the population doesn’t know that abortion can’t be regulated at all until Roe is gone.

Meanwhile, polls that ask Americans for their views on specific abortion policies tend to find that most Americans disagree with the status quo created by the Court in Roe and Doe v. Bolton and bolstered in Casey — namely, that abortion must be legal across all 50 states, for nearly any reason, and at nearly any time in pregnancy.

For instance, a Gallup poll from a few years back found that only 28 percent of Americans favor allowing abortion in the second trimester, and only 13 percent of Americans favor allowing it in the last three months of pregnancy — compared to 60 percent who would allow it in the first trimester.

Polling from Marist likewise suggests that most Americans tend not to support elective abortion later in pregnancy. A January 2022 survey from Marist, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, found that nearly three-quarters of Americans would allow abortion only in the first trimester or in the so-called hard cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, if they would permit abortion at all. A mere 17 percent of respondents told Marist abortion should be legal at any time in pregnancy for any reason, and less than a third of Democrats agreed.

This is an issue that simply is not contemplated by the Constitution.  If you want it to be, pass an amendment.

[Lucid 3]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Once the right is removed, the consequences are broad.

Maybe it was unwise to create the right ex nihilo using lawyer magic and then stack a whole house of cards on top of it then I dunno just a thought

[Mo Horn 8933]

36 minutes ago, JFKFC said:

To me, abortion is a controversial topic because we are discussing two very different issues at once. I am an atheist Clinton/Obama/Biden voter who is against elective abortions. Abortions for convenience. I have never heard an argument for elective abortion that wasn't at the level of a 5-year old child.

 

However, there are medically necessary abortions:

Will it kill the mom to carry the kid?

Will the kid live in agony every moment of its life because of illness?

Will the psychological trauma of carrying a rapist's baby be unbearable for the mother?

I can't answer these questions, and unless you are a trained medical professional, neither can you. These are medical decisions and not decision to be legislated.

 

I'm fine with elective abortion going away. I'm not thrilled with the Theocracy that is upon us. 

It's about the right of a woman to make a personal choice, in consultation with her chosen medical professional. You can disagree about if what she wants to do is right or wrong, but that doesn't change the above statement. 

[Brisketexan 106615]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

No. That's an equal protection issue.  Just like Obergefell.  I agreed with Ginsburg's analysis on that.

 

What you agree with don't make a shit.  5 justices on the court agree with Alito's analysis, and that's all that matters.  Obergefell is gone, it's just a matter of time.

[Johnny Sack 8397]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And the right to vote in state and local elections.  The word "vote" isn't in the constitution, and it sure as shit doesn't mention voting in state elections.  So, black folks, sorry to have teased you with that "right to vote" thing.  We'll be taking that back in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama.....

And it sure as shit doesn't mention family planning or birth control.  Or oral sex.  So, states get to regulate those, including full-on bans.  The logic is identical.  Once the right is removed, the consequences are broad.

Which is how they want it.

Sounds like a very slippery slope.

[Brisketexan 106615]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

This is an issue that simply is not contemplated by the Constitution.  If you want it to be, pass an amendment.

See all the other issues not contemplated by the Constitution.  I presume that you will have no objection to the overruling of Griswold  and Lawrence, so that you can't prevent pregnancy by either taking a pill or choosing oral sex, because those are also not expressly "contemplated by the Constitution."

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

It's about the right of a woman to make a personal choice, in consultation with her chosen medical professional. You can disagree about if what she wants to do is right or wrong, but that doesn't change the above statement. 

"Birthing person" is the correct nomenclature.

[Brisketexan 106615]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Sounds like a very slippery slope.

You and Alito set the rules: "not mentioned in the Constitution" and not a right with "deep historical roots."  I'm just applying your rules.  No slope needed, I'm on level ground here.  

These things are no longer rights.  They are, instead, subject to the whim and caprice of the ruling authorities.  Which is the whole point of having rights vs. not having rights.

[C-Man 27684]

1 hour ago, Gil Bang said:

 

[GopherRock 1773]

12 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This.  As far as I can think of, this is the first case tilting against Stare Decisis to functionally REPEAL AND REVOKE a right, vs. finding such a right that was infringed by past erroneous decision.

This decision is as if Korematsu was decided in the opposite -- the government has no right to detain people merely on the basis of their ethnicity because we are afraid of them, because that would violate all notions of due process -- and then decades later, the court said "nevermind, Korematsu is overruled, there are no due process protections against being detained by the government on the basis of your ethnicity being scary."  This opinion truly is without peer or precedent.  The only analog I can think of is Dred Scott, and the commonality is solely in how destructive it will be to the fabric of the Republic.

