Enforcement of abortion pill bans

[outside shooter]

Facts:

-the protesters were outside, on public property
-BK neither saw them or heard them
-restaurant employees noticed the commotion and figured out who it was for.
-they decided not to bother BK before he finished his meal
-He had his beer. He loves beer.
-He had his appetizer
- He had his entree.
-Then informed, for the first time, of the protests that he had neither seen nor heard, he accepted the plan to leave through a back door.

Oh, the humanity! He might have missed out on pie ala mode!

 

[zeke4ahs]

You unoriginal hacks need to stop stealing jokes off the interwebs.

Damn I thought I was being original

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

And the "Day After" pill isn't even an abortion pill. There are abortion pills, but RU-486 is contraception. Supreme Court loons will be after that soon.

Clarence Thomas said he was coming after contraception in the abortion decision: truly the most unhinged SCOTUS opinion I have ever read. The other conservative justices said they weren't, but the same reasoning behind Roe and Casey is the same reasoning for the SCOTUS contraception decision. The goalposts of life beginning at conception can always be moved back.

Redeciding decisions based on legal philosophy: I guess this is what SCOTUS does now.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Clarence Thomas said he was coming after contraception in the abortion decision: truly the most unhinged SCOTUS opinion I have ever read. The other conservative justices said they weren't, but the same reasoning behind Roe and Casey is the same reasoning for the SCOTUS contraception decision. The goalposts of life beginning at conception can always be moved back.

Redeciding decisions based on legal philosophy: I guess this is what SCOTUS does now.

A concurring opinion is not enforceable law. It was just one guy saying “all rights created by substantive due process doctrine should be scrapped.”

Alito, on the other hand, said “under substantive due process analysis, using substantive due process analysis, the right to an abortion fails the test, unlike the right to gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, procreation, and contraception, which all pass and are not weakened by this opinion.”

Getting SCOTUS decisions wrong is a poor start toward getting what you want under state law, which is where abortion rights now come from, if at all.

 

[zeke4ahs]

A concurring opinion is not enforceable law. It was just one guy saying “all rights created by substantive due process doctrine should be scrapped.”

Alito, on the other hand, said “under substantive due process analysis, using substantive due process analysis, the right to an abortion fails the test, unlike the right to gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, procreation, and contraception, which all pass and are not weakened by this opinion.”

Getting SCOTUS decisions wrong is a poor start toward getting what you want under state law, which is where abortion rights now come from, if at all.

Here we go again. Did you read the dissent? Those three are obviously concerned about further steps. So we have one Justice who has said loud and clear he’s consider going after more. And we have three other justices who already lied ( cough misled) during confirmation hearings. Sorry that many people do not trust the court.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

A concurring opinion is not enforceable law. It was just one guy saying “all rights created by substantive due process doctrine should be scrapped.”

Alito, on the other hand, said “under substantive due process analysis, using substantive due process analysis, the right to an abortion fails the test, unlike the right to gay marriage, inter-racial marriage, procreation, and contraception, which all pass and are not weakened by this opinion.”

Getting SCOTUS decisions wrong is a poor start toward getting what you want under state law, which is where abortion rights now come from, if at all.

Thomas went a little further than saying "all rights created by substantive due process doctrine should be scrapped." If SCOTUS decides to redecide the other substantive due process cases, then it is pretty clear what the old man will do.

The dissent hit the nail on the head: if the conservative justices don't believe substantive due process is a valid legal philosophy, then this includes gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, gay sex, etc. It makes zero sense for the conservative justices to attempt to distinguish the other substantive due process cases: any attempt to do so is dishonest.

Substantive due process and a living constitution are valid legal philosophies. The conservative justices have a different legal philosophy, which, according to them, is a valid reason to ignore stare decisis and relitigate opinions that they don't like. SCOTUS is allowed to interpret what liberty means, and if liberty doesn't include a person's sex life and their genitals, then the word is meaningless. If SCOTUS justices don't want to interpret liberty, then they are simply being lazy and not doing their job.

