Roe v Wade is on deck

[Tigers!]

Death cult.

I am sure that many feel the same way love.

Hopefully she has not told her mother that. Ungrateful brat.

 

[Derec]

Aaron Rupar on Twitter: "a majority of the court was nominated by presidents who lost the popular vote" / Twitter

That is very misleading. We do not elect presidents by popular vote, of course, but that's just the beginning of the flaws with this argument.

I checked Justices 1789 to Present at the Supreme Court's site, and I found
[*]Bill Clinton + + : Steven Breyer 1994

Clinton did not win the popular vote either time.
In 1992 he got 43.0%, in 1996 he came close and got 49.2%.
In countries that elect presidents by popular vote, like France (which just held a presidential election) there is a runoff if no candidate gets a majority of the vote. It would be Clinton vs. Bush and Clinton vs. Dole without Perot being a spoiler and it would by no means be guaranteed that Clinton would have won. Same flaw applies for W - he did not win popular vote in 2000, but neither did Gore. Same goes for 2016 - nobody won the popular vote.

There is an even deeper flaw though. The Electoral College determines the winner, which affects the candidates' strategy - ads, travel, even what policies to push or whom to select as surrogates or for running mate. If presidential elections were determined by popular vote, popular vote would be very different. So we do not know who would have won Clinton v. Bush or Trump v. Hillary if election were held under popular vote conditions. It's like looking at sports stats and claiming that if say NBA finals were determined by total aggregate score and not number of wins that X would have won instead of Y. That is nonsense of course. If rules were different, games would be played differently. Same with elections.

 

[Tigers!]

I'm reminded of this joke.

In the British TV series Yes, Minister, Sir Humphrey Appleby pointed out that "the Ship of State is the only ship that leaks from the top".

from  Ship of State

A most excellent series, as was 'Yes Prime Minister'

 

[Bomb#20]

But it's a moot point, since it's about 13 years too late to get a Federally passed law protecting aspects of Roe.

What makes you think SCOTUS wouldn't overturn that law too?

Lack of a justification to overturn it that's consistent with the justices' earlier opinions -- Gorsuch's ruling in Bostock, and Alito's ruling in Taylor and dissent in United Haulers. Justices think of themselves as following the law; they don't think of themselves as ruling for whichever side they like better just because they can. So they'd both almost surely rule for the feds if there were a federal law. Thomas would vote to overturn; it would be consistent with his other cases. Kavanaugh and Barrett, beats me.

 

[Bomb#20]

Interesting question I was asked. Some people are saying this opinion also opens the way for striking down gay marriage and interracial marriage. If some state does try this, and anti-interracial case gets to SCOTUS, what will Clarance Thomas say?

Thomas joined Alito's dissents in earlier gay rights cases, including one where Alito was at pains to explain why he doesn't see anti-gay laws as analogous to laws against interracial marriage. So I think it's pretty clear they'd both strike down an interracial marriage ban but not a gay marriage ban.

 

[Bomb#20]

Well, that certainly made Bomb whine like a stuck pig when it's pointed out that his "correction" <rest of drivel snipped>

Who were you quoting when you put "correction" in quotes? Why are you so desperate for me to be wrong that you attack me even when I'm agreeing with you? I wasn't correcting you; I was expanding on your point.

 

[Bomb#20]

Death cult.

Do you also think it's a death cult when the child of a rapist wishes her mother hadn't been raped?

 

[Jarhyn]

Well, that certainly made Bomb whine like a stuck pig when it's pointed out that his "correction" <rest of drivel snipped>

Who were you quoting when you put "correction" in quotes? Why are you so desperate for me to be wrong that you attack me even when I'm agreeing with you? I wasn't correcting you; I was expanding on your point.

Maybe read through the whole interaction a few times and see how it comes off, then? You buried a lot of seeming ire behind what you pose as the snidest swipe I've ever seen seen at "regulating interstate commerce", which your frame places as vague (that it can mean "anything").

