• 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!

Roe is just the beginning.... Griswold will be next

sanman said:
Interracial marriage? Clarence Thomas himself is in an interracial marriage. The fact that you would stoop to that kind of allegation shows how low your politics is.
Click to expand...

Clarence Thomas does whatever the people who fund him tell him to do.
 
sanman said:
Interracial marriage? Clarence Thomas himself is in an interracial marriage. The fact that you would stoop to that kind of allegation shows how low your politics is.
Click to expand...

Oh there will be a grandfather clause for existing marriages. "Respect for marriage" they will say.

Probably with parental consent (for adults) on the model of all but five US States.
 
No way will interracial marriage ever be outlawed.

The Court is not crazy!

As far as gay relations are concerned, there is always that possibility -- especially in a future United States.
 
dncc said:
Now that the precedent is going to be "let the states decide"...interracial and gay marriage will be at the prerogative of the states as well. Look for this in the next few decades.
Click to expand...
The SC would hardly have to change much of the core of the Draft Opinion of the Court just released in the Abortion case to attack Griswold. I must point out again that by definition what was released is a Draft Opinion of the Majority of the SC. It is not a 1st draft opinion of one or another of the Justices sitting on the Court. The core of the Draft Opinion of the Court just released simply denies the implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. Griswold and a whole bunch of rulings are based on that implicit right to privacy. Hence, no ruling based on the implicit right to privacy would be safe if the core of this 1st draft holds and becomes part of the actual final draft.
 
Napoleon said:
No it won’t. Both decisions relied on an enumerated right to equal protection unlike the Roe decision which invented a right to abortion out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

Obergfell v Hodges was a 5-4 decision. And Kennedy's gone now.

Alito and Thomas dissented in that case, as did Scalia. Alito and Thomas are still on the bench, and they've been joined by a lady from the Handmaid's Tale, a conservative beer guzzling, groping "Catholic", and Scalia's altar boy.
 
I should also point out that if you don't think the right to privacy is implicit in the Constitution, you think we should be CHINA. Further to the point, you think the Founders thought we should be CHINA.
 
We really have no idea what the Christian Taliban will do next, but we should be able to conclude nothing is off the table.
 
TurtleDude said:
can you come up with a rational reason for a state to outlaw gay marriage or civil unions?
Click to expand...
I can’t find a rationale for overturning a womens 4th amendment rights but here we are. We have a right wing activist court that wants to legislate from the bench.
 
Last edited:
Lord Tammerlain said:
States rights?
Click to expand...

People have rights, states have powers. It's important to make that distinction, or else states will negate the rights of citizens using the police power.
 
I have daughters. Those of you that have daughters and support this anti-choice nonsense should be ashamed of yourselves.

Even if you don't have daughters you should be ashamed of yourselves. You are trying to take women back to the dark ages and not just the dark ages of back alley abortions. You are trying to take us all back to the dark ages of men deciding what choices a woman could or could not make for herself. Welcome to Afghanistan West you screaming IDIOTS!!!!
 
Napoleon said:
No it won’t. Both decisions relied on an enumerated right to equal protection unlike the Roe decision which invented a right to abortion out of whole cloth.
Click to expand...

What? Roe didn't grant anyone the "right to an abortion". It granted women the right to privacy.
 
Right wing court shits on the fourth amendment and republicans are in favor of it.
 
Captain Adverse said:
Wrongly apparently, which is why one should seek to read the "draft decision" I provided.


Meanwhile, I've never heard of a right to privacy superseding a right to Life (and Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.)

All of which could rightly apply to an unborn baby.

In fact, one's right to privacy is not absolute either. Laws allow for warrants to violate it, as well as "exigent circumstances" like saving a life.
Click to expand...
There is no right to those mentioned in the constitution. I find it interesting that right wingers talk about eight to life, when they actually mena right to borth. After that they want nothing to do with the children born of their laws.
 
99percenter said:
Right wing court shits on the fourth amendment and republicans are in favor of it.
Click to expand...
the left does it all the time with some rights that are actually in the constitution.
 
Questerr said:
Roe was settled law for decades longer.
Click to expand...
for over 100 years the settled law was that the commerce clause gave congress no power over individual citizens acting within their own sovereign states. The FDR lapdog court pissed all over that
 
jnug said:
I should also point out that if you don't think the right to privacy is implicit in the Constitution, you think we should be CHINA. Further to the point, you think the Founders thought we should be CHINA.
Click to expand...


The founders accepted slavery, they limited who can vote to basically the elite of society. Property theft from the natives was accepted and encouraged

The founders of the US would not be seen as great moral people today
 
should be a HUGE motivating factor for Dems. and Indies going into the mid terms. SHOULD BE!!!!
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
The founders accepted slavery, they limited who can vote to basically the elite of society. Property theft from the natives was accepted and encouraged

The founders of the US would not be seen as great moral people today
Click to expand...
shouldn't the hand wringing be directed at the state governments where this issue should have been determined in the first place?
 
TurtleDude said:
shouldn't the hand wringing be directed at the state governments where this issue should have been determined in the first place?
Click to expand...
The Bill of Rights for the nation should supersede any states ability to restrict them.

Not having the government look into the wombs of woman is a privacy issue is it not
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom