• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could this be true about the Roe decision?

Michael Cole said:
This is what Congress is for. The Court is legislating from the bench in this decision. The right to privacy either exists or it doesn't. The Court has held that it does. It is then up to Congress to pass laws which may attempt to limit that right. These laws can be challenged and reviewed, and the Court decides the constitutionality of such laws.

The Court does not have the power to limit privacy in one area but not others. The Court simply determines whether a law violates privacy. This Court has greatly overstepped its bounds. It is giving states power they don't possess.

The Supremacy Clause itself is under attack here.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The court's alligator mouth is overloading its jaybird ass.

The court does nothing but interpret. It does not legislate.
 
dncc said:
Yes.

Start listening to the podcast at 8:34 (or all the way through). They discusss the oddity that this is a contraction of rights where the constitution is silent. Meaning simply that abortion isn't mentioned so judges have to decide if it's legal. The Supreme Court analyst begins to flesh out the Alito argument at that point--8:34. At 11:40, the analyst strikes at the heart of your question above.

www.nytimes.com

Is This How Roe Ends? (Published 2022)

A leaked draft opinion from the Supreme Court suggested that it was preparing to overturn the constitutional right to abortion.
www.nytimes.com www.nytimes.com
Click to expand...
And, again, the passage at the 12:05 mark really blows me away and makes me wonder how anyone can take the court seriously if this is what one of the Associate Justices is actually stating.

In short he--Alito--states that this swipe at the notion of privacy being a constitutional right hilariously (and sadly) ONLY APPLIES TO ABORTION. And that all of the other rights granted by the interpretation of Griswold are just hunky dory...

I mean...if you heard a candidate for office say this...you'd chalk it up to their feeding the beast...this is what politicians do. This ****er is dialing up legal precedents on an as-needed basis. Its as mind boggling that this joke of a lawyer is on the high court as it is sad that 50 years of legal precedent will be jettisoned so easily and in such a way that one might rightfully mistake this as some sort of plot from The Family Guy or The Simpsons.

1651762566184.png
 
Last edited:
Callen said:
Yes there is a migration underway largely from expensive blue States to cheaper Red States. I doubt very much that people moving from NY to FL or CA to TX are going to suddenly become Republicans. The migration is much more likely to turn red/purple States blue. Even DeSantis is concerned about it

"There is cause for concern," DeSantis said during an event Monday. "Texas would have all these companies moved from California over the years. So you'd have companies move from San Francisco to Austin, and they'd bring hundreds of employees with them. And those employees would vote the exact same way they voted that turned San Francisco into the dumpster fire that it is"

www.foxnews.com

DeSantis calls San Francisco a 'dumpster fire,' fears Californians importing 'destruction' to Florida

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis took aim at San Francisco, calling the city a 'dumpster fire' while expressing fears over what would happen if companies there relocated to Florida.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
DeSantis has every right to be concerned! No good red state wants to be turned into the dumpster fire that many a blue state "voted" to become. And you bet the migration is from blue states to red states - AND you bet those blue states became too expensive in all the messes they created and then heavily taxed their citizens to try (and fail miserably) to support!
But my guess is a lot of "red" will be voted in - in November. The U.S. hasn't yet been taken over by the left and eyes are open here, wide open.
 
gbg3 said:
DeSantis has every right to be concerned! No good red state wants to be turned into the dumpster fire that many a blue state "voted" to become. And you bet the migration is from blue states to red states - AND you bet those blue states became too expensive in all the messes they created and then heavily taxed their citizens to try (and fail miserably) to support!
But my guess is a lot of "red" will be voted in - in November. The U.S. hasn't yet been taken over by the left and eyes are open here, wide open.
Click to expand...
Your inference was people were moving based on values, moving to places that more reflect their views. They aren't, they are moving based on economics and taking their political views with them. You are right DeSantis needs to be concerned!
 
BlueTex said:
You mean like this?

Click to expand...

This is draconian. It's out of the 16th century. The government does not possess the power to determine personhood at the stroke of a pen. That's what the clergy does.

I have a serious question. Are Louisianans real or hypocrites? Since this will be a person...

b0cedaaa52bdd97b_1346740206_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg


...what will happen to this place?

The Fertility Institute of New Orleans | LA & Baton Rouge

The Fertility Institute of New Orleans provides female, male & LGBTQ+ treatments. Infertility wasn’t you plan. Let’s make a new one.
fertilityinstitute.com fertilityinstitute.com

I didn't read the law, so it may include exceptions, but in principle, I would think the law makes fertility clinics criminal operations.
 
Hypothetical said:
rights are decided by the constitution, and the only way to change those is through amendments to the constitution as written.
Click to expand...

Which is done by democratic deliberation, and submitted to states for ratification, which is also decided democratically.
 
Michael Cole said:
This is draconian. It's out of the 16th century. The government does not possess the power to determine personhood at the stroke of a pen. That's what the clergy does.

I have a serious question. Are Louisianans real or hypocrites? Since this will be a person...

b0cedaaa52bdd97b_1346740206_9j-4aaqsk.jpeg


...what will happen to this place?

