President Joe Biden

[whatithink]

THEY FORGET THIS: Supreme Court leak confirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s prescient warning about Roe v. Wade: Ginsburg firmly supported abortion, but she lamented the court’s decision to unilaterally create a new ‘regime’ on the subject.


I suspect that if things had been left to legislatures, we’d have something like what’s common in Europe, easy availability in the first 12 weeks, much more difficult after. By European standards, by the way, the Mississippi law in question in Dobbs, which allows abortion for any reason through week 15, isn’t extreme at all.

I see that there is already movement in some states to get it enshrined in state constitutions. I assume that will start to be pushed where possible. It may/will be easier to get that done than have legislatures do it, given the extensive gerrymandering that is in place across the country.

One thing is for sure, if this becomes the decision, it will resolve nothing and if anything, it will be a major boon to the Ds (and God knows they need one!).

 

[whatithink]

My understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, was that Alito's position is that it involved a 3rd party. So from his position "my body, my choice" isn't necessarily applicable.

The 3rd party is everyone else for a vaccine mandate argument, i.e. your lack of one puts everyone else at risk. There are plenty of decisions that have unintended consequences.

 

[crush]

I didn't think Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned
I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again.

crush told you the Supremes would rule this way and so did Mr. t. You were wrong and t and I were right. I like that you admit when your wrong though. Is it time for you to eat some crow bro? I also said many other things that would happen and are now not a conspiracy. Plus, I told you the Creator is real and is not messing around this time. Yeshua came 2020 years ago to bring the way of Christ. He warned everyone not to mess with the children, especially the orphans. He also said to take care of the elderly and the widows.

 

[crush]

One thing is for sure, if this becomes the decision, it will resolve nothing and if anything, it will be a major boon to the Ds (and God knows they need one!).

Good luck with God's help on this issue

 

[watfly]

The problem is that when you are at pains to explain that it doesn't extend to other things, like gay marriage, as the basis for that decision was at least partly the same, then you are acknowledging that it could extend to those things, if someone else decides it does. Basically, people with diametrically opposing views (re abortion) both feel they are the rational one and the other isn't. So "fear mongering" to one person is actual fear to another.

Except if it is in the text of the decision which it is as of now "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion", it becomes a much bigger hurdle to overcome to use this decision to attack other civil liberties like contraception and marriage, which don't involve extinguishing a life. Only fear mongers would claim that contraception and interracial marriage is on the chopping block. I don't think even most active Catholics believe contraception should be eliminated.

 

[watfly]

The 3rd party is everyone else for a vaccine mandate argument, i.e. your lack of one puts everyone else at risk. There are plenty of decisions that have unintended consequences.

There is a huge difference between direct and indirect consequences, but I think you know that.

 

[crush]

There is a huge difference between direct and indirect consequences, but I think you know that.

Hey wat fly, Jane Roe got baptized, FYI. She said her biggest "sin" was being the Plaintiff for Roe vs Wade and she has carried that guilt for many years. She lied to get paid, go figure. These same people who paid her to lie hate me because I was allowed to be born by God and now they hate me even more because I won't get the jab and obey them. I did not come here to obey these monsters and neither did you. I'm praying for you to see the light and start believing in God. Where are you at today with being on the fence with your faith and belief in the Creator and Yeshua? Just checking in with you. Love you man

 

[Desert Hound]

but I think it would be more appropriate for the issue of abortion to be voted on individually by the state voters and not through an elected representative.

If there is enough demand one way or another, those reps will bow to the pressure...whichever direction that goes.

In some states it may be put out to the public in terms of one of the election referendums.

 

[Desert Hound]

like gay marriage, as the basis for that decision was at least partly the same, then you are acknowledging that it could extend to those things, if someone else decides it does.

Actually it won't based on the draft.

Per the draft (and yes it was not the final draft). But they seem to be thinking about the above. And what does it say in the draft?

"And to ensure that our decision is not mis- understood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

So when you hear people/press/politicians say this could change other things...they either don't know or are lying.

 

[espola]

Actually it won't based on the draft.

Per the draft (and yes it was not the final draft). But they seem to be thinking about the above. And what does it say in the draft?

"And to ensure that our decision is not mis- understood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

So when you hear people/press/politicians say this could change other things...they either don't know or are lying.

It's absurd to claim that some part of this opinion will protect other precedents when the very intent of the whole opinion is to justify overturning language in previous decisions and opinions.

 

[crush]

It's absurd to claim that some part of this opinion will protect other precedents when the very intent of the whole opinion is to justify overturning language in previous decisions and opinions.

It's absurd that as a society were killing babies at 6 months Grandpa. Mean Grandpa you are. My foster mum told me that my Elitist bio Grandmother wanted me sacrificed and not kept alive. God had other plans. It's also absurd that we fire people for not obeying the jab. Keep it up Gramps, your true colors show more every day

 

[whatithink]

Actually it won't based on the draft.

