Well, As Expected SCOTUS HAS Struck Down Roe

[JMB802]

 

[tres borrachos]

"After almost fifty years, Roe vs. Wade is a done deal.
The overturning of R. v. W is deliberate fear mongering by the Democrats. It's simply a false narrative they're pushing in order to get votes. IOW, a load of donkey ."
- @trixare4kids circa 2020

"If it is true, Roe was overturned, I want to read the SC decision before I comment."
- @trixare4kids today

Wow. Interesting, huh?

 

[tres borrachos]

oh yes, how DARE I let states decide for themselves.

the last 50 years of forcing it on the public didn't work. Maybe, just maybe, it is to your benefit in the long term, to let states decide on their own.

So you support the decisions of some states to ban guns.

 

[NotreDame]

An older male "conservative" doesn't care about RvW?

Shocking!

Right, because age and gender is so causal and determinative as to whether someone does or does not care about Roe v Wade.

 

[lurchadams]

Wait, did you really just argue the interpretation is correct because other justices said so? So what?

The fact another group of human beings, preceding this present group in time, had a different opinion isn’t evidende the former is right and the latter is incorrect. Your reasoning is aptly described as a nuh huh because others said so.

Whether the interpretation is correct or incorrect is based on the evidence, which is the text of the Constitution, theyou meaning of the words, the historical evidence breathing meaning into the words.

You’d have to be unconscious since 1973 to incorrectly state “It has nothing to do with the constitution” because since the decision an objection has persistently been the Court created this right out of thin air and the DPC of the 14th Amendment and the historical evidence doesn’t support the decision.



I know there is a strong constitutional objection to Roe and Casey, based in the evidence, as opposed to your they said so therefore it is right logic.

70% of Americans want abortion safe and legal.

The presidents who appointed these justices overturning the election lost the popular vote, trump did by a lot.

Why should a minority of Americans have say over what I say and do?

We are now being ruled by a tyrannical minority and you are fine with that.

We'll most of us are not, my friend.

 

[NotreDame]

So you support the decisions of some states to ban guns.

Are firearms and guns, protected by the 2nd amendment, analogous to the privacy right to have an abortion rooted in the DPC of the 14th amendment?

You assume so, but the mere plain text of the 14th DPC doesn’t support Roe or Casey’s decision. This is no secret, the Court has open stated they aren’t following the plain text with either decision.

 

[NotreDame]

The presidents who appointed these justices overturning the election lost the popular vote, trump did by a lot.

Why should a minority of Americans have say over what I say and do?

We are now being ruled by a tyrannical minority and you are fine with that.

We'll most of us are not, my friend.

70% of Americans want abortion safe and legal.

Even if true, edifying but irrelevant. Constitutional interpretation isn’t whatever the polling says. The very existence of a written Constitution is at times to flip the middle finger to what the public says or believes.

Your bizarre logic would permit book banning under the Free Speech clause where some majority of Americans agree with doing so.

Why should a minority of Americans have say over what I say and do?

Incorrect question and incorrect focus when discussing what the Constitution says. The issue is what does the Constitution say, forbid, permit, especially what does the 14th DPC say, if anything, in relation to the ability to have an abortion free of state interference.

We are now being ruled by a tyrannical minority and you are fine with that.

Oh god, you are so right and when the Court was pumping out opinions you found palatable but others disagreed with we were then “being ruled by a tyrannical minority and YOU” were “fine with that” as the Court issued opinions you personally liked and agreed with but others disliked.

Your logic is nothing more than the Court is conveniently tyrannical when they issue an opinion you dislike or hate.

You have yet to articulate a factual and evidentiary basis Roe/Casey was right as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

You instead resort to atavistic tribal thinking of the Court is wrong because their opinion is opposed by myself and my ingroup.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Begging the question here…all of those topics are expressly addressed in the Constitution. The issue is the privacy right to an abortion isn’t and hence, very much different those those mentioned rights as they are in the Constitution. Free speech=1st amendment, Slavery=13th amendment, Right to an attorney=6th amendment.

There is a strong, rational argument the 14th amendment DPC does not protect a privacy right to abortion as expressed by Roe or Casey. Indeed, a mere plain text reading is inconsistent with both Roe and Casey.

Sorry ladies. Looks like the we forgot to add your rights to the constitution. Apparently that's a good enough reason to undo a near half century of precedent and let the states decide if you get rights or not

 

[NotreDame]

Sorry ladies. Looks like the we forgot to add your rights to the constitution. Apparently that's a good enough reason to undo a near half century of precedent and let the states decide if you get rights or not

Sorry guy, if you think the above is an informed and intelligent riposte to whether the Constitution does say what the Court opines the Constitution to say.

Begging the question isn’t a good argument, which your reasoning does as it assumes a specific right.

But please, let’s read your ineluctable argument of “forgot to add your rights to the constitution” is not a good reason to say the Constitution doesn’t say the right exists.

Otherwise, your logic supports the inference the plain text of the Constitution is no impediment to recognizing a result, outcome, which isn’t supported by the Constitution. Yes, your logic renders the sensible rational for having a written constitution as null and void.

But continue with your notion if the Constitution doesn’t say it that isn’t a good enough reason to reverse a bad decision that said otherwise, specifically here Roe and Casey.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Sorry guy, if you think the above is an informed and intelligent riposte to whether the Constitution does say what the Court opines the Constitution to say.

Begging the question isn’t a good argument, which your reasoning does as it assumes a specific right.

But please, let’s read your ineluctable argument of “forgot to add your rights to the constitution” is not a good reason to say the Constitution doesn’t say the right exists.

Otherwise, your logic supports the inference the plain text of the Constitution is no impediment to recognizing a result, outcome, which isn’t supported by the Constitution. Yes, your logic renders the sensible rational for having a written constitution as null and void.

But continue with your notion if the Constitution doesn’t say it that isn’t a good enough reason to reverse a bad decision that said otherwise, specifically here Roe and Casey.

The courts uphold all sorts of rulings that aren't in the constitution. Acting like they have to overturn Roe v Wade because it isn't in the constitution is ridiculous.

 

[Gaius46]

Even if true, edifying but irrelevant. Constitutional interpretation isn’t whatever the polling says. The very existence of a written Constitution is at times to flip the middle finger to what the public says or believes.

Your bizarre logic would permit book banning under the Free Speech clause where some majority of Americans agree with doing so.



Incorrect question and incorrect focus when discussing what the Constitution says. The issue is what does the Constitution say, forbid, permit, especially what does the 14th DPC say, if anything, in relation to the ability to have an abortion free of state interference.



Oh god, you are so right and when the Court was pumping out opinions you found palatable but others disagreed with we were then “being ruled by a tyrannical minority and YOU” were “fine with that” as the Court issued opinions you personally liked and agreed with but others disliked.

Your logic is nothing more than the Court is conveniently tyrannical when they issue an opinion you dislike or hate.

You have yet to articulate a factual and evidentiary basis Roe/Casey was right as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

You instead resort to atavistic tribal thinking of the Court is wrong because their opinion is opposed by myself and my ingroup.

While I agree with what you've said the court seldom, if ever, has overruled past precedent to reduce freedoms for good reason. Overruling a 50 year old precedent that removes what many Americans view as a fundamental freedom is a dangerous thing to do.

 

[Airyaman]

Right, because age and gender is so causal and determinative as to whether someone does or does not care about Roe v Wade.

In the case of "conservatives", yes.

 

[NotreDame]

The courts uphold all sorts of rulings that aren't in the constitution. Acting like they have to overturn Roe v Wade because it isn't in the constitution is ridiculous.

They do? And they are?