 

[GuyDatHoo]

Substantive due process is complete garbage. Obviously.

Thomas is by far the best justice on the court. His opinion has nothing to do with whether he supports contraception, or gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or abortion. Only morons believe that.

He carries out his job based on his DUTIES as a SCOTUS Justice, not based on what he feels is “right”.

 

[TMFT]

Substantive due process is complete garbage. Obviously.

Thomas is by far the best justice on the court. His dissent has nothing to do with whether he supports contraception, or gay marriage, or interracial marriage, or abortion. Only morons believe that.

He carries out his job based on his DUTIES as a SCOTUS Justice, not based on what he feels is “right”.

How would you suggest they test for rights not specifically enumerated in the Comstitution?

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Thomas went a little further than saying "all rights created by substantive due process doctrine should be scrapped." If SCOTUS decides to redecide the other substantive due process cases, then it is pretty clear what the old man will do.

The dissent hit the nail on the head: if the conservative justices don't believe substantive due process is a valid legal philosophy, then this includes gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, gay sex, etc. It makes zero sense for the conservative justices to attempt to distinguish the other substantive due process cases: any attempt to do so is dishonest.

Substantive due process and a living constitution are valid legal philosophies. The conservative justices have a different legal philosophy, which, according to them, is a valid reason to ignore stare decisis and relitigate opinions that they don't like. SCOTUS is allowed to interpret what liberty means, and if liberty doesn't include a person's sex life and their genitals, then the word is meaningless. If SCOTUS justices don't want to interpret liberty, then they are simply being lazy and not doing their job.

But ….

Alito USED substantive due process and got 5 other votes. FACT.

Alito plainly stated that other rights protected/created by SDP - including expressly and specifically marriage, gay marriage, interracial marriage, procreation, contraception - were not impacted by his opinion. FACT.

Got 5 other votes. FACT.

Thomas got ZERO other votes for his non-binding concurrence criticizing SDP. If Scalia was still alive, that concurring opinion would have had 2. FACT.

So there is no legitimate basis for the fear mongering vote whores to be claiming that this opinion proves the “extreme right wing SCOTUS” is out hunting to end protections of gay marriage, interracial marriage, procreation, and contraception. That is a lie, based on the plain language of the opinion.

State laws that come to this SCOTUS trying to end gay marriage, interracial marriage, procreation, contraception have a LOSS at the end of that road.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

How would you suggest they test for rights not specifically enumerated in the Comstitution?

History. If the people value(d) the “right” then history will show that.

But … the point in 1776 - 1865 was that Virginia and Massachusetts might not value “rights” equally.

(Some states mention education in a Constitution. Some don’t.)

So yours may be an incomplete question.

The real question is (again) which “rights” not mentioned MUST a STATE honor/protect BECAUSE of the 14th Amendment? Messier. Harder. Led immediately to the next important questions - still unanswered - “political process in states vs. federal vs. courts”.

We all trying to become Constitutional and civic scholars again.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

But ….

Alito USED substantive due process and got 5 other votes. FACT.

Alito plainly stated that other rights protected/created by SDP - including expressly and specifically marriage, gay marriage, interracial marriage, procreation, contraception - were not impacted by his opinion. FACT.

Got 5 other votes. FACT.

Thomas got ZERO other votes for his non-binding concurrence criticizing SDP. If Scalia was still alive, that concurring opinion would have had 2. FACT.

So there is no legitimate basis for the fear mongering vote whores to be claiming that this opinion proves the “extreme right wing SCOTUS” is out hunting to end protections of gay marriage, interracial marriage, procreation, and contraception. That is a lie, based on the plain language of the opinion.

State laws that come to this SCOTUS trying to end gay marriage, interracial marriage, procreation, contraception have a LOSS at the end of that road.

