Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

It's Official: SCOTUS Overturns Roe v. Wade


Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, rongo said:

I'm most surprised that it was 6-3, and not 5-4. I wonder if the leak backfired, and instead of upending the decision, pushed Roberts over to vote with the conservatives?

It was 5-4. Roberts tried to strike middle ground by allowing a 16 week ban but would not have overturned roe

Posted
1 minute ago, rongo said:

I'm most surprised that it was 6-3, and not 5-4. I wonder if the leak backfired, and instead of upending the decision, pushed Roberts over to vote with the conservatives?

We had this discussion already. The Right had far more incentive to leak than the left and pushing people to a hard stance was part of the prevailing theory as to why it was leaked. It didn’t backfire. More likely it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Posted
35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You misunderstood why I was laughing. I wasn’t laughing at the idea that violence coming would be absurd. I was laughing that it is definitely coming. Target Obergefell and it is gonna get real spicy.

The reaction is very predictable.

Sowing and reaping and all that.

Some of us have long track record of endorsing, even celebrating, violence as a means of political dissent.  I find that deeply problematic, particularly for those who profess to be observant Latter-day Saints.  To quote Pres. Oaks in 2020:

Quote

We live in a time of anger and hatred in political relationships and policies. We felt it this summer when some went beyond peaceful protests and engaged in destructive behavior. We feel it in some current campaigns for public offices. Unfortunately, some of this has even spilled over into political statements and unkind references in our Church meetings.

In a democratic government we will always have differences over proposed candidates and policies. However, as followers of Christ we must forgo the anger and hatred with which political choices are debated or denounced in many settings.
...

When adversaries sought to trap Him with a question about whether Jews should pay taxes to Rome, He pointed to the image of Caesar on their coins and declared, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s” (Luke 20:25).

So, we are to follow the laws of men (render unto Caesar) to live peacefully under civil authority, and we follow the laws of God toward our eternal destination. But how do we do this—especially how do we learn to love our adversaries and our enemies?

The Savior’s teaching not to “contend with anger” is a good first step. The devil is the father of contention, and it is he who tempts men to contend with anger. He promotes enmity and hateful relationships among individuals and within groups. President Thomas S. Monson taught that anger is “Satan’s tool,” for “to be angry is to yield to the influence of Satan. No one can make us angry. It is our choice.” Anger is the way to division and enmity. We move toward loving our adversaries when we avoid anger and hostility toward those with whom we disagree. It also helps if we are even willing to learn from them.
...
An essential part of loving our enemies is to render unto Caesar by keeping the laws of our various countries. Though Jesus’s teachings were revolutionary, He did not teach revolution or lawbreaking. He taught a better way. Modern revelation teaches the same:

“Let no man break the laws of the land, for he that keepeth the laws of God hath no need to break the laws of the land.

“Wherefore, be subject to the powers that be” (Doctrine and Covenants 58:21–22).

And our article of faith, written by the Prophet Joseph Smith after the early Saints had suffered severe persecution from Missouri officials, declares, “We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law” (Articles of Faith 1:12).

This does not mean that we agree with all that is done with the force of law. It means that we obey the current law and use peaceful means to change it. It also means that we peacefully accept the results of elections. We will not participate in the violence threatened by those disappointed with the outcome. In a democratic society we always have the opportunity and the duty to persist peacefully until the next election.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

And yet some the court found a right to self defense in there somewhere as well as an individual right to bear arms independent of a well regulated militia.

Not sure what you are saying here.

15 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

(Both of which are brand new rights compared to the relatively established right to privacy). 

I think it would be helpful to review the text of the decision, including the concurring opinion.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited by smac97
Posted

No need to go to Canada. You can kill a baby in the womb up to birth here in Colorado. Plus, a quite few more states like New York. NBC news says most Americans will have about a 4 hour drive. But, I guess with the price of gas these days that is quite expensive. 

 

 

Posted
3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Rape and incest are not “of course a different situation” for the people behind the push to end abortion.

And of course you don’t have sympathy. They’re all sluts. The women of course. Men don’t have much to worry about.

Sorry, still not feeling sorry.

You choose to have sex.  Sex produces children.  Live with your choice, don't take it out on the child.
If choice is removed then there are other considerations.

