WTF? (**NSFW**)

[ViperMan]

23 hours ago, pawnman said:

Yeah, we should stick to biblical marriage between a man and a woman. Or a man and a dozen women. Or a man and the sex slaves he conquers at war.  Or a man and his dead brother's wife. Or a man, his dozens of wives, and his concubines...

Who said anything about the bible? Jesus. You guys have a hard time absorbing (or even recognizing) any view that deviates from your own, narrow, predefined narrative about what constitutes "the other sides'" opinion.

Islamic, Hindu, European, African, Asian, Japanese, Polynesian, and Indian cultures all conceived as marriage as between a man and woman. You're listening skills are akin to the kid hammering a square peg into the round hole: if it doesn't fit into something I think I heard, pound on it harder. My point is simply that the court had/has no business altering the definition of a bygone human tradition.

23 hours ago, Prozac said:

Uh, so your position is gay couples can’t rear children/act as a family? There are thousands of gay couples (not to mention their children) who would strongly disagree with you. Why should spouses and children be denied benefits afforded to others just because of their sexual orientation? That sounds like the very definition of bigotry. 

Nope. Of course they can and do. So no one need disagree, nor should they be denied benefits. The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

[pawnman]

10 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

Who said anything about the bible? Jesus. You guys have a hard time absorbing (or even recognizing) any view that deviates from your own, narrow, predefined narrative about what constitutes "the other sides'" opinion.

Islamic, Hindu, European, African, Asian, Japanese, Polynesian, and Indian cultures all conceived as marriage as between a man and woman. You're listening skills are akin to the kid hammering a square peg into the round hole: if it doesn't fit into something I think I heard, pound on it harder. My point is simply that the court had/has no business altering the definition of a bygone human tradition.

Nope. Of course they can and do. So no one need disagree, nor should they be denied benefits. The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

Almost all of them recognize polygamy. Looking to enshrine that in federal law? Not that I'm opposed... consenting adults should be able to sign up for any legally binding agreements they want. 

[nsplayr]

30 minutes ago, ViperMan said:

The real solution from my perspective is to remove tax benefits from marriage. If kids become involved, then this can be adjudicated with the use of child tax credits or something along those lines. I got nothing against gay people. Thanks.

I used to think as you do, that the government should have just created a civil union that all couples would need to apply for and enter into if they wanted benefits from the government for being legally together, and then let churches/temples/mosques/etc. do whatever they wanted with "marriages."

Then I came to realize that there was already this thing "one weird trick" elegant solution in existence: it is called "marriage." Everyday people know what that means and implies and all laws and benefits were already setup to apply certain benefits to married couples. No need to invent some new government thing and change all the laws.

Furthermore, it was mostly the religious institutions I was most familiar with (Catholic & conservative protestants/jews/muslims) that didn't accept gay marriage pre-Obergefell, there were plenty of other denominations of christianity and other religions that already did. There's no reason why one church-recognized marriage should be less valid than another in the eyes of the government.

So honestly the small government, small-c conservative thing to do was just say look marriage is for everyone now rather than continuing to uphold legal discrimination from an important human institution. The new status quo post-Obergefell keeps the government out of religious matters (i.e. no church is forced by the government to conduct gay marriages), and keeps some of the more conservative churches out of government matters (i.e. no government can now withhold benefits to couples just because certain churches don't approve of their choices).

And big surprise - now 70%+ of Americans support this outcome because honestly I think it's plainly fair without burdening anyone - if you don't like gay marriage don't get one!

[ViperMan]

13 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

I used to think as you do, that the government should have just created a civil union that all couples would need to apply for and enter into if they wanted benefits from the government for being legally together, and then let churches/temples/mosques/etc. do whatever they wanted with "marriages."

Then I came to realize that there was already this thing "one weird trick" elegant solution in existence: it is called "marriage." Everyday people know what that means and implies and all laws and benefits were already setup to apply certain benefits to married couples. No need to invent some new government thing and change all the laws.

