Roe v Wade is on deck

[Jimmy Higgins]

In general, counties with 10k votes of more (13) went No. Counties between 5k and 10k (16) were split but edged No. Counties between 1k and 5k in votes (52) were generally only Yes. Counties under 1k in votes (24) were Yes. While rural counties generally voted Yes, they be small. Their average margin of victory in 1k or less counties was 261. In 1k to 5k counties, 428. The average margin in 5k to 10k counties was -34 (ie, pro-No).

The Big County by far, Johnson, was 68 to 32 for No. In fact, that county's difference was effectively the difference in the state. The top 8 counties in votes were enough for No to overcome the entire Yes vote for the entire state.

 

[TomC]

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor. Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Here's the difference.

All of those votes were in line with the American people as a whole. Like it or not, the American people supported those things.

The current vote against RvW is in opposition to the general views of America as a whole. That's the bottom line. SCOTUS has become a partisan player, willing to overturn the Will of the People, if it serves the purposes of the partisan elite.

That's the big problem, IMNSHO. I've not been a fan of RvW for decades. But what SCOTUS just did is even worse. By a lot.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor.

Our favor? You mean the people's favor.

Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Their recent decisions have been quite arbitrary and extraordinarily political. The research incorrect and legal justification arbitrary and at times indefensible.

Justices Kennedy and O'Connor were conservative justices, but when it came to enumeration of rights, they didn't scour text for technicalities to tie their own hands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Near 3 to 2 margin of victory, which doesn't sound huge, but that actually means around 50% more people voted for no than yes. Yeah, 3 to 2 doesn't sound like that, does it? And this is Kansas. So now the question is what fucked up authoritarian plan does the GOP switch to now? They aren't ones that really care what the people think.

Political flyer on the door this morning, probably related to the doorbell we didn't answer. They're pretending they for "reasonable" restrictions, not abortion until birth and not taxpayer funded abortion. These scumbags.

 

[Jarhyn]

Near 3 to 2 margin of victory, which doesn't sound huge, but that actually means around 50% more people voted for no than yes. Yeah, 3 to 2 doesn't sound like that, does it? And this is Kansas. So now the question is what fucked up authoritarian plan does the GOP switch to now? They aren't ones that really care what the people think.

Political flyer on the door this morning, probably related to the doorbell we didn't answer. They're pretending they for "reasonable" restrictions, not abortion until birth and not taxpayer funded abortion. These scumbags.

I looked at that site and got flashed by virtue signaling so bright, against spin so sharp that I swear if I spent more than 2 seconds looking at that shit it would melt my goddamn brain.

THinK Of tHe ChiLdrEn!!1

The rights of the adult human being to say no, you say?

Oh must mean yer one of those ABORTION EXTREMISTS!

The lies that are told, and they don't think they might be doing something evil?

Scumbags is too kind.

 

[Metaphor]

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor. Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Here's the difference.

All of those votes were in line with the American people as a whole. Like it or not, the American people supported those things.

The current vote against RvW is in opposition to the general views of America as a whole. That's the bottom line. SCOTUS has become a partisan player, willing to overturn the Will of the People, if it serves the purposes of the partisan elite.

That's the big problem, IMNSHO. I've not been a fan of RvW for decades. But what SCOTUS just did is even worse. By a lot.
Tom

You are making a category error.

SCOTUS is not there to judge based on the views of the American people. It is their to interpret the law.

 

[ZiprHead]

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor. Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Here's the difference.

All of those votes were in line with the American people as a whole. Like it or not, the American people supported those things.

The current vote against RvW is in opposition to the general views of America as a whole. That's the bottom line. SCOTUS has become a partisan player, willing to overturn the Will of the People, if it serves the purposes of the partisan elite.

That's the big problem, IMNSHO. I've not been a fan of RvW for decades. But what SCOTUS just did is even worse. By a lot.
Tom

You are making a category error.

SCOTUS is not there to judge based on the views of the American people. It is their to interpret the law.

And their interpretation was wrong. Declaring there is no right to privacy flies in the face of several amendments to the constitution.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor. Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Here's the difference.

All of those votes were in line with the American people as a whole. Like it or not, the American people supported those things.

The current vote against RvW is in opposition to the general views of America as a whole. That's the bottom line. SCOTUS has become a partisan player, willing to overturn the Will of the People, if it serves the purposes of the partisan elite.

That's the big problem, IMNSHO. I've not been a fan of RvW for decades. But what SCOTUS just did is even worse. By a lot.
Tom

You are making a category error.

SCOTUS is not there to judge based on the views of the American people. It is their to interpret the law.

And SCOTUS did... repeatedly... and then this hyper partisan version of SCOTUS decided to up end all of those cases, potentially rendering precedence without meaning.

 

[Metaphor]

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor. Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Here's the difference.

All of those votes were in line with the American people as a whole. Like it or not, the American people supported those things.

The current vote against RvW is in opposition to the general views of America as a whole. That's the bottom line. SCOTUS has become a partisan player, willing to overturn the Will of the People, if it serves the purposes of the partisan elite.