My point here is that it doesn't mean "anything" and this is very explicitly interstate commerce, and you missed the simple opportunity to include the relevant piece of information in the original posts: that you agreed it was an appropriate non-overreach, and affirming that this is a clear interest of the federal government (to protect people when they are engaging in interstate commerce via tourism).

The only actual evidence you agreed with me at all came after the fact of my objection to what was the very roundabout way you phrased this 'agreement' (or failed to) in any substantive way.

You know I'm capable of an apology, and a straightforward one with no "buts". You know how to get it. You've seen it happen before. It took a lot of effort last time to get that to you before that thread died.

This time, it comes from an apology for lack of clarity, and a restatement of your secondary thesis in a complete way, after having read it as if you were me.

It doesn't matter to me what you claim it is, it matters to me what it actually is shaped like, and you haven't fixed the actual shape of it.

 

[Derec]

Do you also think it's a death cult when the child of a rapist wishes her mother hadn't been raped?

Even at the cost of being erased from existence?

 

[JohnG]

Death cult.

or its a person with a sign

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you also think it's a death cult when the child of a rapist wishes her mother hadn't been raped?

Even to the cost of being erased from existence?

To have never existed is not to be dead.

Nature abhors such a vacuum, and the one left by any child who ought have been aborted and was, immediately lifts the population with the deferred opportunity costs of raising a child in poverty.

In short, the "cost" of me never having existed is everyone else who existed on earth as well as several coming after me getting more bang for their buck as the later children have a better time of it, go further, are more successful, and require less trauma counseling.

I would gladly pay that, but I don't have a time machine to slap that absolute fucking idiot who spawned me sensible in the timeframe it would make a difference.

So, you are all stuck with me and the results of her bad decision: someone who recognizes that sometimes the most ethical, merciful decision is the one wherein the opportunity cost to bring someone into life is foregone and spent instead on the living, or saved further so that the parent is not "spent before their time" but "ready-ish to be a good parent".

It all comes down to a very important piece of advice: don't get over-extended

 

[lpetrich]

Gaetz faces backlash for ‘over-educated’ women remark | The Hill

His tweet:
Matt Gaetz on Twitter: "How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?" / Twitter

Not surprisingly, his comment got a lot of negative reactions.

Bill Kristol on Twitter: "Here we have a member of the U.S. Congress indulging in witless and vulgar misogyny. I assume @RonDeSantisFL and @marcorubio are in full support of his reelection?" / Twitter

Jessica Valenti on Twitter: ""Over-educated"
If you think this kind of language is just a gaffe, you're wrong (pic link)" / Twitter

Ted Lieu on Twitter: "Republicans like Matt Gaetz are for government-mandated pregnancy, against education, and against cats.
You can help on campaigns to decide whether or not he is in the majority this November (assuming he isn’t indicted by the DOJ who is investigating him for sex crimes)." / Twitter

Rep. Don Beyer on Twitter: "How many of the Republican politicians trying to control women and restrict their fundamental rights are currently under criminal investigation for sex crimes?" / Twitter

Meena Harris on Twitter: "How many of the right wing members of Congress rallying against Roe are under investigation for sex trafficking a minor? Just you?" / Twitter

Jemele Hill on Twitter: "How many Florida politicians are out here using a tax collector as a personal pimp to procure sex with a 17 year old girl because they’re a predator and gross?
Hypothetically speaking, of course." / Twitter

 

[Ford]

Which will be vetoed, of course, but that would have to be the way forward for the GQP.

In other forums (well, Facebook), I've seen the "states rights" argument rear it's ugly head. That is - or was - a settled matter. States don't really have "rights." Individuals have rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution, and whether secured by legislation or legal precedent apply equally (thanks to the 14th Amendment) no matter what state you're in.

If you have the right to pick your nose in public in Rhode Island, you have that right in Alabama, and no state law can take it away.

What? That's clearly false.

Pick your nose then, but the point is that there are rights which cannot be discarded by states on a whim. There's a pretty good body of legal work that's been done on this point.

Let's take something a little more serious than boogers. Are you saying that a black person's right to vote (for example) is conditional based upon what state they reside in? More to the point, do you think it should be?

