• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Roe v Wade is on deck

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,882
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
Irrelevant. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by a President and confirmed by a Senate. If that means the court is 'illegitimate' then the Congress that AOC sits in is illegitimate.
And each of those justices lied at their senate hearings. I know what would happen to me if I lied during a job interview.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So, I've reviewed what each of these justices accused of "perjury" said during their confirmation hearings.

ACB and Thomas specifically say they will not pre-judge any case.

Gorsuch says it is precedent but does not in any way say he agrees that it was decided correctly nor that it was 'settled law' (whatever that is supposed to mean).

Also, Gorsuch is movie-star handsome. Wow!
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Irrelevant. The Supreme Court justices are nominated by a President and confirmed by a Senate. If that means the court is 'illegitimate' then the Congress that AOC sits in is illegitimate.
And each of those justices lied at their senate hearings. I know what would happen to me if I lied during a job interview.
Oh yes? Please point out the lies.
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a real attempt to assassinate a SCOTUS judge? The one a couple weeks ago doesn't count.
Why doesn't it count? Because they failed?
Because he was a mentally ill person who never atually attempted it. Duh.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a real attempt to assassinate a SCOTUS judge? The one a couple weeks ago doesn't count.
Why doesn't it count? Because they failed?
Well, technically, calling the police before you even try implies he knew he needed help and sought it... before actually trying, which he never did.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Now that the decision has been issued overturning Roe, he are at the point where we have insurgencies at the homes of some of the Justices.
Reply Options:

A) Oh that... it is viable political discourse.

or

B) Yes... we must be concerned about the liberty of those that are not women.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
Katie Lannan on Twitter: "Under an executive order Gov. Baker signed today, Mass. "will not cooperate with extradition requests from other states pursuing criminal charges against individuals who received, assisted with, or performed reproductive health services that are legal in [MA]," per his office." / Twitter
noting
No. 600: Protecting Access to Reproductive Health Care Services in the Commonwealth | Mass.gov

Tracking Where Abortion Is Now Banned - The New York Times
  • Abortion outlawed immediately in AL, AR, KY, LA, MO, OK, SD, UT, WI
  • Abortion outlawed "within days" in MS, WY
  • Abortion outlawed after 30 days in ID, ND, TN, TX
  • Abortion may soon be outlawed in WV
  • Abortion only before 6 weeks: GA, NC, OH
  • Abortion only before 15 weeks: AZ, FL
  • Uncertain status: IA, IN, KS, MI, MT, NC, NE, PA, VA
  • Abortion protected: AK, CO, IL, MA, ME, MN, NH, NM, NV, RI
  • Abortion access expanded: CA, CT, DC, DE, HI, MD, NJ, NY, OR, VT, WA
I am pleased that someone posted that.

As I look around the political landscape I see some giving negative reactions because of a belief that this will outlaw all abortion, and others giving positive reactions because of a belief that this will outlaw all abortion. It actually just makes it a state matter.

I suppose congress could actually try to do something on the issue. Unlikely. Part of the problem with RvW was that it was done entirely by the SCOTUS and congress had no part.
SCOTUS ruled that the Constitution doesn't protect the right to abortion. How does that provide you the signal that they'll rubber stamp a Federally passed legislative act on it? They'll say it is a state issue... because the Constitution doesn't speak on it... and feed the act through a shredder.
 

Gospel

Unify Africa
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
3,311
Location
Florida
Gender
B====D
Basic Beliefs
Agnostic
The SCOTUS clearly misplaced their copy of the 9th amendment. Is there any way we can mail it to them?

Thanks,

Edit: I'm insinuating that they just might uphold the future trend (my prediction) of Red States overreaching to prosecute people going to blue states. That would be problematic because the 9th amendment (IMO) implies that the people of the state have the power over their state and by nature influences its laws. So if a citizen goes to a blue state and does something legal there another state has no standing since it wasn't done in their state where it is illegal. However since the SCOTUS lost their copy of the 9th amendment, they will allow states to prosecute.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
The SCOTUS clearly misplaced their copy of the 9th amendment. Is there any way we can mail it to them?

Thanks,
This SCOTUS doesn't care about much in the way of any particular legal strategies or foundations. They'll tear at precedence, use the exact opposite arguments from case to case. This is about enacting their religious utopia on America.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
The SCOTUS clearly misplaced their copy of the 9th amendment. Is there any way we can mail it to them?

