]W:#325]Alito's Abortion Ruling Overturning Roe Is an Insult to the 9th Amendment

[Gordy327]

Yeah, no surprise, some people simply refuse to get out of the box and form their own thoughts.

I presented actual facts. What I think about it is irrelevant.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Amazing maybe you should get an f-list i can help ya set it up with the imagination ya have. I certainly dont kink shame XD.

I guess when you have been proven the fool and you have nothing relevant to say and the feelings of frustration overwhelm you, that's all your little brain can think of to say.

Every right didnt have a precedent until it did.

Why this compulsion to show everyone you don't know what you are talking about?

Really, you should read Glucksberg, especially the concurrences by the liberal justices. Glucksberg was a recent unanimous decision repelling claims that a right to assisted suicide is protected by the 14thA's due process clause.

The arguments why assisted suicide is NOT a right that demands 14thA protection, arguments that rely on Snyder v. Massachusetts, (1934) and Palko v. Connecticut, (1937) and Moore v. East Cleveland, (1977) flow directly into Dobbs' arguments, denying protection for abortion.

When the Court makes citations to earlier decisions you should pay attention and -- I know is sounds like crazy Boomer-talk -- take a look at those precedents if you are unfamiliar with them. The Court doesn't continuously restate settled doctrines in every new case, if a question has been addressed and answered the Court just makes citation to those instances and relies on the legal reasoning stated in those earlier cases -- that's how the system works.

The outliers are the cases like Roe v Wade that ignored the established principles and doctrines and go and blaze a new path without any reference to the law set down before.

Everything you claim Dobbs to be is actually applicable to Roe, which is why any return to precedent demanded Roe and Casey be overturned.

Your entire argument is based in complete ignorance and is whipped into a frothy frenzy of leftist mutual masturbation by ideologues and activists, and you sound dumber every time you repeat the propaganda.

By all means though, please continue saying Dobbs is only based on the unequivocal fact that "the Constitution makes no express reference to abortion . . . ".

Thats why muh tradishuns is silly coming from an angry self entitled boomer who will soon be dead in time for my generation to take over and we are going to ram radical socialism down your throat.

Angry?? What the hell do I have to be angry about? I retired at 55, moved out of a leftist, criminal-infested hellhole into a wonderful politically conservative area of flags flying in front of every house where people display mutual respect and I live in harmony with my fellow man and nature and living the great life on 4 acres of tranquility . . . My only sense of disagreement is on these boards, and I choose the time and place for that and do it only for my enjoyment. I've enjoyed on-line debate sine 1993 and you leftists have only grown more unhinged as you have been marginalized and minimized in the arena of ideas.

Self-intitled?? I'm the one here that argues that there are others who know more than me and I use the knowledge they have laid down to formulate and ground my positions. I argue that there doesn't need to be a continuously redundant review of questions that are long settled, like 98% the operation of the legal structure of the nation.

All you know is that you resent the current structure and want to destroy it, you pervert and mutate what is established to invent conflict and dissention and capitalize on that for political advantage. You only feel like you are advancing when you are dismantling; but that is all you leftists are good for, tearing down. You aren't smart enough to maintain and keep a society operating let alone build a new society that anyone would want to live in. You really don't understand that what you think is new, adaptive and 'revolutionary' is actually tired, rigid, dysfunctional, defunct and defeated.

I laugh when a saying my father used to say to me winds up being so apropos to things today . . . In my youth he would tell me, "you don't know yet, what you don't know yet, and you think that makes you smart".

That is you . . . You don't know the stuff that is important to know and what you think you do know, is wrong and you sound more ridiculous every time you spout it. . .

Just retreat to your hovel and pour some Molotov Cocktails and hope your Mommy washed and folded and laid-out all your Black-bloc for you.

 

[Willie Orwontee]

Advicating for one of the most abjectly failed socio-economic-political systems in history is hardly cause for celebration.

Actually, I appreciate that inadvertent admission of idiocy from him/her/they/Zur . . .

It was obvious they were impervious to reason and facts; now I know why and now I know all they are due is ridicule and dismissiveness.

 

[bomberfox]

I guess when you have been proven the fool and you have nothing relevant to say and the feelings of frustration overwhelm you, that's all your little brain can think of to say.



Why this compulsion to show everyone you don't know what you are talking about?

Really, you should read Glucksberg, especially the concurrences by the liberal justices. Glucksberg was a recent unanimous decision repelling claims that a right to assisted suicide is protected by the 14thA's due process clause.

