The Supremes

[jimmyjazz 45,957]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

it's been done

But no question Heller is up for the Roe treatment once the composition of the Court flips

So, 2080?

[BHMCruiser 1,813]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I believe the word you're searching for is obtuse.

Oh come on. You don't really think I am unaware that the right had been recognized for some period of time? Give me a break. All I am saying is what SCOTUS will be holding: that there never was a constitutional right to abortion. It's no different than the concept of an unconstitutional law being void ab initio. 

 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

13A? It's almost like we used the process given in the constitution to change the law of the land.  Novel idea!

And then there's that whole Marbury v. Madison thing where the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution means even though it's not in the Constitution.  Novel idea!

[DDD Dad 14,339]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

Oh come on. You don't really think I am unaware that the right had been recognized for some period of time? Give me a break. All I am saying is what SCOTUS will be holding: that there never was a constitutional right to abortion. It's no different than the concept of an unconstitutional law being void ab initio. 

 

So it's a good thing that Ms. Roe has passed away, or she might face jail time.

[jimmyjazz 45,957]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

13A? It's almost like we used the process given in the constitution to change the law of the land.  Novel idea!

But the idea that slavery is wrong wasn't specified or even contemplated when the Constitution was ratified.  If that's the bar to clear, then slavery should be allowed today.

[BHMCruiser 1,813]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

So it's a good thing that Ms. Roe has passed away, or she might face jail time.

save it for the rubes

[JBJ 3,654]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

And then there's that whole Marbury v. Madison thing where the Supreme Court gets to say what the Constitution means even though it's not in the Constitution.  Novel idea!

It's almost like it's so "deeply rooted in history" that it didn't need to be enumerated?

[DDD Dad 14,339]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Oh come on. You don't really think I am unaware that the right had been recognized for some period of time? Give me a break. All I am saying is what SCOTUS will be holding: that there never was a constitutional right to abortion. It's no different than the concept of an unconstitutional law being void ab initio. 

 

Well that's not what you originally said.

41 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Why can it not deal with abortion as well, since there's no constitutionally-protected right to have one?

And I simply responded,

40 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Not anymore anyway.

 

[StassneyHorn 6,576]

6 months of watching Texas Republicans squirm to defend why women in the state must carry a rapists baybee will be awkward.

I’m sure it will be a bunch of staring at the floor with second hand embarrassment 

[DDD Dad 14,339]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's almost like it's so "deeply rooted in history" that it didn't need to be enumerated?

No, it needed to be asserted for Marshall to put the court on equal footing with the other two branches.  It's far from clear that the founding fathers truly contemplated it at the time.

[Ag with kids 581]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Maybe, but "daft" is a helluva word.  I gotta put it back in my quiver.

 

[BHMCruiser 1,813]

3 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Well that's not what you originally said.

And I simply responded,

 

Okay

[BHMCruiser 1,813]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

No, it needed to be asserted for Marshall to put the court on equal footing with the other two branches.  It's far from clear that the founding fathers truly contemplated it at the time.

Agreed

[Francisco 2.0 32,393]

2 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

6 months of watching Texas Republicans squirm to defend why women in the state must carry a rapists baybee will be awkward.

I’m sure it will be a bunch of staring at the floor with second hand embarrassment 

 

Nah, because they now can say "well, the Supreme Court said we could make it illegal here" and that will suffice.

 

 

[burntorangebongos 10,710]

11 minutes ago, immamac said:

I'm pretty sure this isn't a thing. 

It is already a thing for the women in Texas to have their physicians and counselors put at risk when their pregnancy is going to result in birthing a child that will die shortly after. The health providers are at risk now for providing the option of abortion and also if they don't discuss it. How great is the quality of care going to be if doctors are put in this position? 

The law does not make an exception for pregnant women who learn that the fetus has chromosomal abnormalities or anomalies that will cause the baby to die soon after birth. Such testing is done late in pregnancy, beyond the six-week limit, noted Crescenda Uhles, a genetic counselor in Dallas.

“I have a code of ethics to uphold, and that is making sure I discuss with my patients all of their options, regardless of what is available in their area,” Ms. Uhles said. Depending on the medical circumstances, one of those options may be abortion.

