|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 24, 2022 15:41:38 GMT -8
If so, I guess we can’t “discuss” it. Is it a ruling predicated on religious beliefs? Should be able to discuss it, right? Is it a ruling that YOU agree with? Disagree with? Do you believe it is a states rights issue, YET gun control isn’t? Since abortion isn’t mentioned in the constitution (neither is the word “she,” the word “gay,” nor term “LBGT”….. “handguns?” “ ARs?”…..), it IS NOT a “right” according to the “conservative” members of the court.
What a friggin’ mess. The “taliban” approves THEIR message.
|
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 24, 2022 15:59:06 GMT -8
If so, I guess we can’t “discuss” it. Is it a ruling predicated on religious beliefs? Should be able to discuss it, right? Is it a ruling that YOU agree with? Disagree with? Do you believe it is a states rights issue, YET gun control isn’t? Since abortion isn’t mentioned in the constitution (neither is the word “she,” the word “gay,” nor term “LBGT”….. “handguns?” “ ARs?”…..), it IS NOT a “right” according to the “conservative” members of the court. What a friggin’ mess. The “taliban” approves THEIR message. Lots that I could say about this topic, but this is not the appropriate place. We could have a 20-page discussion and nobody's opinion would be swayed. So it's basically pointless. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 24, 2022 16:03:23 GMT -8
If so, I guess we can’t “discuss” it. Is it a ruling predicated on religious beliefs? Should be able to discuss it, right? Is it a ruling that YOU agree with? Disagree with? Do you believe it is a states rights issue, YET gun control isn’t? Since abortion isn’t mentioned in the constitution (neither is the word “she,” the word “gay,” nor term “LBGT”….. “handguns?” “ ARs?”…..), it IS NOT a “right” according to the “conservative” members of the court. What a friggin’ mess. The “taliban” approves THEIR message. Lots that I could say about this topic, but this is not the appropriate place. We could have a 20-page discussion and nobody's opinion would be swayed. So it's basically pointless. Why ISN’T this the “right place?” Is this merely “political?” I KNOW the answer. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 24, 2022 16:09:56 GMT -8
Lots that I could say about this topic, but this is not the appropriate place. We could have a 20-page discussion and nobody's opinion would be swayed. So it's basically pointless. Why ISN’T this the “right place?” Is this merely “political?” I KNOW the answer. Just my opinion. For the reason I stated. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 24, 2022 16:13:28 GMT -8
Why ISN’T this the “right place?” Is this merely “political?” I KNOW the answer. Just my opinion. For the reason I stated. WereBeav….respectfully, I DO NOT think this is a tic tac toe issue. |
|
|
|
Post by Werebeaver on Jun 24, 2022 16:16:51 GMT -8
Just my opinion. For the reason I stated. WereBeav….respectfully, I DO NOT think this is a tic tac toe issue. And the effective absence of women participating in this forum makes such a discussion even more pointless. And that's the last I'll say - I promise. |
|
|
|
Post by lebaneaver on Jun 24, 2022 16:55:52 GMT -8
WereBeav….respectfully, I DO NOT think this is a tic tac toe issue. And the effective absence of women participating in this forum makes such a discussion even more pointless. And that's the last I'll say - I promise. I had no idea we were identified by gender. Any husband that doesn’t support his spouse’s INDIVIDUAL rights as an American is a weakling. |
|
|
|
Post by EmeraldEmpire on Jun 24, 2022 19:35:00 GMT -8
I get it that some folks are upset about the ruling today and want to PEACEFULLY protest about it ... but I draw the line where some will inevitably use as it as an excuse to go on and riot and smash and damage innocent business owner's establishments who had absolutely zilch to do with the Supreme Court's decision and may even be against it too but these freakin idiots will do it anyways because they are just trying to put on a show for nothing  |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on Jun 24, 2022 19:49:06 GMT -8
Ofc it was political. It’s a minority view that flys in the face of precedent of the last lots of decades. It also went against the precedent on gun rights yesterday. The religious right minority has been chasing this since Reagan. It’s probably the most political issue in America. Only like 20% of the US supports total abortion bans and only like 30% support abortion being legal in all circumstances. Half the country exists in a compromise middle which makes plenty of sense. news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspxBreyer has a pretty scathing dissent on both rulings. |
|
|
|
Post by spudbeaver on Jun 24, 2022 20:10:23 GMT -8