Thanks,
They didn't misplace it, they just don't give a shit about the Constitution when they aren't able to weaponize it in pursuit of their theocratic goals. Every literalist worships their favorite documents right up to the point where they disagree with something it says, and not an centimeter further.
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,736
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Would anyone be surprised if there isn't a real attempt to assassinate a SCOTUS judge? The one a couple weeks ago doesn't count.
Why doesn't it count? Because they failed?
Well, to be fair, most of these Scrotums seem to be in favor of "second amendment solutions".

Reaping and sowing and all that.

I wouldn't shed a tear.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
I'd weep for the Democracy though. That sort of violence will galvanize an already galvanized alt-right Christian dominionistic movement. We have before us options, mostly at the state level, citizen passed constitutional amendments. That is our only option.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
So it's legal Calvinball. Loudly assert one's new rules as one goes.
Pretty much. Antonin Scalia was once asked about the Ninth in interview, and said the following:

SCALIA: He should apply the Ninth Amendment as it is written. And I apply it rigorously; I do not deny or disparage the existence of other rights in the sense of natural rights. That’s what the framers meant by that. Just because we’ve listed some rights of the people here doesn’t mean that we don’t believe that people have other rights. And if you try to take them away, we will revolt. And a revolt will be justified. It was the framers’ expression of their belief in natural law. But they did not put it in the charge of the courts to enforce.
Summary: he doesn't believe it is his responsibility as a jurist to enforce the law; the Ninth only requires him to acknowledge that other might have unenumerated rights, not that the Court has any responsibility whatsoever to defend those rights. Everything comes down to what the founders wanted, but he decides on their behalf what that was.

He continued:
Look, when I was in law school, if you had asked me what the Ninth Amendment was and my life depended upon it, I would be dead! Nobody ever used the Ninth Amendment for anything. Now, since those who have been using substantive due process have finally acknowledged that it’s a contradiction in terms, it’s silliness.
Summary: he ignored it in law school, and disparages it now.

Ladies and Gentleman, a senior Supreme Court Justice of the United States.

Full interview here, if you're curious.
 

Worldtraveller

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
2,736
Location
Layton, UT
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
Meh. Civil War is also an option.

The alt-right seems to think that will end well for them.

I'd like to test that assumption.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Meh. Civil War is also an option.

The alt-right seems to think that will end well for them.

I'd like to test that assumption.
Considering how their last attempt ended, I'd take those odds. But the problem is that no one ever "wins" a modern war, let alone a civil war. We obsess over nuclear bombs, but with or without them, every country in which a war was fought in the last two decades or so is now a barely habitable wasteland. If we want any of our rights and privileges to persist or mean anything, we must find a way to peacefully resolve civil strife. The second two armies mobilize, the country they're in is over.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Considering how their last attempt ended, I'd take those odds. But the problem is that no one ever "wins" a modern war
Certainly not on the battlefield anyhow. But it could be a big and possibly final "win" if the steps that should have been taken after the last civil war were taken after the next one. You know... stuff like reducing the congressional presence of insurrectionist States to one Senator each, having their elections and districting overseen by Congress, creating a penalty structure for cheating or trying to overthrow the government again etc.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Considering how their last attempt ended, I'd take those odds. But the problem is that no one ever "wins" a modern war
Certainly not on the battlefield anyhow. But it could be a big and possibly final "win" if the steps that should have been taken after the last civil war were taken after the next one. You know... stuff like reducing the congressional presence of insurrectionist States to one Senator each, having their elections and districting overseen by Congress, creating a penalty structure for cheating or trying to overthrow the government again etc.
Yeah? And that resolved civil strife in the South, did it?

confederate.jpg

But that was 1865, in any case. The situations may echo one another in some respects, but the outcome would be very different. Sherman was able to kill a lot of civilians and end agricultural production across a large swath of the South, but it was nothing like what is happening in Ukraine or Yemen right now.
 

Derec

Contributor
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
22,073
Location
Atlanta, GA
Basic Beliefs
atheist
What I have been saying for a while:
Samuel Alito said:
Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

From page 4 of the ruling.

Of course, instead of overturning RvW, he should have done the right thing and legalized consensual sex work nationwide. Missed opportunity.
 

zorq

Veteran Member
Joined
May 9, 2002
Messages
1,723
Location
Republic of Korea
Basic Beliefs
Atheist, Moderate
What I have been saying for a while:
Samuel Alito said:
Finally, the Court considers whether a right to obtain an abortion is part of a broader entrenched right that is supported by other precedents. The Court concludes the right to obtain an abortion cannot be justified as a component of such a right. Attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.