See, your facile logic here is you assume Roe/Casey is a analogous to your ambiguous “all sorts of rulings that aren’t in the Constitution.” Yet, no one, yourself included at the moment, can actually assess the veracity of your comparison because it is a complete mystery presently as to what those “all sorts of rulings” say.

What’s ridiculous is you can’t even articulate a fact based, constitutional defense of Roe/Casey.

Overturning Roe and Casey because neither decision is supported by the plain text of the Constitution or the historical evidence as to the meaning of the Constitution is ridiculous just because you find such deviations palatable.

 

[NotreDame]

In the case of "conservatives", yes.

Well, at least your tribal stereotyping isn’t denied.

 

[lurchadams]

I admit that I’ve not researched it but I don’t think a state can claim jurisdiction over behavior that happens completely in another state. Texas didn’t even try that with it’s atrocious abortion law.

Not true. According to the TX law you can't get an abortion anywhere. Trying to get one, or assisting anyone in getting out of state to get one is a crime in TX. It's a ****ing draconian law!

 

[lurchadams]

The ironic thing about this whole Roe V Wade issue is the SCOTUS is now composed of a Conservative majority; three of which were nominated by a former 'Conservative' POTUS who offered his former mistress a million dollars to abort his/her very own love child, while committing an adulterous affair.

Not to mention the justices appointed who overturned Roe were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote. 70% of Americans want abortion to remain safe and legal. We're being ruled by an authoritarian, evil overclass.

 

[Logician Man]

Not to mention the justices appointed who overturned Roe were appointed by presidents who lost the popular vote.

Excellent point, which brings to mind a whole other topic for another thread---The Electoral College.

 

[lurchadams]

Even if true, edifying but irrelevant. Constitutional interpretation isn’t whatever the polling says. The very existence of a written Constitution is at times to flip the middle finger to what the public says or believes.

Your bizarre logic would permit book banning under the Free Speech clause where some majority of Americans agree with doing so.



Incorrect question and incorrect focus when discussing what the Constitution says. The issue is what does the Constitution say, forbid, permit, especially what does the 14th DPC say, if anything, in relation to the ability to have an abortion free of state interference.



Oh god, you are so right and when the Court was pumping out opinions you found palatable but others disagreed with we were then “being ruled by a tyrannical minority and YOU” were “fine with that” as the Court issued opinions you personally liked and agreed with but others disliked.

Your logic is nothing more than the Court is conveniently tyrannical when they issue an opinion you dislike or hate.

You have yet to articulate a factual and evidentiary basis Roe/Casey was right as a matter of constitutional interpretation.

You instead resort to atavistic tribal thinking of the Court is wrong because their opinion is opposed by myself and my ingroup.

You keep falling back on the constitution as your "hammer". What these justices just did was to defy the consitution to satiate their authoritarian, Christian taliban cravings.

This is going to hurt this nation. You're wrong about the constitution. Knock it off.

 

[NotreDame]

While I agree with what you've said the court seldom, if ever, has overruled past precedent to reduce freedoms for good reason. Overruling a 50 year old precedent that removes what many Americans view as a fundamental freedom is a dangerous thing to do.

Yeah, the wisdom of doing so is an intriguing topic. Roe and Casey, though, have been repudiated as legally unsound since their inception by a sizable number of people in the legal field and society.

But you do raise a very good point, is it wise to do so? I’ve pondered and debated this very question for a few months now. The answer is not easily discernible.

 

[Logician Man]

Wow. Interesting, huh?

IIRC, 'circa 2020' was when @trixare4kids was sporting a tag with the two words "Classic Liberal."

 

[Lloyd Christmas]

The decision has been leaked. This is the continuation of the authoritarian, Republican culture war. Elite Republicans against everyone else. I've said many times, Republican or Democrat, if you have the money and you want an abortion, you're going to get one.

Making little girls carry their incest and rape babies to term? Lets see how that goes. I believe this is the "push" Democrats need to maintain the houses. Women, even conservative women aren't going to put up with this, IMO.