As Tucker Swanson says, I'm just asking questions....

I'm saying what you said is clearly false. You have the right to smoke weed in some states but not in others, for example.

We're kinda working on that one, but when it comes to the others we've already sorted out...

By your (apparent) reasoning, the right to vote can be selectively granted depending upon what state you live in or what color your skin might be. A state has a "right" to restrict the rights of individuals as they see fit, so whether it is weed or boogers or showing up at the polls, the state rules supreme.

Alito's draft opinion seems to say that previous decisions and amendments (4th and 14th) notwithstanding, rights are conditional based on location, and that if an individual in a state says "I have this right," the state can say "but do you, really?"

I mean, the right of women to vote was not codified into law until a little over 100 years ago, so an argument could be made that the folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had absolutely no intention of that ever happening, so we should (according to Alito) defer to their wisdom. Originalism and what not.

 

[marc]

My favorite reply was something like "if they are 'lonely cat ladies' then why do you think they need abortions?"

 

[Bomb#20]

Do you also think it's a death cult when the child of a rapist wishes her mother hadn't been raped?

Even at the cost of being erased from existence?

There isn't a human on the planet who doesn't have a rape somewhere in his pedigree. Does that mean that the living should be glad people rape each other, because without rape none of us would be here? For that matter, should we all think it's a good thing for humanity that Gavrilo Princip shot Archduke Ferdinand and thereby killed about two hundred million people, because if he hadn't done it the whole history of the 20th century would have gone down some other path and most of our parents would never have met? There's nothing wrong with keeping the cost of being erased from existence in perspective.

 

[Metaphor]

Which will be vetoed, of course, but that would have to be the way forward for the GQP.

In other forums (well, Facebook), I've seen the "states rights" argument rear it's ugly head. That is - or was - a settled matter. States don't really have "rights." Individuals have rights which are guaranteed by the Constitution, and whether secured by legislation or legal precedent apply equally (thanks to the 14th Amendment) no matter what state you're in.

If you have the right to pick your nose in public in Rhode Island, you have that right in Alabama, and no state law can take it away.

What? That's clearly false.

Pick your nose then, but the point is that there are rights which cannot be discarded by states on a whim. There's a pretty good body of legal work that's been done on this point.

Let's take something a little more serious than boogers. Are you saying that a black person's right to vote (for example) is conditional based upon what state they reside in? More to the point, do you think it should be?

As Tucker Swanson says, I'm just asking questions....

I'm saying what you said is clearly false. You have the right to smoke weed in some states but not in others, for example.

We're kinda working on that one, but when it comes to the others we've already sorted out...

By your (apparent) reasoning, the right to vote can be selectively granted depending upon what state you live in or what color your skin might be.

Well, no. Not if something in the Constitution forbids the restriction of voting rights like that.

A state has a "right" to restrict the rights of individuals as they see fit, so whether it is weed or boogers or showing up at the polls, the state rules supreme.

Isn't that exactly the case in the United States? The states have the power to make some things illegal, unless the Constitution forbids the states from making it illegal.

Alito's draft opinion seems to say that previous decisions and amendments (4th and 14th) notwithstanding, rights are conditional based on location, and that if an individual in a state says "I have this right," the state can say "but do you, really?"

Isn't that an exact description of the United States? Some states restrict how much water your toilet uses. Some places let men go topless where it would be forbidden for women to go topless.

I mean, the right of women to vote was not codified into law until a little over 100 years ago, so an argument could be made that the folks who wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights had absolutely no intention of that ever happening, so we should (according to Alito) defer to their wisdom. Originalism and what not.

No, that is not his argument.

If the Constitution were amended by the proper process right now to include an Amendment forbidding the States from forbidding abortion, it wouldn't matter what the original intention was. The Amendment would have that power.

 

[Gospel]

Hmm, I wonder what else isn't in the constitution.

But that was established by federal law. It wasn't willed into existence by a SCOTUS ruling which interpreted "emanations from the penumbrae".
So the comparison is not valid.

