Sorry Anti-Choicers - SCOTUS is wrong.

[mrjurrs]

THe court decision changed (removed) a right.



Please be specific on what you think I mean or believe?



??? No idea what you're talking about.



??? No idea what you're talking about.

That was enabled by another court.

Whether or not rights are created or given. I think you believe that people have rights even if they can't use them. I disagree, that's why I used NK and the USA.

See if that helps on the last two.

 

[Teatime]

And yet they did not include it in the basis of their decision.

What happens to Planned Parenthood v Casey now?

 

[Lursa]

That was enabled by another court.

Yes. However the distinction between laws and rights exists. As does the role of the courts and the role of legislators.

Whether or not rights are created or given. I think you believe that people have rights even if they can't use them. I disagree, that's why I used NK and the USA.

Um, no not really.

See if that helps on the last two.

No to the 1st one. They do not.
No to the 2nd one but I havent considered all at this time.

 

[Lovebug]

The Supreme Court isn’t always right, even though it has a lot of power. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is a modern example of how the Court can make mistakes, just like it did in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In Plessy, the Court said racial segregation was okay, but that was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Both cases show that the Supreme Court can get things wrong, and its decisions can be changed later.

Just because something is decided by the Supreme Court doesn’t mean it’s automatically right, like with Dobbs. This is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy, where people assume the Court is always correct. The Plessy decision was eventually corrected by Brown, and the same could happen with Dobbs if society decides it’s wrong. The Court’s power doesn’t mean its decisions can’t be challenged.

Good one.
It took 58 years. How many people suffered during that time?
How many women will have to suffer for how long until a new SCOTUS might get it right? For how long will some stuffy old guys be able to decide what women should be allowed to do with their bodies?

 

[Teatime]

....just because you say something is wrong, doesn't mean it is wrong.

Everyone in my ignore list is there bc they never offer anything other than "nu uhh", constantly demanding links and then ignoring them, etc. Some people just aren't worth the whiskey.

 

[Deuce]

No one argues that the court gets it right all the time. And that from time to time the court needs to overturn precedent. Like Brown overturning Plessy.

But in this case, Dobbs is the correction, to Roe.

If that were true, you wouldn't have had to get a bunch of hard-right fanatics into SCOTUS to acquire the ruling.

 

[Deuce]

Thank you.



Wrong again. One supports states' rights (i.e., democracy), and the other oppresses them.

You tried to conflate states' rights with democracy, which is just stupid.

And "states' rights" is not a real argument in the abortion debate. Nobody actually believes abortion is a "state issue."

 

[eman623]

If that were true, you wouldn't have had to get a bunch of hard-right fanatics into SCOTUS to acquire the ruling.

That wasn't necessary. Ideologically speaking, this court is 3-3-3. It only looks hard-right to the hard-left.

It's all relative. Trotsky thought Lenin was insufficiently far left enough too.

 

[weaver2]

It took 58 years. How many people suffered during that time?

Good question.

How many women will have to suffer for how long until a new SCOTUS might get it right?

Equally good question.

For how long will some stuffy old guys be able to decide what women should be allowed to do with their bodies?

Another good question. I want to resort to violence when I'm told by religious conservatives that they own my reproductive decisions about my body. But by putting first woman's right to her body makes it's too easy for religious conservatives to make the argument that women who abort are irresponsible, selfish and immoral.

By keeping the focus first and foremost on what happens to the fetus and the family when a child is added to a poor family conservatives are forced to acknowledge the statistics of the future of unplanned children born into poor families which is the cohort in which 75% of all abortion take place.

With the help of the Supreme Court and their Dobb's decision religious conservatives took way women's right to make personal and private decisions about the child, the family and their futures. In doing that the court and the church condemned many children, families and women to unstable and unsafe lives with bleak futures of poverty, unemployment, foster care, abuse, homelessness and early deaths.

