SCOTUS - Women must give birth - Government has no say in pollution.

[laughing dog]

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Which is a real shame, because they used to. In Roe v Wade, 4 out of the 7 affirmative votes were from Republicans, and only one of the two dissents was from a Republican.

 

[laughing dog]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims.

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

Which has jack shit to do with the situation in the USA.

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.

Or wait until the court has a sufficiently different make up and get a case challenging one of the state anti-abortion laws.

 

[Toni]

So, do you believe the 1973 was ideologically driven?

No

Okay. That explains some of your beliefs.

It's an example of a country with no specific Constitutional rights. There are more ways to have rights than to have them spelled out in a Constitution.

And that is relevant to the US because........?

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Yes, we know. However, in the US, individual states make laws pertaining to what happens within the boundaries of that state. Much of this has to do with day to day regulation of commerce, etc. but it also includes how things are paid for, what is paid for by the state, etc. Also, age of consent, legal age to drink, etc. Voting laws are determined by states but must fall within principals outlined in the constitution or its amendments. The same with many other laws.

Until 1865, many states had laws legalizing slavery, for instance. We even fought a war over that. You may disagree with the outcome but our nation, at long last, determined that it was not legal to enslave other human beings, no matter what state one lived in. Likewise, a universal age for voting, voting rights for Native Americans and for women were determined to be held throughout the US, and not individually determined by states.

Until a few days ago, in the United States, girls and women had the legal right to pursue abortions and states were limited in their ability to regulate or forbid abortions. Now, what rights women have over their own bodies is determined on a state by state basis.

To the best of my knowledge, there are zero laws pertaining to men that operate on a state by state basis. Basically, the Supreme Court has determined that women are not full citizens of the United States.

 

[Metaphor]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims.

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

Which has jack shit to do with the situation in the USA.

Why? Do you believe rights can only be had if they are written in a Constitution?

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.

Or wait until the court has a sufficiently different make up and get a case challenging one of the state anti-abortion laws.

Right - "appoint the right people".

 

[Metaphor]

So, do you believe the 1973 was ideologically driven?

No

Okay. That explains some of your beliefs.

It's an example of a country with no specific Constitutional rights. There are more ways to have rights than to have them spelled out in a Constitution.

And that is relevant to the US because........?

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Yes, we know. However, in the US, individual states make laws pertaining to what happens within the boundaries of that state.

Yes, I know. It's the same in Australia. There is a division of powers.

Much of this has to do with day to day regulation of commerce, etc. but it also includes how things are paid for, what is paid for by the state, etc. Also, age of consent, legal age to drink, etc. Voting laws are determined by states but must fall within principals outlined in the constitution or its amendments. The same with many other laws.

Until 1865, many states had laws legalizing slavery, for instance. We even fought a war over that. You may disagree with the outcome

LOL okay.

but our nation, at long last, determined that it was not legal to enslave other human beings, no matter what state one lived in. Likewise, a universal age for voting, voting rights for Native Americans and for women were determined to be held throughout the US, and not individually determined by states.

Until a few days ago, in the United States, girls and women had the legal right to pursue abortions and states were limited in their ability to regulate or forbid abortions. Now, what rights women have over their own bodies is determined on a state by state basis.

Yeah, I know.

To the best of my knowledge, there are zero laws pertaining to men that operate on a state by state basis. Basically, the Supreme Court has determined that women are not full citizens of the United States.

Men can become pregnant too, Toni. You've really been slipping up lately.

 

[Toni]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims.

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

Which has jack shit to do with the situation in the USA.

Why? Do you believe rights can only be had if they are written in a Constitution?

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.

Or wait until the court has a sufficiently different make up and get a case challenging one of the state anti-abortion laws.

Right - "appoint the right people".

People can have rights that aren't in the Constitution but they are only guaranteed if they are written into the Constitution.

 

[laughing dog]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims.

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

Which has jack shit to do with the situation in the USA.

Why? Do you believe rights can only be had if they are written in a Constitution?

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.

Or wait until the court has a sufficiently different make up and get a case challenging one of the state anti-abortion laws.

Right - "appoint the right people".

Yes - honorable persons who will make intelligent, compassionate and fact-based decisions.

This court could have come out with a decision that affirmed their conclusion that was neither hypocritical or supported by "historical distortions". But it didn't.

