I dont agree with the Supreme Court, but they have a point...

[PoS]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

 

[Goshin]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

Mixed feelings about the whole business... or to be precise, mixed thoughts.

I do rather hate to see more fuel thrown on the fire just now, in a time when the country is so divided and hostile.

 

[Cordelier]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

Under the 10th Amendment, reserved powers aren't exclusively held by the States.... they are also held by the people.

So if a person doesn't have the power of dominion over their own body, then what reserved power could ever possibly be held to belong to the people rather than the State?

 

[PoS]

Mixed feelings about the whole business... or to be precise, mixed thoughts.

I do rather hate to see more fuel thrown on the fire just now, in a time when the country is so divided and hostile.

I agree, though the country has been divided for decades now, so the timing will never be right.

Under the 10th Amendment, reserved powers aren't exclusively held by the States.... they are also held by the people.

So if a person doesn't have the power of dominion over their own body, then what reserved power could ever possibly be held to belong to the people rather than the State?

But there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, so how can SCOTUS make a judgement on it? Their point is that the issue is for others to decide on, not them.

 

[Cordelier]

But there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, so how can SCOTUS make a judgement on it? Their point is that the issue is for others to decide on, not them.

It's not about abortion, per se.... it's about deciding who has the power to decide this issue under the terms of the 10th Amendment? The States or the people? As a matter arising out of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on this matter, under Article III §2 cl. 1 - "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

 

[Schism]

I'm pro-choice as well. I'm also pro-states rights and less federal gov't, so..... *shrug*

 

[Cordelier]

I'm pro-choice as well. I'm also pro-states rights and less federal gov't, so..... *shrug*

What about individual rights?

 

[Schism]

What about individual rights?

Them too.

 

[Northern Light]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

I don't find how SCOTUS has ruled on this to be particularly insightful. They're saying it has nothing to do with the constitution yet it could easily be argued that it does, under Equal Protection. How can abortion be murder in the states who are about to ban it, but not in others? Last time I checked, murder is a federal crime with state-specific punishments. That's the problem with this ruling. The courts have decided that abortion is no longer about medical privacy -- yet they won't elaborate further. They have kept everything intentionally vague.

Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh specifically said when they were being nominated that they had no interest in going after abortion, even though they themselves were pro-life. So they basically lied. This was always going to happen.

IMO they have created a much more contentious constitutional issue down the road by nullifying RvW. There was so much precedent to support RvW, at least five cases before it. This latest ruling is a whole new precedent. It's ironic how conservatives have for years accused SCOTUS of being full of judicial activism yet this ruling fits the very definition.

The evangelicals will not stop here. They will take their anti-abortion state laws and kick them back up to SCOTUS to make federal rulings. They can't call it murder but only ban it locally. They will have to go all the way.

 

[Cordelier]

Them too.

Okay, but when the rights of the individual come into conflict with the rights of the State to make it's own laws, which do you figure should prevail?

 

[Cordelier]

I don't find how SCOTUS has ruled on this to be particularly insightful. They're saying it has nothing to do with the constitution yet it could easily be argued that it does, under Equal Protection. How can abortion be murder in the states who are about to ban it, but not in others? Last time I checked, murder is a federal crime with state-specific punishments. That's the problem with this ruling. The courts have decided that abortion is no longer about medical privacy -- yet they won't elaborate further. They have kept everything intentionally vague.

Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh specifically said when they were being nominated that they had no interest in going after abortion, even though they themselves were pro-life. So they basically lied. This was always going to happen.

IMO they have created a much more contentious constitutional issue down the road by nullifying RvW. There was so much precedent to support RvW, at least five cases before it. This latest ruling is a whole new precedent. It's ironic how conservatives have for years accused SCOTUS of being full of judicial activism yet this ruling fits the very definition.

The evangelicals will not stop here. They will take their anti-abortion state laws and kick them back up to SCOTUS to make federal rulings. They can't call it murder but only ban it locally. They will have to go all the way.

Kavanaugh lied about his activities in the Bush White House during his DC Appellate confirmation hearings. He lied during his Supreme Court hearings. Hell, he's probably lied more than he's told the truth.

Man ought to be impeached.

