Roe v Wade is on deck

[Politesse]

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?

It wasn't exactly the greatest year for democracy... But Grant did fight tirelessly to make good on the promise of democracy, however false it had been proven, and overturning Johnson's craven pocket veto to expand the Court was part and parcel of the Republican Party's efforts to support the idea, at least, of Reconstruction, and the repudiation of shameless partisan corruption.

Looking at how far they have fallen, from spearheading the Fifteenth to blatantly trying to destroy it in just 150 years, should make modern "Republicans" feel existentially ashamed of themselves.

 

[Jarhyn]

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?

It depends on how they do it. If they index it on population size, number of representatives, etc, the GOP will not have the power.

It will have already happened, and they will not be able to walk through the same doorway.

 

[ZiprHead]

Heard today: Women now have less bodily autonomy than dead people.

 

[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?

It depends on how they do it. If they index it on population size, number of representatives, etc, the GOP will not have the power.

It will have already happened, and they will not be able to walk through the same doorway.

They'd do whatever they damn well please. Schumer said W shouldn't get to appt a hypothetical 3rd conservative justice, McConnell uses that to block a moderate selection for SCOTUS... and then shoves Barrett up SCOTUS's ass in record time at the buzzer.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Heard today: Women now have less bodily autonomy than dead people.

The exact same people that screamed about their individual rights not to get vaccinated or wear masks are now quite contradictorily shouting about the rights of fetuses, and how women don't have the most intimate of individual rights to themselves.

It is quite sickening.

 

[ZiprHead]

Heard today: Women now have less bodily autonomy than dead people.

The exact same people that screamed about their individual rights not to get vaccinated or wear masks are now quite contradictorily shouting about the rights of fetuses, and how women don't have the most intimate of individual rights to themselves.

It is quite sickening.

You can't take organs from a dead person without their prior permission.

 

[Trausti]

Heard today: Women now have less bodily autonomy than dead people.

The exact same people that screamed about their individual rights not to get vaccinated or wear masks are now quite contradictorily shouting about the rights of fetuses, and how women don't have the most intimate of individual rights to themselves.

It is quite sickening.

However you feel about it, it's not a constitutional question. It's a legislature / public policy question. California will still let you kill your baby.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Heard today: Women now have less bodily autonomy than dead people.

The exact same people that screamed about their individual rights not to get vaccinated or wear masks are now quite contradictorily shouting about the rights of fetuses, and how women don't have the most intimate of individual rights to themselves.

It is quite sickening.

However you feel about it, it's not a constitutional question.

I understand that you don't get Constitutional Law. And how it impacts what is and isn't a constitutional concern. I get how you are oblivious to the Ninth Amendment which indicates that unenumerated rights are not not rights.

It's a legislature / public policy question.

Is it now? Because a majority of Americans support abortion rights, but it'll be blotted out immediately in a dozen or so states if this decision comes forth. So no, it isn't a "public policy question".

California will still let you kill your baby.

Killing babies isn't legal in any state. If you can't tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, that'd just be another thing to toss on the pile of "Stuff Trausti doesn't understand."

 

[TomC]

You can't take organs from a dead person without their prior permission.

That's not true.
Upon death, the decision becomes one made by the survivors.
Tom

 

[Trausti]

If women are now acknowledged to exist, it's of interest to note that there is little difference between men and women on the question of abortion.

Abortion Trends by Gender

This page outlines Gallup's long-term trends on Americans' views about abortion by gender.

news.gallup.com

Most people will be supportive or ambivalent if the Court actually overturns Roe.

 

[Trausti]

Killing babies isn't legal in any state. If you can't tell the difference between a fetus and a baby, that'd just be another thing to toss on the pile of "Stuff Trausti doesn't understand."

If a child is born premature at 30 weeks and the mother/some crazy fucker kills it, that's murder. But if an abortionist sucks the brains from a 30-week fetus, that's healthcare. Moloch is pleased.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You can't take organs from a dead person without their prior permission.

That's not true.
Upon death, the decision becomes one made by the survivors.
Tom

News to me. Why bother becoming a "donor" if the family can just decide. But below, that seems to be the case. Odd.

link

Results: The decision of the family regarding the request for donation took place after they had enough time to reflect on the matter (81.8%). The decision was made by the family (43.5%), by both family and donor (76.8%), by the family with previous knowledge about their deceased relative's wish (63.2%), or only by the donor (11.6%). There was familial conflict after the decision in about 7.2% of donations; 63.2% of the families were aware of their deceased relative's wish, and 90.5% were aware that their relative's wish helped them make the decision. Women were most frequently responsible for the decision to donate (55%).