 

[Bomb#20]

S.C. Bill Would Apparently Outlaw News Sites' Writing About Legal Abortion Clinics in Neighboring States

The South Carolina state Senate is considering a bill that would basically ban abortions, with no exception other than for...

reason.com

The arguments for and against the prohibition on abortion are obvious, so I won't focus on them. (I oppose such prohibitions, but I have little useful to add about them.) Instead, I thought I'd flag something that's more within my area of expertise, and that others might miss: The law's ban on "knowingly or intentionally aid[ing or] abet[ting]" an abortion "includes, but is not limited to knowingly and intentionally,"

(1) providing information to a pregnant woman, or someone seeking information on behalf of a pregnant woman, by telephone, internet, or any other mode of communication regarding self-administered abortions or the means to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used, for an abortion; [or]
(2) hosting or maintaining an internet website, providing access to an internet website, or providing an internet service purposefully directed to a pregnant woman who is a resident of this State that provides information on how to obtain an abortion, knowing that the information will be used, or is reasonably likely to be used for an abortion.

I wonder if they'll go after Google Maps for showing South Carolinians there are roads leading out of the state...

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Duh. Democrats really don't much give a damn about civil rights either.

Duh...

  [HEADING=2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC[/HEADING]

 

[Bomb#20]

The point is that the people decrying this decision appear to believe that this court used no legal reasoning and was completely influenced by their personal politics, but the 1973 court used exceptional legal reasoning and none of them were influenced bu their personal politics.

1973 was because all the existing laws didn't pass constitutional muster.

If that were the reason then the 1973 SCOTUS could have simply overturned all the existing laws but not established a federal right, and left it to the states to try to write new laws without their identified constitutional defects. That's what they did with the death penalty.

And now we have pretty much the same thing that prompted 1973--a bunch of anti-abortion laws that are about punishment, not about the fetus.

Some of the states' laws have no rape exception, probably so the states can defend themselves against that accusation.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, do you believe the 1973 was ideologically driven?

No. Roe v Wade was a 7-2 decision. Four justices in the majority were appointed by Republican Presidents and 3 by Democratic Presidents. Among the dissenting justices, one was appointed by a Democratic President and one by a Republican President.

Contrast that with the current travesty with all justices in the majority appointed by Republican presidents and all of the dissenters appointed by Democrats.

There is more to ideology than "My party good. Other party bad."

 

[Bomb#20]

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

The U.S. is one of those countries. We have all manner of legal rights guaranteed by ordinary laws rather than the Constitution. The right not to be fired for having gay sex, to take a recent example.

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.

Or pass a federal law. The Democrats could fix this problem tomorrow if they had party discipline and a backbone.

 

[Bomb#20]

Until 1865, many states had laws legalizing slavery, for instance. We even fought a war over that. You may disagree with the outcome

Your groundless insinuation that he's pro-slavery is noted. Perhaps you had some reason to say that other than malice, but I doubt it.

Until a few days ago, in the United States, girls and women had the legal right to pursue abortions and states were limited in their ability to regulate or forbid abortions. Now, what rights women have over their own bodies is determined on a state by state basis.

What rights all of us have over our own bodies is determined on a state by state basis. Whether you're allowed to inhale burnt vegetation is determined on a state by state basis.

To the best of my knowledge, there are zero laws pertaining to men that operate on a state by state basis.

If you mean pertaining specifically to men but not to women, that means either laws that explicitly distinguish people by sex, or else laws that impact one sex rather than the other for biological reasons, as with abortion. For the former category, there are state laws that say men can't participate in women's sports. For the latter, we'd be talking about some aspect of male anatomy. So, for example, as a Californian I have the right to donate a testicle for a transplant and not be discriminated against by a health insurer. If I lived in Nevada I'd have no such right.

 

[ZiprHead]

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Duh. Democrats really don't much give a damn about civil rights either.

Can you provide some examples?

 

[Bomb#20]

People can have rights that aren't in the Constitution but they are only guaranteed if they are written into the Constitution.

There's no guarantee even when they are written into the Constitution. Pace v Alabama. Plessy v Ferguson. Schenck v. United States.

 

[Bomb#20]

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Duh. Democrats really don't much give a damn about civil rights either.

Can you provide some examples?

Been there, done that. You snipped it.

 

[ZiprHead]

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Duh. Democrats really don't much give a damn about civil rights either.

Can you provide some examples?

Been there, done that. You snipped it.

The only example in the post you first replied to me is Citizens United vs. FEC.

