Leaderboard

If that's the case, then those 60-65% of Americans can elect legislators to write and pass laws to make/keep abortion legal (or illegal). This is one of the fundamental points of the Dobbs decision and also 5th grade civics. Legislators make laws not judges. There is no more right to an abortion in the Constitution than there is to eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

It's pedantic to just come back and say you need to look up what democracy is supposed to be (though you do), but you probably won't so I'll give you two sentences about what ours is here: we have a democratically elected government wherein three coequal branches of government share power. This was done to avoid what you'd like - which is a tyranny of the majority. Our system makes it impossible for 51 people to tell 49 others how to live. Sorry about it, but your misconception of this as anti-democratic is uncompelling. Likewise, appeals to what "polls" show Americans want are lackluster arguments. The only poll that matters is the one that takes place at the ballot box on voting day. Most Americans (including me up until last week) don't even know what Roe v Wade actually established. Spoiler alert, I looked it up, and Roe v Wade did not establish a woman had a right to choose to have an abortion. Roe v Wade held the following: It's amazing what you can learn when you read the actual decisions. In practice, this may be implemented in a manner that allows a woman to tell her physician that she needs an abortion and be granted one, but the case does not establish a "woman's right to choose." It absolutely does no such thing. So polls about subjects Americans have no, or limited, or misinformed levels of understanding can be safely disregarded. And more than that, the court is supposed to call balls and strikes; to keep the legislature and executive branches in check - not to express the will of the people. Seriously, I can't believe this has to even be stated, let alone defended. Read up on what the difference is between due process and substantive due process is. They deal with two esoteric legal concepts. I included the relevant text from Thomas' opinion since you are either haven't read, are misapprehending the case, or intentionally misconstruing it to support your viewpoint. Thomas isn't saying birth control should be made illegal. He's saying the basis upon which that case, and others like it, was decided needs to be re-evaluated. You can disagree about that, but there it is for you in black and white. On Griswold specifically, Connecticut was the only state in the union that had outlawed contraception, so that case really was about bringing an outlier back into line with the "thrust" of the rest of the country. Hence, gasping about how this case is somehow now endangered ignores both the historical context (49 to 1) and the temporal reality that it was decided before Roe (1965). Duh! Finally, the liberal dissent from the opinion is farcical. Out of one corner of their mouth, they lament that the majority in Dobbs reads history "all the way back to the 13th century (the 13th!)," while simultaneously, they ignore the fact that the case which kicked off this whole thing, Roe, in fact discussed Aristotelian philosophy, the Pythagorean school, ancient Jewish tradition, etc...in short, they need to get real. They are completely disingenuous and insincere in their overall approach to this case. Also note their parenthetical exclamation. It reads more like an activist's polemic than it does a serious legal treatise seeking to deal fairly with the law and the majority opinion.

If it’s the will of the populace, why hasn’t the legislature enacted legislation? That’s the avenue for democracy in our system to establish policy, if you remember your basic education.

Any argument against your opinion is not implicitly anti democratic, however you have no interest in arguing honestly.

If that turd passes, it's going to be a massive uphill battle for the rest of us. At best, we'll have to hope that the already agreed upon sections will have been good enough to make a passable TA. I didn't think it was possible, but appears they made their reserve even worse than it already was. Here's hoping it gets overwhelmingly rejected.

I'm not arguing the merits of your position, but the reasoning you're using. 1) We aren't a Democracy, we are a Republic, with democratic elements. The majority opinion that matters is the majority of States...not population. Without looking at the cross-tabs and the sampling methodology of the un-named polls you're referencing, I'm assuming most of your top-line number here is concentrated in CA and NY and not representative of the country as a whole. 2) The Supreme Court isn't designed to factor in popular opinion, it only uses the Constitution as it's grading criteria. Its apolitical, and as such, does not have a charter to reflect the 'will of the people' directly. It only reflects the 'will of the people' through deciding the constitutionality of specific cases before it. It also does not advise elected officials on possible constitutionality prior to policy/statute enactment. There may be an argument to pass some sort of Right to Privacy act that was used as the foundation for the original Roe case in the 1970s. But regardless, it's an issue that needs a legislative solution, not a court driven one. Call your Congressman, both locally in your state of residence, and in D.C.

You fundamentally do not understand the constitution, and thus do not understand Thomas. *Exactly* like Roe and the inferred right to privacy, substantive due process is a concept that has no actual basis in the constitution. Therefore regardless of their views, an originalist will oppose such precedents. The inability to separate legal reasoning from personal beliefs is a foundational flaw in progressive ideology. If you have the time, read the dissent with the specific focus of finding constitutional arguments. In over 60 pages, there are none. But on the risks of losing birth control and gay marriage, if we're cherry-picking non-majority concurrences, here's some from Kavanaugh, who will be on the court long after Thomas retires. "First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and mar- riage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the over-ruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents." "For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause" Roe proved that you can't answer deep societal debates with court-derived solutions. Now the system can once again work as intended. The population of each state gets to decide what is best for themselves, as long as it doesn't violate the constitution. Or a federal law protecting abortion can be passed. Or a constitutional amendment can be ratified. But if those solutions aren't reasonable, then maybe the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy.

