Roe overturned. Be kind
- Thread starter Noodle
- Start date
You are correct - the US Congress could pass a law.
And what are the odds of a nation-wide ban passed by the US Congress and signed by the President.
Evidently I didn't know what you meant, because you didn't say it correctly.
You need to take it up with the Grammar Police - @Bowlmania
Limited was his key word. Limited = His right hand after a night out.Well, dudes on message boards typically don't have a lot of luck with women (in my limited experience), but I know that's not always true because I'm here and most certainly buck that trend
Like I said. Unlikely for a million of the usual reasons Congress dithers
The second amendment is pretty clear in the constitution. Nowhere does it mention abortion. So the federal government does not have the right to make any decision regarding it unless and until the constitution is amended.
I agree, but the wife thinks all the men should get a vasectomy, so the ladies don't have to worry about birth control.
Heard this a million times, "Men have it easy".
As you and lars were discussing, today's ruling didn't push a national ban off the table.
And while Pence didn't issue an edict, he isn't on an island in targeting a national ban. Ardent anti-choice advocates aren't washing their hands of this issue.
Oh man - I hate to break it to you, but if we're going to work on the standard of laws/issues having to be strictly mentioned in the Constitution to be ratified, there are a lot of laws that need to come off the books.
I'm sure this will play well with their customers and given that they're an outdoor store are probably mostly Trump voters.
A
anon_6hv78pr714xta
Guest
I don’t think they had judicial efficiency in mind with this decision. Nor should they have.
Seriously. Think about it. I smell a business opportunity.
Have men provide specimens which are then frozen and used at a later date for insemination. Get 100 who cares. It's DUDES. Remember they're going to PAY for this service. Bring in pros as "helpers". Bring the girlfriend, bring the wife.
Freeze the specimens and then, once there's enough, snip snip.
Boom. Profit.
Will that include the mostly-peaceful protesters who break into a store and steal all of their fleece jackets?
That is fine, do they want a man to wear a Scarlet V to indicate the safe ones to get freaky with or just be like the first question you ask on a date?
That’s not even close to what they said and you know it.
I would say Olbermann does to but that guy is a fruit loop. Beyond redemption.
In his 2017 confirmation hearing, Gorsuch said Roe was “a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court” and claimed that he “would have walked out the door” if Trump had asked him to overturn Roe v. Wade because “that’s not what judges do.”
“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch said then. “What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.”
We aren’t far from birth control pills for men. The vasectomy argument is kind of invalid because it’s a medical procedure. The problem with all this is the choices aren’t equal and never will be. This is the reason the debate hasn’t been settled.
Yes, yes it will ... because it makes total sense. What a wonderfully complex mind you have ..
This was a dumb decision. Roe was a dumb decision based on bad science. This was a bad decision based on dumb science and selective reading of the law. Both decisions sucked. The right of privacy is a fine thing. It has existed under different names for well over a century. Make no mistake about it, this decision was a religious one. We can trace back from english common law, through the puritans here, etc that Abortion was largely commonplace--not through surgery but through herbs, etc. It wasn't until 1820 did we star seeing full fledged abortion prohibitions.
That being said, like everything else in this country, the failure of the democrats and republicans to compromise on this issue has created the monster that we see today.
60% or more of the American public want to permit some level of abortion, yet we will never see national abortion law and we will never see it where every state allows for abortion.
I'm not a big abortion guy. I don't like it as a birth control deal. This decision is scary because it implies that the minute of fertilization you cannot end whatever exists in several states. It is a short two putt to what Justice Thomas really wants to do: Get rid of gay marriages, get rid of Griswold (contraceptives), get rid of bowers vs hardwick (sodomy or male sexual activity with another male). That's pretty scary stuff. Of course one of those cases that the supreme court decided that Thomas did not mention was Loving, which is the constitutional right to have an interracial marriage. Why does not get to stand if the others don't? All relates to privacy.
Issues like these are never black and white and nobody should be beholden wearing the same jersey every game. That 14 year old girl from Louisiana or Mississippi that gets raped can no longer have an abortion. The little girl from oklahoma whose uncle got her pregnant can't go to another state to have an abortion because it is criminalized and then has a bounty hunter provision. Well, good luck with the legality of that one, because the the full faith and credit mandate says Oklahoma has to back off. Either way, there will be more litigation. And more litigation. And if the life of the mother is in danger because of the child in the womb, that mother no longer has a constitutional right to end her pregnancy. Doctor's can't make that decision or be potentially subject to criminal action. Is that what we want to see? You think some woman who is dying can fly to California in time to save her life? These specific issue is going to come back to the Supreme Court in the next two years. And they will say there is no right. Is that what we want to see in America? I don't want it to be abortion on demand either, but Roe was a 7-2 decision with a republican majority, with the dissent coming from Dem. White and Rep Renquist.
If you aren't seeing the consequences of this decision and what it impacts, then I feel sorry for you. This is a bad day with a terrible trickle down impact that sets up some bad things to happen legally.