Putting the emphasis on the child and the family puts the onus back on religious conservatives to explain why requiring the birth of an unwanted child that will result in disaster to the child and the family is better than aborting the fetus when it is a non-sentient entity.

 

[Noodlegawd]

You tried to conflate states' rights with democracy, which is just stupid.

It's only stupid to you because you don't understand it. State government is far more democratic than federal government.

And "states' rights" is not a real argument in the abortion debate. Nobody actually believes abortion is a "state issue."

Of course it's a state issue. If there's no federal law governing it (and there isn't), then it's necessarily a state issue.

 

[Lursa]

It's only stupid to you because you don't understand it. State government is far more democratic than federal government.



Of course it's a state issue. If there's no federal law governing it (and there isn't), then it's necessarily a state issue.

Then why do we have a 9th Amendment? Why do we have any 9th Amendment rights? Here's a whole list...

right to an abortion based on right to privacy[ii].​

right to choose and follow a profession[iii];​

right to attend and report on criminal trials[iv];​

right to receive equal protection not only from the states but also from the federal government[v];​

right to a presumption of innocence and to demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime[vi];​

right to associate with others[vii];​

right to privacy[viii];​

right to travel within the United States[ix];​

right to marry or not to marry[x];​

right to make one’s own choice about having children/ right to reproductive autonomy/right to be free from compulsory sterilization[xi]​

right to educate one’s children as long as one meets certain minimum standards set by the state[xii];​

right to vote, subject only to reasonable restrictions to prevent fraud, and to cast a ballot equal in weight to those of other citizens[xiii];​

right to use the federal courts and other governmental institutions and to urge others to use these processes to protect their interests[xiv];​

right to retain American citizenship, despite even criminal activities, until explicitly and voluntarily renouncing it[xv];​

Doesnt it seem like the bolded one still stands even after Dobbs? Why doesnt it?

 

[Along Came Jones]

You tried to conflate states' rights with democracy, which is just stupid.

And "states' rights" is not a real argument in the abortion debate. Nobody actually believes abortion is a "state issue."

Abortion now is very much a "state issue."

 

[Along Came Jones]

This isn't about stuffy old guys deciding what women should be allowed to do with their bodies. It is about how the Constitution is interpretated and applied. In this instance:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

"The right to abortion does not fall within this category.” -- Justice Samuel Alito, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

If you believe only stuffy old men believe this holding is correct, then you're dream walking. Where duly legislated, abortion is a legal right but not a federal constitutional right.

 

[CLAX1911]

The Supreme Court isn’t always right, even though it has a lot of power. The Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade, is a modern example of how the Court can make mistakes, just like it did in Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896. In Plessy, the Court said racial segregation was okay, but that was overturned by Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Both cases show that the Supreme Court can get things wrong, and its decisions can be changed later.

Just because something is decided by the Supreme Court doesn’t mean it’s automatically right, like with Dobbs. This is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy, where people assume the Court is always correct. The Plessy decision was eventually corrected by Brown, and the same could happen with Dobbs if society decides it’s wrong. The Court’s power doesn’t mean its decisions can’t be challenged.

If that's the case there will be challenges to it I'm not sure, seems to be they're adhering to the Constitution. They decided it wasn't until 14th amendment issue or an implied right.

It might change we'll have to wait and see.

 

[CLAX1911]

You tried to conflate states' rights with democracy, which is just stupid.

You vote for your State legislature how is that not democratic?

And "states' rights" is not a real argument in the abortion debate. Nobody actually believes abortion is a "state issue."

Oh yeah it actually is it has to do the Constitution particularly the 10th amendment. What is it delegated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be delegated to the states.

This states can govern themselves if they decide they want to have abortion up to 16 weeks or 12 weeks or 5 weeks or not at all that's their right.

Come see this changing unless there's a lot of states that say not at all.

 

[Cordelier]

You vote for your State legislature how is that not democratic?

Oh yeah it actually is it has to do the Constitution particularly the 10th amendment. What is it delegated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights will be delegated to the states.

