Roe v Wade is on deck

[Metaphor]

You didn't show me evidence they lied. You said the candidates said Roe was settled law. Yes, it was. And now it's overturned. There is no lie.

If they consider it settled law they shouldn't be changing it.

I think Metaphor is struggling with separating the court's ability to overturn rulings from a justice making the statement that they would not overturn a ruling.

I'm not struggling. No justice made that statement.

Saying something is Stare Decisis is effectively saying exactly that.

No. You don't understand the term. Stare decisis is a principal; it isn't a quality about a particular case.

Stare decisis

www.law.cornell.edu

Yes, it is a principal, it says the previous standing is settled unless something is horribly wrong with the decision. It is ridiculous to say that Kavanaugh only meant that the law had stare decisis simply because it existed and was upheld. That'd effectively be crossing your fingers while telling a lie.

He said it because it was a decades old decision that had been reaffirmed a number of times, not because he thought the reasoning was solid and should be preserved.

Again, what the Senators wanted to ask was "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if the case came up". They didn't ask that and none of the questions they did ask were answered falsely.

 

[Metaphor]

The Supreme Court is wrong on both accounts.

Really? What errors did they make in their legal reasoning?

Do you think it's reasonable legally to tell women they have no control over their medical decisions?

The Court did not 'tell' them that.

The Court said that there was no federal Constitutional right to abortion.

You mean "no longer" a right. Because 50 years ago a court said that there was, and since then courts reaffirmed that.

Well, yes. After Roe v Wade, but before it was overturned, it was a right.

 

[Metaphor]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

"Lies of omission" require a person to know that their omission will lead to a misunderstanding and they want that misunderstanding to occur--and--in this particular case, they must also be free to correct the misunderstanding.

No candidate for the Supreme Court would be free to engage in the last point, as Ginsburg and ACB pointed out. If Kavanaugh had said "Roe v Wade is settled law and has been reaffirmed many times," and then added "but I believe the original reasoning was wrong and I'd overturn it", he'd have committed a far worse sin than the alleged 'lie of omission'.

Do you wonder why no Senator ever asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if the case came up"? Because, I suspect, they either know or had legal advice that they could not ask such a question, so instead they attempted to ask the question anyway via circumlocution, and now AOC and other Democrat senators are butthurt.

If you are serious about that standard (as opposed to offering up anything to save face), there is no reason for anyone to waste their efforts in discussion over your religious viewpoint.

I am serious that it is demented to listen to what Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and ACB said in response to questions and conclude they 'lied under oath'.

Pretending these judges lied to Congress is a revenge fantasy.

 

[Jarhyn]

A robber shoots a person in front of a police officer.

The robber is responsible for shooting someone.

The police officer is responsible for not preventing it (except in the US because LOL!).

Not all responsibility for prevention lays on the person responsible for doing.

 

[laughing dog]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

"Lies of omission" require a person to know that their omission will lead to a misunderstanding and they want that misunderstanding to occur--and--in this particular case, they must also be free to correct the misunderstanding.

Anyone familiar with these confirmation hearings and the stakes involved knows that either these nominees knew exactly what they were doing or they incredibly stupid. The odds of so many of them being incredibly stupid are too low to make that option believable.

So, one is left with the reasonable conclusion that they were deliberately mendacious. No one forced them to use the phrasing they did. Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Pretending these justices did not lie is demented. Claiming that a right to abortion did not exist after Roe v Wade is delusional.

 

[Jarhyn]

I find it extremely telling about the character of a person when someone defends an answer to a question of clear intent, to discern a legal stance on a concern in a confirmation hearing especially, when it is clear that the answer was given to make the person hearing it believe a particular thing that is not true.

It is not a mistake.

It is bad faith, either way, and being tricky about it does not idemnify you. It condemns you further.

 

[Metaphor]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Wow. Rather than debate that absurd standard, clearly you are unfamiliar with the practice of “lies of omission”.

"Lies of omission" require a person to know that their omission will lead to a misunderstanding and they want that misunderstanding to occur--and--in this particular case, they must also be free to correct the misunderstanding.

