President Joe Biden

whatithink said:
It is certainly nuanced, examples being an abortion to save the mother's life or in cases of rape. I'm not an abortion free for all advocate, but I also don't believe that I can choose what someone else's wife, mother, daughter can do against their will, in this instance.
Click to expand...
You seem to be a reasonable person who understands nuance. Unfortunately the extremist on both sides use the scorched earth method.

For example, being irresponsible one night shouldn't give you the right to change your mind 24 weeks later. Some would argue sooner. For the sake of biology and medicine, 24 weeks is a good measure.

The other extreme side is the 100% ban. Medically speaking, there are always going to be decisions that have to be made for the sake of a patient. I will say, the instances cited by the extreme left as a reason for a free for all advocacy are in the small margins.

It's an emotional topic, usually driven by people who are more ideologically driven.
 
whatithink said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well segregation was "constitutional" until it wasn't...
In this case, the court is correcting a law apparently established by the court.
The Supreme Court has no authority to create laws.
The legislature is the only branch of government with that responsibility.
What is not enumerated in the Constitution is referred to the States.
States Rights...
 
Meanwhile back at the ranch,,,

President Joe Biden and his administration appear perilously close to an irreversible severing of public confidence in his capacity to deliver prosperity and financial security as stiff economic challenges balloon into huge political liabilities.

A CNN poll released Wednesday shows that the President's repeated efforts to highlight undeniably strong aspects of the economy's post-pandemic rebound and to offset blame for its bad spots aren't working.
 
whatithink said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't necessarily disagree, but the Supreme Court happens to have far more unanimous decisions than the media would have you believe, which I appreciate is of little solace in terms of this decision. In their minds, the justices believe that in fact the Constitution was the most relevant to this decision. Like Desert Hound posted, RGB wasn't fond of the basis for the RvW decision and didn't believe the right to privacy was the most compelling argument.
 
what-happened said:
You seem to be a reasonable person who understands nuance. Unfortunately the extremist on both sides use the scorched earth method.

For example, being irresponsible one night shouldn't give you the right to change your mind 24 weeks later. Some would argue sooner. For the sake of biology and medicine, 24 weeks is a good measure.

The other extreme side is the 100% ban. Medically speaking, there are always going to be decisions that have to be made for the sake of a patient. I will say, the instances cited by the extreme left as a reason for a free for all advocacy are in the small margins.

It's an emotional topic, usually driven by people who are more ideologically driven.
Click to expand...
I just wanted a chance to be alive and want people to know all life matters. Diane Feinstein said that a lot of girls were getting knocked up at her college and other Big U's in the 50s and 60s and she said the girls had to go to Mexico to get abortion. I think those days are over. You can use birth control or do morning after to be safe. Guys can put a coat on and then all the other methods. Something seems off with this topic and way too many babies were being sold for body parts. That is morally wrong.
 
Lion Eyes said:
Well segregation was "constitutional" until it wasn't...
In this case, the court is correcting a law apparently established by the court.
The Supreme Court has no authority to create laws.
The legislature is the only branch of government with that responsibility.
What is not enumerated in the Constitution is referred to the States.
States Rights...
Click to expand...
I get that. I would correct your representation of it though. SCOTUS originally said the right was given based on the constitution and now SCOTUS is saying the constitution doesn't infer that right. In neither case is SCOTUS creating a law. In both cases they say the constitution does or does not provide the right, therefore it is or is not the "law".

So, for example, marriage is the purview of the States, so same sex marriages get settled there I assume.
 
whatithink said:
I get that. I would correct your representation of it though. SCOTUS originally said the right was given based on the constitution and now SCOTUS is saying the constitution doesn't infer that right. In neither case is SCOTUS creating a law. In both cases they say the constitution does or does not provide the right, therefore it is or is not the "law".

So, for example, marriage is the purview of the States, so same sex marriages get settled there I assume.
Click to expand...
Jane lied and got paid to lie. It's time to send IT back to the States and the States people.
 
espola said:
@Multi Sport ... I've given you time to consider your answer. Let's see if you've done your homework and can answer the question. The question is... What is the 8th root of 1?

Here is a clue that may or may not help you -- there are 8 correct answers (as one would expect in an 8th root solution, with the added complication that all 8 roots are distinct when viewed in the appropriate discipline).
Click to expand...
You're not an accredited teacher in the state of California therefore know nothing about homework...

Please entertain me..
 
whatithink said:
I get that. I would correct your representation of it though. SCOTUS originally said the right was given based on the constitution and now SCOTUS is saying the constitution doesn't infer that right. In neither case is SCOTUS creating a law. In both cases they say the constitution does or does not provide the right, therefore it is or is not the "law".

So, for example, marriage is the purview of the States, so same sex marriages get settled there I assume.
Click to expand...
From the dissent for Roe v Wade:
Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision.[6] White's dissent, which was issued with Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, argued that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children.

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.
— Doe, 410 U.S. at 221–22 (White, J., dissenting).[101]
Click to expand...
White argued that abortion, "for the most part, should be left with the people and the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."[102]

Rehnquist's dissent compared the majority's use of substantive due process to the Court's repudiated use of the doctrine in the 1905 case Lochner v. New York.[6] He elaborated on several of White's points and asserted that the Court's historical analysis was flawed:

To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion. While many States have amended or updated their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.
— Roe, 410 U.S. at 174–76 (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).[103][104][105]
Click to expand...
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."[106]
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ruth Bader Ginsberg had concerns about the Roe V. Wade ruling for decades...

“Measured motions seem to me right, in the main, for constitutional as well as common law adjudication,” she argued. “Doctrinal limbs too swiftly shaped, experience teaches, may prove unstable. The most prominent example in recent decades is Roe v. Wade.”

Ginsburg noted that Roe struck down far more than the specific Texas criminal abortion statute at issue in the case.

“Suppose the court had stopped there, rightly declaring unconstitutional the most extreme brand of law in the nation, and had not gone on, as the court did in Roe, to fashion a regime blanketing the subject, a set of rules that displaced virtually every state law then in force,”

Supreme Court leak confirms Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s prescient warning about Roe v. Wade (nypost.com)
 
espola said:
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.
Click to expand...
It is not absurd. Especially in light of the fact the opinion states this ruling only applies to abortion. That means from the get go, other courts cannot use the reasoning in this ruling for other legal matters.
 
Regarding the possible SCOTUS ruling...
After all is said and done abortion will not change in California...
It may or may not change in other states depending on the electorate.
States decide..states rights
 
espola said:
View attachment 13472
Click to expand...


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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top