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Yeah, could be a good thing. High voter turnout to put an end to the Taliban

 

[tres borrachos]

IIRC, 'circa 2020' was when @trixare4kids was sporting a tag with the two words "Classic Liberal."

Yes, and now she claims to be "Independent". Nobody believes that shit either.

 

[Gaius46]

Not true. According to the TX law you can't get an abortion anywhere. Trying to get one, or assisting anyone in getting out of state to get one is a crime in TX. It's a ****ing draconian law!

You are incorrect. The Texas law says no such thing. Specifically it defines "physician" as someone licensed to practice in Texas - the law does not apply to any physician not licensed in Texas so abortions done by non Texas doctors are not illegal under the law. If you help someone to get an abortion by a non Texas doctor you also do not violate the law since you can only be sued for helping someone who gets an abortion in violation of the Texas law - which again ONLY applies to Texas doctors.

 

[lurchadams]

You are incorrect. The Texas law says no such thing. Specifically it defines "physician" as someone licensed to practice in Texas - the law does not apply to any physician not licensed in Texas so abortions done by non Texas doctors are not illegal under the law. If you help someone to get an abortion by a non Texas doctor you also do not violate the law since you can only be sued for helping someone who gets an abortion in violation of the Texas law - which again ONLY applies to Texas doctors.

No, I'm not:

Your Questions About Texas’s New Abortion Law, Answered

Who can be sued under Senate Bill 8? What is the ‘shadow docket’? When will the Supreme Court rule on the merits of the law?

www.texasmonthly.com

SB 8 allows any private citizen in Texas, or elsewhere, to sue anyone who performs an abortion in the state after an embryo’s cardiac activity can be detected. It also allows any private citizen to sue anyone (in Texas or elsewhere) who “aids or abets” anyone in getting an abortion in Texas after that period or anyone who intends to aid or abet that process.

The law bans abortions upon the detection of cardiac activity in embryos, which usually occurs after six weeks of gestation—before many women know they are pregnant—and uses an unusual enforcement mechanism involving civil lawsuits, rather than criminal prosecution, to create liability for anyone who performs, “aids or abets,” or intends to aid or abet such an abortion. The court’s one-paragraph, unsigned ruling, against which four justices dissented, noted the unusual nature of the law in deciding not to issue a stay. It cited “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that made weighing the law’s constitutionality a challenge.

 

[Gaius46]

No, I'm not:

Your Questions About Texas’s New Abortion Law, Answered

Who can be sued under Senate Bill 8? What is the ‘shadow docket’? When will the Supreme Court rule on the merits of the law?

www.texasmonthly.com

SB 8 allows any private citizen in Texas, or elsewhere, to sue anyone who performs an abortion in the state after an embryo’s cardiac activity can be detected. It also allows any private citizen to sue anyone (in Texas or elsewhere) who “aids or abets” anyone in getting an abortion in Texas after that period or anyone who intends to aid or abet that process.

The law bans abortions upon the detection of cardiac activity in embryos, which usually occurs after six weeks of gestation—before many women know they are pregnant—and uses an unusual enforcement mechanism involving civil lawsuits, rather than criminal prosecution, to create liability for anyone who performs, “aids or abets,” or intends to aid or abet such an abortion. The court’s one-paragraph, unsigned ruling, against which four justices dissented, noted the unusual nature of the law in deciding not to issue a stay. It cited “complex and novel antecedent procedural questions” that made weighing the law’s constitutionality a challenge.

You are misreading the paragraph.

It plainly says the law only applies to anyone getting an abortion in TEXAS. That's what

"SB 8 allows any private citizen in Texas, or elsewhere, to sue anyone who performs an abortion in the state after an embryo’s cardiac activity can be detected."

means.

What you've bolded seems to be about what courts have jurisdiction though it's confusingly written.

Here's the actual law. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/87R/billtext/pdf/HB01515I.pdf