Same sex marriage? Interracial Marriage? Contraception?
Roe overturned. Be kind
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Ain’t gonna happen. Abortion is a stand alone issue. Not a first step to equal protection cases, or any other leftist hand wringing.
Dobbs has zero effect in Colorado. It means zilch. Yet all the usual state Democrats are already yelling and stomping their feet and using it to raise funds. Politics is nothing if it isn’t yelling and screaming about stuff that doesn’t matter because it is good press and raises money. See J6. Ugh.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
Tough question.
I’m confident in saying that answering it in the positive does not mean we have a nation governed by anything reasonably resembling the Handmaids Tale or Sharia Law.
I guess I don't have a huge problem with it going back to the states to make it their decision.
...but the Supreme Court is going to be seeing several cases in the coming years concerning challenges to the wording of individual state's laws concerning restricting of residents / doctors / medications that are either coming from other states or are being traveled to (ie. there are some proposals to punish those who go out of state to receive an abortion that have a distinct chance of being passed now that the Roe decision reversal has opened the floodgates).
Democrats are absolutely going to make this the center of attention in November. They don't have a leg to stand on regarding the economy, so this will now be the tentpole issue they can focus on.
Susan Collins is rather lucky she has 4 more years before her term is up, because she is getting (rightfully) barbecued today.
...but the Supreme Court is going to be seeing several cases in the coming years concerning challenges to the wording of individual state's laws concerning restricting of residents / doctors / medications that are either coming from other states or are being traveled to (ie. there are some proposals to punish those who go out of state to receive an abortion that have a distinct chance of being passed now that the Roe decision reversal has opened the floodgates).
Democrats are absolutely going to make this the center of attention in November. They don't have a leg to stand on regarding the economy, so this will now be the tentpole issue they can focus on.
Susan Collins is rather lucky she has 4 more years before her term is up, because she is getting (rightfully) barbecued today.
Well excepting for should Colorado decide to outlaw abortion and somebody challenges it the SC will now say "Nah, we're good". Shit, it won't even make it to the SC
But Republican legislatures are telling us that the zygote is in fact a person? My question is if the zygote is a person why do they not have all of the same rights as other persons?
Irrelevant question in my view. I believe life is present at conception and women have a right to choose, with reasonable time limits. Not everything is a moral absolute and we sometimes need to choose between competing moral imperatives. That’s called having a human brain. Deciding the moral choice question based upon whether life is present is a dodge and is not high ordered thinking, in my opinion.
So you couldn't have a gun in New York before the Supreme Court ruling came down?
Who knew?
So what? The legislature makes these kinds of moral decisions all the time. A body which can legislate age of consent for rape ought to be able to legislate abortion.
Also, does this open a whole can of worms in other areas too.
Can a one month pregnant woman drive in the carpool lane?
If a man punches a one month pregnant woman and she loses the baby, is he now being charged as implementing an abortion, or is it even worse? Murder 1?
Can you start taking your child tax credits for the previous year because your wife was pregnant at that time?
Can a woman start claiming child support payments before the baby is born?
These seem like stupid questions that a reasonable person would be able to answer easily, but it will still end up in courts anyways.
Can a one month pregnant woman drive in the carpool lane?
If a man punches a one month pregnant woman and she loses the baby, is he now being charged as implementing an abortion, or is it even worse? Murder 1?
Can you start taking your child tax credits for the previous year because your wife was pregnant at that time?
Can a woman start claiming child support payments before the baby is born?
These seem like stupid questions that a reasonable person would be able to answer easily, but it will still end up in courts anyways.
You were allowed to own a gun in New York before the Supreme Court rulings so what ammendment was the State going against again?
I’d very much doubt it. A particular religion’s view on when life begins isn’t in the discussion, it’s only about a state’s “right” to restrict medical procedures. A place that bans abortions doesn’t infringe on a person’s religious beliefs even if it doesn’t use the same calculation of when life begins. Like they’re still free to believe life hasn’t started until birth, they just can’t get an abortion.So lawyers, will this set up a religious freedom case? A lot of Judaism believes specifically that life begins at birth and not conception. The court is granting very wide latitudes to religious freedom. Would they in this case if the argument is made that Judaism gives a woman the right to an abortion? The answer of course is no.
The Beginning of Life in Judaism | My Jewish Learning
According to Jewish law, human life begins when the child's head emerges from the womb.www.myjewishlearning.com
And you can see how different branches of Judaism believe here:
The bigger issue to me is the court getting into issues of admitted morality. The opinion said it wouldn’t apply to things like contraceptives, but that’s a moral issue for some people, so I don’t know what would stop them from overruling Griswold.