Then they are being dishonest or not applying their reasoning equally. If two houses sit on the same foundation and you destroy that foundation, then both houses fall: it is that simple. I have more respect for Clarence Thomas because at least he's being honest, as unhinged and lazy as he may be.

Let's talk about 1791 and 1868: a lot has changed, and people's rights should not be defined by the past. Society and people change and evolve. The average American, especially minorities and women, have to be turned off anytime they hear 1791 and 1868. This legal philosophy simply permits conservatives to keep things as is. Even so, the right to privacy has existed since day one in America: once again, a dishonest and erroneous application of reasoning.

The most concerning thing to me about this opinion is the absolute lack of regard for stare decisis: very concerning, and simply not how it's supposed to work.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Then they are being dishonest or not applying their reasoning equally. If two houses sit on the same foundation and you destroy that foundation, then both houses fall: it is that simple. I have more respect for Clarence Thomas because at least he's being honest, as unhinged and lazy as he may be.

Let's talk about 1791 and 1868: a lot has changed, and people's rights should not be defined by the past. Society and people change and evolve. The average American, especially minorities and women, have to be turned off anytime they hear 1791 and 1868. This legal philosophy simply permits conservatives to keep things as is. Even so, the right to privacy has existed since day one in America: once again, a dishonest and erroneous application of reasoning.

The most concerning thing to me about this opinion is the absolute lack of regard for stare decisis: very concerning, and simply not how it's supposed to work.

They did not destroy any foundation. SDP is still valid Constitutional law.

Alito was very clear. He said:

- History shows states protecting marriage, procreation and contraception. Thus, those “rights“ “survive” SDP analysis and are still protected.

- History shows abortion was NOT protected, and was instead universally outlawed, which is why Roe was a bad call, and thus that “right” did not survive under SDP.

As for stare decisis, Alito was also very clear - he spent many many pages analyzing how those rules developed and how he applied them to this 1973 Roe decision. He did not just say “I hate abortion so screw Roe.”

Again, read the opinion. You can make lots of arguments against it, but NOT that SDP is dead or it ignored stare decisis.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

They did not destroy any foundation. SDP is still valid Constitutional law.

Alito was very clear. He said:

- History shows states protecting marriage, procreation and contraception. Thus, those “rights“ “survive” SDP analysis and are still protected.

- History shows abortion was NOT protected, and was instead universally outlawed, which is why Roe was a bad call, and thus that “right” did not survive under SDP.

As for stare decisis, Alito was also very clear - he spent many many pages analyzing how those rules developed and how he applied them to this 1973 Roe decision. He did not just say “I hate abortion so screw Roe.”

Again, read the opinion. You can make lots of arguments against it, but NOT that SDP is dead or it ignored stare decisis.

The foundation has been obliterated. Two houses that sit upon the same foundation are destroyed when that foundation is obliterated. Alito was not clear, and it is impossible to distinguish the SDP rights because they sit upon the exact same foundation. Hence, the conserative justices are simply being dishonest or do not understand their own reasoning.

The Constitution does not specifically address anal sex, interracial marriage, marriage, gay marriage, contraception, etc.

Anal sex, gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, etc. were criminalized by states. Abortion has not been universally outlawed: half of the states is not universal. Once again, an erroneous, inconsistent, and dishonest effort of reasoning. Nonetheless, we need to exist in the present, not 1791 or 1868: not good for minorities or women, and much has changed.

A proper stare decisis analysis did not occur. An improper stare decisis analysis to fit the results that extremist conservative justices wanted did occur. You don't get to overrule prior opinions because your legal philosophy says you can and you don't like an opinion: simply not how it is supposed to work.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

I like the following passage in a recent oped piece:

"I agree with the (steakhouse) rep that there is a time and place for protest, and when the issue at hand is the dehumanizing denial of half the population’s bodily autonomy, the time and place to protest that is all the time and everywhere. Also, there is no “right to congregate and eat dinner”. Maybe the rep is referring to the right to privacy in a manner not explicitly stated in the Constitution, which, as a reminder, was the foundation for Roe v Wade,which Kavanaugh and his fellow conservative justices just overturned."​