 

[Jarhyn]

I really did not think I would have to explain it this much. Just because you don't have a Constitutionally enumerated right does not mean your countrymen and women can't have the right.

Please stop with these context-free theoretical claims.

There's nothing theoretical about the dozens of other countries where people enjoy rights not guaranteed in their Constitution, or who don't even have a Constitution.

Which has jack shit to do with the situation in the USA.

Why? Do you believe rights can only be had if they are written in a Constitution?

In the USA, as long as there are a sufficient number of theocrats and misogynists and their dupes, it will take a Constitutional ruling.

Either the right is in the Constitution already, or it is not. The Court has decided it is not. So, you'll either have to get a Constitutional amendment to pass, secure it state-by-state, or choose revolution.

Or wait until the court has a sufficiently different make up and get a case challenging one of the state anti-abortion laws.

Right - "appoint the right people".

Yes - honorable persons who will make intelligent, compassionate and fact-based decisions.

This court could have come out with a decision that affirmed their conclusion that was neither hypocritical or supported by "historical distortions". But it didn't.

I disagree. They could not have come to the conclusions they did without an egregious violation of a number of principles which are well laid out in our constitution, mostly by people who didn't know how much their principles impugned their own lifestyles and puny momentary opinions.

And still those principles are not perfect, but even so, this was a vile twisting, as is apology to such.

Also seriously, this post was gross to clean up.

Shame on you two not cleaning up your tag pairs in markup view.

 

[Bomb#20]

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Duh. Democrats really don't much give a damn about civil rights either.

Can you provide some examples?

Been there, done that. You snipped it.

The only example in the post you first replied to me is Citizens United vs. FEC.

In the post I quoted you were complaining about C.U. v FEC, weren't you? And you're a Democrat, aren't you?

Sure, I get that posting links that appear to hint at your opinions without coming out and explicitly saying what you think is kind of your thing; so fine, I'll leave individuals out of it. Democrats by and large are even more inclined to oppose CU v FEC than Republicans are to oppose Roe v Wade. Lots of Republicans are appalled by Dobbs and will certainly be appalled by the government suppressing telling women about their out-of-state options. Hardly any Democrats appear to be appalled by the government having suppressed Hillary: the Movie. So if your anecdote about the South Carolina legislature is sufficient to generalize that Republicans don't care about civil rights, then my anecdote about opponents of CU v FEC is certainly sufficient for the symmetrical generalization. Most people of both parties appear to care a lot more about the civil rights of their ingroups than about the civil rights of their outgroups. A plague on both your houses.

 

[ZiprHead]

Republicans really don't much give a damn about civil rights.

Duh. Democrats really don't much give a damn about civil rights either.

Can you provide some examples?

Been there, done that. You snipped it.

The only example in the post you first replied to me is Citizens United vs. FEC.

In the post I quoted you were complaining about C.U. v FEC, weren't you? And you're a Democrat, aren't you?

Yes to both questions.

Sure, I get that posting links that appear to hint at your opinions without coming out and explicitly saying what you think is kind of your thing; so fine, I'll leave individuals out of it. Democrats by and large are even more inclined to oppose CU v FEC than Republicans are to oppose Roe v Wade. Lots of Republicans are appalled by Dobbs and will certainly be appalled by the government suppressing telling women about their out-of-state options. Hardly any Democrats appear to be appalled by the government having suppressed Hillary: the Movie. So if your anecdote about the South Carolina legislature is sufficient to generalize that Republicans don't care about civil rights, then my anecdote about opponents of CU v FEC is certainly sufficient for the symmetrical generalization. Most people of both parties appear to care a lot more about the civil rights of their ingroups than about the civil rights of their outgroups. A plague on both your houses.

My problem with CUvFEC has nothing to do with the Hillary movie.

So that's one example. Do you have any others?

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree. They could not have come to the conclusions they did without an egregious violation of a number of principles which are well laid out in our constitution, mostly by people who didn't know how much their principles impugned their own lifestyles and puny momentary opinions.

And still those principles are not perfect, but even so, this was a vile twisting, as is apology to such.

Also seriously, this post was gross to clean up.

Shame on you two not cleaning up your tag pairs in markup view.

I did my best - despite claims it is easy to clean them up, I frequently have an effing time doing it.

As to my point, while I would have disagreed with their reasoning, there was no need vitiate the right to privacy in their decision. Hell, even Justice Roberts brought that up.