From page 4 of the ruling.

Of course, instead of overturning RvW, he should have done the right thing and legalized consensual sex work nationwide. Missed opportunity.
I agree. Bodily autonomy with respect to drug use and prostituition are also fundamental human rights.
 

Elixir

Made in America
Joined
Sep 23, 2012
Messages
20,813
Location
Mountains
Basic Beliefs
English is complicated
Considering how their last attempt ended, I'd take those odds. But the problem is that no one ever "wins" a modern war
Certainly not on the battlefield anyhow. But it could be a big and possibly final "win" if the steps that should have been taken after the last civil war were taken after the next one. You know... stuff like reducing the congressional presence of insurrectionist States to one Senator each, having their elections and districting overseen by Congress, creating a penalty structure for cheating or trying to overthrow the government again etc.
Yeah? And that resolved civil strife in the South, did it?

View attachment 39236

But that was 1865, in any case. The situations may echo one another in some respects, but the outcome would be very different. Sherman was able to kill a lot of civilians and end agricultural production across a large swath of the South, but it was nothing like what is happening in Ukraine or Yemen right now.

Sure, it’s a pipe dream but - Don’t be such a downer, Poli. We don’t have to go there. These fascist clowns would quickly come to resemble the 1/6 mob, with most of them just wanting to party and go home.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
Can Congress pass a law forbidding the States from forbidding abortion?
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
122
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
Should we conclude that our system of government does not work? If not, what recourse do we have? Is there any effective recourse?
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
Should we conclude that our system of government does not work? If not, what recourse do we have? Is there any effective recourse?
Of course we should continue trying. But I'd rather see a plan than a vague plea for support. And yes, I know that some Democrats are working on exactly that, albeit far too late to do any good. But I also fully expect those efforts to be sabotaged by fellow Democrats. I'm going to invest my money (and votes) in people and organizations I trust to use them well, not just hand it to the Party as a blank check that I have no reason to assume they will spend prudently.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker

Biden must take stronger action on abortion, Senate Democrats say


In an interview with NPR on Saturday, Washington Sen. Patty Murray said she'd asked the administration to have a governmentwide plan in place on "day one," as soon as the Supreme Court issued its decision.

"We're at day two," Murray said. "We can't wait days or weeks to get action for people who today need this kind of care, are sitting in their homes scared to death, worried about their own health, worried about their own economic situation, wondering what the heck they can do. Every day that goes by is one day too many."
 

ZiprHead

Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Joined
Oct 23, 2002
Messages
31,190
Location
Frozen in Michigan
Gender
Old Fart
Basic Beliefs
Democratic Socialist Atheist
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
Can Congress pass a law forbidding the States from forbidding abortion?
I believe so.
 

Politesse

Lux Aeterna
Joined
Feb 27, 2018
Messages
8,674
Location
Chochenyo Territory, US
Gender
nb; all pronouns fine
Basic Beliefs
Jedi Wayseeker
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
Can Congress pass a law forbidding the States from forbidding abortion?
It would end up at the same Court, if they tried, and end the same way. Full on reversing the effects of this decision is not a plausible immediate goal.
 

SigmatheZeta

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Messages
599
Gender
she/her
Basic Beliefs
Generally, I am rooted in both ancient Epicurean and ancient Pyrrhonist sentiments, although I am somewhat sympathetic toward the intentions behind ancient Cynicism.
I think that the anti-abortion court ruling is going to end up spectacularly backfiring on the GOP. The reason why the Democrats have failed to gain any new strongholds in the past fifty years has been partly due to the fact that, even if you live in the most conservative state in the entire country, that state could not really take away this basic aspect of human dignity. The chances that Texas could become a swing state in the next few years were incredibly low before, but now, the chances have risen considerably.

And if the SCOTUS were to attack landmark gay rights rulings, then that would probably activate the LGBTQ community, and they are a real hornet's nest. They have been since Stonewall. While the LGBTQ community has remained spectacularly skilled at getting people to organize at the grassroots level, a possible threat to rulings like Obergefell v. Hodges or Lawrence v. Texas would be grounds for war.

Now that supporters of abortion rights have to fight in every single state in order to protect their rights, they will be a lot less politically complacent.