This Court seems to think that Lochner v. New York was never overturned.

[TXSooner518 2455]

17 minutes ago, Captainant said:

Just like interracial marriage too, right sack?

and slavery, and who can have sex with who, and who can vote, and if you can travel freely from state to state, and.....

[C-Man 27684]

 

[Brisketexan 106615]

5 minutes ago, Lucid said:

Maybe it was unwise to create the right ex nihilo using lawyer magic and then stack a whole house of cards on top of it then I dunno just a thought

One question for you: is the source of individual rights only an express grant of a right in the plain language of the Constitution? Asked more plainly, is the Constitution the sole font that grants individual rights, and there are no rights of the individual other than those expressly enumerated therein?

[Captainant 28381]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Sounds like a very slippery slope.

Not when the cases are being specifically enumerated by the majority opinion as being not being supported by history - just like Roe.

Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.

[JBJ 3780]

Someone beat me to Lochner.

Edited May 3, 2022 by JBJ

[Brisketexan 106615]

4 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

"Birthing person" is the correct nomenclature.

And one that no longer includes any element of choice or agency once pregnancy begins.  So, "compulsory birthing person," please.  Own it.

[Gil Bang 26174]

I have no doubt that the GQP leaked this and they want to fundraise and run on it

[Johnny Sack 8397]

 

 

[Gatorubet 30627]

9 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Regulating abortion is not.  Should have always been left up to the states.

 

States Rights.   Like the kind associated with Philadelphia, Mississippi? 

[Brisketexan 106615]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You didn’t think much.  Literally every Lochner-era case.

Are you serious?  You think the Lochner era cases stand for the proposition of abrogating previously established individual rights and liberties?  The many problems of Lochner and subsequent labor relations cases aside.....that's what you think it does?

[Gil Bang 26174]

13 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

The public lack of knowledge about Roe — and its conflict with actual public opinion on abortion — was captured well by a Fox News poll last September, which found that 65 percent of Americans said they oppose reversing Roe. But, absurdly, the same survey found that respondents were perfectly split on whether abortion should be legal, tied at 49 percent. A substantial number of Americans, in other words, both want abortion to be illegal and want to preserve jurisprudence making it essentially impossible to prohibit abortion. This outcome was possible only because a sizable percentage of the population doesn’t know that abortion can’t be regulated at all until Roe is gone.

Meanwhile, polls that ask Americans for their views on specific abortion policies tend to find that most Americans disagree with the status quo created by the Court in Roe and Doe v. Bolton and bolstered in Casey — namely, that abortion must be legal across all 50 states, for nearly any reason, and at nearly any time in pregnancy.

For instance, a Gallup poll from a few years back found that only 28 percent of Americans favor allowing abortion in the second trimester, and only 13 percent of Americans favor allowing it in the last three months of pregnancy — compared to 60 percent who would allow it in the first trimester.

Polling from Marist likewise suggests that most Americans tend not to support elective abortion later in pregnancy. A January 2022 survey from Marist, commissioned by the Knights of Columbus, found that nearly three-quarters of Americans would allow abortion only in the first trimester or in the so-called hard cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother, if they would permit abortion at all. A mere 17 percent of respondents told Marist abortion should be legal at any time in pregnancy for any reason, and less than a third of Democrats agreed.

This is an issue that simply is not contemplated by the Constitution.  If you want it to be, pass an amendment.

A straight cut-and-paste job from https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

 

[WhatTheBuck 28904]

23 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

New theory - a big trump story is going to break soon and ginni Thomas leaked this as a distraction 

It certainly takes our focus off of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Seems like a good time for a massacre of the remaining civilians in Mariupol. I hope I’m just being way too cynical with that thought. But the thought has crossed my mind.

[wildcat09 29556]

1 hour ago, Skipper said:

JFC.  You can't have an opinion in this forum without some idiot ignoring the rest of your post and calling you a "Republican".   I'm not conceding the leaker is even necessarily on the left.  I absolutely would not put it past someone on the right wanting to light the fires and rile Fox News up.  I frankly don't give a damn who leaked it.  My opinion is that it's wrong.   Can't believe that's a hot take on this board but here we are.

What good do you think the American public gets from the Supreme Court deliberating in secret?

[Bama Chick 28596]

Yeah don’t listen to these assholes when they tell you their evil plan.

It’s just funnin’.

[Brisketexan 106615]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

What good do you think the American public gets from the Supreme Court deliberating in secret?