Anyone familiar with these confirmation hearings and the stakes involved knows that either these nominees knew exactly what they were doing or they incredibly stupid. The odds of so many of them being incredibly stupid are too low to make that option believable.

Of course they knew what they were doing, which was answering questions truthfully.

So, one is left with the reasonable conclusion that they were deliberately mendacious.

"One" is not left with that conclusion. You are left with it, because you believed that conclusion already without evidence.

No one forced them to use the phrasing they did.

Truthful phrasing? You are right: they told the truth without being forced.

Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Except they were not, for the reasons I've already given.

Pretending these justices did not lie is demented. Claiming that a right to abortion did not exist after Roe v Wade is delusional.

They never made that claim. In fact, they recognised that Roe v Wade created the right (if they thought it was bad legal reasoning) or that Roe v Wade discovered the right (if they thought it was good legal reasoning).

Look, as delusional as AOC is, there are too many clear-thinking people in her way. So you'll have to shake your fist at the clouds.

 

[Metaphor]

I find it extremely telling about the character of a person when someone defends an answer to a question of clear intent, to discern a legal stance on a concern in a confirmation hearing especially, when it is clear that the answer was given to make the person hearing it believe a particular thing that is not true.

It is not a mistake.

It is bad faith, either way, and being tricky about it does not idemnify you. It condemns you further.

"A question of clear intent".

Non. They answered the questions put to them truthfully, and if you thought questions meant something other than they meant, that's on you.

No senator asked "Would you overturn Roe v Wade if you could". They didn't ask because that question would be improper, and if asked, no candidate should have answered.

I find it telling that you assume things not in evidence and are willing to let your revenge boner smother any sense of reason.

 

[laughing dog]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Of course they knew what they were doing, which was answering questions truthfully.

"One" is not left with that conclusion. You are left with it, because you believed that conclusion already without evidence.

Wrong on all counts.

No one forced them to use the phrasing they did.

Truthful phrasing? You are right: they told the truth without being forced.

Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Except they were not, for the reasons I've already given.

Your reasons are crapola.

They never made that claim.

Didn’t say they did. You made that delusional claim.

Look, as delusional as AOC is, there are too many clear-thinking people in her way. So you'll have to shake your fist at the clouds.

Why bring her into it other than to feed a need to make a misogynistic swipe at her. BTW, I am not impressed with or by her at all,

 

[Metaphor]

None of the justices said "I believe Roe v Wade was incorrect and I will overturn it

Your standard is that lies require context-free unequivocal wording?

My standard is an utterance has to be a lie to be a lie.

There is no evidence to support your claim.

Of course they knew what they were doing, which was answering questions truthfully.

"One" is not left with that conclusion. You are left with it, because you believed that conclusion already without evidence.

Wrong on all counts.

Sure luv.

No one forced them to use the phrasing they did.

Truthful phrasing? You are right: they told the truth without being forced.

Each nominee was free to make themselves as clear as they wished to be

Except they were not, for the reasons I've already given.

Your reasons are crapola.

Sure luv.

They never made that claim.

Didn’t say they did. You made that delusional claim.

Then why did you mention it at all?

Look, as delusional as AOC is, there are too many clear-thinking people in her way. So you'll have to shake your fist at the clouds.

Why bring her into it other than to feed a need to make a misogynistic swipe at her. BTW, I am not impressed with or by her at all,

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

 

[laughing dog]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

No one said it did. But don’t try again.

 

[Metaphor]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

No one said it did. But don’t try again.

You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.

 

[Patooka]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

 

[Toni]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

No one said it did. But don’t try again.

You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.

Many have publicly stated that those justices lied. Why swipe at AOC?

 

[laughing dog]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

You are mistaken. In post 2024 you wrote

It doesn't "take away" the right. It says the Constitution never provided such a right.

The right to an abortion was clearly established in Roe v Wade in 1973 by the SCOTUS. It was reaffirmed in 1992 by SCOTUS. So the right existed. This ruling eliminates that right.

It is counterfactual to claim this decision does not rescind that right. Given its the blatantly illogical and falseness of your claim,, it seems to me your claim is delusional.

