| There are 49 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
|
|
Shhh I, don't rile the idiots.
Whats interesting is the very serious decisions that have been overturned.
My only point was that it's fluid
Stare Decisis is less important than the Constitution and Blackmun's basis was the Right to Privacy
Which is NOT mentioned anywhere in the Constitution or any Amendments
So, he created a right out of thin air
|
|
|
^ agreed I'm pointing out that overturning a decision is not as rare as it is made out ot be.
I would have never thought Roe v. Wade would be overturned myself and am not all that concerned by it. You and I agree that it should be legislated not divined out of thin air by non-legislative bodies.
As I posted before Congress needs to get to work... but they wont.
|
|
|
Those two aforementioned morons would have you believe that Stare Decisis trumps all.
Which means Plessy v. Ferguson should not have been overturned by Brown v. Board of Education
Which leads us to believe that both are racists besides being stupid
But I would suggest that racist = stupid
Simple math tells us that they're obviously both
).gif)
|
|
|
Their understanding of stare decisis comes from hearing it mentioned on TV and stressed by their favorite news personality as some type of magically binding term that all jurists sign a blood oath to. Something like the blood oath that Supreme Court employees take when agreeing to work for the court ..... but I digress.
Character and morals only apply if it is advantageous for the most liberal among us to use as a cudgel to beat those they oppose with.
|
|
|
Agreed, I posted the same on that same blog
This shit is so damned obvious
Something akin to the 1964 Civil Rights Act would work
BUT this issue raises the question of WTF?
It's not like there aren't condoms, birth control pills before and after, etc.
Outside of rape and incest
TAKE SOME GODDAMN RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR LIFE!
We wouldn't be so concerned about this if men and women just stopped fucking without thinking
|
|
|
I'm always thinking when I'm fucking..... does she really like it? Will I cum too fa....
.... goddammit!!!!
Round 2?
|
|
|
Similar situation here
I'm always thinking "is 4 inches enough?"
|
|
|
Many on the right and left would agree we currently live under a surveillance state. It is no real stretch to conclude that a right to privacy is a viable part of the 4th Amendment.
|
|
|
Why was there a leak at the Supreme Court? For the DemoRats to try to influence decisions with Mob Rule tactics. It seems democratic that every state should have to right to choose. Every person in that state hould have the right to vote.
|
|
|
Current theory on the leak has two plausible theories:
1. Someone on the Left wanted the pro-abortion side to be prepared and not blindsided by the overturn. Time to put protections in place.
2. Someone on the right sensed that a Justice was changing their mind on the majority move and decided to leak it in order to lock in the vote.
|
|
|
It doesn't matter who leaked or why they leaked. Left or Right the person should be punished to the most extreme level possible by the court.
The obvious out come for a left based leak.... the person will be lauded as a true hero for the cause and given positions at media outlets and a handsomely rewarded throughout the lecture circuit.
If it's a right based leak ... they will suffer the most extreme extent of the possible judgement and never be heard from again.
I contend that the latter example should be the only path for this person but I'm not native enough to believe that wil be the case.
As for the outcome of the decision..
THE ANSWER IS
Vote for representatives that represent your value and will seek to make Federal Law that defines the guideline under which abortion can be legal. It's the only true way to ensure that this "right" will never be overturned.
I believe I read that someone posted that the right to privacy is somehow eluded to in the 4th amendment. The fact that it is not literally spelled out means that as society changes the very idea of privacy as a right will change .... this MUST be spelled out to be taken as a literal right or you risk losing it altogether .... which you are doing right now with the government collecting you information through your devices. If you value that right to privacy it behoves you and everyone else to codify it through specific legislation(s).
|
|
|
My guess is that a clever conservative clerk released the draft ruling to Politico. This draft is probably the most conservative opinion on the ruling and now it is what the GOP base is going to expect as a bare minimum. Now public, conservative justices are not going to make concessions to the minority justices opinions on this ruling. Kind of sets it in stone. It may convince conservative justices - now emboldened by the enthusiasm of the GOP base - to draft a more hard line ruling as the final draft.
Doesn't change the fact that anywhere from 60 to 70 percent of the country does not want Roe v Wade overturned.
What happened to freedom from government tyranny - like when they made us wear a mask during a pandemic - when it comes to women and their lady bits?
|
|
|
^ Where is the tyranny you so easily point to ... the judgement does not make illegal anything.
|
|
|
Pew research poll is interesting but polls are notoriously dependent on how the question(s) are worded and the audience that's polled.
Heard Pocohontas yesterday saying the number is 56% in favor of keeping R v W.
However, much as I'd prefer abortion to be legal everywhere, SCOTUS does not enact legislation.
They interpret the legality, under the Constitution, of already enacted law.....plus ref the usual squabbles between plaintiff and defendant.
So call your congressman/senator, vote and bitch to let your voice be heard.
Pretty sure most of them ain't following HX blogs.
Well..........maybe Anthony Wiener and Bill Clinton
|
|
|
"Many on the right and left would agree we currently live under a surveillance state. It is no real stretch to conclude that a right to privacy is a viable part of the 4th Amendment."
Agreed on first sentence.
Negative on the 4th. (Unreasonable search and seizure)
It's the 9th that courts have used.....
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
|
|
|
Bunch of dudes arguing about this shit on a site like this. HURR DURR If she spreads her
legs she deserves it!
Morons �
|
|
|
^ Haven't seen anyone say that but you....
For the record I have no stand on abortion other than to say late 2nd trimester and beyond.... I think is a bit too far along. But I make no judgements about it. Nor do I make any judgements about the women who are in such a position to have to even consider it.
But you seem to make a lot of judgements.
|
|
|
i believe every human being has rights. One of those right is the right to live.
its a question of when that cell multiplication is developed enough to be considered a human being.
|
|
|
"Many on the right and left would agree we currently live under a surveillance state. It is no real stretch to conclude that a right to privacy is a viable part of the 4th Amendment."
While I agree with the sentiment the government seems to want to dictate the situations when and under what circumstances that right is actually yours to invoke. Is it inalienable? I'd say yes IF enumerated and doesn't exist at if not enumerated.
One might ask why I say doesn't exist if not enumerated, because you have to trust the whims of a bureaucratic state to recognize that right and as we see every goddamned day the state changes the terms upon which they recognize your privacy rights. Hippaa laws protect you from anyone asking about your medical conditions yet we are forced to disclose our medical status to work and retain our jobs or attend schools all because they tried to control something that was uncontrollable.
When someone wants to preach to me about this sacred right to privacy then throws it carelessly to the wind ....I know they are full of shit and boorishlyannoying.
|
|
|
Apparently brain wormed people with an intellect of age 10, like j502 think entire countries would waste their money paying people to change political opinions on HX of all places.
|
|
|
Honestly some people should of been aborted including myself, but here I am.
|
|
|
Goebbels the court has considered right to privacy broadly covered by the 14th amendment since 1923. This is not obscure information.
I am getting bored with correcting you on routine matters. Take night classes. Do something to improve the woeful state of your impoverished intellect.
|
|
|
The only thing obscure is your mind, HeyIsThatYourCockInMyAss?
I should have added all the amendments argued in RvW and certainly the 14th is one of them. Of course, you went to the wiki and don't have a complete understanding of the issues, or even why you have a cock in your ass.......so here you go.
"The Constitution does not list a right to privacy. The Court has held, however, that Bill of Rights protections of free speech, assembly, and religious exercise (First Amendment), along with freedom from forced quartering of troops (Third), unreasonable searches and seizures (Fourth), and forced self-incrimination (Fifth) create “zones of privacy.” Further, the Ninth Amendment’s protection of unenumerated rights could be said to protect privacy. These “zones,” the Court held, are places into which the government cannot unreasonably intrude. Roe claimed that the law robbed her of her right to privacy as protected by the combination of Bill of Rights amendments, and of her liberty as protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment."
And here you go:
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.
There's lots more where that came from but McCorvey originally started with the whole Bill of Rights with emphasis on the ninth amendment. Then it landed at SCOTUS where they used the 14th. As RBG talked about many times, this basis was a weak foundation for the ruling and so.....here we are 50 years later fixing the problem again.
Now tell me again how alone I am and how much I hate myself.
I love that part! And I know you love these ------------>
You make rawdawger look like a genius
Fuck, even the Dood is way smarter than you!
|
|
|
The people who say they want to ban abortions because they care about life are full of shit, these people are hypocritical maggots. The religious right want to ban abortions because they want to impose their religious beliefs onto society, it's a way for them to shame people as well. They pretend to be so concerned about a blob of potential, that hasn't even taken a breathe, but don't care about the woman who is alive and whose life is actually going to be affected.
|
|
|
^ guess I'd forgotten about this loser racing HeyIShatMyPants to the bottom of the IQ chart
Ok ok, new contest
Get both right, I donate 500 fx
Who said on HBO "Giant from Turkmenistan attack him, broke his anoos"?
Who was attacked?
A. The Dood
B. Rawdawger
C. HeyThatCocksTooBigButILikeIt
D. Hyder
1 guess per account..............GO!
|
|
|
Well...GBD deliberately skipped quoting 14th amendment in its entity to force his illogical conclusion; here is what is says;
The 14th amendment states that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
GBD, please stop talking as if you were a constitutional scholar. It does not say "privacy", but it is close enough to base women's rights to choose on the 14th, including others.
But I do agree with you that women's choice to choose should be protected under US constitution. Actually, I did not have any doubt that so called "Conservatives" here in HX are anti-abortionists. Most of them here including GBD are "Libertarians" who advocates illiberal democracy
|
|
|
And I have also no doubt that those high priests at Supreme Court were pressured by Christians Right and dark money sources. Trump famously said after he became president, he will overturn Roe V Wade (your memory has been sucked by your alcohol, correct GBD?). They all said that they will not touch Roe V Wade, but they all called it a precedent at their hearing. Precedent becomes a reason for overturning. That is what dark money donors and Federal Society told them to say... it is too obvious, but you just cannot take it, do you?
|
|
|
"they all called it a precedent at their hearing. Precedent becomes a reason for overturning."
The democraps control the House, Senate and the Presidency. Have them pass a LAW!
|
|
|
Supreme court decision to ban abortion will cause a whole a lot of mess, by leaving it to state jurisdiction. What if a woman takes an abortion pill in a state where that is legal, but expels the fetus in a state that prohibits abortion. That would become an "extraterritorial jurisdiction" case. That is the total opposite of their infantile opinion that eliminating constitutional protection for abortion rights would remove the contentious issue from courts.
Second, Alito is citing Hale's rationale as a base of his opinion. Hale is an English judge and lawyer who lived from 1609 to 1676, and his judgeship includes witchcraft trials, and he did sentence two witches to death. Hale believed that authorities should distrust women who reported having rap... ,and rap.. was in his mind, an accusation easily to be made and hard to be proved. Hale believed that a woman's agreement to marry meant that she had placed her body under husband's permanent dominion. Hale's belief coincides with the current GOP/MAGA far right movement backed by Evangelicals and fundamentalists. Supreme Court want to take us back to middle ages and witch hunt for innocent women just because they becomes pregnant. Women becomes another property for White men.
GOP is becoming so radicalized by xenophobia, its narrow nationalism, and its powerful tendency to Authoritarianism/Illiberal Democracy. If you listen to what Trumpterd politicians and GOP's career politicians who just hang on to their job, you get an idea. Just look at Dr Oz, he looks totally insane and out of whack, by promoting guns in his campaign commercial (yet he is a doctor).
GOP/MAGA is totally controlled by their dark money and its donors (Peter Thiel, a gay Evangelical billionaire or Federalist Society, Leonard Leo, or Fox's Lachlan Murdoch are just a few examples), getting more and more radicalized and so pitiful. No wonder Tucker Carlson aspired Putin and Victor Orban in Hungary. The basis for their belief is White Chrisitan Society combined with Autocracy, that is what they are going for. That is why it is so dangerous. First they get rid of women's rights to choose, the next is gay mariage, and the final is our rights to vote. There is no end to their destructive move for their power
|
|
|
Have the democraps pass a Law. Your argument is BS.
|
|
|
Fuck the 1% they have you guys on both sides of the isle throwing cabbage at each other! Get a clue weenie's, oscar myer even an L7 dodger dog Sandlot link below
Its late 4 politics girls nighty night
The left is for love making the right is for the 2nd round,
Leftandright 2022
|
|
|
"The democraps control the House, Senate and the Presidency. Have them pass a LAW!"
Angel 1 did not develop enough brain unfortunately.
roe vs wade will be overturned soon, because GOP, and Christians Right spent 50 years of scheming to overturn it, and that gave Evangelicals a motivation to fight against liberals. Packing Supreme court with their judges is one of them, and the current senate, because of idiotic Manchin's objection, no legislation goes through.
Where is the separation of religion and politics? The constitution clearly says so, and they ignore it for their convenience and for their political agenda.
They want to force Minority Rules on the rest of US citizens by using judiciary system to their advantage. They are afraid of declining White population and White Christians, that is the source of their extremely anti-democratic movement.
After the Supreme Court ruling reversing Roe v Wade, those far right Christians want nation-wide ban on abortion, and McCornell is totally pressured by Federalist Society. But in order to do so, GOP has to abolish filibuster. McCornell said he will never do that, but I am sure he will when they take power in congress. So my conclusion is that Democrats should abolish filibuster first to codify Roe vs Wade and pass more legislations that majority of Americans prefer, not GOP's minority rules.
|
|
|
Hey Rahcrener, I can't seem to find any posts about you supporting Women's rights
when it comes to trans females participating in Women's sports.
So is it fair for men to participate in Women sports?
I'd love to hear your pretzel like response on this.
|
|
|
R vs W is not a Federal Law period.
|
|
|
Angler 1
I would respond to you only if you gave me a reasonable argument
|
|
|
So is it fair for men to participate in Women sports?
I'd love to hear your pretzel like response on this.
Pretty straight forward question pretzel boy.
|
|
|
Didn't the Senate just vote on the abortion bill?
If I remember correctly, is was bipartisan no vote. Removing the filibuster still would not work.
Have you had a Civic class before pretzel boy?
|
|
|
Overturning this is taking human trafficking to a whole new level!! Matter of fact - it can’t be any more obvious than what it is.
Disgusting
|
|
|
@Angler 1
Look, I don't know what the nature of your question is. If you are talking about a transgender woman to compete in women's sports, this has nothing to do with politics. It is up to each organization to decide. And honestly, I don't have an answer for it.
The bill just went to the senate and voted down is not a bipartisan bill. It was an effort by Democrats to codify Roe v Wade, but Collins and Murkowski including Democrat Manchin were against it. Collins and Murkowski have their own bill, but Democrats were against it. Manchin is a pain in the neck, and he should switch the party, because he is not helping any legislation to pass by always going with GOP senators.
Filibuster rule at Senate is that at least 60 members of senators have to go for it, otherwise it will not pass.
Democrats wasted first eight months in order to pass their Build Back Better plan, dealing with Sinema (AR) and Manchin (WV) to work for them, but due to their political donors, they never budged. If they are willing, Democrats can abolish filibuster rule, and they can codify Roe V Wade, and bunch of other legislation that most of Americans want. That is the truth.
|
|
|
"Overturning this is taking human trafficking to a whole new level!! Matter of fact - it can’t be any more obvious than what it is."
You are correct.
|
|
|
probably a good thing those two are holding shit up
they would RAMROD a few other things down our throats
additional states and lib senators...probably never lose another election again
heavy duty IRS and reporting
|
|
|
"Supreme court decision to ban abortion will cause a whole a lot of mess"
Rawdawger, you are a true imbecile.
SCOTUS is not "banning" abortion
They're simply overturning Roe v Wade
This simply returns the issue to the States to decide what they want to do
UNLESS and UNTIL Congress passes a law that's signed by the Pres.
Fucking brainwashed idiots like you just make it all the more difficult to make clear middle of the road legislation that mirrors the majority of America.
That means abortion in the 1st Trimester
Less abortion in the 2nd Tri
And, even less in the 3rd
Are you for abortion up to the point of birth?
Simple question, can you give us a simple answer without all your bullshit?
Yes or No?
|
|
|
"SCOTUS is not "banning" abortion
They're simply overturning Roe v Wade
This simply returns the issue to the States to decide what they want to do
UNLESS and UNTIL Congress passes a law that's signed by the Pres."
You are the imbecile GBD, you are not really reading my blogs at all. I am totally aware of Scotus will leave it to the state to decide. And thanks to those partisan hacked judges, 26 states will ban abortion including trigger states.
Here you go, if you are too lazy to know the details;
If Roe were overturned or fundamentally weakened, 22 states have laws or constitutional amendments already in place that would make them certain to attempt to ban abortion as quickly as possible. Anti-abortion policymakers in several of these states have also indicated that they will introduce legislation modeled after the Texas six-week abortion ban.
By the time the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in the Mississippi case, there will be nine states in this group with an abortion ban still on the books from before Roe v. Wade, 13 states with a trigger ban tied to Roe being overturned, five states with a near-total abortion ban enacted after Roe, 11 states with a six-week ban that is not in effect and one state (Texas) with a six-week ban that is in effect, one state with an eight-week ban that is not in effect and four states whose constitutions specifically bar a right to abortion. Some states have multiple types of bans in place.
And as I said above, those dark donors want GOP to force nation wide ban on abortion by abolishing filibuster. So this scotus decision will be the first step.
As for trimester, it is up to the state to make a decision. Your effort to smear me as a far left always fails
|
|
|
You are a LIBTARD.
|
|
|
@angler 1
You are a retard.
I gave you an honest answers to your damn questions because you are totally ignorant.
I knew I will waste my time here, because there are no intelligent conservatives here.
You guys are nothing but bunch of liberturdians who support GOP politicians like Rand Paul or Ron Johnson or Trump himself. Shame on all of you guys
|
|
|
You talk in circles, like a pretzel.
You didn't answer my question about trans women.
I posted it was a bipartisan vote. I never said bipartisan bill.
|
|
|
@Angler 1
First of all, it was not bipartisan votes at all. All 50 Republicans and Sen. Joe Manchin III (D-W.Va.) opposed moving ahead on the bill. And like I said, nothing goes through the senate due to 50-50 right now, so there is no way Democrats alone go through it. So your way of expression does not make any sense at all. If there are 60 Democrats in the senate, what you said makes sense.
For your second question, I still do not understand why you insist I should answer your damn question, because it has nothing to do with the current subject we are discussing in this blog. So why do you ask me this idiotic hypothetical question that I never even thought of by myself.
What we are discussing here is about our rights to privacy (rights to make a decision on abortion, or rights to marry with the same sex, or rights to own a gun etc..).
Your question goes beyond the above. That is why it sounds odd and does not make any sense. I know you idiots including GBD try to test me whether I am a regular liberal or an extreme left in your damn hypothetical question. So why should I answer it?
But if you insist, and I have repeat your question has nothing to do with politics, but I would say I may feel odd if transgender person competes us in a particular sport competition, simply because I never had a such experience. If each sponsor accepts transgender person to compete in sports, there has to be some kind of clear rules explaining why it is allowed. This is nothing to do with moral either, because it has to do wtih one's body. Honestly I am not a physician or a scientist what kind of body you would have after the surgery.. simply because of this reason, I am not entitled to my opinion, simply my feelings about it.
The same thing can be said about GBD's question, 1st or 2nd or 3rd trimester, I never thought about it before. We are strictly talking about the rights to abortion. That is all. Again, I am not a physician, and never asked women to do abortion. I am not too familiar with the detail. All I know is European countries are adopting 10-14 weeks peirod, that is all. So excuse me
By the way I just read this article; More Republicans are working to undermine Trump endorsements, and I have to say this is a good news...
|
|
|
Obama had the SUPERMAJORITY to settle Roe v Wade into law, but they didn't. Do people really think the top Democrats were that stupid enough to not realize this could get overturned in the supreme court? Apparently cultists like j502 think that the top Democrats were that stupid.
|
|
|
I really dont understand why people even defend Democrats at this point. They couldn't even get a nation wide $11 minimum wage, something that even fucking Tom Cotton said he'd agree to.
|
| There are 49 comments on this blog. This blog is locked and no further comments are permitted. |