Posted
1 minute ago, smac97 said:

Some of us have long track record of endorsing, even celebrating, violence as a means of political dissent.  I find that deeply problematic, particularly for those who profess to be observant Latter-day Saints.  To quote Pres. Oaks in 2020:

I am not celebrating it. I expect it.

Sow chaff and reap the whirlwind. People can’t spit on decorum and civility and then expect their opponents to act honorably. Well, they can but they are in for a rude awakening.

My hope is this is just the slow-motion suicide of a political movement and not the slow-motion suicide of the whole nation. I’m an optimist.

Posted
5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

It was 5-4. Roberts tried to strike middle ground by allowing a 16 week ban but would not have overturned roe

Thanks for the correction! My bad.

My view is that Alito's majority opinion is strictly correct from a constitutional standpoint: there is no constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution, and the 1973 decision made this up out of whole cloth because of political leanings rather than strict constructionism. This reverts back to pre-Roe and leaves it to the states, as it should have been all along (10th amendment). Those wanting a national law need to prevail upon their representatives in the legislative and executive branches to make and pass one.

I disagree with @JLHPROF that such a law will be passed post haste before the midterms. I don't think this evenly-divided Congress is physically capable of passing anything controversial --- especially with the midterm elections looming. Senator Manchin represents a state that gave Trump over 60% of the vote, and this vote alone would doom him in West Virginia. Democrat frustration with Manchin's stances habitually ignores this political reality. 

Posted
49 minutes ago, provoman said:

Disappointing ruling. The zealotry of State legislatures to to essentially create an all out ban, is just absurd.

I concur.  I think we'll see the pendulum swing back from such all-out bans.

49 minutes ago, provoman said:

This also, in my opinion is not relevant. As some States do not allow abortion if the pregnancy is due to rape or incest. This is not to say an abortion should be allowed outside of Roe and Casey in cases of rape/incest. But to force a person pregnant from rape/incest to carry the pregnancy to term because “she can always leave it on the door step of the fire department” does not make any sense.

It can begin to make sense if we take into account the life of the unborn child.

49 minutes ago, provoman said:

States that posture “sanctity of life” would do well to help those in need to preserve life…but in reality it is just appears as posturing without works.

Lots of "posturing" on both sides, I think.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

In President Biden's speech just now, he practically begged that those that protest must keep it peaceful, I like that!

Good for him! 

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Sorry, still not feeling sorry.

You choose to have sex.  Sex produces children.  Live with your choice, don't take it out on the child.
If choice is removed then there are other considerations.

They are going to take it out on everybody. And again, they are ripping down those “other considerations”. You can expect fire and blood in the streets as rape victims are forced to carry a child to term. Live with your choice.

Posted
3 minutes ago, rongo said:

Thanks for the correction! My bad.

My view is that Alito's majority opinion is strictly correct from a constitutional standpoint: there is no constitutional right to abortion in the Constitution, and the 1973 decision made this up out of whole cloth because of political leanings rather than strict constructionism. This reverts back to pre-Roe and leaves it to the states, as it should have been all along (10th amendment). Those wanting a national law need to prevail upon their representatives in the legislative and executive branches to make and pass one.

I disagree with @JLHPROF that such a law will be passed post haste before the midterms. I don't think this evenly-divided Congress is physically capable of passing anything controversial --- especially with the midterm elections looming. Senator Manchin represents a state that gave Trump over 60% of the vote, and this vote alone would doom him in West Virginia. Democrat frustration with Manchin's stances habitually ignores this political reality. 

It was 6-3. Roberts did provide a concurring opinion but voted with the majority.

Posted
44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I give Congress 4 months to pass an actual law making abortion legal.
With Democrats controlling the House, Senate, and White House it will fly through.  There's enough moderate Republicans on this issue that this will be rewritten as law.

The Supreme Court doesn't make law.  They just rule on it.

  • "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” read the majority opinion.

Up next, a national law that does confer the right.

First, I'm not sure such a federal law can be passed.  

Second, Congress does not have the authority to "confer" a constitutional right.

44 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

They'll push this through to maintain the status quo before the November midterms.

We'll see, I suppose.

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
13 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

We had this discussion already. The Right had far more incentive to leak than the left and pushing people to a hard stance was part of the prevailing theory as to why it was leaked. It didn’t backfire. More likely it did exactly what it was supposed to do.