However, if you prefer the description of "imbecilic" or "lie" which are consistent with the content of your claim, I am fine with that.

 

[Metaphor]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

No one said it did. But don’t try again.

You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.

Many have publicly stated that those justices lied. Why swipe at AOC?

Because AOC is the one I'm aware of. She has quite the social media presence in case you were not aware, and her own perpetual thread on this board.

 

[Metaphor]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

You are mistaken. In post 2024 you wrote

It doesn't "take away" the right. It says the Constitution never provided such a right.

The right to an abortion was clearly established in Roe v Wade in 1973 by the SCOTUS. It was reaffirmed in 1992 by SCOTUS. So the right existed. This ruling eliminates that right.

That's why I have 'take away' in inverted commas. It was a right, but it was created in error. It should not have existed. It's like nullifying a marriage, or when $20,000 is deposited into your bank account by accident. When the transaction is corrected, the money will be 'taken away' but it should never have been there in the first place.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

 

[laughing dog]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

You are mistaken. In post 2024 you wrote

It doesn't "take away" the right. It says the Constitution never provided such a right.

The right to an abortion was clearly established in Roe v Wade in 1973 by the SCOTUS. It was reaffirmed in 1992 by SCOTUS. So the right existed. This ruling eliminates that right.

That's why I have 'take away' in inverted commas. It was a right, but it was created in error. It should not have existed. It's like nullifying a marriage, or when $20,000 is deposited into your bank account by accident. When the transaction is corrected, the money will be 'taken away' but it should never have been there in the first place.

SCOTUS established the right. The right existed for 50 years. Women had access to abortions. Then SCOTUS rescinded the right. Now they do not. So that right that existed for 50 years was taken away (inverted commas or not).

Your claim that the right should not have existed is bootstrapping because the only evidence you have is the current ruling. Legal rights are a product of law. They do not exist independently of laws and legal rulings. There is no logical reason to say one ruling has precedence over the other one. Which means there is no logical reason for anyone to claim that abortion as a right should not have existed.

 

[Metaphor]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

You are mistaken. In post 2024 you wrote

It doesn't "take away" the right. It says the Constitution never provided such a right.

The right to an abortion was clearly established in Roe v Wade in 1973 by the SCOTUS. It was reaffirmed in 1992 by SCOTUS. So the right existed. This ruling eliminates that right.

That's why I have 'take away' in inverted commas. It was a right, but it was created in error. It should not have existed. It's like nullifying a marriage, or when $20,000 is deposited into your bank account by accident. When the transaction is corrected, the money will be 'taken away' but it should never have been there in the first place.

SCOTUS established the right.

Yes, it established a legal right (the State you live in can't forbid abortion) based on its understanding of the Constitution. The current court says that understanding was wrong.

The right existed for 50 years. Women had access to abortions. Then SCOTUS rescinded the right.

Not quite. The Court said "the State you live in can decide to restrict abortions", not "you no longer have a right to an abortion".

Now they do not. So that right that existed for 50 years was taken away (inverted commas or not).

Your claim that the right should not have existed is bootstrapping because the only evidence you have is the current ruling.

Yes. Later cases can overrule earlier ones.

Legal rights are a product of law. They do not exist independently of laws and legal rulings. There is no logical reason to say one ruling has precedence over the other one.

The ruling does not say "the Constitutional right existed up until 2022, and now there is no Constitutional right". Rather, it is surely rejecting the reasoning for the 1973 decision as wrong, and the Constitutional right created by the ruling was created in error.

Which means there is no logical reason for anyone to claim that abortion as a right should not have existed.

If the current court is legally correct, a federal Constitutional right forbidding states from forbidding abortions was a legal fiction.

 

[ZiprHead]

ABORTION IS IMMORAL, EXCEPT WHEN IT COMES TO MY MISTRESSES

Well worth the click.

 

[Patooka]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

 

[Toni]

Are any medical procedures that might be needed by men prohibited by law?

 

[Patooka]

Are any medical procedures that might be needed by men prohibited by law?

Of course not. Don't be absurd.

Ironically, my Dad would be furious if he heard me say that.