The political stakes in this country have shifted tremendously, this year.
 

lostone

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2021
Messages
122
Basic Beliefs
skeptic
Meanwhile, the Democrats seem to be beside themselves with excitement, thinking this is going to be their golden goose; my phone is blowing up with texts like "STOP THE REPUBLICANS NOW, GIVE US MONEY!!!" "THE NEXT ELECTION WILL DECIDE WHETHER WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS, DONATE TODAY!" It's like if you had a house fire, and after parking themselves on the sidewalk silently watching your house burn down, the firefighters promptly started handing you brochures about supporting the local firepersons union if you don't want the next house to burn, too. Maybe tell me how you plan to do things differently next time, before asking me to fund the next five decades of inaction.
Should we conclude that our system of government does not work? If not, what recourse do we have? Is there any effective recourse?
Of course we should continue trying. But I'd rather see a plan than a vague plea for support. And yes, I know that some Democrats are working on exactly that, albeit far too late to do any good. But I also fully expect those efforts to be sabotaged by fellow Democrats. I'm going to invest my money (and votes) in people and organizations I trust to use them well, not just hand it to the Party as a blank check that I have no reason to assume they will spend prudently.
Advocacy groups, such as ACLU, PP, and NARAL?
 

Hermit

Cantankerous grump
Joined
Nov 14, 2017
Messages
1,467
Location
Ignore list
In light of the two recent SCOTUS decisions:

7h4xe7fqen791.jpg
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.
Yes, mere legislation can be overturned as soon as there are the numbers to support it. So, it makes the Democrats demanding money to 'fix' the situation quite odd. Even if in November they get all the numbers they need because of that extra money, it could last only two years.

EDIT: 1986 Joe Biden said there was an 'overwhelming, universal criticism' of the bad reasoning in Roe v Wade.

Many years ago, I asked why (probably to someone on this board), if the Republicans were so anti-abortion, they didn't just ban it federally when they had the chance(s). The simple answer was 'Roe v Wade prevents them doing that', which was true. But over the years, I never understood the reasoning in 'Roe v Wade'. Or, rather like my experience with the Ontological argument for the existence of God, I thought I didn't understand it. But nowI think I did understand it, it is just bad and shaky reasoning.

What I really don't understand is the criticism of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v Wade because of the outcome. It was a Constitutional question, not a policy question. If anything, the first decision ought be criticised, because it reached the outcome so many people wanted, but based on nothing. And if the recent decision was somehow 'political', then so was the first one.

Democrats and other commentators have said the Supreme Court is no longer 'legitimate', because of this decision. Of course, they are wrong. There is no evidence that the Court is somehow improperly appointed or has done something unConstitutional.

There is, of course, always the choice of revolution which some people on Twitter are talking about. I'm sure they'll do better than January 6.
 
Last edited:

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.
Yes, mere legislation can be overturned as soon as there are the numbers to support it. So, it makes the Democrats demanding money to 'fix' the situation quite odd. Even if in November they get all the numbers they need because of that extra money, it could last only two years.
Not odd if one is sn optimist: they have to get and keep significant majorities. I suspect they think if they can use this travesty of a decision to motivate voters to give them even small majorities in both houses, that will scare a sufficient number of republicans to compromise.
And perhaps get a couple of SCOTI replacements
 

Patooka

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
4,882
Location
Sydney
Basic Beliefs
aaa
By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
True, and context matters. There was a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis and the US was still balls deep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody suspected the GOP would be so batshit bonkers they would shred 50 years of legal stability to appease the Taliban-esque part of America.

Yeah the Democrats fucked up, but use an appropriate analogy that's like blaming the rape victim because of how they were dressed.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
True, and context matters. There was a little thing called the Global Financial Crisis and the US was still balls deep in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody suspected the GOP would be so batshit bonkers they would shred 50 years of legal stability to appease the Taliban-esque part of America.
So, you think the recent Supreme Court decision was by six 'batshit bonkers' Republican judges? What was 'batshit' about their reasoning?

