|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:30:09 GMT -5
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.
Please find one post where I’ve advocated for packing the court. Just because I can make an argument for it, doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve adopted that position. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:30:52 GMT -5
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. Their grounds would be "we think abortion should be a states decision, not a federal one".
The act of overturning Roe is exactly an act of returning power to the states.
It's like you're trying to argue that putting the key in the ignition is not at all related to a desire to drive the car.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:31:31 GMT -5
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.
Please find one post where I’ve advocated for packing the court. Just because I can make an argument for it, doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve adopted that position. OK.
Very odd to do that, but you are a very odd duck indeed.
|
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2022 15:36:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Jun 24, 2022 15:39:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by HOLIDAY on Jun 24, 2022 15:45:50 GMT -5
I love this, the White House can’t even define what a woman is so how can we decide who gets abortions? What a cluster.
|
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:47:06 GMT -5
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. Their grounds would be "we think abortion should be a states decision, not a federal one".
The act of overturning Roe is exactly an act of returning power to the states.
It's like you're trying to argue that putting the key in the ignition is not at all related to a desire to drive the car.
It’s an act of returning things to pre-Roe. If there were a federal abortion ban on the books, it would go back into effect. Whether or not something should be done by the federal or state government is an entirely separate legal question that Dobbs didn’t touch (nor could they have). It’s an Art. I inquiry — Dobbs is a 5A/14A case. “Leaving it to the states” is doing zero legal work here. It’s just dicta/political talk. Edit: Just opened the majority again. The opinion doesn’t even say “return it to the states.” It says “it is time … to return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” And Alito says almost that exact phrase again later. And again. And again. |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2022 15:47:48 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. Or a federal abortion allowance today! Oh wait. |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:48:24 GMT -5
Please find one post where I’ve advocated for packing the court. Just because I can make an argument for it, doesn’t necessarily mean I’ve adopted that position. OK.
Very odd to do that, but you are a very odd duck indeed.
I am not surprised you find critical thinking “odd.” |
|
|
|
Post by donut on Jun 24, 2022 15:50:08 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by BeachbytheBay on Jun 24, 2022 15:51:18 GMT -5
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. Their grounds would be "we think abortion should be a states decision, not a federal one". The act of overturning Roe is exactly an act of returning power to the states. It's like you're trying to argue that putting the key in the ignition is not at all related to a desire to drive the car.
I think it's important to read Alioto's opinion. Yes practically at the moment it does return to the states because Congress failed to create laws protecting abortion!. On the other hand, nothing he wrote suggests Congress can't legislate legality of abortion nation-wide. but then should Congress do that, it could always (and would be expected to) be challenged in some manner. it's clear Alioto wanted to throw Roe in the garbage can of bad legal decisions the interesting thing will be to see how states deal with the aspect of 'criminalizing' & punishing women who have abortions. something is illegal, we have punishments. well, except,,, for crossing a border or for trying to overturn an election two exceptions I guess |
|
|
|
Post by n00b on Jun 24, 2022 15:51:26 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.
This decision doesn't talk about letting it go to the states. Just that that laws should be created by legislatures, not the courts. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:51:50 GMT -5
OK.
Very odd to do that, but you are a very odd duck indeed.
I am not surprised you find critical thinking “odd.” Critical thinking isn't odd.
Pretending you don't support the outcome of the critical thinking, is an odd thing to do.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikegarrison on Jun 24, 2022 15:53:01 GMT -5
Strategic retirements. Is that like when RBG retired so that a Dem president could nominate her successor?
as to the blame game, blame Hillary for running the worst campaign for PResident in the last 40 years she had every advantage conceiveable, especially money overconfident, bad polling. she lost to a candidate half the nation couldn't stand While this is mostly true, it's also true that the GOP had recognized her as a serious threat as far back as the late 1990s and had literally spent 25 years running against her -- for at least 20 years the GOP had been casting Hilary Clinton as public enemy #1 among their base (think the 11 or 13 or whatever separate investigations of the Benghazi attack, all of which except maybe the first one were specifically targeted at finding something they could use to hang the attack on Hilary). So she had extraordinary negative polling numbers even before considering the large number of people who simply would/will not vote for a woman as President. In some ways, the GOP helped elect Obama in 2008 because they had spent so much of their resources the previous 10 years on running against Hilary Clinton. When Obama surprised them by taking the nomination away from Clinton, they were behind the game, because they had been all set to run the 2016 campaign. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2022 15:53:28 GMT -5
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.
This decision doesn't talk about letting it go to the states. Just that that laws should be created by legislatures, not the courts. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.You think nothing of the specific phrasing "of each State"? |
|
