President Joe Biden

[Lion Eyes]

Group together? Only in the way that government should not be using religious beliefs as a basis for law. You either believe in the Constitution or you don’t.

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't......

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

 

[espola]

You either believe in the Constitution or you don't......

“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division.”
“It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.”

What do we the people think about this? (You remember them/us? They/We are the first mentioned in the Constitution)

 

[Desert Hound]

What do we the people think about this? (You remember them/us? They/We are the first mentioned in the Constitution)

And that is the beauty of this decision if this is what it actually is.

They are saying the issue should be left up to the various legislatures elected by the people, rather than be decided by a court.

In other words we the people will now finally have a say in the issue.

 

[Desert Hound]

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.

Ginsburg warned against major judicial shifts in a 1992 lecture at New York University, citing Roe as an example.
“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,” she said. “A less encompassing Roe, one that merely struck down the extreme Texas law and went no further on that day, I believe and will summarize why, might have served to reduce rather than to fuel controversy.” . . .
Ginsburg went on to contrast the court’s landmark decision in Roe with a slew of decisions from 1971 to 1982 in which the court struck down “a series of state and federal laws that differentiated explicitly on the basis of sex.”
Rather than creating a new philosophy of law and imposing it on the nation immediately, “the court, in effect, opened a dialogue with the political branches of government.”
“In essence, the court instructed Congress and state legislatures: rethink ancient positions on these questions,” Ginsburg noted. “The ball, one might say, was tossed by the justices back into the legislators’ court, where the political forces of the day could operate.”

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.

 

[Lion Eyes]

What do we the people think about this? (You remember them/us? They/We are the first mentioned in the Constitution)

You are including ALL the people, right Magoo? Pro choice & pro abortion are part of "we the people".
The court is sending the issue back to the States..."to the people's elected representatives".
If the ruling is final, abortion in California will not change.
If we the people want abortion to be a Constitutional Right, then put forth a Constitutional Amendment and add it to the Constitution.
See the 18th & 21st Amendments as examples...

 

[watfly]

And that is the beauty of this decision if this is what it actually is.

They are saying the issue should be left up to the various legislatures elected by the people, rather than be decided by a court.

In other words we the people will now finally have a say in the issue.

The only problem I have with this is that abortion rights weren't on the ballot when the current representatives were elected. I know some people that would change their vote based on this single issue alone.

I understand the rationale for the decision and I fully support the idea that when in doubt let the individual states decide, 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.

 

[whatithink]

I get all of that - I'll leave it to "man" to argue over the eaches of constitutional law. Abortion is a polarizing topic, one I'd rather not get into with people who are mired in partisan politics. Moral arguements and reflection should certainly occur. At the end of the day, for abortion, it's a medical procedure that results in death. You can argue within small margins that the procedure is sometimes required to save life, sometimes. There is nuance in life and death decisions. But to humanely argue you have a right to choose a medical procedure that results in death just because you can is morally askew (in my opinion). Again, not wanting to get into a political discussion about medical procedures.

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.

 

[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. IMO I believe that to extrapolate that this decision will impact gay marriage, interracial marriage etc is a bit of fear mongering, but only time will tell. I didn't think Roe v. Wade would ever be overturned since there had been a majority of Republican appointed judges for quite some time. I've been wrong before and I will be wrong again. I think the extremes from both sides are being disingenuous about what this decision means.

BTW Row v Wade is a fishing decision and not a Supreme Court decision.

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.

 

[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.