The hospital where she works “pays me to have these conversations with patients, but there’s not necessarily any guarantee they would have my back should someone decide to list my name on a lawsuit,” she said.

[Ag with kids 581]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But the idea that slavery is wrong wasn't specified or even contemplated when the Constitution was ratified.  If that's the bar to clear, then slavery should be allowed today.

Article I Section 9 says hi.

[TXSooner518 2,438]

25 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

I get what you're saying but that position currently has 3.5 votes at SCOTUS

And if the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that people could own slaves, rape their wives, or that states could decide if Blacks could go to integrated schools today, I'd happily disagree just the same. When embarassing partisan hacks are appointed by exponentially the worst president in history, my deference only stretches so far. 

[JBJ 3,654]

6 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

No, it needed to be asserted for Marshall to put the court on equal footing with the other two branches.  It's far from clear that the founding fathers truly contemplated it at the time.

The point is they didn't contemplate it.  It's the only way they knew the judiciary to operate.  We would look to "deep rooted history" to evidence this.

If they had considered and rejected it, then Marbury would be bad law that needs to be overturned.

[immamac 42,850]

5 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

It is already a thing for the women in Texas to have their physicians and counselors put at risk when their pregnancy is going to result in birthing a child that will die shortly after. The health providers are at risk now for providing the option of abortion and also if they don't discuss it. How great is the quality of care going to be if doctors are put in this position? 

The law does not make an exception for pregnant women who learn that the fetus has chromosomal abnormalities or anomalies that will cause the baby to die soon after birth. Such testing is done late in pregnancy, beyond the six-week limit, noted Crescenda Uhles, a genetic counselor in Dallas.

“I have a code of ethics to uphold, and that is making sure I discuss with my patients all of their options, regardless of what is available in their area,” Ms. Uhles said. Depending on the medical circumstances, one of those options may be abortion.

The hospital where she works “pays me to have these conversations with patients, but there’s not necessarily any guarantee they would have my back should someone decide to list my name on a lawsuit,” she said.

I get where the spirit of your argument is, but if the fetus is not alive before birth it isn't an abortion. I'm not disagreeing with you that it's cruel and fucking insane to force a woman to carry to term a pregnancy that will result in the immediate or near immediate death of the baby. 

The post said carry dead babies to term which is in fact not a thing. 

[fattyflattie 4,639]

11 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

6 months of watching Texas Republicans squirm to defend why women in the state must carry a rapists baybee will be awkward.

I’m sure it will be a bunch of staring at the floor with second hand embarrassment 

If I recall, some asshole said he was going to make rape illegal, so moot point. 

[Brisketexan 105,142]

10 minutes ago, StassneyHorn said:

6 months of watching Texas Republicans squirm to defend why women in the state must carry a rapists baybee will be awkward.

I’m sure it will be a bunch of staring at the floor with second hand embarrassment 

I am nearly 100% certain that more than one Ukrainian woman raped by a Russian soldier has become pregnant, and at least one of them will reach the US as a refugee.  We should call her to testify before the Texas legislature and ask them to explain why she should be compelled by law, under criminal sanction, to carry the baby forced into her by a Russian fascist rapist.  And then ask which Legislator will volunteer to raise that child?

Fuckers.

[Brisketexan 105,142]

Just now, fattyflattie said:

If I recall, some asshole said he was going to make rape illegal, so moot point. 

Forgot that.  Nevermind, everyone!  Problem solved, Abbott said so!

[Sawbonz 27,562]

16 minutes ago, JBJ said:

It's almost like it's so "deeply rooted in history" that it didn't need to be enumerated?

Kind of like the right to control one’s own body?

[Ojo Rojo 1,965]

6 minutes ago, TXSooner518 said:

And if the Supreme Court voted 9-0 that people could own slaves, rape their wives, or that states could decide if Blacks could go to integrated schools today, I'd happily disagree just the same. When embarassing partisan hacks are appointed by exponentially the worst president in history, my deference only stretches so far. 

Are you really a Sooner?  I need to know before I start repping your posts.