That being said, like everything else in this country, the failure of the democrats and republicans to compromise on this issue has created the monster that we see today.
60% or more of the American public want to permit some level of abortion, yet we will never see national abortion law and we will never see it where every state allows for abortion.
I'm not a big abortion guy. I don't like it as a birth control deal. This decision is scary because it implies that the minute of fertilization you cannot end whatever exists in several states. It is a short two putt to what Justice Thomas really wants to do: Get rid of gay marriages, get rid of Griswold (contraceptives), get rid of bowers vs hardwick (sodomy or male sexual activity with another male). That's pretty scary stuff. Of course one of those cases that the supreme court decided that Thomas did not mention was Loving, which is the constitutional right to have an interracial marriage. Why does not get to stand if the others don't? All relates to privacy.
Issues like these are never black and white and nobody should be beholden wearing the same jersey every game. That 14 year old girl from Louisiana or Mississippi that gets raped can no longer have an abortion. The little girl from oklahoma whose uncle got her pregnant can't go to another state to have an abortion because it is criminalized and then has a bounty hunter provision. Well, good luck with the legality of that one, because the the full faith and credit mandate says Oklahoma has to back off. Either way, there will be more litigation. And more litigation. And if the life of the mother is in danger because of the child in the womb, that mother no longer has a constitutional right to end her pregnancy. Doctor's can't make that decision or be potentially subject to criminal action. Is that what we want to see? You think some woman who is dying can fly to California in time to save her life? These specific issue is going to come back to the Supreme Court in the next two years. And they will say there is no right. Is that what we want to see in America? I don't want it to be abortion on demand either, but Roe was a 7-2 decision with a republican majority, with the dissent coming from Dem. White and Rep Renquist.
If you aren't seeing the consequences of this decision and what it impacts, then I feel sorry for you. This is a bad day with a terrible trickle down impact that sets up some bad things to happen legally.
The whole quote-
The question was what Gorsuch would do if Trump asked him to rule in a certain way on a specific issue.
He gave a completely rational answer.
“Once a case is settled, that adds to the determinacy of the law,” Gorsuch said then. “What was once a hotly contested issue is no longer a hotly contested issue. We move forward.”
The above quoted language requires no context.
At that point in our history, the 2nd amendment was as established as it has been after 230 years. States and cities at that time were still in the mode of thinking they had supremacy in law over the Constitution. You can't just cherry pick laws and say see even the founders didn't say ... We have to consider laws in their entirety not just a brief time in their history.
I don't think zygote means what you think IE definition is "From the moment two cells exist up until the 8th week of gestation, the development of the embryo takes place. At this stage, intense cellular changes occur. Once the zygote is formed, the first cleavage of the human embryo occurs. Two cells are obtained from this process. Then, successive cleavage divisions will occur."
No they didn’t. Settled law has been overturned several times. Recognizing that something is settled law isn’t a promise not to overturn it. This particular talking point is tired and false.
But according to Harris a constitutional right has been taken away. You're reading the wrong constitution.
I understand that some states passed laws several months ago that banned or heavily restricted abortions with effective date provisions that read something like, "this law goes into effect immediately on the date that Roe v. Wade is overturned."
Why would they do this? Here's why:
They knew McConnell's obstructive strategy had packed the court very well. To them, it was just a matter of time.
Patient, methodical, persistence by guys like McConnell, Grassley and Trump delivered this day. Each of them should be proud in the hand they played in blocking Garland and appointing Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and ACB.I understand that some states passed laws several months ago that banned or heavily restricted abortions with effective date provisions that read something like, "this law goes into effect immediately on the date that Roe v. Wade is overturned."
Why would they do this? Here's why:
They knew McConnell's obstructive strategy had packed the court very well. To them, it was just a matter of time.
And the little angels known as Democrats would never obstruct.I understand that some states passed laws several months ago that banned or heavily restricted abortions with effective date provisions that read something like, "this law goes into effect immediately on the date that Roe v. Wade is overturned."
Why would they do this? Here's why:
They knew McConnell's obstructive strategy had packed the court very well. To them, it was just a matter of time.
Why not, Scalia specifically wrote in Heller:
As Justice Scalia put it in his majority opinion in Heller, “interpret[ations] of the Second Amendment in the century after its enactment,” including in state court opinions, are “a critical tool of constitutional interpretation,” since they can point to “the scope [constitutional rights] were understood to have when the people adopted them.
Firearm Regionalism and Public Carry: Placing Southern Antebellum Case Law in Context
IntroductionDuring recent oral arguments in Peruta v. County of SanDiego, a case being reconsidered en banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals forthe Ninth Circuit, former Solicitor General Paul Clement turned to what mayappear an unusual guide for interpreting the scope of the Second Amendment inthe...
So isn't looking at these laws exactly what the majority opinion in Heller said to do? Except THEY cherry picked one GA court decision to determine what the founders meant. One. So if cherry picking is wrong, Heller is wrong.
Who gets arrested for peacefully protesting? They’re doing it wrong.
And there is no case for any of that being a lie.