 

[Ford]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

No one said it did. But don’t try again.

You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.

Many have publicly stated that those justices lied. Why swipe at AOC?

Because AOC is the one I'm aware of. She has quite the social media presence in case you were not aware, and her own perpetual thread on this board.

Look, just because you're obsessed with her doesn't mean she's the one stalking YOU.

I mean, how many women and young girls have had to seek out an abortion because some man thought she was "asking for it" with the way she dressed?

 

[laughing dog]

Not quite. The Court said "the State you live in can decide to restrict abortions", not "you no longer have a right to an abortion".

Yes quite. If a right can be restricted, then one doesn't have that right. .

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

 

[Metaphor]

Not quite. The Court said "the State you live in can decide to restrict abortions", not "you no longer have a right to an abortion".

Yes quite. If a right can be restricted, then one doesn't have that right. .

Huh? Then nobody has any rights, legal or otherwise, ever.

 

[Metaphor]

Then why did you mention it at all?

Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?
Because it was relevant,

I made no delusional claims.

Because AOC has publically declared the Justices lied under oath and should be impeached.

Making a swipe at a woman does not make the swipe 'misogynistic'. Try again. Or don't.

No one said it did. But don’t try again.

You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.

Many have publicly stated that those justices lied. Why swipe at AOC?

Because AOC is the one I'm aware of. She has quite the social media presence in case you were not aware, and her own perpetual thread on this board.

Look, just because you're obsessed with her doesn't mean she's the one stalking YOU.

I'm not obsessed. I think one person on this board is, and it's the person who has started a perpetual AOC thread to document every single utterance she makes.

I mean, how many women and young girls have had to seek out an abortion because some man thought she was "asking for it" with the way she dressed?

Was this non-sequitur a response to something else?

 

[laughing dog]

Not quite. The Court said "the State you live in can decide to restrict abortions", not "you no longer have a right to an abortion".

Yes quite. If a right can be restricted, then one doesn't have that right. .

Huh? Then nobody has any rights, legal or otherwise, ever.

Nope.

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run??? To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

 

[Metaphor]

Not quite. The Court said "the State you live in can decide to restrict abortions", not "you no longer have a right to an abortion".

Yes quite. If a right can be restricted, then one doesn't have that right. .

Huh? Then nobody has any rights, legal or otherwise, ever.

Nope.

Literally, none. Every legal right is limited or restricted.

Australians have the 'right' to universal health care. But it is not unlimited. It doesn't cover dental issues. It doesn't cover experimental techniques. It doesn't cover the cost of your prescriptions (though our pharmaceutical benefits scheme is very generous).

By your reckoning, Australian's don't have that right, or any rights at all.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

tptb =the powers that be, yes.

Of course the GOP allowed Trump to run in their primary. Just because he earned the most votes did NOT guarantee him the nomination. BTW, if they didn't want him to run, they would have scuttled his campaign before the primaries. What those who operate behind the scenes thought is that with Trump, they had a useful idiot. And he was that but unfortunately for them and for all of us and for the entire world, he also managed to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. I can't explain the appeal because I honestly cannot understand how anyone could hear anything he said and not be utterly repulsed--an opinion I've had of him since long before he decided to be political.

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

No. Of course every individual has his/her own personal bent/leanings and laws and the constitution are always being interpreted at all levels, including at the Supreme Court. However, this current court seems bent on overturning long standing principles that each decision is built upon prior cases and decisions so that there is consistency in the court and in the law. What the current majority has done is essentially legislate from the bench, and erase precedence.

I have no idea how things work in Australia but in the US, this is quite....upside down.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

tptb =the powers that be, yes.

Of course the GOP allowed Trump to run in their primary. Just because he earned the most votes did NOT guarantee him the nomination. BTW, if they didn't want him to run, they would have scuttled his campaign before the primaries. What those who operate behind the scenes thought is that with Trump, they had a useful idiot. And he was that but unfortunately for them and for all of us and for the entire world, he also managed to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. I can't explain the appeal because I honestly cannot understand how anyone could hear anything he said and not be utterly repulsed--an opinion I've had of him since long before he decided to be political.