Exactly. This is the feature, not a bug. Negatory, and others, when you signed up to support and defend the Constitution of the United States, did you not understand the system of government we have? It’s working as intended.. for the most part.

Cool, we’ve figured out the root cause. Now do we punish the children, when we agree they aren’t the root cause?

Man, nothing like having a relaxing cigar on the balcony on Bastion when those fuckers would light off.

Yes actually. People should have a say in how war is waged on their behalf. Would have been better off doing it that way than letting the egghead pretend-academics/pretend-warriors try the same thing harder for 2 decades while promoting themselves and laughing at common sense proposals.

The chain of command that said we were winning for 20+ years?

Somewhat aviation related

The root cause is shitty/lazy parents for sure. They wanted to be their kid’s best friend instead of their parent and mentor. And because of that they’ve produced kids who are entitled, lazy, ignorant, etc. And did you call me a clown for buying trophies? My son’s participation trophy he received in t ball years ago went directly in the trash at the field - he learned a valuable lesson on attitude and effort that day. Several millennial parents were mortified, the difference years later is my son doesn’t have an attitude or work ethic problem, where as their “best friends” do (I know some of them personally, their kids are everything we’ve been talking about). And now that I think about it, my boomer parents (and friend’s boomer parents) worked hard to give us kids a good life within their means. They parented and mentored us instead of coddling us. They actually did a hell of a job raising that wild pack of animals (err, kids) back in the 80s and 90s. The point - blaming someone else (especially in the past) while sitting on your ass gets nobody anywhere. Again for the 3rd? time, adapt and overcome or be a whiny bitch who will go nowhere. It’s actually pretty simple.

I am APZ, but had a retirement in the system as well, but I’m assuming a non-select. Should I have heard something from my CC either way? Non-select paperwork to sign? I’ve been on terminal leave since March and my retirement date is 1 Aug.

I for one am glad that my tax dollars are directly contributing to Russians burning to death in exploding combat vehicles. Example above, St. Javelin doing work.

People can express counterfactuals and develop contrarian takes. Its ok to discuss what could be, or what might be, or state some assumptions and develop an argument based on those assumptions. Russia's tactics make alot more sense given a narrative of 'self-defense', compared to 'imperial intent'. Why leave the power on? Why ignore leadership targets? Why let the oil flow? It all seems very odd. Imagine going into Iraq without striking any critical targets ahead of time. Zelensky is within striking distance, broadcasting from known locations, but they don't strike. Doesn't make much sense.

Bro, I was called a simp for Putin. Get the f*** out of here with your non-sense and go reflect on your hypocrisy.

Can’t wait for the shitstorm in 24 months as everyone there takes a 50% pay cut. No one in their right mind should stay there over a spot at the big 6, or even Spirit/Frontier/JBlue.

Meg Ryan was the hottest chick in the orginal

First, it’s rich to say that the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy when a very unpopular, anti-democratic, opinion was passed. Almost all polls show 60-65% of Americans support Roe - nearly 2:1. Now if you wanna make some bullshit argument about how the Supreme Court represents our republic or something, go for it, but I’d recommend you look up what a democracy is supposed to be. Also, it’s rich to say that I don’t understand something that is clearly extraordinarily contentious and not understandable. Its an opinion. It’s also rich to say that Thomas determines what is correct in the constitution. Also, Thomas’s written opinion was a majority concurrence, not a non-majority. My point, which is 100% valid, is that a real Supreme Court justice in the majority of this case is calling for some really ridiculous things in a real Supreme Court ruling. He called for re-examining whether I as a married person can use contraceptives with my wife behind closed doors. Also, you’re lying about the dissenting opinion having no constitutional basis. They clearly used the 14th amendment, but I don’t expect you to read, as you’ve demonstrated a curious aptitude for avoiding facts over many years now. Just to be clear, Roe was upheld precedent for the last 50 years and was reaffirmed in Casey. Just because this court changed their mind doesn’t mean that this court is correct or that the previous 7-2 ruling was incorrect. This doesn’t “prove” anything other than packing the court with conservative judges gives a different result. Congratulations. At this point, it’s easy to see the court as a politicized, less neutral, branch of government. Time to pack it up! How about, say, 21 justices? We can probably get 12 more before congress turns over to the republicans, no more rules! Why not? Oh, there’s precedent for there to be just 9 Supreme Court justices? Precedent doesn’t matter anymore.

"I got mine, fuck you all if I made it more difficult for you".

Yeah, actually, beyond all your other fallacies, let’s address whether government has an obligation to the American people to maintain a court that accurately represents the will of the people. Seems like there may be a moral imperative to bring the court back in line with American values in whatever way necessary, up to and including adding more moderate members to the court. Remember, any argument against this is implicitly anti democratic. Good luck.

Any argument against the total combined will of the American people isn’t anti democratic? It is clearly anti democratic. It’s not implicitly anti republic. What does arguing honestly mean, by the way? Did my opinion based on philosophy and reasonable arguments hurt your feelings?