MSN

www.msn.com

I’m pro choice in the first trimester, which is where most Americans are, and for restrictions increasing to a ban with minimal exceptions in the third. However, most pro choice protesters are basically absolutists, most for abortion on demand until birth. They’re as extreme as those for total bans. They ignore that most of the country does not agree with their true position. Nothing said by the woman you linked is praiseworthy. Incivility is rampant and she’s contributing to the problem.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The foundation has been obliterated. Two houses that sit upon the same foundation are destroyed when that foundation is obliterated. Alito was not clear, and it is impossible to distinguish the SDP rights because they sit upon the exact same foundation. Hence, the conserative justices are simply being dishonest or do not understand their own reasoning.

The Constitution does not specifically address anal sex, interracial marriage, marriage, gay marriage, contraception, etc.

Anal sex, gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, etc. were criminalized by states. Abortion has not been universally outlawed: half of the states is not universal. Once again, an erroneous, inconsistent, and dishonest effort of reasoning. Nonetheless, we need to exist in the present, not 1791 or 1868: not good for minorities or women, and much has changed.

A proper stare decisis analysis did not occur. An improper stare decisis analysis to fit the results that extremist conservative justices wanted did occur. You don't get to overrule prior opinions because your legal philosophy says you can and you don't like an opinion: simply not how it is supposed to work.

If you think this opinion obliterated substantive due process, we can’t have any real conversation about it.

Facts are facts.
Opinions are not facts.

 

[LifelongIU]

We will see many states make it illegal for women to take medication that will result in an abortion. Presumably those laws would make it illegal to buy or sell the pills in that state. Probably to possess the pills too.

My question is, if this is your preference, how far are you willing to go for enforcement? Do we inspect all citizens mail? Will we track wowens online activity to see if she bought pills? What if the authorities receive a complaint that a woman was previously pregnant but isn’t now? What would that investigation look like? How much resources are we willing to commit? What would we cut to shift those resources?

Even those who are staunchly pro life have to concede that we could run up against some very concerning privacy issues. Are you willing to live in a surveillance state to prevent abortions via a pill?

No,and neither are the lawmakers. I think they realize that stopping every abortion is unrealistic. I'm a republican and I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just think it should be rare,and safe,and available for certain circumstances, which is the exact same view alot of Republicans have. I think alot of the contraception talk is the media trying to stir up shit,as I have not heard anything about making contraception illegal(legislatively). Could it be another attempt at making the republican party seem "extreme"? Some of the things libbys do in the name of fooling the the public are hilarious.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

If you think this opinion obliterated substantive due process, we can’t have any real conversation about it.

Facts are facts.
Opinions are not facts.

The conservative justices are either [1] being dishonest or [2] don't understand what substantive due process is or their own reasoning: neither is good. Their reasoning is [1] the Constitution does not specifically state the right to an abortion: well, the other SDP rights are also not specifically stated in the Constitution; [2] Whether the right is "deeply rooted in the nation's tradition and history." Once again, interracial marriage and contraceptions were criminalized as late as the 1960's, anal sex and gay marriage even later: 1791 and 1868 came long before these dates. That is the analysis, and I'm not missing anything here. The foundation is the same for all SDP rights, and it has been obliterated.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I’m pro choice in the first trimester, which is where most Americans are, and for restrictions increasing to a ban with minimal exceptions in the third. However, these pro choice protesters are basically absolutists, most for abortion on demand until birth. They’re as extreme as those for total bans. They ignore that most of the country does not agree with their true position. Nothing said by the woman you linked is praiseworthy. In civility is rampant and she’s contributing to the problem.

How do you know that pro choice protestors are absolutists? I think that’s a pretty big assumption you’re making.

