Horseshit...
President Joe Biden
- Thread starter tenacious
- Start date
Desert Hound
DA
This is a good read.
greenwald.substack.com
The Irrational, Misguided Discourse Surrounding Supreme Court Controversies Such as Roe v. Wade
The Court, like the U.S. Constitution, was designed to be a limit on the excesses of democracy. Roe denied, not upheld, the rights of citizens to decide democratically.
greenwald.substack.com
Wow, you are just like my buddy. So Dr. Espola, does a baby have any rights when in mom's tummy? Is there such a thing as way too many weeks old or is the baby all of mummmies, because the baby lives in the womb. It's the secret place.
what-happened
GOLD
Who does the baby belong to? how cute with the religous inflection points.
Are we talking bout a uterus? oh boy, that could lead you down another route of ambiguity. By the way, the two stereotypical white male represented are still leading the charge, on both sides. As if the uterus doesn't exist.
soon states will also decide if you should be vaccinated or not. That is very scary to me. More scary than the abortion issue. Its harder to leave the states that require vaccine mandate as I have a job, a house, a family etc. etc. whereas abortion, I can travel.
Its my body, its my choice to be vaccinated or not.
whatithink
GOLD
Some potential consequences, quotes (my bolding) from the article - I've no idea how this pans out, but it would be naive to think there won't be runs on other "rights" we think we have
By questioning the constitutionality of a right to privacy, Marks told Insider that it posits the question: "What is the definition of liberty?"
"If I ask you to find the right to privacy in the US constitution, you will not find it — there is no explicit right to privacy in the US constitution," Marks said. "So if that draft of opinion becomes the majority opinion and at least five justices sign onto it, even to the extent they may narrow the scope, it doesn't mean there won't be incremental changes in other decisions along the way."
Geoffrey Stone, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Chicago, echoed the sentiment, saying "it's perfectly plausible that [the Supreme Court] will say, 'We already decided it. There's no right of privacy in the Constitution.'"
"A key part of the rationale of Alito's opinion is that there is no such thing as a right of privacy in the Constitution. That's what the court relied upon in all of these cases," Stone told Insider. "If that's true in Dobbs, then why isn't true in others?"
Law experts warn that leaked SCOTUS draft opinion on Roe v. Wade exposes a weak spot that puts the use of contraceptions and other privacy rights at risk (msn.com)
According to Espola, it's mommies baby and she can do whatever she wants with her baby. Thank God my biological mother had a heart and saved me from pure evil. She kept me safe for 9 months and then my adopted mother took over from there for 18 years and that's it, no more help. All I needed was a chance. The same scientists want to inject me with the Wuhan Special. It's a toxic mix of poison that can do some serious damage to you. I'm watching first hand how messed up this all is with my pal.
That is because a lot of these rights were called that way when the constitution was first written. But privacy is inherent.
For example, there is no right granted for the governemnt to start an air force. So the USAF is unconstitutional?
Another absurd example, the 2nd amendment original intent was to allow the states to call up the militia to fight against the federal government in the event the federal government is too powerful. Does this mean that we should have the right to own tanks, nuclear bombs and submarines in our backyard? We realistically would need these weapons if we are called up by our state to form a militia to fight the US Army.
Finally, another absurd example, the constitution does not give us the right to vote. Why are we voting?
If we go back to the original literal intent, we would live in an absurd world far different from what it is today.
Just out of curiosity who do you think is going to push for a ban of contraceptives? I don't even think given an opportunity to do so the Catholics or other anti-contraceptive religious groups are going to challenge it. The Catholics have only fought against their hospitals being forced to pay for contraceptives. I don't get any sense they care about what non-Catholics do in the privacy of their own home. Hell, I'd bet that even Matt Gaetz used a condom with the teenage girl.
Have any of the justices ever questioned contraceptives? Whose is this contraceptive bogeyman?
Roe v. Wade: 1973
From the actual historical record, Rehnquist concluded, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Because of this, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.
When the justices ruled in Roe V. Wade Rehnquist in descent pointed out his concern that the ruling took away States power to legislate.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 1992 had the same concerns.
The ruling would give back those powers...
From the actual historical record, Rehnquist concluded, "There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted." Because of this, "the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter.
When the justices ruled in Roe V. Wade Rehnquist in descent pointed out his concern that the ruling took away States power to legislate.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 1992 had the same concerns.
The ruling would give back those powers...
what-happened
GOLD
Certainly off topic..but really? tanks, nuclear bombs, and submarines. The afghanis must have missed this memo.
Desert Hound
DA
No, abortion won’t rescue Dems in November - Washington Examiner
NO, ABORTION WON'T RESCUE DEMS IN NOVEMBER. There's a lot of speculation that a Supreme Court ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, if that indeed happens, would be a boost for Democrats in this November's midterm elections. There seems no doubt the decision will motivate some part of the Democratic...
www.washingtonexaminer.com
Article I, Section 8, Clause 12: To raise and support Armies, (the air force is part of the armies of the USA)
Article 1, Section 4
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
Those dreaded states rights again...
whatithink
GOLD
I haven't called that out anywhere, although it's in the article, so I'm not sure why you focus on that specifically rather than, say, same sex marriage which I could see someone having a run at. That said, there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only. Given our legal system, there's no reason one or more of them couldn't bring this before SCOTUS.
Alito, in the draft opinion, explicitly states that the court is only targeting the right to abortion, not those other matters.
“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the draft states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
LGBTQ advocates worry other rights at risk if court overturns Roe v. Wade
Little doubt remains about what the Supreme Court plans to do with Roe v. Wade. But uncertainty abounds about the ripple effects as the court nears a final opinion expected to overturn the landmark 1973 case that created a nationwide right to abortion.
www.pbs.org
whatithink
GOLD
From your article,Alito, in the draft opinion, explicitly states that the court is only targeting the right to abortion, not those other matters.
“We emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” the draft states. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
LGBTQ advocates worry other rights at risk if court overturns Roe v. Wade
Little doubt remains about what the Supreme Court plans to do with Roe v. Wade. But uncertainty abounds about the ripple effects as the court nears a final opinion expected to overturn the landmark 1973 case that created a nationwide right to abortion.
"The draft opinion ... argues that unenumerated constitutional rights - those not explicitly mentioned in the document - must be "deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions." And it says abortion doesn't meet that standard."
How far a leap to same sex marriage?
See Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment & the ruling itself.
The sky is not falling....
"there are plenty of groups who are anti-contraceptives and believe in abstinence only". None of which have the substance, standing or public support to pursue a ban of contraception. If you take a look at the "abstinence in peril" articles, they don't provide any evidence of a group, or a case even in the lower courts that would be a challenge to contraceptives. It's a "chicken little" and fear mongering approach to curry votes for the November election.
Of course, if I was a leftist I would exploit the Supreme Court's decision as well in an attempt to prevent a Red Wave. The SC has handed the far left a gift for November. It will have an impact that benefits the left, but mostly with those that are single issue abortion voters. I suspect at the end of the day inflation will far outweigh abortion rights. Let's be honest, there is really nothing an individual can do to fight inflation, but there is plenty an individual can do to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
Griswold v Connecticut, which most people see as the foundation of privacy right being extended to the use of contraceptives, was originally decided in favor of married couples. It's not hard to imagine a legal pursuit to back up to that narrow finding. Just saying no one has substance now is irrelevant.