Per the draft (and yes it was not the final draft). But they seem to be thinking about the above. And what does it say in the draft?

"And to ensure that our decision is not mis- understood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

So when you hear people/press/politicians say this could change other things...they either don't know or are lying.

Multiple potential justices stated that Roe vs Wade is "settled" law or words to that effect, until apparently it isn't from the same justices. So it either wasn't or they were lying. So, for them to say this doesn't impact anything else could be true or they could be lying again ... fear mongering or facts?

 

[crush]

Multiple potential justices stated that Roe vs Wade is "settled" law or words to that effect, until apparently it isn't from the same justices. So it either wasn't or they were lying. So, for them to say this doesn't impact anything else could be true or they could be lying again ... fear mongering or facts?

Get over it Frances. Kids win and kids will live and we should all be super stoked for the kids.

 

[whatithink]

There is a huge difference between direct and indirect consequences, but I think you know that.

I do know that, but there is also a correlation if someone wants to make it. Would it succeed, IDK, but it opens a door to unintended consequences, which is my point.

 

[crush]

I do know that, but there is also a correlation if someone wants to make it. Would it succeed, IDK, but it opens a door to unintended consequences, which is my point.

Fear is your worst enemy. Stop making things up that haven't happen. If you think something about the future, it plays a video in your brain and you start to feel something that has not happened. Don;t worry about tomorrow, tomorrow will worry about itself.

 

[whatithink]

Except if it is in the text of the decision which it is as of now "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion", it becomes a much bigger hurdle to overcome to use this decision to attack other civil liberties like contraception and marriage, which don't involve extinguishing a life. Only fear mongers would claim that contraception and interracial marriage is on the chopping block. I don't think even most active Catholics believe contraception should be eliminated.

The point is that if the basis for a decision was made on say the constitutional right to privacy, and that basis has now been called into question, then there will be challenges to other decisions which were made using the same basis. If it was accepted in this instance, then there's no reason to belief it won't work in others. SCOTUS makes narrow decisions all the time, which doesn't rule out broader ones, but rules on the specifics to hand. They've opened a door; and they know it. Expect cases accordingly would be my guess.

 

[watfly]

This is from Reuter's and while it is a professor's opinion, Reuters is as impartial as they come and chose to publish it.

"On interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage, for one reason or another there is no likelihood the court is going to revisit those decisions," Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis said.

The fact that Americans have relied on the same-sex marriage decision to plan and invest in their lives and relationships makes it unlikely that the justices will overturn it, McGinnis said.

McGinnis added, "No state legislature is going to get rid of contraception. That's fanciful. And no state legislature is going to get rid of interracial marriage."

I do know that, but there is also a correlation if someone wants to make it. Would it succeed, IDK, but it opens a door to unintended consequences, which is my point.

There is also a difference between doing something and succeeding at it. Anyone can sue, for any reason, valid or not. That's how are system works. The decision itself doesn't provide any precedent for the elimination of other civil liberties. It might provide the spirit to attempt, but doesn't provide the law to do so. And just FYI I'm unhappy with the decision, but it may be constitutionally correct.

 

[espola]

Multiple potential justices stated that Roe vs Wade is "settled" law or words to that effect, until apparently it isn't from the same justices. So it either wasn't or they were lying. So, for them to say this doesn't impact anything else could be true or they could be lying again ... fear mongering or facts?

Perjury is an impeachable offense.

 

[whatithink]

This is from Reuter's and while it is a professor's opinion, Reuters is as impartial as they come and chose to publish it.

"On interracial marriage, contraception and same-sex marriage, for one reason or another there is no likelihood the court is going to revisit those decisions," Northwestern University law professor John McGinnis said.

The fact that Americans have relied on the same-sex marriage decision to plan and invest in their lives and relationships makes it unlikely that the justices will overturn it, McGinnis said.

McGinnis added, "No state legislature is going to get rid of contraception. That's fanciful. And no state legislature is going to get rid of interracial marriage."


There is also a difference between doing something and succeeding at it. Anyone can sue, for any reason, valid or not. That's how are system works. The decision itself doesn't provide any precedent for the elimination of other civil liberties. It might provide the spirit to attempt, but doesn't provide the law to do so. And just FYI I'm unhappy with the decision, but it may be constitutionally correct.

Well, Roe was constitutionally correct until it wasn't - the constitution is as robust and set in stone as the opinion of the people interpreting it. In this instance though the justices are saying the constitution is irrelevant (basically) so the States decide.

 

[crush]

Well, Roe was constitutionally correct until it wasn't - the constitution is as robust and set in stone as the opinion of the people interpreting it. In this instance though the justices are saying the constitution is irrelevant (basically) so the States decide.

Roe was paid to lie about what happen to her at conception. HRC was trained by a killer.