 

[zeke4ahs]

No,and neither are the lawmakers. I think they realize that stopping every abortion is unrealistic. I'm a republican and I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just think it should be rare,and safe,and available for certain circumstances, which is the exact same view alot of Republicans have. I think alot of the contraception talk is the media trying to stir up shit,as I have not heard anything about making contraception illegal(legislatively). Could it be another attempt at making the republican party seem "extreme"? Some of the things libbys do in the name of fooling the the public are hilarious.

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...me-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control. You’re not paying attention then.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Then they are being dishonest or not applying their reasoning equally. If two houses sit on the same foundation and you destroy that foundation, then both houses fall: it is that simple. I have more respect for Clarence Thomas because at least he's being honest, as unhinged and lazy as he may be.

Let's talk about 1791 and 1868: a lot has changed, and people's rights should not be defined by the past. Society and people change and evolve. The average American, especially minorities and women, have to be turned off anytime they hear 1791 and 1868. This legal philosophy simply permits conservatives to keep things as is. Even so, the right to privacy has existed since day one in America: once again, a dishonest and erroneous application of reasoning.

The most concerning thing to me about this opinion is the absolute lack of regard for stare decisis: very concerning, and simply not how it's supposed to work.

You say Thomas is lazy. That’s racist language, or would be if a Republican said it about any black Democrat, right? There is no evidence the man is lazy. His life history is the opposite of lazy. He’s a prolific writer of opinions and his book is very good, by the way. Many on the left don’t practice what they preach about language when it comes to black conservatives. I think there are few things many liberals dislike more than black conservatives.

Stare Decisis didn’t prevent the USSC from overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. Are you only devoted to stare decisis when you agree with the decision?

Finally, you didn’t do it in this post, but every time you say this is about control of a woman’s genitals, you’re showing you don’t understand the motives of those that are pro-life/anti abortion. Their motive is protecting the life of what they see as unborn children. If you can’t understand the other side in a debate, you can never be a part of finding a compromise solution.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

How do you know that pro choice protestors are absolutists? I think that’s a pretty big assumption you’re making.

Do you not pay attention to what the protesters say? Do you not pay attention to the votes of elected Democrats whenever any third trimester abortion restriction bill comes up? 100 percent against any and all restrictions. That is an extreme position and it’s just as extreme as those against all abortions.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No,and neither are the lawmakers. I think they realize that stopping every abortion is unrealistic. I'm a republican and I don't think abortion should be illegal. I just think it should be rare,and safe,and available for certain circumstances, which is the exact same view alot of Republicans have. I think alot of the contraception talk is the media trying to stir up shit,as I have not heard anything about making contraception illegal(legislatively). Could it be another attempt at making the republican party seem "extreme"? Some of the things libbys do in the name of fooling the the public are hilarious.

The dreaded “alot” and you did it twice! “Alot” is not a word - you’re looking for “a lot.” I’ve tried to help my fellow Republicans out on this several times. One obstinate poster refuses to correct himself and continues to use “alot” a lot, but others have corrected themselves. I’m hoping you will correct your ways with that too. Post smarter, be smarter! 👍🏼

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

You say Thomas is lazy. That’s racist language, especially since there is no evidence the man is lazy. His life history is the opposite of lazy. He’s a prolific writer of opinions and his book is very good, by the way. Many on the left don’t practice what they preach about language when it comes to black conservatives. I think there are few things many liberals dislike more than black conservatives.

Stare Decisis didn’t prevent the USSC from overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. Are you only devoted to stare decisis when you agree with the decision?

Finally, you didn’t do it in this post, but every time you say this is about control of a woman’s genitals, you’re showing you don’t understand the motives of those that are pro-life/anti abortion. Their motive is protecting the life of what they see as unborn children. If you can’t understand the other side in a debate, you can never be a part of finding a compromise solution.

No, it is not racist language. Clarence Thomas did not ask 1 question during oral arguments for 10 years. He is an extremely watered down Scalia. He is Scalia without the wit, wisdom, and writing ability, and his SCOTUS writings consistently display this. His legal philosophy is a lazy one. My legal hero is Thurgood Marshall: Marshall had more intergrity and wisdom in his pinky finger than Clarence Thomas will ever have.