I still have no idea what this has to do with anything. Do you believe Trump appointed particularly political justices, compared to what another Republican would have done, or compared to what a Democrat would have done?

Had Clinton won instead, she'd have appointed left-leaning justices that catered to her base, just as Biden has done. And perhaps her appointees might have leaned the other way in Dobbs. But the lean would have been just as political.

 

[Metaphor]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

No. Of course every individual has his/her own personal bent/leanings and laws and the constitution are always being interpreted at all levels, including at the Supreme Court. However, this current court seems bent on overturning long standing principles that each decision is built upon prior cases and decisions so that there is consistency in the court and in the law. What the current majority has done is essentially legislate from the bench, and erase precedence.

Of course, they've done neither, or, if they have, it's been happening for decades. I'll remind you that 'legislating from the bench' is something that liberal justices were accused of twenty years ago. But--let me guess--it's only justices who you perceive as conservative who would dare legislate from the bench.

I have no idea how things work in Australia but in the US, this is quite....upside down.

Overturning precedent is serious, but if you think the original reasoning was wrong, it is your duty to overturn the precedent.

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings which the political climate of the Trump administration placed 3 of them on the court to do why do you think tptb allowed Trump to run???

Tptb? The powers that be?

Trump ran against Clinton because he beat the other Republican candidates in popularity. He won because he won the electoral college. There was no conspiracy to allowing him to run.

To appoint politically conservative judges who would be friendly towards industry abd socially conservative to throw bones to the Republican base so that they will spend all their time preparing for and causing End Times and not noticing how their own rights and bank accounts are being raided.

I have no idea what conspiracy theory you are entertaining, but I think you should keep it to yourself.

tptb =the powers that be, yes.

Of course the GOP allowed Trump to run in their primary. Just because he earned the most votes did NOT guarantee him the nomination. BTW, if they didn't want him to run, they would have scuttled his campaign before the primaries. What those who operate behind the scenes thought is that with Trump, they had a useful idiot. And he was that but unfortunately for them and for all of us and for the entire world, he also managed to cultivate a cult of personality around himself. I can't explain the appeal because I honestly cannot understand how anyone could hear anything he said and not be utterly repulsed--an opinion I've had of him since long before he decided to be political.

I still have no idea what this has to do with anything. Do you believe Trump appointed particularly political justices, compared to what another Republican would have done, or compared to what a Democrat would have done?

Had Clinton won instead, she'd have appointed left-leaning justices that catered to her base, just as Biden has done. And perhaps her appointees might have leaned the other way in Dobbs. But the lean would have been just as political.

Clinton would probably have appointed justices that the right would call left leaning but only an absolute idiot or a fascist sees Clinton as left leaning. The truth is that, with the exception of the current court, heavy emphasis on Trump's nominees, the court has not been political per se.

Here is an article that nicely describes the latest justice's record and how she might be expected to rule in the future:

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—what can we expect?

An assessment of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson.

www.brookings.edu

Brookings, for reference, is considered left, right or center, depending on the publication. Most people I know who are familiar with Brookings see it as centrist.

 

[ZiprHead]

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate.

Yet that's exactly what they did.

 

[Copernicus]

All of this debate over whether judicial nominees lied about how they would vote is beside the point. Trump was very clear that he would only nominate justices that would vote to overturn Roe v Wade, so everyone knew how Kavanaugh and Barrett intended to vote on that question. The effort to make them admit it publicly was never going to succeed, so the hearings were really about political posturing by both sides. Barrett and Kavanaugh were expected to give ambiguous answers, and those were to be (and were) used by some legislators to pretend that their votes to confirm were not actually votes to overturn Roe v Wade. The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

The reality of the Dobbs decision was technically not to outlaw abortion in the US, but to outlaw it in almost 30 of the 50 states and support the spread of such bans to other states. That kind of process has played out in some other countries, for example Poland, where the majority of the population wanted abortion to remain a legal option. Nevertheless, a conservative right wing minority managed to take power through the election process and criminalize abortion. The intent of the Dobbs ruling was to open the floodgates of criminalizing abortion, but legislatures will have to actually cast the stones for it to happen. So now it is a matter of packing legislative bodies with conservative majorities that will do the deed.

