SCOTUS / Rowe Vs Wade / State of our Country

Hasn't Roe Vs Wade been battling for years?? Peace

 
ChEFF said:
Hasn't Roe Vs Wade been battling for years?? Peace
Click to expand...
Yes, However, the SCOTUS is hearing the legality of the case

First, as Justice Alito points out, the right to an abortion is nowhere to be found in the Constitution and "no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision." Justice Alito explains that pre-1973, "for the first 185 years after the adoption of the Constitution" the people—through state elections—made abortion policy, not the Supreme Court. And with this historical background in mind, it cannot be said that abortion is "deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition" or "implicit in the concept of ordered liberty."

Second, Roe v. Wade has never been settled law. As the leaked draft points out, Casey rejects Roe’s legal reasoning yet affirms its "central holding."

Third, the viability/undue burden standard under Casey has never been a workable standard. What makes a burden due versus undue? And furthermore, the moment of viability is not static; babies are now viable earlier during pregnancy thanks to incredible medical advancements that have advanced the ability to save tiny lives.

And finally, stare decisis shouldn’t save Roe and Casey either. As Justice Alito points out, a strict adherence to stare decisis would never have overturned the civil rights monstrosity that was Plessy v. Ferguson.

 
I saw this last night and half expected the Supreme Court building to be burned to the ground this morning.
 

For many, this could have just robbed any chance of Republicans taking back Congress this Fall.  Not great timing.

 
Good riddance.  Sweeping federal statutes help no one, especially something as emotionally charged as this.

Amusingly, this doesn't mean abortions are illegal, just that states get to decide.  The majority of Americans believe there should be limitations on abortion, not the current carte-blanche disaster we have now.

 
Kat-A-Tonic said:
I think this entire "leak" was fabricated to energize the libtard base to skew the upcoming election.  So sick of the controlling media.  The timing is not random. 
Click to expand...
Decisions have been leaked before and this is nothing new.  The media itself it making the leak out as some big deal and it is not.  There will be someone getting fired once they figure out who did it.    

 
Kat-A-Tonic said:
I think this entire "leak" was fabricated to energize the libtard base to skew the upcoming election.  So sick of the controlling media.  The timing is not random. 
Click to expand...
100% accurate. This is @Mac said a direct response to the libs staying in office. If they can spin it as a Donald Trumps fault that these Judges were put there so in order to combat this....YOU MUST VOTE LIBERAL at the booth so consertatives cant control anything.

you can see the narrative in the messages below

Extremeism in both directions is not good at all for the country.

Tough times ahead!

:poule:

9E11016E-2014-4C76-9710-D4AA91B99608.jpeg

8C06CB6E-213B-4C11-BAFC-AB15B0CC2F27.jpeg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mac said:
I saw this last night and half expected the Supreme Court building to be burned to the ground this morning.
 

For many, this could have just robbed any chance of Republicans taking back Congress this Fall.  Not great timing.
Click to expand...
Meh, decision would be released in June anyway and 6 months is an eternity in politics.   It think where you will really see the impact will  be in state races in "purple" states . . .

 
Kat-A-Tonic said:
I think this entire "leak" was fabricated to energize the libtard base to skew the upcoming election.  So sick of the controlling media.  The timing is not random. 
Click to expand...


Chief Justice confirmed it's legit and as I mentioned above the decision will be handed down in June regardless.  So maybe Roberts joins the 3 others and it gets overturned 5-4.  Curious who the  leaker is.  Probably a random staffer (not a Clerk) who had access to it . . .

 
I will be honest, this is the one issue I kind of side to the Left (to a point).  In almost every other issue in this country I lean Right, but when it comes to abortion I believe in a woman's right to decided up to a certain age of the fetus.  I hope it is left as status quo.

Now leaking this info is certainly a political move.

 
Isn't the best version of any law when both sides are equally pissed off?

I don't know why anything was necessary for any change.

An abortion was legal with some guidelines, why are we moving that line in either direction?

This is just opening a cluster eff of a mess to get people all riled up.

#UnbornLivesMatter

#MyBodyMyChoice

Neither side should be happy, because both sides want everything and to deny the other side anything.

 
Rockwood said:
Good riddance.  Sweeping federal statutes help no one, especially something as emotionally charged as this.

Amusingly, this doesn't mean abortions are illegal, just that states get to decide.  The majority of Americans believe there should be limitations on abortion, not the current carte-blanche disaster we have now.
Click to expand...
I don't understand your logic here. Shouldn't major laws, like abortion or murder, be the same nationwide? I think one of the major injustices in this world is to see someone get prosecuted for something in one state that is still legal in another state. If the law isn't uniform throughout the land, then it seems pretty arbitrary. In other words, if something is fundamentally wrong, it must be wrong everywhere, not just 5 feet over the state line.