 

[steve_bank]

The crux of the problem IS in what a diligence may be between fetus and baby.

Killing a late term fetus in the womb and killing a delivered baby after cutting the chord,, is there a moral difference?

Search and seizure along with warrants were about civil police matters. Along with that is being secure in your private papers. In context I think there is aright to privacy about pregnancy and about choosing to having an abortion. HIPPA medical records privacy laws. It does not apply to a right to have an abortion.

There is no inherent COTUS right to overall privacy.

The issue of telecommunications and privacy goes back to around the 193os and early forms of wire tapping. You can't be tapped without a warrant with probable cause, but call information and records held by a third party phone company is not private.

There are no privacy absolutes.

 

[TomC]

News to me. Why bother becoming a "donor" if the family can just decide.

Because, usually, the family is in a state of grief in the aftermath of the death. The decisions that they make, at that time, tend to be extremely self centered and not terribly rational.

My partner's daughter was killed in an automobile accident, about 20 y/o. Massive head trauma, she died in a helicopter racing to the hospital. She'd have been an ideal organ donor. Young, healthy, no alcohol or cigarettes, eating well(she was also very pregnant), died moments before reaching the hospital. Perfect.
But the whole family was in shock and grief and every bad emotion you can think of. Nobody cared about the need for healthy organ donations or anything like that. So it didn't happen.
Tom

 

[TV and credit cards]

So this is just Alito's opinion and then he floats it around to the others who agree with him in principle and they make changes as they see fit until such time as a final draft is written. And justices may change their opinion, switch sides as Roberts did with Obamacare prior to the drop dead date.
I'm assuming that's how this works.
And if Roberts is not in the majority, I think it goes to Thomas to write the majority opinion. Unless, like speaking, he don't wanna.

Cool heads. I think it will be some time before women are peeing on a stick before entering Canada.

 

[Trausti]

The crux of the problem IS in what a diligence may be between fetus and baby.

Killing a late term fetus in the womb and killing a delivered baby after cutting the chord,, is there a moral difference?

Europeans, who are said to be more progressive than US Americans, have stricter abortion laws. I'd guess that most Americans would support European-type abortion laws. The problem is Roe arrogated that debate from the people. The Court shouldn't be deciding moral questions.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

News to me. Why bother becoming a "donor" if the family can just decide.

Because, usually, the family is in a state of grief in the aftermath of the death. The decisions that they make, at that time, tend to be extremely self centered and not terribly rational.

Not me. I already have my mother's organs set up for sale. I just need to get her snuck into a back alley in Mexico City without her noticing something is up.

My partner's daughter was killed in an automobile accident, about 20 y/o. Massive head trauma, she died in a helicopter racing to the hospital. She'd have been an ideal organ donor. Young, healthy, no alcohol or cigarettes, eating well(she was also very pregnant), died moments before reaching the hospital. Perfect.
But the whole family was in shock and grief and every bad emotion you can think of. Nobody cared about the need for healthy organ donations or anything like that. So it didn't happen.
Tom

I was just surprised to see the Donor only at about 1 in 10.

 

[TomC]

Not me. I already have my mother's organs set up for sale. I just need to get her snuck into an alley in Mexico City without her noticing something is up.

Nevertheless, what ZiprHead posted is demonstrably false. What you posted was questionable at best.

This post is demonstrably illegal.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The crux of the problem IS in what a diligence may be between fetus and baby.

Killing a late term fetus in the womb and killing a delivered baby after cutting the chord,, is there a moral difference?

Europeans, who are said to be more progressive than US Americans, have stricter abortion laws. I'd guess that most Americans would support European-type abortion laws. The problem is Roe arrogated that debate from the people. The Court shouldn't be deciding moral questions.

So do you want to join the conversation and provide ideas as to what you think, or are you just going to continue to meddle?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So this is just Alito's opinion and then he floats it around to the others who agree with him in principle and they make changes as they see fit until such time as a final draft is written. And justices may change their opinion, switch sides as Roberts did with Obamacare prior to the drop dead date.
I'm assuming that's how this works.
And if Roberts is not in the majority, I think it goes to Thomas to write the majority opinion. Unless, like speaking, he don't wanna.

Cool heads. I think it will be some time before women are peeing on a stick before entering Canada.

I don't think so. That opinion is way too long to be just Alito's thoughts. If this is 5-4, that means Roberts is only concurring in part, and objecting overall. I think Roberts would have been fine with the Mississippi law a new primer which allows states to judge for themselves the time limit, but this finding tosses out Roe v Wade altogether, which he probably would have rather done in steps.