The Supremes

[David Dennison 18924]

2 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think there needs to be some restriction on abortion and some allowance on abortion.  I wish I had a more precise answer to this, but I don't know and often go back and forth on attempting to create a brightline response.

Roe was bad, but not 1A either.  SDP is the appropriate vehicle.  I don't think there's a fundamental right to an abortion, but there's a fundamental right to some degree of bodily autonomy at an early enough stage in the pregnancy.  I think there’s a fundamental right for a fetus at some stage to not be terminated as well.  Both have some degree of due process.  I don't exactly trust legislatures to nail it perfectly, but I'd rather see them try and fail individually in court than SCOTUS to come hot out of the gates with universal standards.

Roe was precisely the restriction on abortion you're talking about.

Also, where do you come up with a fundamental right for the unborn?

Edited June 24, 2022 by David Dennison

[David Dennison 18924]

Do conservatives honestly believe that this decision will reduce the number of terminated pregnancies in America?

[Biff Tannen 45692]

8 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

The comments on that tweet are just...wow.

[JBJ 3655]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Roe was precisely the restriction on abortion you're talking about.

Also, where do you come up with a fundamental right for the unborn?

Wrong.  It is bad law, always has been.

Same place as I come up with one for abortion.

[Loch Ness Monster 3533]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Do conservatives honestly believe that this decision will reduce the number of terminated pregnancies in America?

They like to be on a moral high ground and control women

[The Original Greaser Bob 2841]

10 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

So much wishing of ass cancer upon so many.

[David Dennison 18924]

3 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Wrong.  It is bad law, always has been.

Same place as I come up with one for abortion.

So bad the Supreme Court upheld it for 50 years. Thank goodness we finally have a Court of political ideologues to set things right.

And where would that same place be?

Edited June 24, 2022 by David Dennison

[The Original Greaser Bob 2841]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

Wrong.  It is bad law, always has been.

Wong.  It's always been good law, obviously reflective of the liberty concerns discussed in the Constitution, and has stood for 50 years until sumbitches. 

[Willfully Horn 8034]

8 hours ago, Johnny Sack said:

Alito dunking on the dissent with stone cold facts:

The dissent is very candid that it cannot show that a constitutional right to abortion has any foundation, let alone a “‘deeply rooted’” one, “‘in this Nation’s history and tradition.’” Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; see post, at 12–14 (joint opinion of BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ.). The dissent does not identify any pre-Roe authority that supports such a right—no state constitutional provision or statute, no federal or state judicial precedent, not even a scholarly treatise. Compare post, at 12–14, n. 2, with supra, at 15–16, and n. 23. Nor does the dissent dispute the fact that abortion was illegal at common law at least after quickening; that the 19th century saw a trend toward criminalization of pre-quickening abortions; that by 1868, a supermajority of States (at least 26 of 37) had enacted statutes criminalizing abortion at all stages of pregnancy; that by the late 1950s at least 46 States prohibited abortion “however and whenever performed” except if necessary to save “the life of the mother,” Roe, 410 U. S., at 139; and that when Roe was decided in 1973 similar statutes were still in effect in 30 States. Compare post, at 12–14, nn. 2–3, with supra, at 23–25, and nn. 33–34.47

The dissent’s failure to engage with this long tradition is devastating to its position. We have held that the “established method of substantive-due-process analysis” requires that an unenumerated right be “‘deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition’” before it can be recognized as a component of the “liberty” protected in the Due
Process Clause. Glucksberg, 521 U. S., at 721; cf. Timbs, 586 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 7). But despite the dissent’s professed fidelity to stare decisis, it fails to seriously engage
with that important precedent—which it cannot possibly satisfy The dissent attempts to obscure this failure by misrepresenting our application of Glucksberg. The dissent suggests that we have focused only on “the legal status of abortion in the 19th century,” post, at 26, but our review of this Nation’s tradition extends well past that period. As explained, for more than a century after 1868—including “another half-century” after women gained the constitutional right to vote in 1920, see post, at 15; Amdt. 19—it was firmly established that laws prohibiting abortion like the Texas law at issue in Roe were permissible exercises of state regulatory authority. And today, another half century later, more than half of the States have asked us to overrule Roe and Casey. The dissent cannot establish that a right to abortion has ever been part of this Nation’s tradition. 

