Roe v Wade is on deck

[steve_bank]

The issue is the constitution. There is nothing in COTUS even remotely related to abortion. It is not for SCOTUS to determine what they think is right based on who has the majority of judges. SCOTUS is not a moral authority. SCOTUS is not supposed to rule based on popular opinion. If a federal or other court did that in a political or criminal case we would never hear the end of it and the judges would probably be sanctioned.

Per the constitution IMO abortion is relegated to the individual states.

It is up to Congress to enact a national law if it is what people want. Don't shake your fist at SCOTUS, shake your fist at Congress.

From a poll cited this morning 53% support abortion. Keep in mind not all democrats in Congress may support abortion legislation.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The issue is the constitution. There is nothing in COTUS even remotely related to abortion.

And today's F in Constitutional Law goes too...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So, with that foolishness out of the way.

It is not for SCOTUS to determine what they think is right based on who has the majority of judges. SCOTUS is not a moral authority. SCOTUS is not supposed to rule based on popular opinion. If a federal or other court did that in a political or criminal case we would never hear the end of it and the judges would probably be sanctioned.

Per the constitution IMO abortion is relegated to the individual states.

Jebus... this is electives Government class stuff. The results of the Civil War changed that with the 14th Amendment (Due Process). Around the very late 19th century, protections in the Bill of Rights from Federal intrusion into our lives started being applied to the states, the first being Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. Chicago. In general, I think all but one enumerated right now applies to the states. As shown in the Ninth Amendment, unenumerated rights, including Privacy have been protected as well. And the right to personal privacy dates back to 1891 in Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford.

It is up to Congress to enact a national law if it is what people want.

SCOTUS has repeatedly had to step in to protect the rights of those of which the Government has been too slow to act. Brown v Board of Education would be a notable case of that type. Lawrence v Texas would be another, where in 2003 (200 fucking 3) SCOTUS (not unanimously) viewed it as unconstitutional to arrest someone for a consensual gay sex act.

Don't shake your fist at SCOTUS, shake your fist at Congress.

One word, Filibuster.

 

[Elixir]

Rights not specifically constitutionally allocated or denied remain with the people. Supposedly.

 

[ZiprHead]

One word, Filibuster.

Fuck the filibuster.

 

[Elixir]

We add justices now, the GOP will just do the same

So what?
They’ll only do it if they get the chance.
Dems need to do the work and rally the 70% who oppose the denial of the right of women to control their own reproductive health, and turn it into a third rail for GOP candidates.

 

[Jarhyn]

The issue is the constitution. There is nothing in COTUS even remotely related to abortion. It is not for SCOTUS to determine what they think is right based on who has the majority of judges. SCOTUS is not a moral authority. SCOTUS is not supposed to rule based on popular opinion. If a federal or other court did that in a political or criminal case we would never hear the end of it and the judges would probably be sanctioned.

Per the constitution IMO abortion is relegated to the individual states.

It is up to Congress to enact a national law if it is what people want. Don't shake your fist at SCOTUS, shake your fist at Congress.

From a poll cited this morning 53% support abortion. Keep in mind not all democrats in Congress may support abortion legislation.

There are a number of things including freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the freedom from being forced to give board to agents of the state.

The right to privacy from the state, and the right to not be forced to provide aid and comfort for others by the state is a pretty strong basis for the right to not be expected to provide biological support for another human, and to be free of government interference as you evict them.

 

[ZiprHead]

How many of those justices in their confirmation hearings said RvW is settled law. I know Amy Coney-Barret said this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We add justices now, the GOP will just do the same

So what?

There will never be a stable SCOTUS if we do that. It is one of last things holding the seams of our democracy together. To be fair, those seams are nearly pulled out by this court.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

CJ Roberts says he wants to investigate the leak as it is a "betrayal of the confidences of the court". Yeah, that is the betrayal.

 

[Trausti]

Rights not specifically constitutionally allocated or denied remain with the people. Supposedly.

Right. You cannot use the Constitution to deny a right simply because the Constitution did not enumerate it. But that doesn't mean the Constitution grants a right it never mentioned.

 

[steve_bank]

The issue is the constitution. There is nothing in COTUS even remotely related to abortion. It is not for SCOTUS to determine what they think is right based on who has the majority of judges. SCOTUS is not a moral authority. SCOTUS is not supposed to rule based on popular opinion. If a federal or other court did that in a political or criminal case we would never hear the end of it and the judges would probably be sanctioned.

Per the constitution IMO abortion is relegated to the individual states.

It is up to Congress to enact a national law if it is what people want. Don't shake your fist at SCOTUS, shake your fist at Congress.

From a poll cited this morning 53% support abortion. Keep in mind not all democrats in Congress may support abortion legislation.

There are a number of things including freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the freedom from being forced to give board to agents of the state.

The right to privacy from the state, and the right to not be forced to provide aid and comfort for others by the state is a pretty strong basis for the right to not be expected to provide biological support for another human, and to be free of government interference as you evict them.

Search and seizure is a stretch at best. Your reapobse is an example of the problem.

Presidents try to get around Congress with executive orders and all presidents push it to the limit, but the next presented can cancel any executive orders. That is the fundamental problem with migration laws.

For the record I support abortion up to viability. SCOUTUS shoe horning into a constitutional right is not the solution.