The arguments why assisted suicide is NOT a right that demands 14thA protection, arguments that rely on Snyder v. Massachusetts, (1934) and Palko v. Connecticut, (1937) and Moore v. East Cleveland, (1977) flow directly into Dobbs' arguments, denying protection for abortion.

When the Court makes citations to earlier decisions you should pay attention and -- I know is sounds like crazy Boomer-talk -- take a look at those precedents if you are unfamiliar with them. The Court doesn't continuously restate settled doctrines in every new case, if a question has been addressed and answered the Court just makes citation to those instances and relies on the legal reasoning stated in those earlier cases -- that's how the system works.

The outliers are the cases like Roe v Wade that ignored the established principles and doctrines and go and blaze a new path without any reference to the law set down before.

Everything you claim Dobbs to be is actually applicable to Roe, which is why any return to precedent demanded Roe and Casey be overturned.

Your entire argument is based in complete ignorance and is whipped into a frothy frenzy of leftist mutual masturbation by ideologues and activists, and you sound dumber every time you repeat the propaganda.

By all means though, please continue saying Dobbs is only based on the unequivocal fact that "the Constitution makes no express reference to abortion . . . ".



Angry?? What the hell do I have to be angry about? I retired at 55, moved out of a leftist, criminal-infested hellhole into a wonderful politically conservative area of flags flying in front of every house where people display mutual respect and I live in harmony with my fellow man and nature and living the great life on 4 acres of tranquility . . . My only sense of disagreement is on these boards, and I choose the time and place for that and do it only for my enjoyment. I've enjoyed on-line debate sine 1993 and you leftists have only grown more unhinged as you have been marginalized and minimized in the arena of ideas.

Self-intitled?? I'm the one here that argues that there are others who know more than me and I use the knowledge they have laid down to formulate and ground my positions. I argue that there doesn't need to be a continuously redundant review of questions that are long settled, like 98% the operation of the legal structure of the nation.

All you know is that you resent the current structure and want to destroy it, you pervert and mutate what is established to invent conflict and dissention and capitalize on that for political advantage. You only feel like you are advancing when you are dismantling; but that is all you leftists are good for, tearing down. You aren't smart enough to maintain and keep a society operating let alone build a new society that anyone would want to live in. You really don't understand that what you think is new, adaptive and 'revolutionary' is actually tired, rigid, dysfunctional, defunct and defeated.

I laugh when a saying my father used to say to me winds up being so apropos to things today . . . In my youth he would tell me, "you don't know yet, what you don't know yet, and you think that makes you smart".

That is you . . . You don't know the stuff that is important to know and what you think you do know, is wrong and you sound more ridiculous every time you spout it. . .

Just retreat to your hovel and pour some Molotov Cocktails and hope your Mommy washed and folded and laid-out all your Black-bloc for you.

Im not even bothered by your meanderings. My generation will take over someday. Im just biding my time.

Lets not forget who actually tried to burn it all down when they didnt get what they wanted.



Every republican accusation is a thinly veiled confession.

 

[Lursa]

I've already rationalized my premise more than sufficiently, you simply reject it, maybe because abstract thought isn't your forte.

All you do is comment on me. I keep asking you to debate and support your opinions/arguments.

You refuse. My opinion is supported by the Const., yours is not. Your willful misunderstanding of terminology has led you to misinterpret the 5th A. You fail.

 

[Lursa]

I presented a logical opinion that rationally should be in place. Given that SCOTUS just overturned R v W after 50 years I would think more people would accept that lack of a current ruling is not definitive. Think for yourself.

Note that the red state of KS just overwhelmingly voted to defeat a bill that would deny women a right to abortion.

So you need a dictionary for more than legal and scientific terms...also for things like 'logical', 'rationally', and 'common sense.'

 

[Paul191145]

I presented actual facts. What I think about it is irrelevant.

Nice to know you consider your own thoughts irrelevant, a mentality of self subservience tends to have that effect.

 

[Paul191145]

All you do is comment on me. I keep asking you to debate and support your opinions/arguments.

You refuse. My opinion is supported by the Const., yours is not. Your willful misunderstanding of terminology has led you to misinterpret the 5th A. You fail.

You just can't seem to accept that my premise is logical and rational as to how things SHOULD BE, not how they necessarily are. There are plenty of problems in the world, and gov is extremely inefficient at solving them 99.9% of the time, in fact they usually exacerbate them.