Prior decisions are not to be rejected lightly. Opinions aren't to be thrown out just because a person's legal philosophy does not mesh with the opinion or because a person does not agree with the opinion. Roe v. Wade does not belong in the same sentence as Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott: perhaps extreme conservatives or mega Christians believe it does, but reasonable, moderate, and objective people do not.

There are two rights involved in abortion analysis: the right to privacy and the right to life. I understand both sides in the debate and I recognize both rights. Roe v. Wade recognized both rights and made a compromise: this is what should happen. Personally, draw a line in the sand at 20 weeks and I'm fine with it, as long as exceptions like incest, rape, and health of the mother are recognized.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

No, it is not racist language. Clarence Thomas did not ask 1 question during oral arguments for 10 years. He is an extremely watered down Scalia. He is Scalia without the wit, wisdom, and writing ability, and his SCOTUS writings consistently display this. His legal philosophy is a lazy one. My legal hero is Thurgood Marshall: Marshall had more intergrity and wisdom in his pinky finger than Clarence Thomas will ever have.

Prior decisions are not to be rejected lightly. Opinions aren't to be thrown out just because a person's legal philosophy does not mesh with the opinion or because a person does not agree with the opinion. Roe v. Wade does not belong in the same sentence as Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott: perhaps extreme conservatives or mega Christians believe it does, but reasonable, moderate, and objective people do not.

There are two rights involved in abortion analysis: the right to privacy and the right to life. I understand both sides in the debate and I recognize both rights. Roe v. Wade recognized both rights and made a compromise: this is what should happen. Personally, draw a line in the sand at 20 weeks and I'm fine with it, as long as exceptions like incest, rape, and health of the mother are recognized.

Not asking questions doesn’t make him lazy in any way. The man is clearly not lazy. You don’t agree with his legal philosophy but that doesn’t make him lazy. He puts a lot of energy into defending his opinions. So yes it does sound a bit racist of you to use that word. Stick to your standards if you have them.

Disagree with your second paragraph. Tons of constitutional scholars have opined over last few months that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided in ‘73. That includes liberal scholars, though most of them hoped it wouldn’t be overturned. Is that a principled position or one that just wants the preferred outcome?

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph

 

[LifelongIU]

https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...me-states-already-are-targeting-birth-control. You’re not paying attention then.

This is about legislation from LAST YEAR. Meaning it is not something spurned on by the recent Supreme Court decision. This is how stupid and pointless conversations start and how the public is misinformed. Stop.

 

[LifelongIU]

The dreaded “alot” and you did it twice! “Alot” is not a word - you’re looking for “a lot.” I’ve tried to help my fellow Republicans out on this several times. One obstinate poster refuses to correct himself and continues to use “alot” a lot, but others have corrected themselves. I’m hoping you will correct your ways with that too. Post smarter, be smarter! 👍🏼

It's funny. .because after years of people bashing me(not here) for using a lot,instead of alot,I finally conceded and started doing it the dumb way. I appreciate the sentiment.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Not asking questions doesn’t make him lazy in any way. The man is clearly not lazy. You don’t agree with his legal philosophy but that doesn’t make him lazy. He puts a lot of energy into defending his opinions. So yes it does sound a bit racist of you to use that word. Stick to your standards if you have them.

Disagree with your second paragraph. Tons of constitutional scholars have opined over last few months that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided in ‘73. That includes liberal scholars, though most of them hoped it wouldn’t be overturned. Is that a principled position or one that just wants the preferred outcome?

I pretty much agree with your last paragraph

Not asking 1 question during oral arguments in 10 years is the epitome of lazy: he flat out did not do his job. His legal philosophy is lazy to the point where he is not doing his job. His legal opinions are basic, boring, and lack analysis. I don't know what other word to use. I suppose I could say he sucks at his job, is incompetent, unqualified, doesn't do his job, etc. I'm definitely not a racist and have all sorts of intergrity, but feel free to misdefine me, I suppose. Clarence Thomas is not shielded from criticism because he is black.