It is a moral question that can not answered by science alone. Does a woman have a right to end the life of a living human capable of living outside the womb? Is a fetus nothing more than a fingernail? The RCC used to abject to condoms as a ridiculous lower bound. The extreme upper bound is killing a fetus jut before normal delivery.

Abortion is really a euphemism for killing. We 'kill' cancer cells and infections bacteria.

In this case I do not think it is just up to the woman, it is a collective moral issue. If it were a case of forcing wpmen to get pregnant or forcing women to have an abortion then IMO that would be a different issue.

Does the father have a right to oppose abortion?

 

[Elixir]

We add justices now, the GOP will just do the same

So what?

There will never be a stable SCOTUS if we do that. It is one of last things holding the seams of our democracy together. To be fair, those seams are nearly pulled out by this court.

Who wants a Supreme Court that is “stably” enforcing the will of a religious minority? Not I.

Worse, this opinion is a blunt tool that can be used to allow States to override virtually ALL constitutional rights.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The issue is the constitution. There is nothing in COTUS even remotely related to abortion. It is not for SCOTUS to determine what they think is right based on who has the majority of judges. SCOTUS is not a moral authority. SCOTUS is not supposed to rule based on popular opinion. If a federal or other court did that in a political or criminal case we would never hear the end of it and the judges would probably be sanctioned.

Per the constitution IMO abortion is relegated to the individual states.

It is up to Congress to enact a national law if it is what people want. Don't shake your fist at SCOTUS, shake your fist at Congress.

From a poll cited this morning 53% support abortion. Keep in mind not all democrats in Congress may support abortion legislation.

There are a number of things including freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and the freedom from being forced to give board to agents of the state.

The right to privacy from the state, and the right to not be forced to provide aid and comfort for others by the state is a pretty strong basis for the right to not be expected to provide biological support for another human, and to be free of government interference as you evict them.

Search and seizure is a stretch at best. Your reapobse is an example of the problem.

Presidents try to get around Congress with executive orders and all presidents push it to the limit, but the next presented can cancel any executive orders. That is the fundamental problem with migration laws.

For the record I support abortion up to viability. SCOUTUS shoe horning into a constitutional right is not the solution.

How is it shoe-horning? Right to privacy is noted in 1891 by SCOTUS. In 1965, SCOTUS explicitly indicates right to privacy for a married couple in Griswold v Connecticut for those sorts of marital things. This then gets extrapolated to women in general. Roe v Wade was decades in the making.

It is a moral question that can not answered by science alone. Does a woman have a right to end the life of a living human capable of living outside the womb?

That isn't a question as the 15 week rule involves a fetus that is not viable outside the womb. A heartbeat bill most certainly doesn't involve viability.

Is a fetus nothing more than a fingernail?

This decision is up to the woman, not a gerrymandered legislature. I'm all for a woman not getting an abortion if they are not comfortable with it. It is a decision they must live with. A GOP gerrymander legislature doesn't get involved, doesn't provide support, and actively works to limit access to health care for the woman. So why in the heck should they get the final say, when it is the woman... oh wait... I remember... women can't be trusted to make important decisions. I realize that you aren't a misogynist, but when one says this is a "collective moral issue" (nation by majority supports abortion by the way), that means we can't trust a woman to make the right moral choice.

In this case I do not think it is just up to the woman, it is a collective moral issue.

The woman ALONE bears the burden of pregnancy, birth, and post birth consequences (mental and physical, some permanent). How many women do you know that needed anti-depressants after birth? How many women do you know struggle with depression post pregnancy? Women that WANTED to have a child and the struggles they faced after pregnancy!

I really can't imagine what it'd be like (I've only been to the side of it with my wife), forget if one was forced to endure pregnancy/birth/post-birth.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We add justices now, the GOP will just do the same

So what?

There will never be a stable SCOTUS if we do that. It is one of last things holding the seams of our democracy together. To be fair, those seams are nearly pulled out by this court.

Who wants a Supreme Court that is “stably” enforcing the will of a religious minority? Not I.

Worse, this opinion is a blunt tool that can be used to allow States to override virtually ALL constitutional rights.

You add justices, it ends. Our democracy is gone as SCOTUS will be come a partisan rubber stamp.

 

[Elixir]

You add justices, it ends

Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before? There were only six originally, and there have been up to ten.

 

[Trausti]

You add justices, it ends

Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before?

When did that happen? It's been set at 9 justices since 1869.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You add justices, it ends

Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before?

When did that happen? It's been set at 9 justices since 1869.

You seemed to have answered your own question.

 

[Trausti]

You add justices, it ends

Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before?

When did that happen? It's been set at 9 justices since 1869.

You seemed to have answered your own question.

Democracy ended in 1869?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You add justices, it ends

Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before?

When did that happen? It's been set at 9 justices since 1869.

You seemed to have answered your own question.

Democracy ended in 1869?

Oh ffs!

Do you not agree that the GOP will stuff judges on SCOTUS after the Dems do it, making it a rubber stamp for partisan policies?

 

[Trausti]

You add justices, it ends

Why didn’t it “end” when it was done before?

When did that happen? It's been set at 9 justices since 1869.

You seemed to have answered your own question.

Democracy ended in 1869?

Oh ffs!

Do you not agree that the GOP will stuff judges on SCOTUS after the Dems do it, making it a rubber stamp for partisan policies?

Oh, I think they will. Here we agree Jimmy. Here we agree.