My point isn't that the Federal Reserve and the Legalization of Abortion came about in the same way. My point is that neither of them is mentioned in the constitution. To my knowledge Congress has the power to coin money and regulate it's value, not the Federal Reserve. As far as abortion goes, the supreme court set the precedent with a ruling making it legal (which is their modus operandi). As such Abortion (until this new precedent is set) is more legal than the Federal Reserve.

Edit: and before you type up that congress has oversight argument I'd like to state for the record that neither the word delegate nor oversight appears in the constitution regarding congress having the power to coin and regulate the value of money. Meaning they solely have that power and can not delegate it. That's my take since the supreme court seems to want to get all literal about what is or is not in the constitution.

Edit 2: President Biden may as well be able to delegate the presidency to whomever he chooses since he (like congress and Money) is granted the power to do as he pleases with that authority.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Gaetz faces backlash for ‘over-educated’ women remark | The Hill

His tweet:
Matt Gaetz on Twitter: "How many of the women rallying against overturning Roe are over-educated, under-loved millennials who sadly return from protests to a lonely microwave dinner with their cats, and no bumble matches?" / Twitter

My reaction to that statement is that Gaetz isn't smart enough to pen it... meaning someone wrote it for him... that Gaetz needs a ghost-writer for Twitter, because his vulgarity just isn't sufficient enough. What a dick!

 

[Angry Floof]

Do you also think it's a death cult when the child of a rapist wishes her mother hadn't been raped?

Even at the cost of being erased from existence?

They wouldn't be erased. They wouldn't have existed in the first place. "Cost" is non sequitur.

As an existing person, I am ok with the idea of my mother having had freedom and autonomy rather than a bunch of kids. I would not have existed so I couldn't be upset about not existing.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'm saying what you said is clearly false. You have the right to smoke weed in some states but not in others, for example.

We're kinda working on that one, but when it comes to the others we've already sorted out...

By your (apparent) reasoning, the right to vote can be selectively granted depending upon what state you live in or what color your skin might be.

Well, no. Not if something in the Constitution forbids the restriction of voting rights like that.

A state has a "right" to restrict the rights of individuals as they see fit, so whether it is weed or boogers or showing up at the polls, the state rules supreme.

Isn't that exactly the case in the United States? The states have the power to make some things illegal, unless the Constitution forbids the states from making it illegal.

It gets real tedious trying to explain US Constitutional Law to someone that has a very very limited (non-existent) understanding of it.

The Constitution originally contained limitations to impeding on the rights of individuals to ONLY the Federal Government.

After the Civil War and the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution, the reservations in the Constitution started getting applied to the states via Due Process. This was a long road. It started in 1897 with eminent domain, free speech in the 1920s, 1960s with double jeopardy, etc...

Then there is the "right to privacy", which I feel is implied in the 4th Amendment, but it takes until 1891 for SCOTUS to begin viewing it as something that does exist. And the 9th Amendment explicitly points out that just because it isn't mentioned specifically, doesn't mean it isn't a right. That fear was one reason the Bill of Rights almost never existed, because the Founding Fathers feared its use would be perverted.

So, this isn't as simple as "the states have the power to make some things illegal, unless the Constitution forbids the states". The Constitution does not explicitly state that the 14th Amendment means states have to abide by Constitutional Protections. Our country has a complicated 240+ year of constitutional law, and most of the stuff isn't black and white, our form of government isn't like that.

Alito's draft opinion seems to say that previous decisions and amendments (4th and 14th) notwithstanding, rights are conditional based on location, and that if an individual in a state says "I have this right," the state can say "but do you, really?"

Isn't that an exact description of the United States? Some states restrict how much water your toilet uses. Some places let men go topless where it would be forbidden for women to go topless.

And the question is where does the line get drawn. And in the 1960s, they were deciding that a line should be drawn at hemorrhaging women who suffered from a botched abortion. That isn't meant to be an emotional plea, but an indication that in the 1960s, with women going into the workforce and what not, illegal abortion was becoming a national health care crisis.

All of this talk about this ban being for the health of the woman is flat out lie. And the care of babies post birth by most pro-lifers is grossly deficient in empathy.