Furthermore, it was mostly the religious institutions I was most familiar with (Catholic & conservative protestants/jews/muslims) that didn't accept gay marriage pre-Obergefell, there were plenty of other denominations of christianity and other religions that already did. There's no reason why one church-recognized marriage should be less valid than another in the eyes of the government.

So honestly the small government, small-c conservative thing to do was just say look marriage is for everyone now rather than continuing to uphold legal discrimination from an important human institution. The new status quo post-Obergefell keeps the government out of religious matters (i.e. no church is forced by the government to conduct gay marriages), and keeps some of the more conservative churches out of government matters (i.e. no government can now withhold benefits to couples just because certain churches don't approve of their choices).

And big surprise - now 70%+ of Americans support this outcome because honestly I think it's plainly fair without burdening anyone - if you don't like gay marriage don't get one!

I find your reasoning fair. I just don't think it was the court's purview to unilaterally redefine it. Especially considering that its redefinition quite literally flips its meaning on its head. Again, it's extending benefits to people who were never intended to receive them. Maybe that necessitates revisiting the basis on which those benefits were first enacted. Probably does. Should whites be given access to affirmative action programs designed for blacks? How about able-bodied access for handicapped parking spaces? What about men getting women's sports scholarships? How 'bout social security payments for those who never worked? The point is things have their proper place and domain.

42 minutes ago, pawnman said:

Almost all of them recognize polygamy. Looking to enshrine that in federal law? Not that I'm opposed... consenting adults should be able to sign up for any legally binding agreements they want. 

Generally agree, I just don't think the government should give you a $ break for whatever relationship you happen to be in. That said, there is a difference between recognizing something, vs officially sanctifying it. Polygamy hasn't been a part of our modern tradition for a long time (unless you're part of some fringe religion).

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

I find your reasoning fair. I just don't think it was the court's purview to unilaterally redefine it.

👍

On your second point, I don't think the Court redefined anything, I think society did. Like I said, many denominations of churches/temples/etc. in the US already performed same-sex marriages before SCOTUS got involved. You're right that historically marriage was one man and between one and dozens of women (here's looking at you prophet Muhammad and Joseph Smith!), but that had clearly changed by time the Court got involved.

What was really at stake in Obergefell was government benefits, not religious approval, because some religions already approved! And some didn't and still don't and that's totally fine and outside the purview of judicial review. People can believe what they want.

Rather than creating some new asspain process every couple would have to go through, I think the Court did the right thing by just using the commonly-understood word & process of "marriage" and began applying it to everyone equally instead of only to some as was previously done.

Edited June 25, 2022 by nsplayr

[pawnman]

1 hour ago, ViperMan said:

 

Generally agree, I just don't think the government should give you a $ break for whatever relationship you happen to be in. That said, there is a difference between recognizing something, vs officially sanctifying it. Polygamy hasn't been a part of our modern tradition for a long time (unless you're part of some fringe religion).

You were literally just using "thousands of years of tradition" to justify your position. Now it's "modern tradition".

How long does something need to be established to qualify as "tradition", in your view?

[arg]

On 6/23/2022 at 9:46 AM, LumberjackAxe said:

Wait, you guys don't remember when you chose to be straight? Or any of your other sexual preferences/kinks? (This is sarcastic).

[Negatory]

Sweet! Clarence Thomas owning the libs:

"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

Remember when you guys said it was alarmist to say that contraception was potentially on the chopping block next after abortion. Here it is! Better stock up on birth control, because we're going full Gilead. Nevermind the fact that literally none of these policies (including abortion) are even remotely popular in our society. #democracy 

Gotta hand it to ya'll, the theocracy is coming together!

 

I, for one, am non-ironically donating to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They, along with TST, do some good work pointing out blatant hypocrisy and overstepping of religious bounds in government. May we all heal from this and ultimately come together as we are touched by his noodly appendage. R'amen.

Edited June 25, 2022 by Negatory

[Lord Ratner]

On 6/25/2022 at 12:10 AM, Negatory said:

Sweet! Clarence Thomas owning the libs:

"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."

