This is the key. Poorer women need incentive to stop having kids. Have as much sex as you want, but stop reproducing when you cannot afford it. As importantly, middle and upper class people need to be incentivized to have more kids.
Politico: Roe to be overturned per draft opinion
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
This is the key. Poorer women need incentive to stop having kids. Have as much sex as you want, but stop reproducing when you cannot afford it. As importantly, middle and upper class people need to be incentivized to have more kids.
The confirmation proceeding /questioning was all conducted under oath, I presume. That OUGHT to matter. But i guess anything you want to say, goes.
Conservatives may not be content with abortion only being banned in some states and are likely to keep pressing for a national ban.
If someone thinks abortion is murder, I cannot imagine them being happy murder is legal in other states. The state's rights argument is just a temporary argument.
Off Topic: Of those states with antiabortion trigger laws, which one pays the most for a good stud?
I think LGBTQ lawyers need to peruse the constitution to see if it stipulates a constitutional right to heterosexual marriage.
According to WAPO…activist networks are already mobilizing to that effect
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I'm pretty sure some that at least some of the conservative justices agree with you. I wouldn't worry about this being a universal rule.
But liberals want their rights and to restrict those the conservatives claim, while conservatives want the same. You need some grounding in the text and limiting interpretive principles to limit a judge's individual political bias and create some predictability of outcome. While most issues that reach the SCt aren't 100% determined by accepted legal reasoning, that reasoning and the legitimate interpretive methods do limit the options available.
sure, if you want to repeat the Japanese or European catastrophe. We need to improve birth rates, particularly for the socioeconomic groups with means.
I bet you're going to be talking to some really important people on that call. You're impressive, murt.
JDB, are you advocating eugenics (arranging reproduction within a human population to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable) ?
v
Cancel student debt so they can pay for childcare? I'll stop there since that's another thread.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
To answer your first question, yes that would be court packing. It can be legal and still be court packing. Adding to the number of justices to the Supreme Court to get it to vote the way you want as a political matter is court packing.
And technically, your last sentence is false. Biden, alone, cannot add Justices and if he did that, alone, it would not be legal.
Full disclosure: I thought McConnell's move not even considering Garland was bullshit and, had I been President, I would have gone ahead and appointed someone and made them fight it out in the Supreme Court as to when the Senate must act in advising and consenting to a Presidential selection.
But I'm more concerned with process and legitimacy of institutions right now in our nation. The people who believe in short-term political or policy gain while sacrificing institutional legitimacy have damaged our country and I'm not a two-wrongs-make-a-right type person.
boy you're a triggered little creepy thing aren't ya. go away. the call's not important at all. none of what i do is impt. and i like it
Washington Post: “A group of Republican Senators has discussed at multiple meetings the possibility of banning abortion at around six weeks. Sen. Joni Ernst will introduce the legislation in the Senate, according to an antiabortion advocate with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal strategy.”
I actually think that is ONE thing the Constitution is clear about.
Once the Congress was created, the Constitution set out certain powers it absolutely was given. Article 1, Sections 5, 8. It also set out certain powers Congress was expressly DENIED. Article 1, Section 9. And also denied some powers to the States in Article 1, Section 10.
And just to clarify it a bit, they gave us the 9th Amendment - "The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
And just to muddy it a bit, they gave us the 10th - ""The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."
Its not COMPLETELY clear WHICH non-enumerated "rights" are out there, but is clear there are rights that are NOT enumerated, but still exist.
An easier call than - for example - the Second Amendment's meaning.
Last edited:
Just answer the question. Is your relationship with DANC platonic or playondick? Not that I care but curiosity is a pain in the ass.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
No, you're not right on that. And I'm an expert here, so you should listen to me.
The Federalist Society believes in interpretation. Originalism is a form of interpretation. Nor are most in the Fed Soc. strict textualists or literalists (and Scalia surely was not). Hugo Black was really the most prominent from that school and he was a Democratic appointee:
Hugo Black - Wikipedia
Marv, you should read Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution by Philip Bobbitt. You'd get a lot out of it.
What we REALLY need is a law making it illegal for for Looney Lefties to impregnate anyone or become pregnant.
Hell, it's been written about by learned SCOTUS justices - "Three generations of imbeciles are enough." Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for an 8-1 decision, WHICH IS STILL GOOD LAW, not overruled.
Liberals dumbasses who cannot detect sarcasm - line up HERE to reply:
IUHickory gets his reserved seat at the front.
DrHoops is martial-at-arms for the Imbeciles.
After that, its musical chairs, first-come-first-in-line.
I believe the Supremes are more interesting in what Lorena Bobbitt would say on the subject.No, you're not right on that. And I'm an expert here, so you should listen to me.
The Federalist Society believes in interpretation. Originalism is a form of interpretation. Nor are most in the Fed Soc. strict textualists or literalists (and Scalia surely was not). Hugo Black was really the most prominent from that school and he was a Democratic appointee:
Hugo Black - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Marv, you should read Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution by Philip Bobbitt. You'd get a lot out of it.
No, you're not right on that. And I'm an expert here, so you should listen to me.
The Federalist Society believes in interpretation. Originalism is a form of interpretation. Nor are most in the Fed Soc. strict textualists or literalists (and Scalia surely was not). Hugo Black was really the most prominent from that school and he was a Democratic appointee:
Hugo Black - Wikipedia
Marv, you should read Constitutional Fate: Theory of the Constitution by Philip Bobbitt. You'd get a lot out of it.
Thanks for that. Ed (Bossier/Ironworks/a few other names here) was the king of just the written word. I overly translated that to Federalists.
But if we all agree that the document is interpreted, then why does it matter that abortion isn't specifically listed? One can feel free to interpret it there as a general right to a medical procedure. I doubt many of us doubt the right to have an appendectomy.