There are plenty of "legal scholars" and US citizens that believe Roe and Casey were correctly decided. I don't have a problem with them, and stare decisis means something to me. Conservative justices, extreme in my opinion, ignored stare decisis and overruled a case that does not jive with their legal philosophy and that they do not like: not how it is supposed to work.

I think most Americans recognize what the analysis should be for abortion, are reasonable and moderate regarding what the law should be, and just want to draw a line down the middle. Roe v. Wade basically did that. Now, 50 states are going to do 50 different things, and there will never likely be a national consensus. It is going to be Bedlam, but so be it, I suppose.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

It's funny. .because after years of people bashing me(not here) for using a lot,instead of alot,I finally conceded and started doing it the dumb way. I appreciate the sentiment.

What dumbass would tell you to use “alot?” Seriously, that’s extra dumb. 😄

 

[LifelongIU]

No, it is not racist language. Clarence Thomas did not ask 1 question during oral arguments for 10 years. He is an extremely watered down Scalia. He is Scalia without the wit, wisdom, and writing ability, and his SCOTUS writings consistently display this. His legal philosophy is a lazy one. My legal hero is Thurgood Marshall: Marshall had more intergrity and wisdom in his pinky finger than Clarence Thomas will ever have.

Prior decisions are not to be rejected lightly. Opinions aren't to be thrown out just because a person's legal philosophy does not mesh with the opinion or because a person does not agree with the opinion. Roe v. Wade does not belong in the same sentence as Plessy v. Ferguson or Dred Scott: perhaps extreme conservatives or mega Christians believe it does, but reasonable, moderate, and objective people do not.

There are two rights involved in abortion analysis: the right to privacy and the right to life. I understand both sides in the debate and I recognize both rights. Roe v. Wade recognized both rights and made a compromise: this is what should happen. Personally, draw a line in the sand at 20 weeks and I'm fine with it, as long as exceptions like incest, rape, and health of the mother are recognized.

I will never understand how "the right to privacy" means it's ok to have an abortion.

 

[LifelongIU]

What dumbass would tell you to use “alot?” Seriously, that’s extra dumb. 😄

Uh...have you seen the internet for the past 10 years?...js

 

[LifelongIU]

Not asking 1 question during oral arguments in 10 years is the epitome of lazy: he flat out did not do his job. His legal philosophy is lazy to the point where he is not doing his job. His legal opinions are basic, boring, and lack analysis. I don't know what other word to use. I suppose I could say he sucks at his job, is incompetent, unqualified, doesn't do his job, etc. I'm definitely not a racist and have all sorts of intergrity, but feel free to misdefine me, I suppose. Clarence Thomas is not shielded from criticism because he is black.

There are plenty of "legal scholars" and US citizens that believe Roe and Casey were correctly decided. I don't have a problem with them, and stare decisis means something to me. Conservative justices, extreme in my opinion, ignored stare decisis and overruled a case that does not jive with their legal philosophy and that they do not like: not how it is supposed to work.

I think most Americans recognize what the analysis should be for abortion, are reasonable and moderate regarding what the law should be, and just want to draw a line down the middle. Roe v. Wade basically did that. Now, 50 states are going to do 50 different things, and there will never likely be a national consensus. It is going to be Bedlam, but so be it, I suppose.

RBG said Roe was bad law...js

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

I will never understand how "the right to privacy" means it's ok to have an abortion.

Should a female's genitals be the government's business and open to the public? Do people have bodily autonomy? The idea is that a female's genitals are that female's business, not anybody else's business. A person's sex life and genitals are private.

Nobody said it is ok. What is ok varies from person to person.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

RBG said Roe was bad law...js

It is more complicated than that.