 

[Northern Light]

Kavanaugh lied about his activities in the Bush White House during his DC Appellate confirmation hearings. He lied during his Supreme Court hearings. Hell, he's probably lied more than he's told the truth.

Man ought to be impeached.

Unfortunately, we are living in the political era of "ends justifies the means" and might makes right. The SCOTUS ruling is out of lock and step with what the general population of the U.S. supports. They are de facto representing a fringe minority. Nobody seems to care about due process anymore. We are seeing the beginning of the end for the United States as an institution. That is my non-partisan opinion. When institutions like SCOTUS can unilaterally decide to turf the decades of tradition that came before them, then we have gone off the grid. At this point, some kind of civil collapse is inevitable.

 

[AGENT J]

This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

actually its horrible in this case and i donot agree at all and its NEVER a good thing when it has the potential to weaken and lesson the rights of women

this isnt a "grip" situation at all its a rights and freedom situation

NOW . . the "GRIP" of the government can actually be done by the states and already is instead of the fed PROTECTING women from being gripped

before the "federal government" was protecting the right of jane and sally to do what they want . . . it doesn't get more American than that
now the states can FORCE jane or sally to do what the STATE government wants

thats not a win thats a complete loss

 

[Cordelier]

Unfortunately, we are living in the political era of "ends justifies the means" and might makes right. The SCOTUS ruling is out of lock and step with what the general population of the U.S. supports. They are de facto representing a fringe minority. Nobody seems to care about due process anymore. We are seeing the beginning of the end for the United States as an institution. That is my non-partisan opinion. When institutions like SCOTUS can unilaterally decide to turf the decades of tradition that came before them, then we have gone off the grid. At this point, some kind of civil collapse is inevitable.

I don't mind the Supreme Court ruling against popular opinion - that's par for the course and a big part of why they are not elected in the first place.

What I do care about is why they rule the way they do and the rationale they use in doing so.

I don't know... maybe I'm speaking out of turn here, because I haven't read the decision yet... but I've got a hard time digesting this one. If this isn't a clear-cut case of a reserved power (or right) that properly deserves to belong to the people under the terms of the 10th Amendment, then I don't know what could ever be construed to be such a right.

 

[AGENT J]

Them too.

not if you support this ruling LOL

 

[PoS]

It's not about abortion, per se.... it's about deciding who has the power to decide this issue under the terms of the 10th Amendment? The States or the people? As a matter arising out of the Constitution, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on this matter, under Article III §2 cl. 1 - "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution..."

Well the 10th says that the feds have only powers delegated to it by the Constitution, and since abortion isnt mentioned in the document, it means their interpretation is correct.

I don't find how SCOTUS has ruled on this to be particularly insightful. They're saying it has nothing to do with the constitution yet it could easily be argued that it does, under Equal Protection. How can abortion be murder in the states who are about to ban it, but not in others? Last time I checked, murder is a federal crime with state-specific punishments. That's the problem with this ruling. The courts have decided that abortion is no longer about medical privacy -- yet they won't elaborate further. They have kept everything intentionally vague.

Coney Barrett and Kavanaugh specifically said when they were being nominated that they had no interest in going after abortion, even though they themselves were pro-life. So they basically lied. This was always going to happen.

IMO they have created a much more contentious constitutional issue down the road by nullifying RvW. There was so much precedent to support RvW, at least five cases before it. This latest ruling is a whole new precedent. It's ironic how conservatives have for years accused SCOTUS of being full of judicial activism yet this ruling fits the very definition.

The evangelicals will not stop here. They will take their anti-abortion state laws and kick them back up to SCOTUS to make federal rulings. They can't call it murder but only ban it locally. They will have to go all the way.

Perhaps, but equal protection is a very vague term on its own. Im pro choice, but I dont see how equal protection comes into play with regards to an elective medical procedure.

actually its horrible in this case and i donot agree at all and its NEVER a good thing when it has the potential to weaken and lesson the rights of women

this isnt a "grip" situation at all its a rights and freedom situation

NOW . . the "GRIP" of the government can actually be done by the states and already is instead of the fed PROTECTING women from being gripped

before the "federal government" was protecting the right of jane and sally to do what they want . . . it doesn't get more American than that
now the states can FORCE jane or sally to do what the STATE government wants

thats not a win thats a complete loss

Well, I think its a matter of perspective, what would you rather have? State tyranny or nationwide tyranny? I would choose the former because its limited to that one state.