As things stand now, a few states will outlaw all forms of abortion for any reason whatsoever. That sets up the possibility of a pregnant American woman in those states undergoing what happened to an American woman in Malta, who had to be quickly flown out of that country to Mallorca in order to save her life. Her pregnancy was no longer viable, but doctors could not perform an abortion to save her life.

See:

US woman denied termination in Malta: 'I was terrified'​

 

[Politesse]

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

 

[Toni]

A 10-year-old was forced to cross state lines for an abortion after Ohio's ban went into place. The Indiana doctor who helped her will soon be unable to assist others.

As Ohio outlawed abortions after six weeks, doctors in neighboring Indiana described an influx of patients from out-of-state seeking the procedure, including a pregnant 10-year-old.

www.businessinsider.com

The US Supreme Court could have stopped this. In fact, they created this. I'm very interested in Metaphor's opinion as to why this isn't their fault. Because, like I said, the Supreme Court could have stopped this.

What you appear to be saying is: the Supreme Court should have written a legal opinion it does not believe, to head off undesirable social outcomes.

I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.

And I believe Laws are made in the interest of society. I also have the antiquated opinion that every legal decision should also include context. The US Supreme Court's decision on Roe v Wade had four-fifths of fuck all context. Obvious to most, but not apparently to you, and for that you have my most sincere apologies.

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.

They should indeed. But the Federalist Society judges are making decisions based on their personal political leanings

If that is true, isn't that true of every judge in every court in every land at all times? Or were the Roe v Wade judges free from the taint of political leanings?

No. Of course every individual has his/her own personal bent/leanings and laws and the constitution are always being interpreted at all levels, including at the Supreme Court. However, this current court seems bent on overturning long standing principles that each decision is built upon prior cases and decisions so that there is consistency in the court and in the law. What the current majority has done is essentially legislate from the bench, and erase precedence.

Of course, they've done neither, or, if they have, it's been happening for decades. I'll remind you that 'legislating from the bench' is something that liberal justices were accused of twenty years ago. But--let me guess--it's only justices who you perceive as conservative who would dare legislate from the bench.

I have no idea how things work in Australia but in the US, this is quite....upside down.

Overturning precedent is serious, but if you think the original reasoning was wrong, it is your duty to overturn the precedent.

In the past the Supreme Court HAS overturned precedent but only to increase freedoms and rights, not to constrict them.

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

That's pretty much her MO in all things.

 

[Copernicus]

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

Perhaps she was, but I take a more cynical view--that her voters were too dumb or apathetic to realize that she was playing them in a desperate attempt to hold onto here Senate seat. It actually seems to have worked.

 

[TomC]

The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate.

Yet that's exactly what they did.

Worse, IMHO.

They made a decision based on the partisan political climate of the people who got them appointed. Got them appointed by ignoring the Constitution.

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

The recent SCOTUS ruling didn't actually change abortion laws. What it did was make rights available to people who either lived in states like California, Illinois, or New York, or had the wherewithal to get there.
That "has the wherewithal" part is extremely important.

What makes this nonsense particularly ironic is this. McConnell blew off the Constitution in 2016. Obama nominated replacement judge, Merrick Garland. The TeaPartiers, led by McConnell, decided not to hold a vote, despite the Constitution.
Now, their appointees are dumping "established law" because they think the Constitution should be interpreted rather strictly, not what's best for the USA.

I wonder what would have been decided by the current SCOTUS if McConnell's "I think we should wait until after The People have a say to hold a vote" concerning Constitutional Law. Then there's the fact that The People did have a say, and Hillary Clinton was clearly their choice.

It's this level of treasonous partisanship that caused me to become a straight ticket Democratic voter. The TeaParty Insurrection on Jan 6 was yet another. The list is just endless.
Tom

 

[Elixir]

The most famous example of such a vote was from Maine Senator Susan Collins, who now claims that she was lied to by Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

So her defense was that.... she was too dumb to realize the most ill-concealed secret imaginable?

