|
Replies: 23
| visibility 555
|
Hall of Famer [21887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8572
Joined: 9/11/11
|
Can anyone explain...why now?
Jun 24, 2022, 11:55 PM
|
|
In I don't politic terms. Why overturn this now?
Skimmed through the threads, and I didn't see any conversation on this, just the arguments of the topic itself which I'm not really interested in.
I don't care if you want to kill your baby. I don't care if you got a #### and wanna be a chick. I don't care if you cut your #### off, be a chick, have a baby, and kill that one too. Go for it.
I don't care about anything that YOU do as long as it doesn't #### with me or my family. I care about why the ####### US government, today, said that after almost 50 years, we're going to turn this sombich right on its head and get allllllllll these little peasants fighting each other.
Not trolling. Not sowing division. Focusing on the ####### planting the seed and I want to know why they planted it right now.
|
|
|
|
 |
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Because the case came before them?***
Jun 25, 2022, 12:01 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8572
Joined: 9/11/11
|
It's my understanding
Jun 25, 2022, 12:09 AM
|
|
The court uses precedent as a key factor when deciding cases, is this true?
Why did the precedent of 49 years just shift?
What in this latest case caused them to reverse this decision?
I am completely oblivious. My phone's blowing up with people saying they won't celebrate the 4th to people trolling the libs. I've been focused on the dramatically decreased purchasing power of my dollhairs to get involved in any of this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
Re: It's my understanding
Jun 25, 2022, 12:33 AM
|
|
generally speaking, they do. This one was a bit unique---indeed it was precedent but it's also one that much brighter minds than mine have also felt was on shaky legal ground in the constitutional gymnastics required to reach the decision Roe did. Even some pro-choicers like RBG felt it was bad law.
I'm sure there was some strategy in the states making these laws when they felt they could succeed against inevitable challenges, but I don't think the decision itself had any strategic timing.
IMHO, a much stricter interpretation of the constitution was used to reach this decision than Roe ever used. If the will of the people is to have readily available abortions, that's still there, but their lazyasss legislators will have to actually have the stones to codify it into law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8572
Joined: 9/11/11
|
I guess man
Jun 25, 2022, 7:54 AM
|
|
I'm clearly not a lawyer. Idk. Doesn't make logical sense to me, in my engineering mind. Something had to have changed and I'd like to know what that was and why it happened right now.
All I know is the timing of this absolutely sucks and the hate in the simulation is being put in overdrive.
The last thing we as a populace needed is some other ########, government created topic to fight over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3406
Joined: 7/3/07
|
good for you
Jun 25, 2022, 10:21 AM
|
|
I sometimes wish I could pretend to be so oblivious to this ####.
But the fact that humans have wanted control over other humans since we evolved a prefrontal cortex shouldn’t come as a surprise to you, hopefully.
It’s just more of the same but in today’s world shrouded in religious pretense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
There's almost a million humans a year who were just given
Jun 25, 2022, 3:33 PM
|
|
control back over themselves.
It's only a religious issue if you're looking to distract from the basic, obvious logic that runs through the pro-life sentiment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [12573]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 6304
Joined: 12/24/15
|
Re: It's my understanding
Jun 25, 2022, 8:19 AM
[ in reply to Re: It's my understanding ] |
|
It’s interesting to me how some folks would prefer laws issued by 5 out of 9 unelected individuals wearing a robe than local control at the state level. In the case of Roe, 7-2.
The decision for a state to allow, disallow or restrict abortion is now a matter to be decided by legislators, not legislation from the bench.
This decision I believe, rightly corrects the decision that abortion is a Constitutional right and instead returns this to the people to make this decision.
Therefore if a state restricts abortion that decision almost assuredly aligns itself with the majority.
If not, the people have the power to elect legislators and governors who share the view of the majority.