[Brisketexan 105,142]

Also, I would like to propose the "Spunk Act of Criminalization" (SAC).  Any ejaculation into a female who is not your wife, and with whom you did not have a pre-existing agreement to impregnate and have a child (both are required elements of your defense), shall be a criminal act of "reckless risk of abortion," because it creates a socially unacceptable risk of an unwanted pregnancy.  Each such ejaculation shall be punishable by up to one year in prison.  Multiple acts of ejaculation with a woman will be treated as multiple criminal offenses, and the sentence for each such crime must be stacked, they cannot be served concurrently.

After all, there is no right to private sexual activity that cannot be regulated by government action, and there is zero question that the starting point for functionally every abortion is an ejaculation into the vagina of a woman who does not wish to carry a child to term.  I say treat crime at its root cause.  Y'all are with me, right?

There is no right to make reproductive decisions, there is no right to any particular type of sexual activity - none of those are protected from government regulation.  My law is a good and constitutional law, and it comports with the public policy goals of this state.  As good Texans, I would appreciate your support.

[kevwun 15,788]

He may a poor decision as a young man.  We probably shouldn't hold it against him for the rest of his miserable Okie life.  Probably.

[MrBig 5,398]

This ruling leaving abortion up to the state legislatures is like a dog whistle for states to get with the program or be left out when the GOP controls Congress.

We could have 48/50 states banning abortion, but the GOP (who also passed HIPAA) knows they can always travel to NY or California to get abortions with the federal protections of medical privacy.

Their attitude is that everybody else can suck a dick if they want to get an abortion. Women should have just sucked dick if they didn’t want to be in this position in the first place.  

[fattyflattie 4,639]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

I am nearly 100% certain that more than one Ukrainian woman raped by a Russian soldier has become pregnant, and at least one of them will reach the US as a refugee.  We should call her to testify before the Texas legislature and ask them to explain why she should be compelled by law, under criminal sanction, to carry the baby forced into her by a Russian fascist rapist.  And then ask which Legislator will volunteer to raise that child?

Fuckers.

Heard on the radio the other day, there was a whole group that was held captive and repeatedly raped, and that several were pregnant. I’d put your one at a hundred. Fuck Russia. 

[Brisketexan 105,142]

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Kind of like the right to control one’s own body?

The fucking obvious shit is the most infuriating.  It's so goddamned axiomatic, but THIS particular wrinkle on it....well, fuck, it's like the 5th Circuit reasoning on qualified immunity: "oh, yeah, there was a case with this EXACT fact pattern before that held that the official's act was unconstitutional, but that's not 'clearly established' law, because that case happened on a Tuesday, and THIS case happened on a Friday.  So, they aren't EXACTLY alike, and thus the law wasn't CLEARLY established."

Fucking bodily autonomy is one of the most foundational rights in human history.  But, I mean, Alito has a point -- women weren't humans with such rights for most of history, and who are we to go against "deeply rooted history?"  Bitches were chattel, and thus always shall be chattel.

[Brisketexan 105,142]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Heard on the radio the other day, there was a whole group that was held captive and repeatedly raped, and that several were pregnant. I’d put your one at a hundred. Fuck Russia. 

But your party 100% insists that every one of those women carry their rapist's baby to term.  Please remember that.

[LongestHorn 759]

28 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

So it's a good thing that Ms. Roe has passed away, or she might face jail time.

She never had an abortion.  She gave birth to the baby and put it up for adoption.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

3 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Not enough rage F bombs?

Your brain is broken.  Do us all a favor and post less.

[jimmyjazz 45,957]

19 minutes ago, Ag with kids said:

Article I Section 9 says hi.

What?  It specifically allowed states to import slaves until 1808.  Seems a stretch to say they contemplated slavery as "wrong" if they allowed it.  Best case, it was a compromise on an issue that clearly wasn't high on the list of the FF's priorities.

[JBJ 3,654]

12 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Kind of like the right to control one’s own body?

You'd have to look to "deeply rooted history" to see what lawmakers thought about that and abortion at the time.  Pick whichever time period - 14th, bill of rights, 17th century.

It's almost like it's never been considered a right.

[DDD Dad 14,339]

14 minutes ago, JBJ said:

The point is they didn't contemplate it.  It's the only way they knew the judiciary to operate.  We would look to "deep rooted history" to evidence this.

