Teancum Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/3535841-thomas-calls-for-overturning-precedents-on-contraceptives-lgbtq-rights/amp/ Looks like the right to have sex in your home and the right to use contraception are next. Yay conservative Christian values! Theocracy is on its way! 1
JLHPROF Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 7 minutes ago, smac97 said: First, I'm not sure such a federal law can be passed. Second, Congress does not have the authority to "confer" a constitutional right. They don't have to confer a right to pass a law making it legal. Plenty of things are legal that aren't "rights" under the Constitution. 2
bsjkki Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 4 minutes ago, The Nehor said: 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. Oh, yes. This could get ugly. I expect states will work out their regulations and some may be more strict than others. Companies are already pledging to cover travel expenses. A thread with all the planned ‘call to action’ protests. Do we get to again here how the violence is justified? I hope they listen to the President to keep things peaceful. https://twitter.com/AntifaWatch2/status/1540355358618750976?s=20&t=Od6baIecRVyR2LHHDTmd5g 1
Teancum Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 52 minutes ago, juliann said: The vast majority of people are ok with early abortion. Most states are or will allow for it. I am not sure this is accurate. Something like 19 states have trigger laws that outright ban abortion if Roe V wade is overturned and thus here we are. Other states that limit abortion have laws in process to prohibit women in their state seeking an abortion in another state and also prohibit shipment of the abortion pill into their states.
JLHPROF Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 minute ago, Teancum said: Theocracy is on its way! If only it were.
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bsjkki said: People are saying Roberts concurrence is a symbolic 5-4 but the official vote was 6-3. He sided with the majority. I think you misunderstand. Roberts concurs in judgement but not with the decision. On whether to uphold the 16 week ban Roberts agreed. On a right to an abortion Roberts disagreed. Overturning Roe was a 5-4 decision: Quote Today, the Court nonetheless rules for Mississippi by do- ing just that. I would take a more measured course. I agree with the Court that the viability line established by Roe and Casey should be discarded under a straightforward stare de- cisis analysis. That line never made any sense. Our abor- tion precedents describe the right at issue as a woman’s right to choose to terminate her pregnancy. That right should therefore extend far enough to ensure a reasonable opportunity to choose, but need not extend any further https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf Edited June 24, 2022 by SeekingUnderstanding 1
Teancum Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 hour ago, The Nehor said: Oddly Thomas didn’t mention the Supreme Court ruling affirming the right to interracial marriage which was also decided on similar grounds. Is he only in favor of this kind of reappraisal when it wouldn’t put his own marriage at risk. Hopefully he will have the moral courage to recuse himself if the court deals with that precedent. Thomas won't recues himself ever. The man is corrupt. 4
smac97 Posted June 24, 2022 Author Posted June 24, 2022 22 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: Quote 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 It was kind of both (but SeekingUnderstanding is correct about 5-4 relative to Roe) : Quote In a 5-4 decision to strike down Roe and a 6-3 decision to uphold a Mississippi restricting abortions after 15 weeks, the court held that the Constitution "does not confer a right to abortion," and "the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." In other words, the legality of abortions will be determined state-by-state. Thirteen states already have so-called "trigger laws" on the books, meaning abortion will swiftly be outlawed in most cases with Roe overturned. Thanks, -Smac 2
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 minute ago, rongo said: Okay, I'll give you a friendly CFR for "the best thinkpieces." Are any of the authors conservative or ostensibly "moderate?" I decline. I don’t trust you have the ability to discern what is “moderate”. I will consider it if you will answer a CFR to prove that only the “far-left” believes those on the court’s Right might have leaked the early draft of the decision. Preferably from a leftist or “moderate” source. Good luck.
Teancum Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, CA Steve said: Those that can afford to travel to Canada will do so, unfortunately this will have the greatest impact on poor women & girls who cannot afford the safer alternatives. But on the bright side the back alley abortion butchers who will now be in demand don't need a concealed carry permit to defend themselves! It's a wonderful world with all these new freedoms. 🤐 The bolded is not correct and still even so on NY where the law was the the SC struck down They only said the special reason requirement for a concealed permit was i constitutional. There are still a lot of hoops to jumps through in NY to get a concealed weapon permit. Edited June 24, 2022 by Teancum
JLHPROF Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 4 minutes ago, smac97 said: What sort of "loopholes" are you referencing here? I'm no attorney, so feel free to school me on the law. But isn't "legislating from the bench" generally frowned upon? The same with executive overreach of orders? Laws are supposed to be passed by the legislature aren't they? That's what the Court is asking Congress to do here.
rongo Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 5 minutes ago, bsjkki said: Do we get to again here how the violence is justified? I hope they listen to the President to keep things peaceful. They will be "mostly peaceful." People are reacting emotionally, but it isn't politically astute to rage and freak out when your causes, razor thin Congressional majority, and president are already facing tremendous headwinds. A "summer of rage" (which has already been called for) would tend to push people on the fence more towards "law and order" and away from the causes and politicians supporting (or refusing to condemn) the raging riots.