Almost like a lawyer has no idea what an unenumerated right is. 
 

Women were ending unwanted pregnancies since before the Old Testament was written, but alter cockers like you used to know how to mind your own fucking business. 
 

Edited June 24, 2022 by Willfully Horn
Tight/right

[hobbes2702 13048]

42 minutes ago, TexasHooch said:

So I've been thinking about this because I know somebody who is staunchly pro-life (It becomes a protected life at conception) but has also gone through IVF multiple times- ultimately successful after many failures. 

While I don't think that it's neccessarily contradictory to be both Pro-Life and Pro IVF, it does get sticky doesn't it?  If you agree, as this person does, that an embryo is a person, doesn't that have serious implications to the process of IVF, and the ethics a procedure in which embryos are often discarded? To put it anonter way, If you believe that an embryo is a person, wouldn't you have to either have to restrict IVF, or somehow draw a distinction between "a person"  in a petri dish and one in a womb?

This state seemed pretty clear that they would rather just make IVF illegal.

Edited June 24, 2022 by hobbes2702

[David Dennison 18924]

I wonder if the conservatives on this board realize Dobbs is going to go down in history with the likes of Dred Scott and Plessy.

[DixonHur 11342]

5 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think there is some constitutional restriction on abortion and some constitutional allowance on abortion.  I wish I had a more precise answer to this, but I don't know and often go back and forth (over years, not just sittingnhere now) attempting to create a brightline response.

Roe was bad, but not 1A either.  SDP is the appropriate vehicle.  I don't think there's a fundamental right to an abortion wholesale, but there's a fundamental right to some degree of bodily autonomy at an early enough stage in the pregnancy.  I think there’s a fundamental right for a fetus at some stage to not be terminated as well.  Both have some degree of due process.   And lawmakers have some room in the middle to work.  I don't exactly trust legislatures to nail it perfectly, but I'd rather see them try and fail individually in court than SCOTUS to come hot out of the gates with universal standards.

There is not "brightline", that's the point.  Women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies.  

Don't like abortions?  Don't have one. Problem solved. 

[Anastasis 23477]

SCOTUS about to Make Insurrection Great Again. 

[elfenix 34322]

2 hours ago, 6th Street said:

Two things:

1) I don't think that travel restrictions are enforceable

2) that is the price you pay for living in a shitty, backwards state like MS or LA

the right to travel is an inferred right just like abortion used to be. 

[Dutchrudder 11141]

In hindsight, I really wish Obama had tried to fill Scalia's seat via recess appointment. I know the matter probably would have ended up in a 4-4 decision in front of SCOTUS, but it would have been worth it vs filling that seat with another right-wing ideologue.  

[Goofyboy 3293]

So this basically does away with bodily autonomy in the name of saving lives.

Time to save more lives:
Mandatory organ donation
Mandatory blood donation
Mandatory vaccinations
Mandatory bone marrow registration

All of that saves lives too, right? Why stop at abortions?

[Ojo Rojo 1966]

The correct answer to the abortion debate is and always has been "legal, safe and rare."  This is the correct policy that should be implemented nationwide by our Congress to serve as many interests as possible and is good for our society. It should be done yesterday.

"Legal" so that it recognizes the significant interest a woman has in the area of reproduction. Yes, there should be time restrictions like no third trimester abortions. "Safe," as in no need for back-alley medical procedures putting the health and lives of women in jeopardy for no good reason.  "Rare" so that we can address the genuine concern over the lives and rights of the unborn and because the best way to reduce the number of abortions is not to outlaw abortion procedures (thus trampling the rights of women), but preventing pregnancies that lead to abortions in the first place.  It is proactive with less trauma for everyone. It's better public health policy.

Unfortunately, nothing close to this will ever happen because our country is too populated with zealots who don't understand that democracy requires recognizing the rights of other people and making compromises and because we are under minority rule.

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

So, we gonna have bounty hunters tracking down women that leave a state and go to a state that allows abortions, kind of like in the good old days of slavery and Free/Slave states?  

[David Dennison 18924]

3 minutes ago, Dutchrudder said:

In hindsight, I really wish Obama had tried to fill Scalia's seat via recess appointment. I know the matter probably would have ended up in a 4-4 decision in front of SCOTUS, but it would have been worth it vs filling that seat with another right-wing ideologue.  