Remember when you guys said it was alarmist to say that contraception was potentially on the chopping block next after abortion. Here it is! Better stock up on birth control, because we're going full Gilead. Nevermind the fact that literally none of these policies (including abortion) are even remotely popular in our society. #democracy 

Gotta hand it to ya'll, the theocracy is coming together!

 

I, for one, am non-ironically donating to the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. They, along with TST, do some good work pointing out blatant hypocrisy and overstepping of religious bounds in government. May we all heal from this and ultimately come together as we are touched by his noodly appendage. R'amen.

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.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Lord Ratner

[Negatory]

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.

Edited June 26, 2022 by Negatory

[Negatory]

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.

[SurelySerious]

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

[GKinnear]

I'm not arguing the merits of your position, but the reasoning you're using.

41 minutes ago, Negatory said:

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.

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.

 

19 minutes ago, Negatory said:

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.

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.

[Negatory]

12 minutes ago, SurelySerious said:

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

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?

Edited June 26, 2022 by Negatory

[SurelySerious]

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?

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.

[brickhistory]

19 minutes ago, Negatory said:

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?

[mudhen69]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

 Almost all polls show 60-65% of Americans support Roe - nearly 2:1. 

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.

 

[ViperMan]

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

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.

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:

Quote

"A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

...

The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician...

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.

1 hour ago, Negatory said:

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.

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.

Quote

As I have previously explained, “substantive due process” is an oxymoron that “lack[s] any basis in the Constitution.” “The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.

The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”

For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated.

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.

[herkbier]

9 hours ago, GKinnear said:

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.

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. 

[Smokin]

Also funny that the Democrats always seem to be upset whenever a precedent is overturned...  Roe v Wade, Plessy v Ferguson, Dred Scott...

As has been said elsewhere, 'I haven't seen the Democrats this upset since we took away their slaves!"

[Lord Ratner]

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

First, it’s rich to say that the left should reconsider the meaning of democracy when a very unpopular, anti-democratic, opinion was passed.

In a single sentence you prove my point.

 

Exactly what is an "anti-Democratic opinion? Are you implying the court overruled a democratically enacted law on abortion? I'm not sure at this point that you understand the purpose of the SCOTUS. Or perhaps you aren't familiar with how Roe was ruled?

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

but I’d recommend you look up what a democracy is supposed to be.

I'm but a layman, but I'm pretty sure voting, not opinion polls are how democracies function, yes? Again, please point me to the democratically-enacted abortion law (either through direct voting or representative legislation) that the court has overturned here.

 

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

It’s also rich to say that Thomas determines what is correct in the constitution.

Ok, you're fucking with me now, right? Who exactly do you think is *constitutionally charged* with determining what is correct in the constitution? I'll give you a hint, there are only 9 correct answers...

 

12 hours ago, Negatory said:

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.

This goes back to you not not understanding how an originalist works on the court. He did not call for re-examining whether you can use contraceptives with your wife. He called for re-examining whether that determination is meant to be a legislative one, or a judicial one. If you can't grasp the difference then this conversation will go nowhere. But you wouldn't be alone.

 

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

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.

Yes, exactly how Roe cited the 14th amendment. And yet there's nothing in the Fourteenth amendment that in any capacity protects abortion. This is where reading either Roe itself or the majority opinion would be valuable, as it quite clearly spells out the utter lack of support within the 14th amendment for abortion protections. Let's take a look:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Life and property obviously aren't at issue here (unless you mean the fetal life, which you don't). So we have liberty and equal protection.

 

Now, if you believe that in 1868 the country believed that anti-abortion laws represented a threat to the liberty of women, I'm not sure you'll find much historical support for that. So liberty is out.

 

And men are not given any special privilege to abort a fetus, not does constitutional law consider gender differences to be "unequal protection."

So explain to me, slowly, because I don't read much, how the fourteenth amendment applies.

 

13 hours ago, Negatory said:

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.

This is another one of those strange misunderstandings of how the court works, which is much more eloquently explained in the majority opinion that I could ever hope to do. But this logic doesn't hold in any historical context, as we have some pretty heinous rulings that had to be overturned 50 plus years later to right egregious wrongs. I think every black American is quite happy that stare decisis is not immutable. 