Yeah the Democrats fucked up, but use an appropriate analogy that's like blaming the rape victim because of how they were dressed.
That seems wildly inappropriate an analogy. What I think you mean is 'the Democrats are not to blame, any more than dressing in a certain way means you are to blame if you are raped'. But then you opened the sentence with 'the Democrats fucked up'.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
False
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.
Yes, mere legislation can be overturned as soon as there are the numbers to support it. So, it makes the Democrats demanding money to 'fix' the situation quite odd. Even if in November they get all the numbers they need because of that extra money, it could last only two years.
Not odd if one is sn optimist: they have to get and keep significant majorities. I suspect they think if they can use this travesty of a decision to motivate voters to give them even small majorities in both houses, that will scare a sufficient number of republicans to compromise.
And perhaps get a couple of SCOTI replacements
What makes the decision 'a travesty'? Do you think the legal reasoning is poor?
 

Toni

Contributor
Joined
Aug 11, 2011
Messages
15,551
Location
NOT laying back and thinking of England
Basic Beliefs
Peace on Earth, goodwill towards all
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
 

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
What makes the decision 'a travesty'? Do you think the legal reasoning is poor?
The travesty is this decision restricts previously established rights by justices who testified that Roe v Wade was settled law. Then to preach about letting legislators as elected representatives to deal with this issue after gutting a state law about gun control shows the depth of their lack of prnciple.
 
Last edited:

laughing dog

Contributor
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
21,331
Location
Minnesota
Gender
IT
Basic Beliefs
Dogs rule
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
More importantly, during the Clinton years, there was insufficient SCOTUS turnover to cement a large majority of reasonable judges.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
NO! SCOTUS just ruled that the Constitution doesn't touch this. Which means if a State law and Federal law bumped heads, the State would win as the Federal Government had no Constitutional authority to force a state to do X on abortion.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
What makes the decision 'a travesty'? Do you think the legal reasoning is poor?
The travesty is this decision restricts previously established
There's a word missing here: constitutional rights?

by justices who testified that Roe v Wade was settled law.
Which justices testified it was 'settled law'? What does 'settled law' mean to you? Can 'settled law' be overturned? If you thought something at time t, but encountered an argument at time t+1 that changed your mind, would you call your changed mind a 'travesty'?

Then to preach about letting legislators as elected representatives to deal with this issue after gutting a state law about gun control shows the depth of their lack of prnciple.
So, you believe that rulings on the 2nd amendment are at least as shaky as rulings about the (imagined) 'right to privacy'?
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Joined
Feb 1, 2001
Messages
36,961
Basic Beliefs
Calvinistic Atheist
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
No, the Democrats have not 'had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law' for 50 years; the amount of time when they held both houses of Congress and the presidency simultaneously have been short lived and margins have been very narrow, as they are now.
Margins are not always narrow. By September 2009, Democrats had a virtual filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 independents who caucused with Democrats), a comfortable majority in the lower house, and a newly-minted Democrat president.
And how long did that majority last?

It was not a foremost priority because people believed the Supreme Court had integrity and respect.
What is it about this latest decision that means it does not have 'integrity' and 'respect'?
This short lived far right majority has been shredding precedence. Roe/Casey and effectively Lemon, they blew through a pair of 50+ year precedence cases, in a few days.
 

Jason Harvestdancer

Contributor
Joined
Oct 24, 2005
Messages
7,367
Location
Lots of planets have a North
Basic Beliefs
Wiccan
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
Without a constitutional amendment on the right to privacy or abortion federal law could be overturned on the same grounds.
Furthermore, Roe v Wade was settled law ( or so most people believed), so there was little reason to act.
This may surprise you, but during the many times that the Democrats controlled both houses of the legislature, they may have even tried a constitutional amendment. Or they could have exercised their dormant power of determining what the SCOTUS can review when passing legislation to codify RvW. There are more options that just leaving it to a court.
 

Metaphor

Adult human male
Warning Level 3
Warning Level 2
Warning Level 1
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
11,298
Gender
None. on/ga/njegov
So...

For 50 years, Democrats had the opportunity to codify the Roe decision into federal law, and that includes windows of opportunity where they held both houses of Congress and the Presidency simultaneously, and they didn't, and now they want to extract money from their base to do....what, exactly?
NO! SCOTUS just ruled that the Constitution doesn't touch this. Which means if a State law and Federal law bumped heads, the State would win as the Federal Government had no Constitutional authority to force a state to do X on abortion.
No, what?

After Roe v Wade, but before this decision, do you think the Roe decision could have been codified into federal law?

After this decision, do you think achieving something like Roe can be achieved with federal legislation (it can't be permanent, of course, but then neither is the Constitution).
 
Top Bottom