Ofc it was political. It’s a minority view that flys in the face of precedent of the last lots of decades. It also went against the precedent on gun rights yesterday. The religious right minority has been chasing this since Reagan. It’s probably the most political issue in America. Only like 20% of the US supports total abortion bans and only like 30% support abortion being legal in all circumstances. Half the country exists in a compromise middle which makes plenty of sense. news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspxBreyer has a pretty scathing dissent on both rulings. Um, it’s not an abortion ban. Despite your false data it just kicks the decision down to the States. But like Werebeaver said, it’s a pointless argument in reality. The lines have been drawn. |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on Jun 24, 2022 20:12:48 GMT -8
Ofc it was political. It’s a minority view that flys in the face of precedent of the last lots of decades. It also went against the precedent on gun rights yesterday. The religious right minority has been chasing this since Reagan. It’s probably the most political issue in America. Only like 20% of the US supports total abortion bans and only like 30% support abortion being legal in all circumstances. Half the country exists in a compromise middle which makes plenty of sense. news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspxBreyer has a pretty scathing dissent on both rulings. Um, it’s not an abortion ban. Despite your false data it just kicks the decision down to the states. I didn’t say it was. I was pointing out that the extremes dont represent the people. That’s why it’s political. It opens the door for a political extreme to exert their view point over people who disagree in States where they have power. |
|
|
|
Post by irimi on Jun 24, 2022 20:29:06 GMT -8
I get it that some folks are upset about the ruling today and want to PEACEFULLY protest about it ... but I draw the line where some will inevitably use as it as an excuse to go on and riot and smash and damage innocent business owner's establishments who had absolutely zilch to do with the Supreme Court's decision and may even be against it too but these freakin idiots will do it anyways because they are just trying to put on a show for nothing  A show for nothing? For nothing? Women just lost the right to make a decision that affects their entire life. Losing rights, losing freedoms is nothing? |
|
|
|
Post by wilkyisdashiznit on Jun 24, 2022 22:15:57 GMT -8
I mean Constitutionally, it makes a ton of sense.
The scientific medical underpinnings of the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case had proven to be untrue. (Or medicine had evolved to the point that they were no longer true.)
The lawyer for Jackson Women's Health Organization argued the case in an all-or-nothing manner and did not provide the Supreme Court with any real way to issue a compromise opinion.
And to top that, the lawyer for Jackson Women's Health Organization could not identify where exactly the Constitution protected the right to abortion. Did it emanate from penumbras like in Roe? Was their a privacy right? Where exactly is there the right? And there was zero answer whatsoever.
Personally, Mississippi's law is stupid. The argument advanced by the State of Mississippi was pretty much flat-out underhanded and/or dishonest. The Court reached the wrong decision. The Court overstepped what it was asked to do. There pretty much was zero judicial restraint whatsoever.
That said, when you come in saying that nothing but stare decisis protects the right to abortion, and the case that you base your sole reliance no longer is supported by the fields of medicine and science, you stand a great chance at losing and losing badly. And that is exactly what happened.
It would have been better to challenge a more seriously-flawed law than the Mississippi law.
Oh well. Dura lex sed lex.
|
|
|
|
Post by Henry Skrimshander on Jun 24, 2022 22:37:50 GMT -8
Ofc it was political. It’s a minority view that flys in the face of precedent of the last lots of decades. It also went against the precedent on gun rights yesterday. The religious right minority has been chasing this since Reagan. It’s probably the most political issue in America. Only like 20% of the US supports total abortion bans and only like 30% support abortion being legal in all circumstances. Half the country exists in a compromise middle which makes plenty of sense. news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspxBreyer has a pretty scathing dissent on both rulings. Um, it’s not an abortion ban. Despite your false data it just kicks the decision down to the States. But like Werebeaver said, it’s a pointless argument in reality. The lines have been drawn. It's sure as hell is a ban in some states, which will outlaw it completely without any Federal protection of something that has been a right for the last 50 years. Even in cases of rape, incest, severe developmental problems and a threat to the health and safety of the mother. I guess "our bodies, our choices" only applies to vaccinations. |
|
|
|
Post by nuclearbeaver on Jun 25, 2022 6:07:27 GMT -8
Thomas already stated that they want to the court should reconsider contraception and same sex marriage. Siding bring up Loving for some reason though.
Abortion is banned or severely restricted In 26 states and territories.
|
|
