|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
This was not a 6-3 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Jun 27, 2022, 11:45 AM
|
|
It was a 5-4 decision to overturn Roe v Wade. It was a 6-3 decision to allow the Mississippi 15 week abortion ban to remain.
The Supreme Court announced they were taking the Mississippi case on Monday, September 20th, two days after Ginsburg died, to address only ONE question - can a state ban abortion prior to the age of viability. It did NOT grant the question about whether to overturn Roe v Wade.
Chief Justice Roberts has always argued that Roe V. Wade need not be overturned in order to allow states to restrict abortion prior to the age of viability - 24 - 28 weeks. He made it clear in the initial arguments in December that all we have to decide is whether we are going to allow a state to ban abortion before the age of viability. He wanted to uphold the Missippi law on that basis without overturning Roe v Wade.
He never got any takers. No other conservative justices went along with him. The leaked decision showed he did not have any takers at that point. Justice Roberts was angry with the leak and announced an investigation. The final decision written by Alito was revealed Friday and Roberts still had not convinced any conservative justices to join him. He still had no takers.
|
|
|
|
 |
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
And this is the Lunge, dude.***
Jun 27, 2022, 11:46 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Darn it. It was an accident. At least I didn't purposely
Jun 27, 2022, 11:48 AM
|
|
post it on the Clemson Football board.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
That would have been preferable
Jun 27, 2022, 11:49 AM
|
|
to us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Not me. To paraphrase Coach Frank Howard, "keep your
Jun 27, 2022, 11:53 AM
|
|
filthy politics off my Tiger Football board."
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
Had you posted it there, mods would have moved it
Jun 27, 2022, 11:57 AM
|
|
but we have to put up with this crap in the Lunge.
No love for the lunge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It takes a conscious effort to post politics on Tigerboard
Jun 27, 2022, 11:59 AM
|
|
under the Tiger Football. Often it sits there for quite some time.
It's a pretty simple mistake to post it in the Lounge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
LOL.
Jun 27, 2022, 12:01 PM
|
|
for some reason I only post in the lunge and never have an issue with it going to PnR.
If you really care about your post being read, post it where it will be.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
For maximum readership, I should post it on Tigerboard
Jun 27, 2022, 12:06 PM
|
|
like others do and let it sit for awhile.
But, I don't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18324
Joined: 12/6/13
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
A two week suspension would suffice.
Jun 27, 2022, 11:54 AM
|
|
repeat offenders get their suspensions doubled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Accidents will happen.
Jun 27, 2022, 11:57 AM
|
|
Judge Alito.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
You would think twice about where you were posting
Jun 27, 2022, 11:58 AM
|
|
if there were consequences, name caller.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
True. In that case, a mandatory 30 year to life sentence
Jun 27, 2022, 12:02 PM
|
|
with the possibility of the death penalty would really drive the point home.
 ">
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [163012]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31933
Joined: 1/17/07
|
I'm for it.
Jun 27, 2022, 12:04 PM
|
|
RH Tig can enforce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [135612]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 91641
Joined: 12/6/98
|
Aw...you remembered!
Jun 27, 2022, 12:09 PM
|
|
How much I love brutal enforcement, I mean.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
The Alito Coup De Bra!***
Jun 27, 2022, 11:50 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97729]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64865
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I don't think this decision was about the "issue" at all.
Jun 27, 2022, 12:21 PM
|
|
This had nothing to do with abortion. It's a principled decision. The issue could be gay marriage, or ANY issue-driven right granted by the federal court in the past. If you read the 14th amendment Article I says...(I made a few words bold).
All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.
It's an important distinction they mentioned any STATE. No STATE can pass a law that abridges privileges and immunities of US citizens. And any STATE must ensure due process and not deny equal protection (within THAT STATE). This is key to understanding the court in this case. When the Supreme Court previously ruled abortion was a right, they deemed it as such unilaterally, federally, and universally. It was never a law passed by Congress. It wasn't an Amendment to the Constitution, it was merely a right granted by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is not, and never was intended, to be in the right- granting business. Congress does that, the Constitution does that, and states can do it if 3/4 agree to a Constitutional amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9796
Joined: 5/17/02
|
^^^This.
Jun 27, 2022, 12:36 PM
|
|
The SCOTUS didn't ban abortion. They merely corrected the wrong of the previous decision.
The states however, are acting stupidly on their own accord. Be made what what your individual state is/isn't doing. Not the SCOTUS.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11640]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9796
Joined: 5/17/02
|
Good lord that's terrible typing...
Jun 27, 2022, 12:56 PM
|
|
Need to not type while on conference calls.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
How would you define "personhood" and who is entitled to
Jun 27, 2022, 12:42 PM
[ in reply to I don't think this decision was about the "issue" at all. ] |
|
the protections of the 14th Amendment, if I understand your point.
Is the mother a person? Is she being denied life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness as well as equal protection under the law by laws that restrict her ability to end a pregnancy prior to the age of viability(personhood?)?
Is a recently fertilized egg the beginning of "personhood" with the same obligations usurping the mothers protections?
Not really sure what your point was.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97729]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64865
Joined: 7/13/02
|
First of all, "Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness"
Jun 27, 2022, 1:17 PM
|
|
is not in the Constitution. It's in the Declaration of Independence. So I'm sure you can't understand my point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [22391]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 31286
Joined: 11/30/98
|
Well, I made an honest effort to understand your point.
Jun 27, 2022, 1:24 PM
|
|
and respond to it.
Oh well. Carry on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37194
Joined: 11/22/03
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2693]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3411
Joined: 7/3/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
You are very wrong about a very important part...
Jun 27, 2022, 5:50 PM
[ in reply to I don't think this decision was about the "issue" at all. ] |
|
The SC didn't grant a "right" to abortion, they said that it falls under another right that the Constitution grants in "the right to privacy" as interpreted under the 14th amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37194
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Right...the right to privacy is the one they made up.***
Jun 27, 2022, 7:23 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
We've already been down that road...
Jun 27, 2022, 7:25 PM
|
|
I feel good knowing we have a right to privacy and that we are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [31904]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 37194
Joined: 11/22/03
|
Law by what feels good HAS to be a good thing!***
Jun 27, 2022, 7:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [18024]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 30156
Joined: 9/9/06
|
I feel good knowing it's part of the law, yes.
Jun 27, 2022, 7:35 PM
|
|
That's different than saying it's law because it feels good. I know you understand that difference.
Oh, and Roe didn't make up the "right to privacy," that was Griswold (although the idea stretched earlier).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [66083]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 24719
Joined: 6/12/14
|
DRAG YOUR HARD OF READING ASEHOLE TO THE P&R
Jun 27, 2022, 11:21 PM
|
|
You can totally getfucked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 30
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