She has made a career of pretending that she would have been on the right side of every debate, except someone else made her vote for the wrong side.

 

[Copernicus]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

 

[TomC]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

I frame it that way because it's reality.
Not the whole reality. But I've gotta ask, do you really not understand that abortion rights haven't changed in the last few days? That abortion is still quite available to anyone who is in several states?

I'm one of the people who used abortion as a form of birth control. I'm not the only one. It's quite common. "I wish I hadn't made a choice that resulted in a baby". We didn't actually get the abortion, but we'd decided to get it.

It was me. As much as some posters on IIDB insist on calling me a misogynist, it's not true. I'm an egalitarian. That makes me racist and misogynistic and transphobic and every other bad thing a Wokester can think of.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

I frame it that way because it's reality.
Not the whole reality. But I've gotta ask, do you really not understand that abortion rights haven't changed in the last few days? That abortion is still quite available to anyone who is in several states?

And it is now (or extremely soon to be) not available to anyone in several states?
And since when should someone HAVE to travel in order to get a safe medical procedure?

I'm one of the people who used abortion as a form of birth control. I'm not the only one. It's quite common. "I wish I hadn't made a choice that resulted in a baby". We didn't actually get the abortion, but we'd decided to get it.

Then you did not use abortion as a form of birth control. Is it too much for you to get the facts straight in your own experience?

So what if there are women who use abortion as a form of after-the-fact birth control? Do you seriously think that rape or incest victims should be denied the choice of not risking their lives to carry an unwanted embryo to term? Or that a woman should be denied a medically safer procedure to reduce any health risks? Are you against anyone using legal and safe after the fact methods to deal with a unwanted outcome or just women?

 

[Copernicus]

As much as I disapprove of elective abortion as a form of birth control, this ruling was appalling. We're back to the patchwork of state laws. Where any dumbasses who are trying to get elected to state office will propose even more extreme legislation designed to appeal to a base. Regardless of the actual effects on society at large.

Why do you frame it that way? Who uses elective abortion as a form of birth control? This is a misogynist myth concocted to stir up anger against women who choose to have abortions.

I frame it that way because it's reality.
Not the whole reality. But I've gotta ask, do you really not understand that abortion rights haven't changed in the last few days? That abortion is still quite available to anyone who is in several states?

Rubbish. If you want to talk reality, then admit that abortion clinics are shutting down and moving out of some states right now as a result of this decision. Options to get an abortion are disappearing quickly now, even though the Dobbs decision has not yet resulted in judicial actions to close those options down. That is how  democratic backsliding works. People take actions in anticipation of future legal consequences, even if those consequences are not an immediate threat. Rights tend to evaporate quickly more through voluntary actions than compelled actions. Doctors will fail to perform abortions, if they see a possibility that they could be arrested, sued, or harassed in the future as a consequence.

I'm one of the people who used abortion as a form of birth control. I'm not the only one. It's quite common. "I wish I hadn't made a choice that resulted in a baby". We didn't actually get the abortion, but we'd decided to get it.

It was me. As much as some posters on IIDB insist on calling me a misogynist, it's not true. I'm an egalitarian. That makes me racist and misogynistic and transphobic and every other bad thing a Wokester can think of.
Tom

Your personal story is interesting, but your spin on it is open to challenge. Deciding to get an abortion in your case was not a form of birth control, which is normally defined as a method of preventing conception (i.e. contraception). You are extending the meaning of birth control to include abortion and then declaring that people use abortion for birth control. FTR, I did not call you a misogynist, although you clearly took it that way. I called the idea that people use abortion for birth control a "misogynist myth" used to blame women for getting abortions. It is a popular trope with the anti-abortion crowd. That's why I asked you why you chose to frame it that way. Why would you even call your intention to get an abortion that never happened a form of birth control? When you engaged in sex, did you think it was OK not to use contraception because there was always the option to get an abortion? I haven't been following your personal story all that closely, so maybe I missed something there.

How Birth Control Is Different From an Abortion

How is birth control different from an abortion? What is the process like? What are the effects on your body? Learn the differences between birth control and an abortion.

www.webmd.com