Mitch McConnell should have just kept the Senate in session.

[Gengs1 2583]

This is absolutely great news at all fronts and I mean it. 
America fucked around and found out and everyone in here is surprised by the ruling? Common they have been telling us that they WILL overturn it for over 30 years, kept on repeating it daily and we went they don’t really mean it. Maybe we should start listening to what they say/do and believe them.

The Rs have the highest court and will slowly remove the gov power to protect the people, they will do it with a scalpel one ruling at a time. They will  gut the EPA and all agencies that protect regular folks. The Federalists society/Koch /American oligarchs want unregulated country so they can fuck it more and get more power. They will get it… we are too stupid of a country to do anything about it.

Of course the people will cheer for this and dems are just pussies who don’t want to upset the people who will never vote for them anyway but they are outraged by this.

[David Dennison 18924]

Just now, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So, we gonna have bounty hunters tracking down women that leave a state and go to a state that allows abortions, kind of like in the good old days of slavery and Free/Slave states?  

More like the War on Drugs since a lot of women are just going to turn to abortion by medication.

[Brisketexan 105160]

21 minutes ago, Biff Tannen said:

The comments on that tweet are just...wow.

They're great.  They tell us exactly what they are thinking:

 

 

 

[Al Bundy's Napoleon Hand 13585]

1 hour ago, hayden_horn said:

yeah, except they weren't being dishonest. they were being clever enough to end around the democrats. nothing they said indicated that they weren't primed and ready to overturn the precedent. just that the precedent exists. 

it did.

now it doesn't.

i want to think this would backfire on republicans, but somehow, they've managed to convinced a large number of voters to vote against their best interests. they will continue to have success in this, because americans are stupid. also because the democrats are stupid. everyone is stupid.

fuck. i hope that some kind of movement comes from this, but all we'll see on tv are the freaks on both sides. and people will calcify in their decisions.

i will say that as someone calcified in my fucking decisions now. i'll never vote for a republican ever again in my lifetime. i'll actively work against them. fuck them.

Habitually letting the party that is STILL pushing the Stolen Election Lie, that in their tamer version decades ago impeached Clinton for lying about a consensual affair, off the hook for their flagrant dishonesty is how we got here. 

[David Dennison 18924]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

They're great.  They tell us exactly what they are thinking:

 

 

 

They actually believe this is going to mean fewer abortions.

LOL

[Dr. Teeth 5845]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They're great.  They tell us exactly what they are thinking:

 

 

 

These are some Reddit message boards that are going to really hate women now. If they weren’t getting laid before, then they are never getting laid. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

29 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Do conservatives honestly believe that this decision will reduce the number of terminated pregnancies in America?

yes, because most conservatives are out of touch with reality

[elfenix 34322]

8 minutes ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

So, we gonna have bounty hunters tracking down women that leave a state and go to a state that allows abortions, kind of like in the good old days of slavery and Free/Slave states?  

probably shouldn't give ALEC and the rest of the koch web ideas. 

 

and if you don't read thomas's concurrence as a call to ALEC and leonard leo to start passing/enforcing/litigating gay marriage and contraceptives, you just haven't been paying attention. 

[JBJ 3655]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

There is not "brightline", that's the point.  Women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies.

Which means what exactly? Abortificients only?  Is D&E or DNRing born alives a woman's body?

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

guess I should open a PP-type place that gives free/cheap vasectomies. there's going to be a demand for them

[TexasEd 8067]

Just remind those Fox/Pravda watching dumbasses that this puts the gas on high for their #1 fear, white replacement theory.

[Thrawn 538]

So, I'm sure we will quickly see the laws adjusted to hold men equally at fault if a pregnancy ends in abortion in a state where it is outlawed. Right?

[David Crockett 267]

Regardless of one's views on abortion, it's disheartening to see the emotionally-driven ignorance with regard to how the government/Constitution works.  

Roe v. Wade was bad law.  There is no Constitutional Right to an abortion, therefore the issue should be handled at the state level.  It's a 10th Amendment issue, so sending it back to the states is the Constitutionally correct decision.  The Supreme Court didn't "ban abortion."  Individual states might, but the Supreme Court didn't.  Nor did they overturn the "Constitutional right to an abortion", because there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

There SHOULD be discussions/debates/"fights" over the issue of abortion.  Those fights should happen within the states, at a level closer to the people impacted by whatever decision they make.  Unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then the matters of State A belong to the people in State A.  Want abortion?  Knock yourself out.  Don't want abortion?  Okay.