Only if licensed. Plus the law stated you couldn’t conceal carry without just cause.
I’m going out on a limb and predict it won’t matter in the midterms. Abortions don’t affect most people and I think you guys are going to find out it’s not a voting issue for the majority of people (besides leftist). The MSM will run it into the ground and life will move on.
When people have worries that include food and finances the less important(to them) others rights become.
Are you a woman. Guess what - they make up 50% of the electorate.
Many women would never get an abortion. But a large % of those women also don't want the State deciding if they can.
So what's premeditated murder in one state is perfectly legal in the next?
That strikes me as rather odd.
The opinion tries its damdest to limit the scope only to abortion. But at the same time the opinion clearly relies on originalism and the fact that it is a problem to the Court that a right to an abortion is not specified in the Constitution.
You can make the exact same argument that the right to a same sex marriage, an interracial marriage, contraception, or consentual sex acts not intended for procreation are all open to state limitations as unenumerted rights.
To think that some states will not go down one of these paths is naive.
There may well be no-gay states. No BJ states. No interracial marriage states. No contraception states. This ruling can have coattails
You can make the exact same argument that the right to a same sex marriage, an interracial marriage, contraception, or consentual sex acts not intended for procreation are all open to state limitations as unenumerted rights.
To think that some states will not go down one of these paths is naive.
There may well be no-gay states. No BJ states. No interracial marriage states. No contraception states. This ruling can have coattails
This.
If the S.Ct. thought they were "settling" anything with this decision, they are wrong. Their entire docket for the next decade just got populated with cases like you suggest above.
Unfortunately, with the state of the economy I doubt it has much, if any effect on the electoral outcome. It seems that people's pocketbooks are always the #1 issue. We are a self-centered society.
don’t wake me up for concurring opinions
tell mister twitter brain to STFU - ITS A CONCURRING OPINION, which means ideas scare him
what IS substantive due process? does twitter brain know?
It's not a "voting" issue, it's a turnout issue.
Democrats have sometimes had lighter turnouts on midterms (no president on the ticket). This is a definitive event that they will use as a rallying cry to get a higher than average turnout.
Look. I don't have a problem with the SC basically saying "the Court effed this up and should have punted it back to the states 50 years ago. We're doing it now. Come on congress...DO SOMETHING".
However, while noting so mightily the court doesn't get involved in moral judgments, Alito notes on page 6 of the opinion
Who gives a rat f*ck what the rest of the world does? Apparently our Supreme Court does. This, while noting part of the reason for overturning Roe was that abortion was not part of the historic fabric of the US. Well shit, color me confused.
I agree, but I think most of them are already voting for Democrats. Also, once people figure out it’s still going to be legal in 20+ states it will become even less of an issue. I guess we will find out in November. It should be interesting.
Can a 15 year old drive?
Can a 17 year old buy cigarettes?
Can a 12 year old enter a binding contract.
Can a 16 year old be found to be old enough to consent to sexual intercourse in one state and not another?
Can a 20 year old buy alcohol?
Can a 17 year old vote?
Can a 15 year old purchase a handgun?
Do 10 year olds have to go to school?
We have all sorts of legally arbitrary lines that are drawn by all levels of government that might not necessarily stand up to the simplistic logic test you were applying. Why should a zygote not have a social security number? Because they aren't old enough to grab the card yet.
And that's bad, how?
Look, I'm cool if we're gonna let states decide what's best for them. But don't come in and say abortion should be up to individual states and then repeal a gun law that the state has in place that it feels best suits its citizens.
lol. Are parents worried about the fact that they need to liquidate their children's college fund so they can afford monthly expenses being self-centered?
What I had thought all along. You're damn lucky libs that the court ignored the Constitution when it came to 2020. The had to let the left get away with their treason to provide cover to protect the 2A and overturn Roe.
👨🏽🏫 FWIW 11 IMHO The reason the Court ignored 2020, was they needed political cover for these monumental decisions. @Maximus_4EVR
👨🏽🏫 FWIW 11 IMHO The reason the Court ignored 2020, was they needed political cover for these monumental decisions. @Maximus_4EVR
Those are primarily question of adulthood. The constitution apparently allows age discrimination. E.g. Why can a 18 year old vote and fight, but not buy liquor?
But to the question of personhood, why is an unborn child allowed to be murdered in one state but not another?