Power to the People.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3406
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Re: It's my understanding
Jun 25, 2022, 9:22 AM
[ in reply to Re: It's my understanding ] |
|
Over five decades the court used to decided these abortion cases in an incremental fashion, carefully narrowing the definitions and scope of each question at hand. In Dobbs, The State of Mississippi was asking the court to resolve three narrow questions, and this particular court decided to stray way off the map. It seems like a radical departure from the methods of last courts, but maybe it was a predictable outcome if you were keeping track of the headcount on the court.
I’ve gone around in circles about it, but am making peace. Yeah, it’s divisive…..but hopefully it is for the best. From time to time, the masses in this country needs to be stirred up. Sure, this decision will make a segment of the population’s lives much harder. These people will have less control over their future than they did in the past and they might be a little angry about it, but maybe that’s a good thing, the anger and despair.
Hopefully it sharpens their minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [24455]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 13957
Joined: 7/3/01
|
It's a good question and Obed might have the answer.
Jun 25, 2022, 12:24 AM
|
|
In the general sense, because I agree with you my reaction might be, "Why wait longer?" The polarization we are experiencing, and the way it is manipulated by politicians, media and industry is, I think, a result of the growing sense that all frustrations should be addressed by the Feds. I don't know that this was part of the Court's motivation, but if they were thinking, "Its time to reverse this trend and send responsibility back to the states", I'm for it. Can we survive the gnashing of teeth over it? We'll see.
A friend moved from Greenville to rural Ohio a few years ago, the job there fell through, but he met a local girl, married her, bought a small farm, grew a long beard, bought a bunch of flannel shirts and is happy as a can be. This morning I get a text from him:
"Will be interesting to see how the R v W thing works out."
"Yes", I said, " I hope its a lot of initial noise, then most people realizing not much has changed."
"We have a total ban here on this 5 acres. What others do is not my business. I just hate the fighting."
We have to walk our way back to that attitude, I think. May have passed the point of no return, may have lost the maturity to even want that attitude to define self governance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oculus Spirit [97677]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 64821
Joined: 7/13/02
|
I mentioned my theory.
Jun 25, 2022, 3:47 AM
|
|
There's no way you could prove or disprove it unless some Justice talks though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [21887]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8572
Joined: 9/11/11
|
Which one of these threads is it under?***
Jun 25, 2022, 7:45 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3406
Joined: 7/3/07
|
Because of maff and McConnell
Jun 25, 2022, 8:34 AM
|
|
You are making the same point John Robert’s made, which was that with the decision the court was reaching way beyond the question they were actually tasked to resolve. In all these cases in the past, the court has used an incremental approach to more carefully narrow definitions and scope.
What changed are the numbers of justices willing to abandon this approach for something more radical, and it was clearly no accident. People really shouldn’t be shocked that this happened. This has been the goal of the pro-life movement since day one and they groomed candidates that would help them. Over the years pro-life movement turned into a huge business, and their fundraising efforts helped elect hardcore acolytes that would push the pro-life agenda. And based on the outcome, it was a huge success.
People should be in awe of the power of the pro life movement. They manufactured an historic outcome over decades and got the decision they wanted through a well-organized, sustained effort.
And they did have a lot of help from Mitch McConnell. At least two seats directly from him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11669
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: Can anyone explain...why now?
Jun 25, 2022, 8:55 AM
|
|
The reason I think "why now" is pretty simple: because the window's open and the 5-4 majority (I'm not counting Roberts, who is a conservative but not an activist) of conservative activists on the court decided now's their moment...and they can. And they acted.
This is exactly what happens when let the Heritage freaking Foundation pick uber-conservative justices year after year, and the window cracks open that allows Mitch McConnell to stuff three more of them onto the high court in one term. You wind up with a Supreme Court that's stacked with 5 of 9 justices from the extreme far right of the spectrum...when only 20% of the nation is.
I mean, have you heard some of the stuff Alito and Thomas have been writing lately? Those dudes are whack jobs who missed the 20th century, not just the 21st, and they've always been whack jobs...but in a more balanced court, their wackiness was contained. Now it's off the leash and they get to do what they've always wanted to do...God help us all.