There is absolutely no problem at all with a declining birth rate and a system that largely relies on the working class to support the elderly class. (se Japan, and most of EU as prime examples)
I am the polar opposite of an expert but what I got from reading the quoted bits from Alito’s opinion is he seems to be arguing Roe v. Wade was based on the Constitution including that right.
I don’t think Alito is arguing it must be enumerated in the Constitution as a right. I think his position is a valid argument has to justify the unenumerated right not just state the right.
Cool. One Party will just let the other Party steal their legitimate pick for the court in order to swing the court in that Parties favor as you insinuate. Maybe get your party to stop stealing Presidential pics and there won't be any 119-118 rulings. It's puzzling to me how the deep thinkers in here think it's OK for their party to steal pics or act dishonestly without a response from the other party.
You are a good dude with generally a good head on your shoulders. Let's walk through this one here..
If you don't want certain demographics having children (which I do not agree with) AND you have a growing portion of the population becoming "poor" by most metrics, how do you reconcile with the need to not become like Japan where our economic system, which has become a glorified welfare state, is not sustainable because we don't have enough productive people paying into the system to support the non-productive?
No because I'm not suggesting anything about heritable characteristics, such as race. There are just as many poor white people that should be reproducing less.
It's simply a matter of common sense. We don't live in an agrarian society any longer. Adding more farm help might have been worthwhile 50+ years ago to try and shift or change socioeconomic status, but it isn't now. It's simply become a drag on the overeducated, low or more frequently, non-reproducers
If you don't like what is being taught in your school, go to a private one. And really this isn't all that big an issue, show me where women are completely banned from getting an abortion. They can always move too. The places banning, well those are few and far between....the only time the left wants compromise is when they are about to lose.
All this handwringing is for naught anyway though, the GOP are generally cowards on topics like this. There will still be abortion when this is all said and done, but it will have restrictions. Even with the dozen auto bans if Roe is cancelled.
How is that possible if statistically the population is measured as a bell curve? Perhaps you are saying that because the population is/has been growing, there are more people in each category?
If you incentivize and accelerate the birth rate for the middle and upper class, those individuals not only have the means to be financially independent, but are more likely to pass those means on to their kids (doesn't even have to be directly - e.g., inheritance/wealth transfer, but rather via education, societal fit, etc.).
The welfare state exists and grows because reproduction is so much higher among those without means.
That law will go away with Roe off the books. For states that wanted a way to restrict abortions, they had to be creative because Roe and Casey made it so there could be no touching the holy birthright of some women to have their kids sucked out and ripped apart mostly for their convenience.
People in California and New York couldn't let Mississippi or Indiana or Texas handle the issue that would be more in line with their mores. Anytime an attempt was made it got ran to the courts and you got a "can't restrict it..." So the only way to have these "rational" discussions that everyone says we should be having now that Roe and Casey appear to be on Death Row is to actually deep six the two rulings and start over. That may mean that some people are going to lose their precious right and to that I say "ha ha ha **** you". Should have been at the table having this discussion for the past 50 years. Instead it was completely shut down. The vast majority of the country would have lived with the restrictions but the left cannot ever be seen to lose ground in the culture wars.
So they don't get their thing right now and they may have to fight for it. There was a whole bunch of compromising on this topic suggested by the right for decades and it was rejected wholesale. So here we are.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Because there are different METHODS of interpretation (that the book I recommended discusses, gives examples of, etc.). Just because you must interpret all words, doesn't mean it's willy nilly as to HOW you interpret them. Interpretative methods constrain your results.
If you are an originalist (and ALL judges admit that originalism is at least one legitimate form of interpretation), you look at how the words were used and what they meant by the people who ratified the Constitution (NOT what the author's meant, by the way). No one at the time of the ratification of the Constitution believed it guaranteed a personal right to an abortion, or on the flip side of the coin, that the govt.'s police power did not extend to outlawing abortions.
Why does that matter? Originalists believe it matters because if you want to change what the ratifiers thought, there is a procedure to do that--amendment to the Constitution. That, they believe, is the most democratic way to decide these issues, that it should not be left to an unelected panel of 9 people to decide, but instead the will of the people (whose will is determined through the republican form of government that the Constitution outlines).
There are just a handful of other legitimate schools of interpretation: textualism (which often works hand-in-hand with originalism but they are two different methods), prudentialism (the judicial liberal's favorite), structuralism, doctrinal, and some would say (Bobbitt does) ethical (based on the ethos of the Constitution, not morality).
These are merely made up extremely videos, show me where a woman is not able to get an abortion right now? And again, if you find yourself in the rare instance where you can't get one, move or drive there.26 states already lined up to act are few and far between?
the orange ones?
"Behold, my field of ****s, for it is barren." I am taking your position on my concern for schools.
One other point, if 26 states are ready to shitcan this procedure out of the gate, maybe Roe and Casey are not as popular as you all are letting on. Guess you all should have talked compromise when you had the chance.
If I was a Republican in congress I’d push for a bill that allowed abortion up to 23 weeks which is what Roe did and then ban it for the rest of the pregnancy with only exceptions for the physical health of the mother or the death of the unborn child. This is essentially the position of most Americans, including most Democrats. Then I’d sit back and watch every Democrat vote against it as they always have for every late-term ban that has been introduced. Their de facto position has been abortion on demand until after the baby is born. I think that would be uncomfortable for Democrats.
And instead it sounds like Joni Ernst is going to introduce one for up to 6 weeks.
Eugenics doesn't have to be about race. It can be about engineering a "desirable" population as per your suggestion about the more affluent having more children with the lower income folks having far less children?