Meadowchik Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 45 minutes ago, juliann said: But it has happened. That, to me, is like saying it is rare for death penalty cases to suffer excruciating pain... so it doesn't need to be stopped. The dilemma also exists with anti abortion laws: women will die because of them. What it come down to at the core is respect for women, including respect for the life-giving domain of their bodies. Usurping that governance is disrespectful of women. 2
JLHPROF Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 (edited) 16 minutes ago, smac97 said: 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. 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. Perhaps I am a little unsympathetic. But considering the life of a child is at stake I'm not sure I can rethink it. It's the very definition of shedding of innocent blood. That child is sinless. An unforgivable sin. Edited June 24, 2022 by JLHPROF 2
smac97 Posted June 24, 2022 Author Posted June 24, 2022 19 minutes ago, The Nehor said: I am not celebrating it. I expect it. You have previously endorsed and celebrated violence as an expression of political disagreement. I hope your above statement reflects a change of heart. Thanks, -Smac 2
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 minute ago, rongo said: They will be "mostly peaceful." People are reacting emotionally, but it isn't politically astute to rage and freak out when your causes, razor thin Congressional majority, and president are already facing tremendous headwinds. A "summer of rage" (which has already been called for) would tend to push people on the fence more towards "law and order" and away from the causes and politicians supporting (or refusing to condemn) the raging riots. The idea that violence always turns people against you. An idealistic theory, sometimes it is even correct.
The Nehor Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 minute ago, smac97 said: You have previously endorsed and celebrated violence as an expression of political disagreement. I hope your above statement reflects a change of heart. Thanks, -Smac I am still for punching Nazis. I think things have gotten this bad primarily due to Nazis not getting punched enough. Always be punching Nazis!
smac97 Posted June 24, 2022 Author Posted June 24, 2022 10 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Quote First, I'm not sure such a federal law can be passed. Second, Congress does not have the authority to "confer" a constitutional right. They don't have to confer a right to pass a law making it legal. I agree. But you framed congressional action as "conferring" a "right." That said, I question whether the Constitution grants Congress the authority to legalize abortion. It seems to be matter reserved, under the Tenth Amendment, to the states or the people. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted June 24, 2022 Author Posted June 24, 2022 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Quote Quote 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? I'm no attorney, so feel free to school me on the law. But isn't "legislating from the bench" generally frowned upon? Yes. 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: The same with executive overreach of orders? Also yes. But what do these have to do with "loopholes"? 7 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: Laws are supposed to be passed by the legislature aren't they? That's what the Court is asking Congress to do here. Actually, the Supreme Court is saying that the regulation of abortion is a matter for the states. Thanks, -Smac
JLHPROF Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 minute ago, smac97 said: I agree. But you framed congressional action as "conferring" a "right." That said, I question whether the Constitution grants Congress the authority to legalize abortion. It seems to be matter reserved, under the Tenth Amendment, to the states or the people. Thanks, -Smac If every state has a different law on something like this, is there a legal standard whereby laws NEED to be made national? That was the issue with SSM after all, people shouldn't be able to be considered married in one state and not in another when legal issues require crossing state lines. That's beyond messy. Is there a legal term for that situation?
bsjkki Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 15 minutes ago, smac97 said: It was kind of both (but SeekingUnderstanding is correct about 5-4 relative to Roe) : Thanks, -Smac Yes, that was confusing. Two votes in this decision.
Popular Post MiserereNobis Posted June 24, 2022 Popular Post Posted June 24, 2022 (edited) Some possible next steps for state and/or federal legislatures: robust child support enforcement, including easy and simple ways for mothers to report delinquent dads free pre and post birth medical care, including options for therapy, parenting classes, etc. extended paid maternity leave free childcare free pre-K all of this with as little bureaucracy as possible, so it is easy to apply for and receive Let's make sure the message is clear to mothers that they and their child are wanted, loved, and will be supported and taken care of. Also, let's drop the "you made a bad choice, you live with the consequence of the child" messaging. That teaches mothers that a child is a negative consequence, a punishment. Not only is it false, it's also not emotionally healthy for the mother or for the child. Who wants to be raised by someone who views you as a punishment? Edited June 24, 2022 by MiserereNobis 8
SeekingUnderstanding Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 2 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said: Some possible next steps for state and/or federal legislatures: robust child support enforcement, including easy and simple ways for mothers to report delinquent dads free pre and post birth medical care, including options for therapy, parenting classes, etc. extended paid maternity leave free childcare free pre-K all of this with as little bureaucracy as possible, so it is easy to apply for and receive Let's make sure the message is clear to mothers that they and their child are wanted, loved, and will be supported and taken care of. Also, let's drop the "you made a bad choice, you live with the consequence of the child" messaging. That teachers mothers that a child is a negative consequence, a punishment. Not only is it false, it's also not emotionally healthy for the mother or for the child. Who wants to be raised by someone who views you as a punishment? If the majority of pro life people *actually cared every state with a “trigger” law would already have each of these. But they don’t care and this won’t happen. 3
provoman Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said: You mean they are threatening to undermine the hallmark of any free society (the peaceful transfer of power)? There is/was shutdownscotus group And Janes Revenge, the conduct of which fits within the definition of Domestic Terrorism. But is really is a pointless discuss about which radical group is worse.
provoman Posted June 24, 2022 Posted June 24, 2022 37 minutes ago, JLHPROF said: They don't have to confer a right to pass a law making it legal. Plenty of things are legal that aren't "rights" under the Constitution. Wouldn’t the 10th Amendment bar Congress from passing a law about it; except maybe a law related to commerce.
Recommended Posts