The Fertility Institute of New Orleans | LA & Baton Rouge

The Fertility Institute of New Orleans provides female, male & LGBTQ+ treatments. Infertility wasn’t you plan. Let’s make a new one.
fertilityinstitute.com fertilityinstitute.com

I didn't read the law, so it may include exceptions, but in principle, I would think the law makes fertility clinics criminal operations.
Click to expand...


There are NO exceptions in this bill.. none.....
 
Atreus21 said:
Elaborate?
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't understand that Roe v. Wade was not about abortion. How could they ... what were your words? "Fabricate a right to abortion" when that's not what the case/ruling was even about?
 
aociswundumho said:
Quote the text from that article that shows women who cross state lines to have an abortion will be punished for doing so.
Click to expand...
The article says that in Missouri, anyone who helps the woman (drives them, accompanies them, buys them gasoline for their out of state trip) can be sued by other private individuals.
 
BlueTex said:
There are NO exceptions in this bill.. none.....
Click to expand...
That appears to be correct. No instances of the words "fertility," "frozen" or "embryo."

So my question still stands. I'd like an anti-choicer to address it, please.

If Roe is overturned and this law is passed, what happens to the Fertility Institute of New Orleans & Baton Rouge? Surely it is illegal to freeze persons. Discarding persons in the biowaste bin will be considered murder, no?
 
Superfly said:
Clearly you don't understand that Roe v. Wade was not about abortion. How could they ... what were your words? "Fabricate a right to abortion" when that's not what the case/ruling was even about?
Click to expand...
This sticks out.

Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]

 
Superfly said:
Clearly you don't understand that Roe v. Wade was not about abortion. How could they ... what were your words? "Fabricate a right to abortion" when that's not what the case/ruling was even about?
Click to expand...

Uh, please elaborate further. What was Roe about if not abortion?

Because people around here seem to be strangely deluded if it's not. They seem to believe repealing Roe will have some bearing on the practice.
 
Last edited:
Atreus21 said:
Uh, please elaborate further. What was Roe about if not abortion?
Click to expand...

Seriously? You are invested in a discussion about Roe v. Wade and you don't even know what it's about?

This is what's wrong with you people. You're bringing a knife to a gunfight.
 
Atreus21 said:
Uh, please elaborate further. What was Roe about if not abortion?

Because people around here seem to be strangely deluded if it's not. They seem to believe repealing Roe will have some bearing on the practice.
Click to expand...
Roe held that Texas law violated a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Casey affirmed Roe.

It could have been any law that violated privacy. That's what the Court based Roe on, a right, not the practice of abortion.
 
independentusa said:
www.nbcnews.com

Missouri lawmakers propose banning getting abortions in other states

Missouri lawmakers in 2019 passed a law banning almost all abortions if Roe v. Wade is overturned.
www.nbcnews.com www.nbcnews.com
They are trying to do so in Missouri by making i illegal to assist in any way the abortion as it would not be constitutional to make it illegal to get an abortion out of state.
Click to expand...

dncc said:
The article says that in Missouri, anyone who helps the woman (drives them, accompanies them, buys them gasoline for their out of state trip) can be sued by other private individuals.
Click to expand...

What is it with you progressives and the lack of reading comprehension?

Here's the claim:

Superfly said:
And in some cases criminalizing those who go to other states for the procedure.

Gobsmacked at how many people are glossing that over. You can tell the ones who don't bother paying attention, because they are the ones saying, "Just go to another state!" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It is completely false. Pregnant women are not being criminalized for crossing state lines to have an abortion.
 
Michael Cole said:
Roe held that Texas law violated a woman's right to privacy and bodily autonomy. Casey affirmed Roe.

It could have been any law that violated privacy. That's what the Court based Roe on, a right, not the practice of abortion.
Click to expand...

How about laws related to income taxes which violate financial privacy?
 
dorsai said:
The only solution I am proposing is legislation. If this is decided by elected officials and not the judiciary, it will ultimately be up to voters to decide. This has been the best course of action for 50 years. The fact that legislation has been avoided has led to this because of the unsettled debates around this issue.

If states choose to criminalize this, that is because it is supported by the constituents that are voting candidates into office. Not all constituents would agree and they have the same choices I have living in an area where almost all governance is contrary to my own philosophy. I can deal with it, I can work to change it, or I can move.
Click to expand...
You seem very attached to state legislatures . Would it change your view if you live in a state where state appellate judges( including state supreme courts , are often elected officials nowaday (or originally appointed by Governor and then run for re-election), interpreting statutes, and constitutional language to reach decision,, who theoretically, at least have one eye towards legal precedent including federal legal precedent, and another towards re-election?
 
aociswundumho said:
How about laws related to income taxes which violate financial privacy?
Click to expand...
What about them? I'm not really interested in income tax law.

Financial privacy is a bit different than the inside of a woman's body, doncha think?
 
Michael Cole said:
What about them? I'm not really interested in income tax law.

Financial privacy is a bit different than the inside of a woman's body, doncha think?
Click to expand...

Of course it's different, but it's the same principle. If there is a right to privacy, then it should apply to your financial life as well, doncha think?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom