|
Replies: 36
| visibility 829
|
Hall of Famer [24477]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13968
Joined: 7/3/01
|
If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes,
May 3, 2022, 10:26 AM
|
|
I'll volunteer. I wouldn't have done it.
Forget what one thinks about abortion. And assume for a moment one thinks abortion is not a constitutional matter. Assume one thinks it should be left to the legislatures. Assume that Roe, legally speaking, was a bad decision that wouldn't get a C in law class. Fine.
Nevertheless, I can't see that this decision accomplishes anything except create a new battle to divide us. States were already regulating abortion down to a point people in their respective states could live with. NY could do what it wanted, Texas could do what it wanted, and no challenge to the Court was going to change that. Roe was already practically moot. So why recreate the battle?
I understand the Court saying, hypothetically, "That's not our concern. Roe was an indefensible decision, and how the population gets along is not our business." Okay, I agree. But golly, sometimes, just sit still.
|
|
|
|
 |
Hall of Famer [21577]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13919
Joined: 9/7/02
|
Because those living in the Bible belt whom constantly
May 3, 2022, 10:29 AM
|
|
preach "state rights" want to take away state rights because their magical Jesus sky fairy is angry that baby souls are being killed and going straight to heaven instead of being born and being made to choose to accept him into their heart to avoid an eternity of damnation due to conditions the magical fairy set up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
What states rights are being taken away by this ruling?
May 3, 2022, 10:36 AM
|
|
My understanding is this ruling is doing the exact opposite.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34593]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41421
Joined: 4/20/01
|
you would be correct***
May 3, 2022, 10:38 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31896]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37187
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes,
May 3, 2022, 10:33 AM
|
|
The Roe decision was unanimous. 9 justices in favor. It's been "settled" law now for almost fifty years. Tons of similar cases in the past have all deferred to Roe.
Now, suddenly, Alito and his conspirators claim it is flawed and needs to go, and in doing so, they throw the idea of stare decisis out the window. So now what happens. We start to realize that everything can be thrown out the window? Every major decision, no matter how settled, can be opened back up.
So what should trouble you, actually, is how the court now is about the politics, not the law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12187
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes,
May 3, 2022, 10:36 AM
|
|
So, I'm guessing, with the precedent argument, we should still be in a state of racial segregation?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Japanese Americans should still be in internment camps too.
May 3, 2022, 10:37 AM
|
|
You know, settled law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34593]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 41421
Joined: 4/20/01
|
conspirators!!***
May 3, 2022, 10:39 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: Japanese Americans should still be in internment camps too.
May 3, 2022, 10:47 AM
[ in reply to Japanese Americans should still be in internment camps too. ] |
|
yeah, the funny thing is, most of these justices, even Justice Barrett, said it was settled law and I quote, "can't be overturned by personal beliefs".
If this majority decision as its written holds up, this was more about personal beliefs than about case law.
The question here is what has changed since Roe? I'll be here for an hour so, patiently waiting for more of your deflections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Let me talk slowly with small words
May 3, 2022, 10:57 AM
|
|
First, I'll explain the nuance that you are calling "deflection". A few people have listed rulings, that virtually no one would disagree with, that completely went against established precedent. We did so, not to deflect, but to illustrate to you the inaccuracy of your argument that SC rulings are forevermore untouchable due to being "precedent".
As for "personal beliefs"....if it's the personal belief of a SCJ that a law is unconstitutional, then yeah, that's just fine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
try this for nuance
May 3, 2022, 11:59 AM
|
|
Nothing has changed since the 1973 Roe decsion with regard to Roe‘s concept of liberty in defining the capacity of women to act in society, and to make reproductive decisions.
"no erosion of principle going to liberty or personal autonomy has left Roe‘s central holding a doctrinal remnant.” - Justice O'Conner
A whole generation has grown up and had babies, and some grandkids, who never experienced life without Roe's central holding.
If nothing has really changed, then what is the motivation of Alito and crew to overturn it?
It is surely politics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
I disagree
May 3, 2022, 12:10 PM
|
|
I found the draft beneficial in that Alito goes into great detail about the rationale behind the decision, and it is completely apolitical and entirely constitutional in nature. In a nutshell the majority in the draft don't seem to feel that Roe is a sound enough legal doctrine to simply toss this decision in the "precedent" can and move on.
It seems like you would have a better case for your "personal belief/politics" argument if they used this case to someone federally block abortions on a federal basis. It's not doing that when they're simply leaving it up to the states, as things not constitutionally guaranteed should be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [137949]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63813
Joined: 10/22/00
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Yes, that has been debunked
May 3, 2022, 12:26 PM
|
|
if "debunked" suddenly means "proven". Good Lord, the very founder of Planned Parenthood was an outspoken proponent of abortion as a population improvement method when used in minority populations and those with mental disabilities.
Alito's mention of it was in the context of it flying against logic that this ruling somehow was negatively targeting minority populations, when the practice of abortion itself was meant to negatively target minority populations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
fair enough
May 3, 2022, 12:28 PM
[ in reply to I disagree ] |
|
I think we can both agree that the likely outcome is that one side will consider this a fairly tame constitutional decision, and the other side will call it a radical break that greatly damages the court's credibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
where do you get that?
May 3, 2022, 10:42 AM
[ in reply to Re: If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes, ] |
|
To my knowledge of US history, plessy v ferguson wasn't the last word. "Separate but equal" state laws were overturned by Brown v Board of Ed., so yeah.......since 1954 there is precedence.
So maybe what you are saying, is that since Roe doesn't matter, neither does Brown v Board of Ed.
Why not Heller too. Let's redo all the decisions, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12187
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: where do you get that?
May 3, 2022, 10:46 AM
|
|
Brown vs. Board overturned Plessy vs Ferguson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [83125]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 80161
Joined: 11/29/99
|
Actually Roe V. Wade was 7-2. I think it was flawed as they
May 3, 2022, 10:42 AM
[ in reply to Re: If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes, ] |
|
said the "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment should provide a right to privacy which protects a woman's right to choose. This is a huge stretch, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
The 14th Amendment was aimed at emancipated slaves
May 3, 2022, 10:59 AM
|
|
making sure that States didn't make laws to violate their emancipation. It's a tremendous reach to suggest it gives anyone a "right to privacy", much less extending it to a right to an abortion.
States can deprive someone of "life, liberty, and property" without due process. That's liberty, as in the quality of being free, as opposed to being enslaved. That's not liberty to do whatever one wants.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [26968]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 44823
Joined: 7/6/10
|
States *can't****
May 3, 2022, 10:59 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7131]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9691
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: RBG disagreed with Roe v. Wade (process & outcomes)
May 3, 2022, 6:17 PM
[ in reply to Re: If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes, ] |
|
Ignored by the "main stream" media (because they prefer to propagandize rather than to inform), Ruth Bader Ginsberg viewed Roe v. Wade as poor ruling.
Below are excerpts from an old Time Magazine article (August 2018) on RGB in which her argument AGAINST Roe v. Wade showed how women who DID NOT want to get an abortion were not properly protected by R.v.W.
(This long, so be prepared to suffer.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Today, the idea that a judge’s views on abortion rights might be determining factor for his or her suitability for a seat on the Supreme Court is unsurprising. In particular, the landmark 1973 case Roe v. Wade is frequently referred to as a “litmus test” for a justice. So it might come as a surprise that, though she made history by endorsing abortion rights during her confirmation hearing, Ginsburg had well-known reservations about Roe.
Her views on abortion came up during her confirmation hearings in part due to a lecture she’d given earlier that year at New York University School of Law, in which she discussed the topic. At one point during her talk, she critiqued the Court for the structure of its decision in Roe v. Wade:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ginsburg said that she believed it would have been easier for the public to understand why the Constitution protected abortion rights if it the matter had been framed as one of equal protection rather than privacy. And in fact, there was a specific case she had in mind as one that should have driven the national conversation, instead of letting Roe carry that weight.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
She told the Senators that she “first thought long and hard” about abortion rights when, as a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), she took on Struck v. Secretary of Defense, a case that was on the Supreme Court’s calendar during the same term that Roe was decided. Susan Struck was an Air Force Captain who got pregnant while serving in Vietnam and sued the Air Force after it said she would have to either get an abortion at the base hospital or leave if she wanted to have the child. She told the Air Force that she didn’t want to get an abortion; she wanted to use the vacation days that she had saved up to give birth and then put the baby up for adoption because abortion violated her Roman Catholic faith.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
(*) The above is not to suggest that RBG would have voted to overturn R.v.W., but rather that she recognized the (large) flaws in R.v.W. as far as a judicial ruling.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12187
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: If you want a conservative to disagree with The Supremes,
May 3, 2022, 10:34 AM
|
|
MS was sued for basically banning abortion after 3 and a half months.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
I can't decide...
May 3, 2022, 12:07 PM
|
|
If this is bad timing for the GOP or not. It seems they had the midterms in the bag; now the SCOTUS has brought a divisive issue to the forefront with a very vocal and pissed off segment of the voting base that will oppose this. Abortion wasn't even really on the midterm radar; now it's front and center and maybe not the way the GOP wanted.
It also makes you wonder if the Dem Congress is going to rush to override this with federal legislation, which will open a new can of worms.
I can't help but think in the long run, this is bad for the GOP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [13116]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14119
Joined: 11/2/15
|
Re: I can't decide...
May 3, 2022, 12:11 PM
|
|
Ummmmm. That’s the purpose of the leak. Dems win again, economy be ######.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155929]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65829
Joined: 5/6/13
|
This feels like a decision that should make neither side
May 3, 2022, 12:14 PM
[ in reply to I can't decide... ] |
|
overly happy.
Staunch anti-abortionists should be disappointed that they simply kicked it to the states (which, for the record, I approve of) instead of banning the practice.
Staunch pro-choicers should be disappointed that they didn't rubber stamp this case under the Roe precedent.
It's going to ultimately be spun and positioned as a massive win for the pro-life crowd though, and when it's time to rally the troops usually those who don't have their way rally better than those who do, so I see your point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42170]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38251
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Ultimately...
May 3, 2022, 12:21 PM
|
|
I also defer to favoring a states' rights ruling here--EXCEPT for the states that think they're going to prosecute their residents who go to other states. No, G T F O. But speaking from a Constitutional sense, it needs to be a states issue. That doesn't mean the states are gonna do the right thing, and I accept that. That's life.
I feel like the pro-life crowd is not a very apathetic voting base; I think they're already hitting the polls. This ruling seems to be one that will bring woke-ass young voter out to the booth.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24072]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 12187
Joined: 9/1/14
|
Re: Ultimately...
May 3, 2022, 12:32 PM
|
|
From purely a legal sense, if it is Federally legal or illegal, it is something for which elected officials should vote.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [79429]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 63272
Joined: 10/30/05
|
I think that largely depends on the lefts reaction
May 3, 2022, 12:34 PM
[ in reply to I can't decide... ] |
|
If they trot out the professional rioters again and start talking about packing the court, etc. it will end up being good for the GOP.
I also think this is very convenient timing to distract from inflation/economy, war with Russia, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rock Defender [53]
TigerPulse: 90%
Posts: 35
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Re: I think that largely depends on the lefts reaction
May 3, 2022, 10:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7131]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9691
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: I can't decide... Oh I can decide ... bad for Repubs
May 3, 2022, 10:59 PM
[ in reply to I can't decide... ] |
|
This is manna from Heaven for the Dems.
Largely diverts attention from the Democrat policy failures and restores 'emotional politics' to the scene.
Only problem for the Dems is that this bolt may have been shot too soon.
As inflation picks up again ... perhaps only to be slowed down by via a major slow-down in the jobs market ... then budget-strapped voters may again remember that Democrats are associated with the obvious-to-all economic mess that we'll see before end of Q3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24777]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42510
Joined: 7/31/10
|
Totally agree and they just cut into the Pub sweep big time.
May 3, 2022, 10:32 PM
|
|
Then again, that could have been precisely the desired effect.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2595]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 1513
Joined: 12/17/21
|
I think this was bad for Republicans that
May 3, 2022, 11:48 PM
|
|
This was leaked. The elections are in 6 months. This issue will bring out many Dems/Independents to vote that may not have been interested before.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47750]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30414
Joined: 11/15/99
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [10891]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15069
Joined: 8/6/10
|
Roberts has made terrible decisions for a while, it wouldn't
May 4, 2022, 7:59 AM
|
|
surprise me if he did this to give the Democrats a chance in the mid-terms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 36
| visibility 829
|
|
|
50