 

[Paul191145]

Note that the red state of KS just overwhelmingly voted to defeat a bill that would deny women a right to abortion.

So you need a dictionary for more than legal and scientific terms...also for things like 'logical', 'rationally', and 'common sense.'

Yes, that's ONE state, this is the reason for the 10th amendment, to allow for multiple laboratories of policy experimentation, instead of merely forcing a "one size fits all" supposed solution onto the entire nation.

 

[Lursa]

You just can't seem to accept that my premise is logical and rational as to how things SHOULD BE, not how they necessarily are. There are plenty of problems in the world, and gov is extremely inefficient at solving them 99.9% of the time, in fact they usually exacerbate them.

Note that the red state of KS just overwhelmingly voted to defeat a bill that would deny women a right to abortion.

So you need a dictionary for more than legal and scientific terms...also for things like 'logical', 'rationally', and 'common sense.'

 

[Lursa]

Yes, that's ONE state, this is the reason for the 10th amendment, to allow for multiple laboratories of policy experimentation, instead of merely forcing a "one size fits all" supposed solution onto the entire nation.

And it was a clear and definite indication that your 'logical' opinion is no such thing. The people have spoken and every national poll (not religiously-based) shows that the majority of Americans support elective abortion.

So you need a dictionary for more than legal and scientific terms...also for things like 'logical', 'rationally', and 'common sense.'

 

[Paul191145]

And it was a clear and definite indication that your 'logical' opinion is no such thing. The people have spoken and every national poll (not religiously-based) shows that the majority of Americans support elective abortion.

So you need a dictionary for more than legal and scientific terms...also for things like 'logical', 'rationally', and 'common sense.'

Majority support doesn't make anything inherently right, the masses are mindless.

 

[Paul191145]

And it was a clear and definite indication that your 'logical' opinion is no such thing. The people have spoken and every national poll (not religiously-based) shows that the majority of Americans support elective abortion.

So you need a dictionary for more than legal and scientific terms...also for things like 'logical', 'rationally', and 'common sense.'

When all 50 states do exactly the same thing, you may have a point, but just one is by no means indicative of logic, rationale or common sense. Perhaps you could consult a dictionary and realize/accept that the not everyone shares your views, hence the prominence of individual liberty in the Bill of Rights and the intended limits on gov in the Constitution.

 

[Lursa]

When all 50 states do exactly the same thing, you may have a point,

Why? Are you assuming ALL 50 would or should agree with your opinion that is not founded in law, science or common sense? If so, why?

but just one is by no means indicative of logic, rationale or common sense. Perhaps you could consult a dictionary and realize/accept that the not everyone shares your views, hence the prominence of individual liberty in the Bill of Rights and the intended limits on gov in the Constitution.

And yet you seem to think that in order to prove your point, ALL 50 states should agree with you. You are not making any sense at all.

If you have an argument that you can you make with legal facts and foundation (sourced, such as I and others have), please do so...but your baseless opinion is meaningless.

 

[Paul191145]

Why? Are you assuming ALL 50 would or should agree with your opinion that is not founded in law, science or common sense? If so, why?



And yet you seem to think that in order to prove your point, ALL 50 states should agree with you. You are not making any sense at all.

If you have an argument that you can you make with legal facts and foundation (sourced, such as I and others have), please do so...but your baseless opinion is meaningless.

I'm not assuming anything, I merely presented my opinion on the subject of a logical perspective of how things should be. Apparently you are incapable of accepting original thought without gov action or some kind of litigious record. I'm perfectly fine with you not agreeing, but to suggest that my point is invalid due to the lack of such things is outrageously flawed.

 

[Lursa]

I'm not assuming anything, I merely presented my opinion on the subject of a logical perspective of how things should be. Apparently you are incapable of accepting original thought without gov action or some kind of litigious record. I'm perfectly fine with you not agreeing, but to suggest that my point is invalid due to the lack of such things is outrageously flawed.

And you failed to refute the legal facts and info that refuted your 'opinion.' You have no further argument (unless you make one)...only a personal opinion NOT based on logic or law. I 'examined' your opinion and presented sources, quotes and law why it's invalid IMO.

So why are you still posting? It's a debate...debate or desist.

 

[Paul191145]

And you failed to refute the legal facts and info that refuted your 'opinion.' You have no further argument (unless you make one)...only a personal opinion NOT based on logic or law. I 'examined' your opinion and presented sources, quotes and law why it's invalid IMO.

