|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 15:01:33 GMT -5
Today's decision also paves the way for a federal abortion ban the moment republicans retake Congress and the presidency. So that's awesome. A federal ban is entirely the opposite of letting the issue go to states, is it not? I guess we'll have to see what SCOTUS does, if that happens.
judging from Aliota's opinion it doesn't look like a federal ban at all if fact he'd have to eat his own words if he tried to force an opinion on 'life' of an unborn lifeform message was pretty clear, Congress can go make abortion laws, the only potential limitation there is a division between state's rights, but given it's a medical/health issue, hard to see how a Federal law allowing abortion could be struct down
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:04:27 GMT -5
Don't get me wrong, I support a constitutional amendment implementing any of the various clever structures for limiting SCOTUS terms and cyclical nominations.
Go do it. I'll vote for people who claim they'll support it.
Nothing else I can do.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 24, 2022 15:04:45 GMT -5
I wonder how close Roberts was in getting Kavanaugh on his side - which would have been to uphold the MS law while keeping the framework of Roe?
And could this have happened if not for the leak. It is why some believe the leak came from the right in order to keep this from happening.
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 15:05:53 GMT -5
You keep saying this and it isn't true. Even if it were (and it's not), it's immoral to deny people the ability to control their own bodies. If states can't stop their residents from taking narcotics (true), then they sure as hell won't be able to stop them from getting pills in the mail.
A fetus is human DNA that isn't the same as the host. Literally scientifically, it is not your own body.
that's a DNA argument there's an umbilical cord involved if you want to call conception life, well start issuing Social Security numbers to the fetus after conception, make women go down to the local Department of Developing life forms in your state and process the paper work. start issuing Life Certificates, seriously if one wants to go down the ban abortion path and making it illegal let women decide, frggnn men that just want to exercise control over women, nothing more nothing less
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:07:35 GMT -5
I personally have no problem with any woman deciding to end a pregnancy, on a moral/ethical level.
But the silly, false, and illegal arguments that fanatical ideologist try to assert, to achieve that outside the legal framework of our society, should be cut down for the bunk they are.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:07:36 GMT -5
I mean, that means Garland wouldn’t have happened. And we wouldn’t have had a President who lost the popular vote appointing 3 justices in 4 years. We would have had a President who won the popular vote appointing 2 justices in 4 years. Entirely different case, isn’t it? Garland would've been appointed and the Dem 2016 winner would've appointed 2 more, as you said.
So, exactly as I said, it would've been a 6-3 Dem appointed court.
Non-responsive to my post and contributes nothing new to the conversation, but ok (assuming Kennedy behaves the same)?
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 15:08:21 GMT -5
I wonder how close Roberts was in getting Kavanaugh on his side - which would have been to uphold the MS law while keeping the framework of Roe? And could this have happened if not for the leak. It is why some believe the leak came from the right in order to keep this from happening. who knows, given Thomas comments over the last two months, there seems to be no love loss with Thomas thinking Roberts 'meddles' too much.
|
|
bluepenquin
Hall of Fame
4-Time VolleyTalk Poster of the Year (2019, 2018, 2017, 2016), All-VolleyTalk 1st Team (2021, 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016) All-VolleyTalk 2nd Team 2023
Posts: 12,903
|
Post by bluepenquin on Jun 24, 2022 15:08:57 GMT -5
I was assured by people here that conservatives on the court don't want to go after Griswold and Obergefell next! I would have never said this. One can easily believe that Griswold was wrongly decided, but that contraception should be legal. There is no state that would or could pass a ban on contraceptions (and still remain in office).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:09:08 GMT -5
OK, confirms you would be a pig in s__t, even though exactly the same imbalance.
You don't care about imbalance, so long as they vote how you want. That's your hypocrisy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:09:54 GMT -5
I was assured by people here that conservatives on the court don't want to go after Griswold and Obergefell next! I would have never said this. One can easily believe that Griswold was wrongly decided, but that contraception should be legal. There is no state that would or could pass a ban on contraceptions (and still remain in office). It's merv.
He's gonna hyper-react. It's his caricature
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 15:11:01 GMT -5
I personally have no problem with any woman deciding to end a pregnancy, on a moral/ethical level. But the silly, false, and illegal arguments that fanatical ideologist try to assert, to achieve that outside the legal framework of our society, should be cut down for the bunk they are. that's true. there's going to be a lot of hysteria. #1 this isn't 1972 #2 finally it's really back to a political legislative debate where it should have been addressed all along. it's what democracy should be, debate making abortion legal, and vote on it versus, make SCOTUS candidates go thru hell and have a circus show, in order instead of passing legislation
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:17:15 GMT -5
OK, confirms you would be a pig in s__t, even though exactly the same imbalance. You don't care about imbalance, so long as they vote how you want. That's your hypocrisy. I don’t care about imbalance, you’re right! Imbalance doesn’t provide the case, IMO, for packing the court.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:21:29 GMT -5
I mean, that means Garland wouldn’t have happened. And we wouldn’t have had a President who lost the popular vote appointing 3 justices in 4 years. We would have had a President who won the popular vote appointing 2 justices in 4 years. Entirely different case, isn’t it? I know I'm still a relative newcomer to this country , but I thought the President wasn't elected by popular vote. For me that makes that particular point moot. It shouldn’t be moot, if you care about the democratic checks underlying the Constitution that mean having unelected lifetime appointed judges is ok. Yeah, that’s my point. The result doesn’t provide the rationale for packing the court, in my opinion, from a legal/Constitutional/fairness perspective. You can make the practical argument (“this Court seems uniquely pressed to take away fundamental rights and that’s bad”) but I wouldn’t start there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:27:26 GMT -5
OK, confirms you would be a pig in s__t, even though exactly the same imbalance. You don't care about imbalance, so long as they vote how you want. That's your hypocrisy. I don’t care about imbalance, you’re right! Imbalance doesn’t provide the case, IMO, for packing the court. Fair enough.
Court won't be packed, but you're free to dream radical dreams and march in protests supporting them. It still won't happen. Hysterical people should be given sidelong glances, and then it's back to normal life.
You don't need to provide any argument for packing the court. It is completely legally, already. But just because it's legal, doesn't mean it's not radical.
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:28:50 GMT -5
Today's decision also paves the way for a federal abortion ban the moment republicans retake Congress and the presidency. So that's awesome. A federal ban is entirely the opposite of letting the issue go to states, is it not?
I guess we'll have to see what SCOTUS does, if that happens.
Again, this case doesn’t say the issue must go to the states. That’s simply an effect of the court’s holding. Nothing in this opinion suggests that Congress couldn’t pass the exact same law as Mississippi. There might be other, unmentioned, Constitutional issues but lol @ this court striking down a federal abortion ban on any of those grounds.
|
|