 

I don't think you know as much as you think you know.

[dream big]

16 hours ago, Negatory said:

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.

Pure democracy and popularity is irrelevant here.  The Supreme Court is not a representative body - their job is to interpret the law vis a vis the constitution.  There is no constitutional mandate for abortion, therefore 10th amendment applies and this goes back to the states.  That is ALL that happened here but “the sky isn’t falling” doesn’t bode well for the mainstream media and the left who consumes the narrative…they must always be outraged by something, especially now that the lack of Trump has left a void in their lives, not to mention convenient distraction from the current administration.  
 

Now will some states attempt to take more strict measures? Possibly, but like you said the popularity simply isn’t there to go pure fundamental when it comes to abortion.  

[SocialD]

I don't consider myself a liberal/democrat and I generally stay out of this shit, but I can't really get behind this decision (of course that doesn't really matter lol).  Though nothing is done in a vacuum and we can always get into correlation vs causation, it will be interesting to follow crime stats over the next 15-25 years to see if there is a spike in crime.  It will be especially interesting since we'll likely have many states that impose heavy bans on abortion and others that keep it mostly open.  It's not as easy as "just going to another state," and many more children will now be born into destitution and parentless and sometimes pretty horrific situations (ask any LEO friends that work the "rough" areas of any big city).  Many of these kids will be unwanted and likely treated as such by their parent/the system...this is a powder keg for criminalistic activities.  I think many will rue the day we overturned ROE.  Look that that, a damn poet, I should be writer or some shit...jk, my grammar suck ballz.

[Lord Ratner]

2 hours ago, SocialD said:

I don't consider myself a liberal/democrat and I generally stay out of this shit, but I can't really get behind this decision (of course that doesn't really matter lol).  Though nothing is done in a vacuum and we can always get into correlation vs causation, it will be interesting to follow crime stats over the next 15-25 years to see if there is a spike in crime.  It will be especially interesting since we'll likely have many states that impose heavy bans on abortion and others that keep it mostly open.  It's not as easy as "just going to another state," and many more children will now be born into destitution and parentless and sometimes pretty horrific situations (ask any LEO friends that work the "rough" areas of any big city).  Many of these kids will be unwanted and likely treated as such by their parent/the system...this is a powder keg for criminalistic activities.  I think many will rue the day we overturned ROE.  Look that that, a damn poet, I should be writer or some shit...jk, my grammar suck ballz.

Overturning Roe does not ban abortion, as you said, and I don't think as many states as people think will ban it.

 

I suspect only the most conservative states will outright ban Roe. Most of the rest will probably end up somewhere around where Europe ultimately settled, 12-16 weeks. CDC claims 91% of abortions are week 13 or earlier. So you're probably not going to see enough of a crime spike to rue anything.

 

 

[ecugringo]

2 hours ago, SocialD said:

I don't consider myself a liberal/democrat and I generally stay out of this shit, but I can't really get behind this decision (of course that doesn't really matter lol).  Though nothing is done in a vacuum and we can always get into correlation vs causation, it will be interesting to follow crime stats over the next 15-25 years to see if there is a spike in crime.  It will be especially interesting since we'll likely have many states that impose heavy bans on abortion and others that keep it mostly open.  It's not as easy as "just going to another state," and many more children will now be born into destitution and parentless and sometimes pretty horrific situations (ask any LEO friends that work the "rough" areas of any big city).  Many of these kids will be unwanted and likely treated as such by their parent/the system...this is a powder keg for criminalistic activities.  I think many will rue the day we overturned ROE.  Look that that, a damn poet, I should be writer or some shit...jk, my grammar suck ballz.

I read something a while back on NYC and Roe v Wade.  The hypothesis was that RvW stemmed violence in NYC by having fewer unwanted kids growing unto early adulthood which also tied in with when Guiliani took over as Mayor.  The argument was his policies didnt really turn NYC into a better place.  It was fewer criminals being born.  IDK what hte truth is.  But the argument that abortion = less crime is a pretty sad statistic.