 

[LifelongIU]

Should a female's genitals be the government's business and open to the public? Do people have bodily autonomy? The idea is that a female's genitals are that female's business, not anybody else's business. A person's sex life and genitals are private.

I don't think the genitals are the concern. It's the baby inside that matters. Also,if genitalia shouldn't be a concern of the government,why are they so supportive and proactive for young people to become trans?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Uh...have you seen the internet for the past 10 years?...js

Yes, and no one has ever tried to tell me that “a lot” is incorrect. No way that is common. Those that use “alot” just don’t know they’re wrong to do so - and they somehow got around spellcheck on their phones if they used phones. People, spellcheck was right! “Alot” is NOT a word. 🤪

 

[LifelongIU]

It is more complicated than that.

Point being,making the claim that plenty of scholars disagree is kind of moot,when you consider that some of the other belief,also agree that it was not representative of the U.S. constitution.

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

I don't think the genitals are the concern. It's the baby inside that matters.

I think you are missing the other half of the debate, and I would agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. Should people be able to tell you what to do with your genitals, including and especially the government? Do you walk around with no pants on and annouce to the public your sex life?

If a person doesn't have sex with a certain person, wears a rubber, jerks off, or pulls out, that also prevents "potential life."

 

[HoosierJimbo89]

Point being,making the claim that plenty of scholars disagree is kind of moot,when you consider that some of the other belief,also agree that it was not representative of the U.S. constitution.

There are legal philosophies, kind of like being a Republican or Democrat. A person isn't wrong for being a Republican or Democrat, they just have a different political philosophy. The conservative justices basically said that they don't like abortion, and Roe and Casey don't jive with their legal philosophy and they don't like these opinions. There may come a point in the future where there is a liberal majority and they reinstate Roe and Casey based on a similar argument. I don't think this is how it is supposed to work, but I guess this is how it works now.

 

[LifelongIU]

I think you are missing the other half of the debate, and I would agree to disagree. You are entitled to your opinion. Should people be able to tell you what to do with your genitals? Do you walk around with no pants on and annouce to the public your sex life?

If a person doesn't have sex with a certain person or wears a rubber, that also prevents potential life.

Preventing life,is not the same as ending life. I am not against abortion when it needs to be done for the sake of the mother,or baby,or both. I am not against abortion when it comes to rape,or incest. I just don't think it should be a formal of contraception. Legal,safe,rare. Jmo

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Not asking 1 question during oral arguments in 10 years is the epitome of lazy: he flat out did not do his job. His legal philosophy is lazy to the point where he is not doing his job. His legal opinions are basic, boring, and lack analysis. I don't know what other word to use. I suppose I could say he sucks at his job, is incompetent, unqualified, doesn't do his job, etc. I'm definitely not a racist and have all sorts of intergrity, but feel free to misdefine me, I suppose. Clarence Thomas is not shielded from criticism because he is black.

There are plenty of "legal scholars" and US citizens that believe Roe and Casey were correctly decided. I don't have a problem with them, and stare decisis means something to me. Conservative justices, extreme in my opinion, ignored stare decisis and overruled a case that does not jive with their legal philosophy and that they do not like: not how it is supposed to work.

I think most Americans recognize what the analysis should be for abortion, are reasonable and moderate regarding what the law should be, and just want to draw a line down the middle. Roe v. Wade basically did that. Now, 50 states are going to do 50 different things, and there will never likely be a national consensus. It is going to be Bedlam, but so be it, I suppose.

Asking questions is not a requirement of his job, especially when others are asking them. Lazy is not the right word, but you do you. I don’t pretend to be more sensitive to racist slights than minorities like many liberals do.

Having been reading and listening the last few months, it appears to me that most liberal and conservative constitutional scholars agree Roe was flawed to even wrongly decided. The difference is what they think this recent decision should be even so. In a perfect world, Congress would pass a law making it legal up until some point between 15 and 20 weeks, ban it with very rare exceptions in the third, and leave it up to the states in the second. Leave that battle to each state.