Also, Supreme Court justices should not be left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.  They are there to do legal work, not political work.  It should be one of the easiest legal jobs out there.  Hear the case, refer to the Constitution, ask "is it in here?", if yes/allow it, if no/send it back to the states.  It's an open book exam.

 

[DDD Dad 14342]

1 hour ago, The Hot Dog Buffet said:

Depends on how you go about eating the dicks, really.

Avatar checks out.

38 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I think there is some constitutional restriction on abortion and some constitutional allowance on abortion.  I wish I had a more precise answer to this, but I don't know and often go back and forth (over years, not just sittingnhere now) attempting to create a brightline response.

Roe was bad, but not 1A either.  SDP is the appropriate vehicle.  I don't think there's a fundamental right to an abortion wholesale, but there's a fundamental right to some degree of bodily autonomy at an early enough stage in the pregnancy.  I think there’s a fundamental right for a fetus at some stage to not be terminated as well.  Both have some degree of protection.   And lawmakers have some room in the middle to work.  I don't exactly trust legislatures to nail it perfectly, but I'd rather see them try and fail individually in court than SCOTUS to come hot out of the gates with universal standards.

As I said in an earlier post today, based on purely jurisprudential grounds I don't think I'm terribly far from where you are on this.  Where we differ is that after over 30 years of real world experience legal practice and seeing how fundamentally broken many state legislatures are (from gerrymandered districts to voting suppression, etc.), one can't really say that they reflect the voice of their constituencies.  As a practical matter leaving it up to the states to find some "room in the middle to work" is a cop out.  There is no middle.  There are only extremes.

Back to the ledge for me.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

Regardless of one's views on abortion, it's disheartening to see the emotionally-driven ignorance with regard to how the government/Constitution works.  

Roe v. Wade was bad law.  There is no Constitutional Right to an abortion, therefore the issue should be handled at the state level.  It's a 10th Amendment issue, so sending it back to the states is the Constitutionally correct decision.  The Supreme Court didn't "ban abortion."  Individual states might, but the Supreme Court didn't.  Nor did they overturn the "Constitutional right to an abortion", because there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

There SHOULD be discussions/debates/"fights" over the issue of abortion.  Those fights should happen within the states, at a level closer to the people impacted by whatever decision they make.  Unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then the matters of State A belong to the people in State A.  Want abortion?  Knock yourself out.  Don't want abortion?  Okay.

Also, Supreme Court justices should not be left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.  They are there to do legal work, not political work.  It should be one of the easiest legal jobs out there.  Hear the case, refer to the Constitution, ask "is it in here?", if yes/allow it, if no/send it back to the states.  It's an open book exam.

 

lol, you're clearly new here

[DDD Dad 14342]

2 minutes ago, David Crockett said:

Regardless of one's views on abortion, it's disheartening to see the emotionally-driven ignorance with regard to how the government/Constitution works.  

Roe v. Wade was bad law.  There is no Constitutional Right to an abortion, therefore the issue should be handled at the state level.  It's a 10th Amendment issue, so sending it back to the states is the Constitutionally correct decision.  The Supreme Court didn't "ban abortion."  Individual states might, but the Supreme Court didn't.  Nor did they overturn the "Constitutional right to an abortion", because there is no constitutional right to an abortion.

There SHOULD be discussions/debates/"fights" over the issue of abortion.  Those fights should happen within the states, at a level closer to the people impacted by whatever decision they make.  Unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then the matters of State A belong to the people in State A.  Want abortion?  Knock yourself out.  Don't want abortion?  Okay.

Also, Supreme Court justices should not be left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.  They are there to do legal work, not political work.  It should be one of the easiest legal jobs out there.  Hear the case, refer to the Constitution, ask "is it in here?", if yes/allow it, if no/send it back to the states.  It's an open book exam.

 

Your naivete is cute.  I remember having this sort of view of the world.

[DixonHur 11342]

4 minutes ago, JBJ said:

Which means what exactly? Abortificients only?  Is D&E or DNRing born alives a woman's body?

In English, please?