That's the big problem, IMNSHO. I've not been a fan of RvW for decades. But what SCOTUS just did is even worse. By a lot.
Tom

You are making a category error.

SCOTUS is not there to judge based on the views of the American people. It is their to interpret the law.

And their interpretation was wrong. Declaring there is no right to privacy flies in the face of several amendments to the constitution.

Whether the interpretation was right or wrong doesn't make TomC's statement not a category error.

[youtube video]

Funny how the left loved the SCOTUS when they were, for decades, ruling in their favor. Roe, Lawrence, Obergefell (these I agree with btw), countless decisions upholding racial discrimination in college admissions, free education for illegals, eminent domain, etc.

But now they are terrorists because y'all don't agree with a recent decision. LMAO.

Here's the difference.

All of those votes were in line with the American people as a whole. Like it or not, the American people supported those things.

The current vote against RvW is in opposition to the general views of America as a whole. That's the bottom line. SCOTUS has become a partisan player, willing to overturn the Will of the People, if it serves the purposes of the partisan elite.

That's the big problem, IMNSHO. I've not been a fan of RvW for decades. But what SCOTUS just did is even worse. By a lot.
Tom

You are making a category error.

SCOTUS is not there to judge based on the views of the American people. It is their to interpret the law.

And SCOTUS did... repeatedly... and then this hyper partisan version of SCOTUS decided to up end all of those cases, potentially rendering precedence without meaning.

Precedence has the same meaning it has always had.

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

 

[ZiprHead]

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the will of the people. Therefore the courts should also reflect the will of the people.

 

[ZiprHead]

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the will of the people. Therefore the courts should also reflect the will of the people.

James Madison said "neh" to that. Madison won.

There is also reflecting the will of the people and then the course of the nation of sorts. Let's remember, Brown v Board of Education wasn't reflecting the will of the people. Obergefell as well.

This is where the whole Stare Decisis thing comes into play. The nation (and SCOTUS!) had a status quo on abortion. Nothing changed regarding abortion. Not the will of the people or government, except maybe abortion had actually become even safer as pills had become the preferred mechanism. So when SCOTUS is overruling a pile a precedence, there needed to be a very compelling reason, that something had changed... nothing had changed other than the court itself, which was stocked with highly partisan justices. And the Kansas vote proves that the nation didn't need Dobbs. And lets remember the big difference between Obergefell (among all the other 14th Amendment rights cases) and Dobbs. They expanded right protections, while Dobbs gravely retracted them.

Also, I wonder how that investigation is going into the "liberal" leak of the draft.

 

[Metaphor]

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the will of the people. Therefore the courts should also reflect the will of the people.

If Thomas Jefferson wanted that, he should have hardcoded the expiry of the Constitution in the Constitution.

Instead, the Constitution is quite difficult to amend.

 

[Rhea]

Indisputable facts vs science derail moved to “General religion”

Split - Science vs faith and indisputable facts

Somebody should point out to them that science is defined by the absence of indisputable facts. Funny. When YEC people point that out suddenly people find mountains of indisputable facts. Tom

iidb.org

 

[lostone]

Jefferson did not write the Constitution - he may have had much input and insight into it, and what it was meant to be, but it was not his work. OTOH,, he may have had salient 2nd thoughts on what he and other founders intended for it to be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the will of the people. Therefore the courts should also reflect the will of the people.

If Thomas Jefferson wanted that, he should have hardcoded the expiry of the Constitution in the Constitution.

Instead, the Constitution is quite difficult to amend.

I'm curious about the treatise from Metaphor on how Marbury v Madison was a justified decision based on the original powers indicated in the Constitution. He seems so familiar with the "originalist" position on the Constitution. And as long as we allow him to remain ignorant on the last 250ish years of constitutional law, he can remain an intellectual giant on US Constitutional Law and history.

 

[Bomb#20]

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the will of the people. Therefore the courts should also reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said freeing slaves was like abandoning children. Therefore if Argumentum ad Jeffersum is a valid reasoning principle then the courts should find Dred Scott has no standing to sue for his freedom.

 

[fromderinside]

I am challenging TomC's strange idea that SCOTUS should reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said the constitution should be rewritten every twenty years to reflect the will of the people. Therefore the courts should also reflect the will of the people.

Thomas Jefferson said freeing slaves was like abandoning children. Therefore if Argumentum ad Jeffersum is a valid reasoning principle then the courts should find Dred Scott has no standing to sue for his freedom.

Jefferson saying freeing slaves relates to Jeffersonian notion of twenty year rewrites how beyond Jefferson said both things.

 

[IIDB Staff]

The derail on creating neo pronouns was split to ~Elsewhere

https://iidb.org/threads/neopronoun-discussion-was-roe-v-wade.26403/

 

[TomC]

Indiana just passed an incredibly restrictive bill.
According to it's sponsor it will eliminate 99% of all abortions.

I couldn't help but notice that she didn't qualify that with "elective", "legal", or anything like that.
Tom