If we don't get a handle on this "red ant versus blue ant" stuff, as you put it, and get back to just being a functional democracy and let that middle 60% who's willing to talk and converse and compromise and live and let live (and not let those extremist 20%'ers on either far flank control our godawful two party-system) the populist whack job blue ants and red ants on either side are going to eat us all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3406
Joined: 7/3/07
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
lulz, just like clockwork---it's hyperbole:thirty.***
Jun 25, 2022, 3:38 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2692]
TigerPulse: 97%
Posts: 3406
Joined: 7/3/07
|
it’s a fact that Alito quoted a guy who sentenced witches
Jun 25, 2022, 4:35 PM
|
|
To death…..yes that happened, let that sink in. He left the Hale stuff in even he caught so much flak about it after the draft was leaked, so you know he wanted to rub their faces in it. It’s a incredible bow to the 17th century archetypical authority to cite this guy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
You seem to be riled up over this.
Jun 25, 2022, 3:38 PM
[ in reply to Re: Can anyone explain...why now? ] |
|
As a self-professed conservative who presumably would appreciate stricter constitutional adherence in SC (and appellate) court rulings, can you tell me what the flaws were in the briefs provided by the majority Justices?
Only one I have is Thomas going out of his way to name other decisions that should be examined....I disagree with that. Beyond that though, where do you think they're missing the mark? They were extremely clear to outline their thought processes, and it was all quite sound and logical to me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hall of Famer [20518]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 11669
Joined: 10/15/02
|
Re: You seem to be riled up over this.
Jun 25, 2022, 5:24 PM
|
|
I am not a self-proclaimed conservative socially. I've always been a little liberal-leaning socially...and a small gubmint/pro-gun/small-market-capitalist/fiscal conservative.
It's called "libertarian". Basically, do what you want in your bedroom, I'll do what I like in mine, don't ask me for handouts, and Git Off My Lawn. Why is this so hard? We're not that exotic a species.
I do indeed understand the states' right issues in regards to abortion...but then Clarence Thomas went and gave away his actual game when he announced a hit list of other cases he'd like to rule on. Including gay marriage, buying birth control, de-criminalizing consensual sex.
I'm not a fan of abortion at all, by the way. But have you really considered what you're going to have to do to stop it?
Go on, wander out on the street and tell these ladies you'll arrest them if they get an abortion. We'll just see how that works out for you. Some genies don't go back in bottles, and you can't rewind the clock to 1850.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [36450]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 18324
Joined: 12/6/13
|
Obed def had some good insight
Jun 25, 2022, 9:43 AM
|
|
I also was curious why it changed now after so long, and I’m in the same boat as you are about not caring what other people do unless it effects me. A woman can have all the abortions she wants and makes no difference to me.
And I’m a conservative and vote republican. Just seems like way more than half the country would support a choice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Legend [17249]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 14205
Joined: 12/14/98
|
Now if a 6 turned out to be 9, I don’t mind.
Jun 25, 2022, 9:48 AM
|
|
…… if all the hippies cut off their hair, oh I don’t care….
Yeah Jemi sums it up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8830
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: Can anyone explain...why now?
Jun 25, 2022, 3:25 PM
|
|
I think the timing was because they could. They got the numbers, and they did it as soon as they had the numbers.
But what really concerns me here is not the specific issue, but the fact that a right was taken away. And I don't really care about the foundation of the right, or whether it was weak or strong legally. A freedom was taken away, and that sits very uneasy with me.
I hear the argument that it could, and perhaps should, be a state issue depending on how strict you want to be with the Constitution. But the thing about a right is that it is a choice. You can use it or not.
And choices should apply to everyone, not just whether the people of NC vote for you to have a choice, or the people of FLA vote for you not to have a choice, etc. Free people have choices, and good governments give them choices, not take them away.