It's probably better for us when get buttfucked out of the blue, rather than cringing and waiting for the penetration to arrive for several months.  Anticipation of shitty things sucks.

[Captainant 28381]

2 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

A straight cut-and-paste job from https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/what-americans-really-think-about-abortion/

 

I will never be tired of pantsing @Johnny Sack for plagiarism of ideas and lying about the content of a publication he's paraphrasing. He could've at least linked the article and provided the excerpt rather than representing it as his own idea

[wildcat09 29556]

18 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And the right to vote in state and local elections.  The word "vote" isn't in the constitution, and it sure as shit doesn't mention voting in state elections.  So, black folks, sorry to have teased you with that "right to vote" thing.  We'll be taking that back in Texas, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama.....

And it sure as shit doesn't mention family planning or birth control.  Or oral sex.  So, states get to regulate those, including full-on bans.  The logic is identical.  Once the right is removed, the consequences are broad.

Which is how they want it.

Don't cede that ground to the liars. The 15th Amendment clearly states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

[Brisketexan 106615]

Just now, Bama Chick said:

Yeah don’t listen to these assholes when they tell you their evil plan.

It’s just funnin’.
 

No, see, Sack tells us that we're just worrying about a slippery slope, and totally NOT an openly declared plan.  Geez, do you not get the memos?  Coulda sworn you were on the distribution list.

[JBJ 3780]

5 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Are you serious?  You think the Lochner era cases stand for the proposition of abrogating previously established individual rights and liberties?  The many problems of Lochner and subsequent labor relations cases aside.....that's what you think it does?

Every Lochner case being overturned you big dummy.  Williamson etc.  That's exactly what they did.

Edited May 3, 2022 by JBJ

[Francisco 2.0 32542]

 

Quote

The Senate Republicans' campaign arm is circulating a three-page memo, obtained by Axios, laying out how candidates and lawmakers can maximize their messaging on the U.S. Supreme Court's leaked draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Why it matters: The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) recognizes the decision will have major implications in this fall's midterms and the 2024 presidential race. The memo is its attempt to have its members speak to voters with a unified voice.

• "Be the compassionate, consensus-builder on abortion policy. ... While people have many different views on abortion policy, Americans are compassionate people who want to welcome every new baby into the world," it says.
• "Expose the Democrats for the extreme views they hold," the document says, arguing, "Joe Biden and the Democrats have extreme and radical views on abortion that are outside of the mainstream of most Americans."
• "Forcefully refute Democrat lies regarding GOP positions on abortion and women's health care," it adds, saying Republicans do not want to take away contraception, mammograms and female health care or throw doctors and women in jail.

Between the lines: The document includes sample language for anti-abortion ads.

• "Sarah Republican," making an ad against "John Democrat," should say, "Here’s my view — I am pro-life, but, in reality, forget about the political labels, all of us are in favor of life."
• An NRSC official told Axios the memo is "based on national polling and focus groups the NRSC has conducted across the country over the last few months.
• Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spokesperson Nora Keefe told Axios: “Senate Republicans’ candidates have spent months campaigning on overturning Roe v. Wade — and now this election will determine whether the GOP is able to put in place new, cruel and punishing restrictions.”
• ”No memo can change the fact that Republicans are grossly out of step with the voters that will decide the 2022 election, and it will lead their campaigns to defeat."

Read the memo:

 

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/21847940-nrsc-memo-on-dobbs?responsive=1&title=1

 

 

[workswithseed 2201]

16 minutes ago, Lucid said:

Maybe it was unwise to create the right ex nihilo using lawyer magic and then stack a whole house of cards on top of it then I dunno just a thought

You mean like penumbras? Lol.

[Brisketexan 106615]

Just now, wildcat09 said:

Don't cede that ground to the liars. The 15th Amendment clearly states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

Correction, and mea culpa.  But it does NOT state that such right applies outside of the federal election context.  The constitution does not grant the Federal government any power to regulate state elections, so while Mississippi can't forbid black people from voting in federal elections (darned 15th amendment -- sounds unconstitutional to me!), it can forbid them from voting in state elections (you know, where the legislature, which is empowered to simply decide federal elections by decree, read the recent GQP memos on the point, is elected).  So, suck on that, libtard.

[Brisketexan 106615]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Every Lochner case being overturned you big dummy.  Williamson etc.  That's exactly what they did.

Ahh, gotcha.  Fair point, conceded.  What a shitty run of cases all the way around.

[Brisketexan 106615]

2 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

You mean like penumbras? Lol.

Where do your rights come from?  Tell me, do you believe that your rights are granted to you by the Constitution?