This states can govern themselves if they decide they want to have abortion up to 16 weeks or 12 weeks or 5 weeks or not at all that's their right.

Come see this changing unless there's a lot of states that say not at all.

Here's the fly in your ointment... under the 10th Amendment, States are not the only listed recipient of reserved powers, are they?

 

[Along Came Jones]

Here's the fly in your ointment... under the 10th Amendment, States are not the only listed recipient of reserved powers, are they?

Excellent question. Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan and probably other territorial slivers are not states. Applying the 10th Amendment what residuary sovereignty does the people retain?

 

[Cordelier]

Excellent question. Guam, the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Saipan and probably other territorial slivers are not states. Applying the 10th Amendment what residuary sovereignty does the people retain?

Why do the people only retain residual sovereignty, though? According to the 10th Amendment, reserved powers go to the States or to the people. There's nothing to indicate that the people are in an inferior position to the States or that they only get them if the States don't claim them.

 

[Deuce]

Abortion now is very much a "state issue."

It was never a real argument. There are a lot of right wingers saying "it's back in the hands of the states now, where it belongs," but that was never a real position. The pro-life crowd has not been arguing "murdering babies is a states' rights issue!!!"

 

[Gordy327]

Abortion now is very much a "state issue."

That's the problem.

 

[DrewPaul]

Just because something is decided by the Supreme Court doesn’t mean it’s automatically right, like with Dobbs. This is an example of the appeal to authority fallacy, where people assume the Court is always correct. The Plessy decision was eventually corrected by Brown, and the same could happen with Dobbs if society decides it’s wrong. The Court’s power doesn’t mean its decisions can’t be challenged.

I don't know of anyone who is always happy with their rulings. The court gets praise from the same people who later shout obscenities at them. The court is powerful, yet its the weakest of the three powers because the other two branches can re-write laws that will pass constitutional scrutiny.

Secondly what makes you think the decision to leave abortion up to the states is wrong?

 

[weaver2]

This isn't about stuffy old guys deciding what women should be allowed to do with their bodies. It is about how the Constitution is interpretated and applied. In this instance:

by stuffy of men deciding that women should be allowed to do with their bodies and their private lives.

 

[Along Came Jones]

by stuffy of men deciding that women should be allowed to do with their bodies and their private lives.

Guess you ought to make busy advocating for electing and appointing more stuffy old women to state and federal judgeships.

 

[Lursa]

This isn't about stuffy old guys deciding what women should be allowed to do with their bodies. It is about how the Constitution is interpretated and applied. In this instance:

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled. The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision, including the one on which the defenders of Roe and Casey now chiefly rely—the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. That provision has been held to guarantee some rights that are not mentioned in the Constitution, but any such right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition” and “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.

"The right to abortion does not fall within this category.” -- Justice Samuel Alito, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

If you believe only stuffy old men believe this holding is correct, then you're dream walking. Where duly legislated, abortion is a legal right but not a federal constitutional right.

I posted a rebuttal to this in post 2...why not respond directly to that?

Abortion now is very much a "state issue."

It is...it's surprising to so many anti-abortion Americans accept that Dobbs enables the states to allow women killing "babies" with no due process. They seem to consider Dobbs a victory and really, since so far all but one state allowed to vote on it has voted against bans/major restrictions, I think the trend for the future is bright for pro-choice women. I think the people are making their voices here when it goes to a vote. What do you think about the states that block petitions for direct voting on the issue?

 

[Along Came Jones]

Why do the people only retain residual sovereignty, though? According to the 10th Amendment, reserved powers go to the States or to the people. There's nothing to indicate that the people are in an inferior position to the States or that they only get them if the States don't claim them.

I don't believe my question stated nor implied that "the people" only retain residual sovereignty. The 10th Amendment is a compact between the states and the federal government. I asked about the status of "the people" resident in territories (and one commonwealth) within the jurisdiction of the United States. Those areas not incorporated, are not states, and therefore not fully covered by the Constitution.