If they had considered and rejected it, then Marbury would be bad law that needs to be overturned.

Yeah, no.

That's not right at all.  And, in fact, there was some discussion about whether such power would be vested with the judiciary.  It's just not clear that it was intended to be included based on those discussions.

Marshall based the power on the constitutional oath.  There hadn't been that many constitutions prior to the US constitutions upon which they would have  "deeply rooted history" and he is generally considered to have been the first to implement it (although apparently a number of state constitutions prior to the adoption of the US Constitution had some form of it during the brief time following the Declaration of Independence).

[LongestHorn 759]

What law(s) did the leaker break?  It wasn't classified.  Was it stolen from a computer?  

[The Ace of Aces 5,183]

3 hours ago, MNLonghornFUKM said:

Lmfao. The left was questioning what a woman was 15 hrs ago. Take your fake rage and fuck yourself with it, you bitch.

Fake rage? Get the fuck out of here. 

I hope no woman in your life is ever in a position where a birth of a child will kill the mother and baby.

I hope there is never a rape that leads to a pregnant 13 year old. 

The government should have no right over a body. But we know the GOP is all for state rights over women and minorities while using the false mantra of “come and take it.” No one will come and take it because they’re hellbent on making America into a 1857 shithike for anyone but white males. 

The belief used to overturn Roe can be used to overturn the Civil Rights Act. I fully expect the Voter Rights Act to get tuned down next. The Constitution to these fucks was written for white men  to make decisions without anyone but white men in mind.

So again get fucked. But I hope you don’t get pregnant cause people like you aren’t worthy of raising a child. 

[David Dennison 18,860]

53 minutes ago, Johnny Sack said:

Transition of power is a left or right position?  Trump lost and was a dumbass.  But nothing was ever going to happen.

What about gay marriage?  Trump was the first president in history to run for a first term in support of gay marriage.

Trade protectionism has traditionally been a position of the left.  So I would say the GOP has moved left on the issue.

Immigration? I guess moved right due to the Lucy with the football.

Drugs?  Moved left.

Sentencing reform?  Moved left.

Spending?  Moved way left.

Gays in the military.  Moved left.

Anti-discrimination laws.  Moved left.

In my view, the GOP and those who identify as Republicans have moved to the left on most social issues and fiscal issues.

LOL. Pretending that the right cares about government spending will never not be funny. 

[LongestHorn 759]

The original Roe v. Wade ruling was leaked, too

[tchookem 3,900]

And anti death penalty

And pro-welfare.

[PenelopeWitherspoon 19,101]

I got stuck on a call from 4:30 until 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SimonBolivar 10,958]

57 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

But the idea that slavery is wrong wasn't specified or even contemplated when the Constitution was ratified.  If that's the bar to clear, then slavery should be allowed today.

Lol they knew it was shitty to own humans (see Jefferson's wolf comment). They grappled with it all the time, but money is money. 

[4th&Five 41,554]

Siap 

 

[Brisketexan 105,142]

Siap 
 

Actually, what this means is that we should bam all medical treatments that are NOT shoving a whale bone up your dick, because that is “deeply rooted in history.” Duh.

[Sawbonz 27,562]

32 minutes ago, JBJ said:

You'd have to look to "deeply rooted history" to see what lawmakers thought about that and abortion at the time.  Pick whichever time period - 14th, bill of rights, 17th century.

It's almost like it's never been considered a right.

You said Marbury was established based on deep rooted history. How long had we had a Supreme Court or a constitution when that case was argued?

[hobbes2702 13,033]

11 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

Siap 

 

[F250 28,776]

What is the definition of deep rooted history?

[bolverk 29,672]

26 minutes ago, PenelopeWitherspoon said:

I got stuck on a call from 4:30 until 7.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Sawbonz 27,562]

8 minutes ago, F250 said:

What is the definition of deep rooted history?

The good old days when only white man who owned land had a say in making and enforcing laws

[Longhorn_Fan68 33,871]

1 minute ago, Sawbonz said:

The good old days when only white man who owned land had a say in making and enforcing laws

it is no more complicated than this