Nobody but the far left believes this. It's no fair asking for sources, because the sources that say this . . . are all far left. ;) 

Posted
44 minutes ago, juliann said:

The vast majority of people are ok with early abortion. Most states are or will allow for it. There will always be some who don't, of course, so it does put more pressure on the woman to know her body and do it in time. I just can't get with unlimited abortion, it is sickening. Putting so much emphasis on late term rights did a lot of damage. 

I agree.  "All-out" bans on abortion likewise will, I think, do "a lot of damage."

Thanks,

-Smac

Posted
4 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

It was 6-3. Roberts did provide a concurring opinion but voted with the majority.

I'm seeing both 6-3 an 5-4. Confusing. 

Hauptsache ist . . . Roe was remanded to the states. 

Posted
1 hour ago, ttribe said:

It's official, U.S. women have one less freedom than they did yesterday. 

You have Supreme Court nominees that won't even define what a woman is.

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, rongo said:

I'm seeing both 6-3 an 5-4. Confusing. 

Hauptsache ist . . . Roe was remanded to the states. 

People are saying Roberts concurrence is a symbolic 5-4 but the official vote was 6-3. He sided with the majority.

Edited by bsjkki
Posted
Just now, rongo said:

Nobody but the far left believes this. It's no fair asking for sources, because the sources that say this . . . are all far left. ;) 

No, they aren’t. The best thinkpieces that actually analyze the expected fallout and consequences disagree. There is a lot more volume in saying the Left were behind the leak but propaganda serves the people that pay their bills.

Fortunately they are idiots. They are destroying themselves before our eyes. It is now primarily a question of what will burn down with them.

Posted
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

People are saying Roberts concurrence is a symbolic 5-4 but the official vote was 6-3. He signed with the majority.

Good ol' Roberts. The "gospel topics essays" of the Supreme Court. :) 

Posted
Just now, rodheadlee said:

You have Supreme Court nominees that won't even define what a woman is.

Please try to contribute rather than parroting propaganda that isn’t even relevant to the topic.

Posted

The political divide is now further apart than is has been in my lifetime and this ill certainly add to it significantly. Add to that the gun law decision yesterday.  In my life I have been aware that political persuasion does impact how a SCJ views the constitution and their decisions.  But I had always hoped that a justice would try to temper that.  I believe what we are seeing now is raw politics on the court.  The conservatives have the power and they will wield it in a conservative way. The three newest Justices outright lied in their hearings in regards to Roe.  Now watch other rights be stripped way.  Thomas was pretty stark in his comments about where he wants to take things.

 

Posted
4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, they aren’t. The best thinkpieces that actually analyze the expected fallout and consequences disagree. There is a lot more volume in saying the Left were behind the leak but propaganda serves the people that pay their bills.

Fortunately they are idiots. They are destroying themselves before our eyes. It is now primarily a question of what will burn down with them.

Okay, I'll give you a friendly CFR for "the best thinkpieces." ;) Are any of the authors conservative or ostensibly "moderate?" 

Posted
Just now, Teancum said:

The political divide is now further apart than is has been in my lifetime and this ill certainly add to it significantly. Add to that the gun law decision yesterday.  In my life I have been aware that political persuasion does impact how a SCJ views the constitution and their decisions.  But I had always hoped that a justice would try to temper that.  I believe what we are seeing now is raw politics on the court.  The conservatives have the power and they will wield it in a conservative way. The three newest Justices outright lied in their hearings in regards to Roe.  Now watch other rights be stripped way.  Thomas was pretty stark in his comments about where he wants to take things.

 

When the legitimacy and independence of the courts falls the nation often falls afterwards. It is a pretty well documented phenomenon.

We deserve this.

Posted
20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

You're going to have to try harder than that to gain my sympathy for people who willingly have sex but don't want a baby.

I think we can and ought to show sympathy, and compassion, and understanding, and assistance, for such women, even though not extending to elective abortions.

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have no sympathy in those situations.

I encourage you to re-think this.  "People who willingly have sex but don't want a baby" does not address the asymmetry in the consequences for those people, since only women face the prospect of carrying an unexpected/unplanned/unwanted child.

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Rape and incest are of course a different situation.

I agree.  But I don't think we need to limit our sympathy to just those who are victims of these terrible things.

20 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How about our elected representatives pass actual laws that their constituents want and quit looking for loopholes?

What sort of "loopholes" are you referencing here?

Thanks,

-Smac

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...