[David Crockett 267]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

Your naivete is cute.  I remember having this sort of view of the world.

Don't be passive aggressive.  Say what you mean.  It's the internet; you're safe.  

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

Don't be passive aggressive.  Say what you mean.  It's the internet; you're safe.  

your takes are bad and you should feel bad. how's that?

[DDD Dad 14342]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

Don't be passive aggressive.  Say what you mean.  It's the internet; you're safe.  

I said what I meant.  I can't understand it for you.

[David Crockett 267]

Just now, DDD Dad said:

I said what I meant.  I can't understand it for you.

Pussy.

[DixonHur 11342]

Just now, David Crockett said:

Pussy.

I don't think you're cut out for the Cloak Room...maybe try the Hobbies forum.

[Hank Scorpio 17729]

Yeah, understand it for me you little bitch. Teach me motherfucker. 

[DDD Dad 14342]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

Pussy.

[David Crockett 267]

2 minutes ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

your takes are bad and you should feel bad. how's that?

Can you quote/cite the right to abortion in the United States Constitution?

 

[Goofyboy 3293]

Regardless of one's views on abortion, it's disheartening to see the emotionally-driven ignorance with regard to how the government/Constitution works.  
Roe v. Wade was bad law.  There is no Constitutional Right to an abortion, therefore the issue should be handled at the state level.  It's a 10th Amendment issue, so sending it back to the states is the Constitutionally correct decision.  The Supreme Court didn't "ban abortion."  Individual states might, but the Supreme Court didn't.  Nor did they overturn the "Constitutional right to an abortion", because there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
There SHOULD be discussions/debates/"fights" over the issue of abortion.  Those fights should happen within the states, at a level closer to the people impacted by whatever decision they make.  Unless it's explicitly stated in the Constitution, then the matters of State A belong to the people in State A.  Want abortion?  Knock yourself out.  Don't want abortion?  Okay.
Also, Supreme Court justices should not be left-wing or right-wing, Republican or Democrat, Conservative or Liberal.  They are there to do legal work, not political work.  It should be one of the easiest legal jobs out there.  Hear the case, refer to the Constitution, ask "is it in here?", if yes/allow it, if no/send it back to the states.  It's an open book exam.
 

Slavery is also a states right. It should go back to the states as well. Best product for a capitalist is slave labor.

[DDD Dad 14342]

1 minute ago, David Crockett said:

Can you quote/cite the right to abortion in the United States Constitution?

 

Looks like we have a new troll.  Who's sock is this? (sounds a lot like Animal/tobacco product)

Edited June 24, 2022 by DDD Dad

[JBJ 3655]

11 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

Avatar checks out.

As I said in an earlier post today, based on purely jurisprudential grounds I don't think I'm terribly far from where you are on this.  Where we differ is that after over 30 years of real world experience legal practice and seeing how fundamentally broken many state legislatures are (from gerrymandered districts to voting suppression, etc.), one can't really say that they reflect the voice of their constituencies.  As a practical matter leaving it up to the states to find some "room in the middle to work" is a cop out.  There is no middle.  There are only extremes.

Back to the ledge for me.

I think our system is terribly good at producing lawmakers that reflect their constituencies. I'm not convinced it's a great thing at times.

10 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

In English, please?

What that mean to you? 

If she takes a drug to be an inhospitable place for a zygote to develop, is that her own body?

If she injects poison directly into a fetus, is that her own body?

If she refuses to allow doctors to care for her accidentally born alive child, is that her own body?

Not trick questions, trying to understand where you stand.

Edited June 24, 2022 by JBJ

[David Crockett 267]

1 minute ago, DixonHur said:

I don't think you're cut out for the Cloak Room...maybe try the Hobbies forum.

Is the hobbies forum the place where people make arguments based on calm, rational thought and reason in lieu of simply emoting?

[Bama Chick 28596]

I wonder if the conservatives on this board realize Dobbs is going to go down in history with the likes of Dred Scott and Plessy.

I mean, the Christifascist majority just cited fucking Justice Roger Taney in a decision just yesterday so I think they’re aware - just not the way you think.

[Longhorn_Fan68 33875]

1 minute ago, DDD Dad said:

Looks like we have a new troll.  Who's sock is this?

I don't know, I say we neg him into Bolivian and let gawd sort it out