 
Crusty said:
Isn't the best version of any law when both sides are equally pissed off?

I don't know why anything was necessary for any change.

An abortion was legal with some guidelines, why are we moving that line in either direction?

This is just opening a cluster eff of a mess to get people all riled up.

#UnbornLivesMatter

#MyBodyMyChoice

Neither side should be happy, because both sides want everything and to deny the other side anything.
Click to expand...
The best version of a law is when morality and ethics are upheld. Laws that anger both sides do nothing but anger both sides, they are unjust if everyone is angry. Making murder illegal, for example, shouldn't piss anyone off.

This particular topic is fraught with emotion for a lot of people, but emotion shouldn't be a factor in law making. I also feel having court decisions determine future laws is stupid and dangerous. You end up with what we have here: constant re-interpretation of the law. The law should remain as a constant. If embezzlement is illegal in 1900, it should still be illegal now and for all time. The only reason to change laws is if they were poorly written, unjust or technology advances (like the internet) and it needs to be updated to cover new types of crimes.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
The best version of a law is when morality and ethics are upheld. Laws that anger both sides do nothing but anger both sides, they are unjust if everyone is angry. Making murder illegal, for example, shouldn't piss anyone off.

This particular topic is fraught with emotion for a lot of people, but emotion shouldn't be a factor in law making. I also feel having court decisions determine future laws is stupid and dangerous. You end up with what we have here: constant re-interpretation of the law. The law should remain as a constant. If embezzlement is illegal in 1900, it should still be illegal now and for all time. The only reason to change laws is if they were poorly written, unjust or technology advances (like the internet) and it needs to be updated to cover new types of crimes.
Click to expand...
Ethical standards do not remain fixed; they transform in response to evolving situations. Over time, people change, technology advances, and cultural mores (i.e., acquired culture and manners) shift.

Think of Slavery as a simple, recent example.

Life is not black and white, people are excitable, messy and miserable creatures filled with complex emotions unlike any other creature on earth.

You state Technological advance are ok to change laws, how is that different then folks who change their minds on what is socially expectable? It's still folks that create the technology anyways...still have people to blame LOL

 
The President by title only had no right sticking his nose in telling the SCOTUS what to do.  Next he will get charges on Hunter dropped.

 
Lord of the Dunes said:
I don't understand your logic here. Shouldn't major laws, like abortion or murder, be the same nationwide? I think one of the major injustices in this world is to see someone get prosecuted for something in one state that is still legal in another state. If the law isn't uniform throughout the land, then it seems pretty arbitrary. In other words, if something is fundamentally wrong, it must be wrong everywhere, not just 5 feet over the state line.
Click to expand...
Be careful what you wish for. We are a Republic which gives the states the power to govern and pass laws for their constituency as long as it doesn't infringe on the Constitution. If you allow the Federal Gov the power to institute laws at the local level, it will take away states rights to self govern.

The leaked draft does not indicate a ban on abortion, it indicates that it is a states right to pass laws in regards to abortion. Abortion is not a right granted in the constitution is what I am gleaning from the discussion of what the draft says. Thus, it is a states right to determine how abortion will be handled in their state. But the left will label this a ban on abortion.

Think about all the laws in the states we live in. Would you want these laws to be federalized and binding on half the country that think they are ludicrous? There are bizarre laws on the books in your state and mine that at least half the states would not even imagine instituting. Think about the mess around vaccine mandates. Imagine the Federal government having the power and authority to mandate the jab nationwide, which the Biden admin tried to do but repeatedly was shot down by courts. And so much for my body my choice which only applies to what the Dems/elites decide.

I am not an expert on constitutional law, so this is just an opinion I put out there for discussion.

 
Cookie said:
I will be honest, this is the one issue I kind of side to the Left (to a point).  In almost every other issue in this country I lean Right, but when it comes to abortion I believe in a woman's right to decided up to a certain age of the fetus.  I hope it is left as status quo.

Now leaking this info is certainly a political move.
Click to expand...
It doesnt end abortion. Allows states to decide. Overwhelming majority of americans support abortion up to 6 weeks (fetal heartbeat). Overwhelming majority of americans also support banning abortion after 6 weeks. 

Me. Take care if it before it becomes life with a heartbeat. After that its murder in my eyes. Its no longer just a womans body. Women have the right to chose when they spread their legs. 

And i dont wanna hear this rape nonsense. You get raped, take care of it. Im done subsidizing the lazy pathetic of our country.

a child is innocent.

Dirtbags can die in a ditch for all i care

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top