Enforcement of abortion pill bans
- Thread starter Cortez88
- Start date
Yes, I think you are a racist in the way you criticize Justice Thomas.
He has penned many outstanding opinions. I think his dissent in Virginia v Black Is absolutely brilliant. He handles a very thorny free expression question in a creative and forceful way. Not sure even now if I agree with him, but he does cause me to think. FWIW, Thomas takes the issue into territory that the leftists today clearly support.
Agree to disagree. I have never called you out for being racist, and I'm sorry that you feel the actions of others are a sufficient basis to call me a racist. No matter what word I use to criticise Thomas, you can call me a racist.
Most legal scholars is not the case. I have been an attorney for awhile, been to law school, listened to law professors, and have attorney colleagues. I can assure you that most legal scholars is not the case. I can tell you that it comes down to different legal philosophies. While Roe and Casey were not perfect, they were also well reasoned, had a basis in legal philosophy, recognized the rights at issue, and made a compromise: in my opinion, these cases are more reasonable and have better analysis than Dobbs.
Last edited:
I think you are a racist for being conservative, then. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and again.
Then Justice Alito is being disingenuous.
Marriage has always been protected, gay marriage and interracial marriage weren’t allowed for the longest possible time. But then you’d say that “marriage is marriage” and we’re talking about marriage generally and not it didn’t have to be gay or interracial marriage to count.
But along that line, privacy in the health decisions of doctor/patient have been deeply ingrained in American history as well as codified as a privilege.
So if Alito wanted to keep Roe he would have found that medical decision making privacy is older than the republic. He didn’t, so he made it specifically about abortion.
But he can’t do it one way for one thing and the other for the other.
Point of fact: Alito's dissent in Obergefell specifically argued that same-sex marriage failed the substantive due process test in exactly the same way he argued against abortion rights.
If SCOTUS decides to reconsider same-sex marriage, who do you think the five votes are to uphold Obergefell?
Liberals have a special brand of criticism for Conservative POC that they don’t have for whites. Its racism. Period.
The 10% on each extreme make A LOT of noise. The 80% or so in the middle, favoring Roe being kept intact and yet there exist restrictions at some point beyond 15-21 weeks, includes you, me, and almost every Democrat and almost every Republican that I know.
I don't. But, if you want to toss me in this bin, go for it. A person is not racist if they criticize Clarence Thomas.
Do you really think most Democrats support a 15-21 week limit? I'm unaware of any prominent Democrat office holder saying that in the last several years. I think the reason they don’t support the limit is because the base is at no limit abortions.
I have criticized some of Thomas’s opinions, including Dobbs. Criticizing what he says is one thing, calling him lazy boring, lacking analysis etc. is racism.
I don’t see your Alito SDP point as very relevant. Obergefell would be upheld. Gorsuch would rely on EP. Roberts would uphold based on some mixed analysis. The three libs will talk about fundamental rights, history, fairness, and justice and any similarities to firm constitutional analysis will be purely coincidental.
Three unprincipled liberals and Roberts, who just look for the socially-acceptable result. They write “by any means necessary“ opinion(s)
Alito would concur in result only, hating on SDP but finding “enough” “marriage” support to matter for stare decisis purposes, and again talking about how marriage and stuff does not end a human life - his wild card factor.
Kavanaugh is dumb enough to believe college atheletes don’t get paid, so he could probably be persuaded, if he can forget how badly he has been treated and set aside his human desire to retaliate and just judge.
That is my opinion of him after reading a bunch of his opinions and writings, not the color of his skin: he could be purple with yellow polka dots for all I care. You are free to disagree. But, he is by far the dumbest SCOTUS Justice on the bench during my lifetime.
Roberts specifically rejected both the SDP and EP analysis in Obergefell.
That was the interpretation of Roe, that every Democrat I know wanted to keep, and also every Republican except for a few evangelicals in my family.
I'd say
20% want no abortion, no way, and they are noisy
10% want no restrictions whatsoever,, and they are noisy
70% are happy with the way it was, and are not so noisy, but many are trending upwards in noise level
Last edited:
You're just making shit up again. Laughably trying to re-define racism. You are clueless when it comes to that topic and should really quit embarrassing yourself.
I don’t think Roberts will vote to overturn Obergefell. I know he dissented, that’s why I left his reasons vague.