So why are you still posting? It's a debate...debate or desist.

You're right, it's futile discussing things with a brick wall, especially since that brick wall refuses to comprehend anything beyond it's own firmly held beliefs. Hope you figure out how to open your mind someday.

 

[Lursa]

You're right, it's futile discussing things with a brick wall, especially since that brick wall refuses to comprehend anything beyond it's own firmly held beliefs. Hope you figure out how to open your mind someday.

Discussion: Why should women submit to laws not based on...the law or Const...and that are only your, unfounded in fact or law...opinion? (It's a thread based on a legal decision...can you argue it or not?)

And you failed to refute the legal facts and info that refuted your 'opinion.' You have no further argument (unless you make one)...only a personal opinion NOT based on logic or law. I 'examined' your opinion and presented sources, quotes and law why it's invalid IMO.​

​

So why are you still posting? It's a debate...debate or desist.​

 

[Paul191145]

Discussion: Why should women submit to laws not based on...the law or Const...and that are only your, unfounded in fact or law...opinion? (It's a thread based on a legal decision...can you argue it or not?)

And you failed to refute the legal facts and info that refuted your 'opinion.' You have no further argument (unless you make one)...only a personal opinion NOT based on logic or law. I 'examined' your opinion and presented sources, quotes and law why it's invalid IMO.​

​

So why are you still posting? It's a debate...debate or desist.​

That's your opinion, but apparently gov is paramount in your decisions, where as I see gov as inherently flawed and should be much less powerful.

 

[Lursa]

That's your opinion, but apparently gov is paramount in your decisions, where as I see gov as inherently flawed and should be much less powerful.

And who else decides legal issues? You tried...and failed...to use the 5th Amendment, so your comment seems hypocritical.

Your argument failed on any legal basis, that's not 'opinion.'

 

[Paul191145]

And who else decides legal issues? You tried...and failed...to use the 5th Amendment, so your comment seems hypocritical.

Your argument failed on any legal basis, that's not 'opinion.'

Once again you display your incapability to process abstract thought.

 

[Lursa]

Once again you display your incapability to process abstract thought.

Once again you fail to produce anything to debate, including abstract thought (lol at you hopelessly moving the goal posts. "Abstract thought? ) And yet, you keep posting...posting nothing except about me.

I OTOH, keep asking that you put up or....?

 

[Paul191145]

Once again you fail to produce anything to debate, including abstract thought (lol at you hopelessly moving the goal posts. "Abstract thought? ) And yet, you keep posting...posting nothing except about me.

I OTOH, keep asking that you put up or....?

Seriously, I presented valid points for consideration and you launched into all kind of legal debates, decisions et al, not everything has been decided definitively. For the last time, if we don't know for sure when LIFE begins, or it definitely begins at conception or very soon thereafter, and the 5th amendment clearly states no person shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process, there is a case TO BE MADE. If you're too closed minded to accept that, not my problem.

When Do Human Beings Begin?

 

[Lursa]

Seriously, I presented valid points for consideration and you launched into all kind of legal debates, decisions et al, not everything has been decided definitively. For the last time, if we don't know for sure when LIFE begins, or it definitely begins at conception or very soon thereafter, and the 5th amendment clearly states no person shall be deprived of LIFE, liberty or property without due process, there is a case TO BE MADE. If you're too closed minded to accept that, not my problem.

When Do Human Beings Begin?

Look at the title of the OP and you also tried & failed to use legal basis...the 5th Amendment ...so stop lying.

Yes we do know when an individual human life begins. At fertilization/implantation. I've asked you several times to provide a significantly different definition and you refused. Stop lying.

The US Code link proved that the govt does not consider the unborn "human beings" either, so your link is another fail.

And more than one of us have posted sourced proof that the unborn is not considered a person, which you also have not refuted.

Why should I accept your unsourced, unfounded opinion? That's not rational when all our evidence proves you wrong.

 

[Paul191145]

Look at the title of the OP and you also tried & failed to use legal basis...the 5th Amendment ...so stop lying.

Yes we do know when an individual human life begins. At fertilization/implantation. I've asked you several times to provide a significantly different definition and you refused. Stop lying.

The US Code link proved that the govt does not consider the unborn "human beings" either, so your link is another fail.

And more than one of us have posted sourced proof that the unborn is not considered a person, which you also have not refuted.

Why should I accept your unsourced, unfounded opinion? That's not rational when all our evidence proves you wrong.

Follow the last link I provided.