People love to complain about federal intervention vs states rights and all that stuff, but in this case I welcome federal intervention, because it gave citizens more freedom than even their own states would. Now, no one has to use that freedom if they don't wish to, the option is to each individual. But on par I'd rather have any government at any level telling me I can do something if I wish rather than I can't.
I'd feel the same way if it was about any other issue. Restrictions like this only make half the nation more angry than they already were and simply divides us more. There is a huge difference between saying "you do it your way and I will do it mine" vs. "I can do this and you can't do that."
The way to diffuse anger is to give people options, at the federal level if they can't get those options at the state level, and let them decide if they want to exercise that option. So in order to be a nation of free people, I don't think NC should be ABLE to deny their citizens rights even if they want to, for example. The federal government should step in and say "you live in a free nation, repeat, nation, and you will be free, by definition." We had to do that exact thing in Iraq when they voted their own democracy out in order to have a theocracy for themselves.
We are a huge country with over 300 million people and just as many beliefs, and sometimes folks need to learn to stay in their own lanes and live their own lives. It's the only way to keep a nation this big together. You can't make everyone happy all the time, but you can let each group chose the things about their own lives that make them happy, and that's as about as close as you can get.
So in my mind they key thing here is choice, aka freedom, and the scotus balked on that at the highest level when they said "we'll let the states decide if you have freedom, not us." That's a long term mistake in my opinion, particularly if they balk in other cases too. Because soon enough we'll become a Confederation and not a Nation.
We need to be finding things that make us more alike rather than more different. And short of that, things that we agree to just choose differently on. Just ask Rome, or Greece, or Austria Hungary, or Yugoslavia, or the former USSR, or America in 1860. Big things break up when they become too factional or regional. And this decision just gave us another way to separate ourselves even further.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lot o points [155707]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 65738
Joined: 5/6/13
|
That's a lot of well-thought out paragraphs and logic, and I
Jun 25, 2022, 3:50 PM
|
|
would agree completely, if what was taken away was the right to eat red meat, or the right to have cosmetic surgery, or the right to own a home.
It was nothing that simple, where what was being discussed was a plain and simple individual right. The incredibly unsubtle nuance to this issue is that there are two individuals whose rights are being discussed, the mother and the unborn child. The question remained unaddressed whether a viable fetus has the right to make it out of the womb alive without being terminated....it was such a hot potato that the justices said that that isn't for them to decide, but for the states.
Seems to me like a decision that should make neither side happy.....Pro-choice wants more right to abort (they wanted more right when Roe was still in place) and Pro-life I suspect would wish that the Justices would have outlawed the practice. This falls right in the middle, and as such, is probably the definition of a good decision here in the modern era.
We've been getting further and further down the path of legislation via the Supreme Court (Roberts' "Obamacare is technically a tax so it can be mandatory" is one recent egregious example) , so I'm fine with getting back to bare-bones decisions that defer totally to the Constitution and put the onus rightfully back on the legislature when merited.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [29823]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 8830
Joined: 10/31/10
|
Re: That's a lot of well-thought out paragraphs and logic, and I
Jun 25, 2022, 6:10 PM
|
|
Oh I'm right there with you. The complexity is intense, personal, and hits people on all sides at their core.
But in my mind that's even more reason it should be a personal, and not a fed, or even state level, decision.
In effect I'm saying the feds should push it down to the states, and the states should push it right down to the individual. And the only way an individual can be assured it lands in their lap to decide is to have the highest court say "here, it's your potato, not ours, and not your state's."
The complexity is still there even though the fed has now washed their hands of it. They've simply pushed it down and said "Now your state gets to decide what a life is, not you." And, what your state can do with life. That is, they might terminate a life by execution but you can't by abortion. It's just messy as he77.
And I'd rather not have a state involved in making those judgments any more than the feds.
As divisive as it is though it's just a singular issue. But we now have a precedent from the highest court saying states can take existing rights from people, and that's not a good place I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 23
| visibility 555
|
|
|
50