[JBJ 3780]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Correction, and mea culpa.  But it does NOT state that such right applies outside of the federal election context.  The constitution does not grant the Federal government any power to regulate state elections, so while Mississippi can't forbid black people from voting in federal elections (darned 15th amendment -- sounds unconstitutional to me!), it can forbid them from voting in state elections (you know, where the legislature, which is empowered to simply decide federal elections by decree, read the recent GQP memos on the point, is elected).  So, suck on that, libtard.

What are "the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof?"

[Bama Chick 28596]

FOR FUCKS SAKE

Can she and Susan Collins just Thelma and Louise it?

[Johnny Sack 8397]

3 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correction, and mea culpa.  But it does NOT state that such right applies outside of the federal election context.  The constitution does not grant the Federal government any power to regulate state elections, so while Mississippi can't forbid black people from voting in federal elections (darned 15th amendment -- sounds unconstitutional to me!), it can forbid them from voting in state elections (you know, where the legislature, which is empowered to simply decide federal elections by decree, read the recent GQP memos on the point, is elected).  So, suck on that, libtard.

Except that "or any state" part

[Satchel 6982]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Yes.

I don’t think so, since millions have of voters and strategists too, believed the idea of Trump becoming was preposterous. The blame for this dark period in American jurisprudence lies squarely at the feet of the Sarandon-Killer Mike Court.

[Gil Bang 26174]

2 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Except that "or any state" part

Did you come up with that, or just find it on the internet somewhere?

Edited May 3, 2022 by Gil Bang

[Brisketexan 106615]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

What are "the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the legislature thereof?"

14th amendment.  And it allows such abrogation, it just provides that representation in congress will be reduced proportionately if the vote is denied.  They can live with that.  The House is pointless now -- all power resides in the Senate.

[Brisketexan 106615]

3 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Except that "or any state" part

Correct. The right to vote in a federal election cannot be abridged by any state.  The 15th says nothing about state elections. I mean, if we're being orginalists and strict textualists.  I thought we were doing that now.  Are we not doing that?

[Ghost of LL 15664]

9 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Don't cede that ground to the liars. The 15th Amendment clearly states that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

It can't be abridged "on account of race."  But it can damned sure be abridged on a lot of other bases (e.g., felony conviction).  And there's absolutely nothing that says that it can't be revoked for all citizens.

[Pig Bellmont 8867]

24 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

You and Alito set the rules: "not mentioned in the Constitution" and not a right with "deep historical roots."  I'm just applying your rules.  No slope needed, I'm on level ground here.  

These things are no longer rights.  They are, instead, subject to the whim and caprice of the ruling authorities.  Which is the whole point of having rights vs. not having rights.

Brisket. He’s fucking with you

[Bama Chick 28596]

Good.

Make them fucking vote on it.

[wildcat09 29556]

10 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Correction, and mea culpa.  But it does NOT state that such right applies outside of the federal election context.  The constitution does not grant the Federal government any power to regulate state elections, so while Mississippi can't forbid black people from voting in federal elections (darned 15th amendment -- sounds unconstitutional to me!), it can forbid them from voting in state elections (you know, where the legislature, which is empowered to simply decide federal elections by decree, read the recent GQP memos on the point, is elected).  So, suck on that, libtard.

“Except for Bush v Gore but we said that was nonprecedential and though we didn’t mean it we’re pretending for present purposes that we did.”

[Jive Turkey 12930]

23 minutes ago, C-Man said:

 

classic case of:

 

[JFKFC 4965]

27 minutes ago, Mo Horn said:

It's about the right of a woman to make a personal choice, in consultation with her chosen medical professional. 

Is slavery a personal choice? No, it is completely wrong. Some things are completely wrong. Killing kids because of convenience is 100% wrong. I am not saying that for a ridiculous reason having to do with souls or angels or gods or jesus or any other fairy tale nonsense. No woman has the right to kill a healthy child because it is inconvenient.

Now, as I said, if there is a legitimate medical reason to terminate a pregnancy, that is a decision for a medical professional. That is not something to be legislated.

[Brisketexan 106615]

2 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

It can't be abridged "on account of race."  But it can damned sure be abridged on a lot of other bases (e.g., felony conviction).  And there's absolutely nothing that says that it can't be revoked for all citizens.

So, the State of Texas could abrogate it on the basis of "past voting history in support of un-Texan political parties, including the Dems and Greens."  As just one little example.

There is no "deep rooted history" of allowing evil people to vote for evil political parties, that would be suicide of the State.  So, there is no such thing as a real "right to vote."  Per Alito.