 

[Cameron]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

The Constitution also does not mention the unborn. We cannot enumerate every important right and issue explicitly in the Constitution (I say that not even accounting for the fact that the Constitution is virtually impossible to amend on any issue where there is even moderate regional disagreement).

That's why we have broad concepts in the Constitution like due process and equal protection. The due process clause says no one can be deprived of liberty without due process of law. Control over one's body unquestionably is an aspect of liberty. In order to deprive women of the liberty of control of their own bodies, there must be damn good justification, and I do not see how there is any justification for criminalizing abortion from the moment of fertilization. The interests of a day-old fetus with no organs let alone a will, and a fully grown woman, are not even remotely in the same universe, and no State has a valid interest in using women as incubators.

 

[Sweden]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

Having long advocated that democracy demands that only those elected should be able to make laws, not judges, I take your point.

(The UK has a bad problem with jumped up lawyers aka judges seeking to over-rule parliament).

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

What about individual rights?

Do you feel the same in regards to the 2nd amendment?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

That is a naïve, overly bullshit excuse. Abortion was not really the issue, it is the rights of women that are the issue. The Constitution mentions nothing about women until the 19th Amendment. So according to your logic, women only may vote and nothing else.

 

[Ug make hammer]

I mean, abortion isnt mentioned in the Constitution, so technically it was beyond their scope of responsibilities, right?

What's wrong with giving the decision on it over to the states? This weakens the grip of federal power over the whole country, which is a good thing.

Your anti-federalist opinions really have no bearing on whether the decision was right or wrong.

Im pro-choice, btw. Just in case anyone wants to know.

You're not though. "Pro-choice in my state" is not pro-choice.

If you won't defend the reproductive rights of ALL AMERICAN WOMEN, then you are not pro-choice.

But I know from other threads that you make claims about yourself which are clearly untrue. Which a less polite person might call "false flag trolling".

 

[Lovebug]

Mixed feelings about the whole business... or to be precise, mixed thoughts.

I do rather hate to see more fuel thrown on the fire just now, in a time when the country is so divided and hostile.

Not just that, but why these 2 major decisions, NOW? Putting my tinfoil hat on for a moment, it seems that scotus just handed the Nov elections to the left, although many on the right disagree completely and talk about a red wave.

 

[Lovebug]

I agree, though the country has been divided for decades now, so the timing will never be right.


But there is no mention of abortion in the Constitution, so how can SCOTUS make a judgement on it? Their point is that the issue is for others to decide on, not them.

That should be congress.

 

[Ug make hammer]

Not just that, but why these 2 major decisions, NOW? Putting my tinfoil hat on for a moment, it seems that scotus just handed the Nov elections to the left, although many on the right disagree completely and talk about a red wave.

I think the SC putting abortion on the agenda, particularly with the 5-4 overturn of RvW (which is frankly unnecessary, given how much the other decision gave to red states) has certainly improved Democrat chances this November.

As always, it's hard to predict the Senate without going state-by-state, but in the House Republicans will lose a lot of seats in purple and blue states. It will be a lot closer than it would have been.

Inflation and petrol prices will still be the main concern though. If those ease up (and I expect petrol prices at least, will) then abortion moves up the agenda and could carry the election for Democrats.

 

[Lovebug]

I think the SC putting abortion on the agenda, particularly with the 5-4 overturn of RvW (which is frankly unnecessary, given how much the other decision gave to red states) has certainly improved Democrat chances this November.

As always, it's hard to predict the Senate without going state-by-state, but in the House Republicans will lose a lot of seats in purple and blue states. It will be a lot closer than it would have been.

Inflation and petrol prices will still be the main concern though. If those ease up (and I expect petrol prices at least, will) then abortion moves up the agenda and could carry the election for Democrats.

November is also a few months after possible vacation related rolls in the hay, and many may have to contemplate the hard reality of this latest ruling.