Why did I mention your delusional claim about abortion rights in a discussion about the SCOTUS’s decision rescinding those rights?Metaphor said:
No one said it did. But don’t try again.Metaphor said:
I made no delusional claims.
You called it misogynistic, without explaining what made it misogynistic. Either you'll explain your reasoning or you won't.
www.businessinsider.com
Many have publicly stated that those justices lied. Why swipe at AOC?
You are mistaken. In post 2024 you wrote
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 Then SCOTUS rescinded the right.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).
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.
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. Later cases can overrule earlier ones.
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.
If the current court is legally correct, a federal Constitutional right forbidding states from forbidding abortions was a legal fiction.
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.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.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.
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.
I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.
Of course not. Don't be absurd.
Look, just because you're obsessed with her doesn't mean she's the one stalking YOU.
Yes quite. If a right can be restricted, then one doesn't have that right. .
The Supreme Court should make judgments based on legal reasoning, not the political climate. My most sincere apologies that you think otherwise.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.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.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.
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.
I do not believe the Supreme Court or any court should do that.
Huh? Then nobody has any rights, legal or otherwise, ever.
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.
Was this non-sequitur a response to something else?
Nope.