I’m old enough to remember when calling the Black guy lazy was racism. I guess that is too old school for you. Nowadays believing things like punctuality and math are important is racism.
Last edited:
Please go back to middle school for biology classes. I am pro choice but this take is soooo dumb…
Yeah I probably know a bit about abortion protests and I probably listen to what they are saying.
What’s that have yo do with it? You said it was hysterical and fear mongering yo go after contraceptives. It clearly is not.
No one is trying to make young people become trans. They are trying to keep them from having suicidal thoughts and mental health break downs. Goodness. You think they shouldn’t be supportive?
Unprincipled liberals? Lol. Remind me lied at their confirmation hearings? Excuse me, misled. Poor little Brett, so badly treated.
Oh really? Maybe you should do some research. Trans people(after conversion) have the highest suicide rate of any studied demographic in this country's history. Open mouth...remove shoe. Any more bs to spew? If they aren't convincing young people through messaging(much like they do with the other dumb shit i.e. "putins tax hike" for gas) and secretive meetings set up during school hours to tell your kids "if you aren't comfortable in your own skin,you might be trans,but don't tell your parents,they aren't safe. Do you know that the trans community has doubled every decade for 3 straight decades now? So where were all these people before they were told they were trans? And don't tell me they were there all along and just never came out,because according to you,that would lead to high suicide rates,and the rates now are much higher than back then. You are wrong. You are blind to the fact that the democratic party is dead set on whatever means necessary to get the votes they need to gain the power they need. They have 0 regard for the fact that it is ruining the country. Liberal policy just doesn't work. You name 1 major city,that has been longtime controlled be dems,that is not crime infested and poor with high murder rates,high unemployment,and little hope for the future. It's not hard to see. You people that have been fooled into thinking that democratic leaders give 2 ****s about anything but themselves are the epitome of the useful idiots that dems seek out. You carry their message,and have true emotions,while they reap the benefits of your social justice warrior mentality. These are the people killing the country. The white,suburban,woke dumbass people who claim to be standing up for minorities,while unknowingly insulting them and showing true racism in the process.
Last edited:
Support? You don’t support an anorexic by agreeing they are fat. The incidence of gender confusion among youngsters is skyrocketing because they are being enabled. You can’t fix negative emotions by supporting changing identities. All you do is make things worse.
It really isn't. The Constitution of the US,does not give or imply the right to abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Therefore,granting federal jurisdiction is bad law. Pretty self explanatory. The only thing the Supreme Court did,was return jurisdiction to the state,where it should have been all along. It did not change any abortion laws. It only granted the state the right to make its own laws. Just like many other issues that are not under federal jurisdiction. The only difference,is libbys telling the public that Republicans took away their rights,instead of telling the truth,because they know it's the only thing they could possibly cling to in the midterms and in 2024.
It’s really not. You do like to pretend like it’s more complex than it is. I’ll give you that. You fancy yourself a “legal expert”. But anyone that thinks RvW was a good decision is just a partisan hack.
You are a Hack.
P.S.
Yes I’ve read the roe decision, and the Dobbs decsion, and the Casey decision.
That seems to be your go to deflection.
If you have also read them and come down opposite of the Dobbs decision, well…. You’re just a moron.
That's a load of shit. And I say that as someone who isn't necessarily convinced by the Roe opinion, and thinks the Dobbs opinion was well-written and pretty convincing. Legal issues often are complex, and both sides of a competing argument can make good arguments. Law school has this entire educational tradition built around that fact, called moot court.
Some of the people defending Roe are in fact hacks. Just as some of the people defending Dobbs are. But you don't have to be a hack to recognize the quality of the argument in either, or both.
Nah. Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer’s dissent could have been written by an emotional third grader. They are true morons.
Congrats on being in league with morons?
I would say try actually talking about the cases instead of calling others names, but you aren't capable of that, are you? The only moron around here is you.
Last edited:
MTIOF had already embarrassed you on the merits of the decision. Do you want another? Are self-flagellating?
You really don’t understand the role of the judicial system at all.
Wow. Your regularly simple mind is seeming especially simple at the moment.
No, I pointed out the court's analysis, and the OP didn't respond. If you feel like there's something to add (which there isn't) instead of acting like a hack, calling people names, and embarrassing yourself, feel free.
I have forgotten more about the law than you'll ever know, so I couldn't care less what you think. People aren't wrong because they have a different philosophy, legal or political: grow up.
