Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I love the fact that they did this in a midterm year. Like do they think this will help the Republican Party? was it worth it to just to make sure a 14 year old has a baby?

Make them pay for this by voting them out and protest fiercely.
I really hope it does energize the democratic base since things were looking bad mid terms, if we get lucky this might even push us past needing Manchin and Sinema. But I think there are more democratic seats up then republican ones, so we will see if people do care about this kinda thing yet.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

ObsidianJones

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 29, 2020
1,118
1,442
118
Country
United States
I really hope it does energize the democratic base since things were looking bad mid terms, if we get lucky this might even push us past needing Manchin and Sinema. But I think there are more democratic seats up then republican ones, so we will see if people do care about this kinda thing yet.
I've said this before, I'll say it forever.

It is not up to the democrats. It's not up to the Republicans. It is up to the independents. The Fence sitters. If the independents have feelings about this, they need to make their voice heard as well.

Even though I'm not technically a democrat any more (Progressive), it's very convenient to try to pin it on the softest target.

Republicans vote in evil and dumb asses and get to point the fingers to the democrats.

Democrats keep trying to follow rules of civility that no one cares for, and the people just want to see action. Hence the push for Progressives and the distancing of Corporates like Pelosi.

And Independents sit with their thumbs up their ass and go "I'm impartial".

If it's so universally bad that you can blame one, you can blame all. Democrats, be f'ing warriors. Republicans, Be f'ing smarter. Independents, choose a real God Damned Side.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Godzillarich(aka tf2godz)

Get the point
Legacy
Aug 1, 2011
2,946
523
118
Cretaceous
Country
USA
Gender
Dinosaur
I really hope it does energize the democratic base since things were looking bad mid terms, if we get lucky this might even push us past needing Manchin and Sinema. But I think there are more democratic seats up then republican ones, so we will see if people do care about this kinda thing yet.
This midterm is going to be really interesting, my states is swing state PA, and governor and Senate are not going to be easy battles.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,538
118
Why should that matter when we vote? We don't get any say in the Supreme Court justices. And if the last few years have shown anything, it's that the idea of "for the people" is fucking bullshit. I hate to sound defeatist, and I do vote whenever I can, but as soon as someone gets into power, that's it, that's all. Either side, doesn't matter. They'll do what they want, and all the protests mean jack shit, because the people can't actually do anything.
Well, yes, to a large extent, however the possibility of Trump getting in, stacking the SCOTUS and them then overturning Roe vs Wade was being mentioned before the election. On this particular issue, it actually did come down to the ballots (given the usual unfairness of how things are counted and all).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,570
4,374
118
And there's about 30 to 40 more years worth of human rights erosion where that came from. I hope that sticking it to those liberal elites was worth it.
 

XsjadoBlaydette

Piss-Drinking Nazi Wine-Mums
May 26, 2022
953
1,265
98
Country
Wales
Annnd there it is, just as predicted



“Correcting the error,” as Thomas put it, would have dramatic implications for American life. Without Griswold, states would be free to ban contraception, even for married couples. Without Lawrence, police could arrest people for engaging in sexual activity previously outlawed by so-called “sodomy laws.” (Though this would primarily affect people in same-sex relationships, it could also conceivably apply to a significant number of heterosexual couples as well.) And without Obergefell, states would once again be free to deny Americans the right to unite themselves in marriage to the person they love.

Why would these decisions be imperiled? Alito’s argument against a constitutional right to obtain an abortion rests on the premise that such a right was not firmly rooted in the Anglo-American legal tradition. He cited a chain of legal scholars stretching back to medieval England who viewed abortion as equivalent to homicide—the exact opposite of a right. He also noted that most states criminalized or otherwise banned abortion until the 1960s, suggesting that it was not rooted in the post-revolutionary constitutional firmament of rights either.

“The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with,” the liberal justices noted. “The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid-20th century, ‘there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].’ So one of two things must be true. Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

According to Thomas, it is the latter. He criticized previous generations of justices for establishing rights that weren’t clearly delineated from the Constitution itself. “In practice, the Court’s approach for identifying those ‘fundamental’ rights ‘unquestionably involves policymaking rather than neutral legal analysis,’” he wrote, again citing his past writings. “The Court divines new rights in line with ‘its own, extra-constitutional value preferences’ and nullifies state laws that do not align with the judicially created guarantees.”

Thomas also argued that the court’s approach to substantive due process had caused immeasurable harm to American society. The two examples he cited were Dred Scott v. Sandford, which he described as a substantive due process case, and the court’s abortion jurisprudence, to which he attributed 63 million abortions since 1973. It is unclear how the use of contraception, the decriminalization of same-sex relationships, or the existence of married same-sex couples harms anyone in any way. But that may not be enough to save them.

The court’s defenders might try to reassure Americans by noting that Thomas wrote only for himself, and that Alito’s attempt to distinguish the precedents is the actual opinion of the court. That would be more comforting if Thomas’s previous concurring and dissenting opinions weren’t increasingly turning into the opinion of the court down the road. For years, he complained that his colleagues had let the Second Amendment turn into a “second-class right.” His majority opinion in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen earlier this week aggressively reversed that trend.

Indeed, Alito’s own opinion in Dobbs includes no fewer than nine references to concurring and dissenting opinions written by Thomas himself over the past few decades. And Alito himself has called upon his colleagues in the past to reconsider the scope of Obergefell in particular, arguing that it unfairly singled out Americans who oppose same-sex marriage as bigots and did not sufficiently respect their rights to religious freedom.

There is nothing funny about Friday’s ruling. But it is darkly ironic that Alito went to such great lengths to tell Americans that the court’s ruling in Dobbs wouldn’t disturb any other constitutional rights, only for his closest ally on the court to effectively declare open season upon them. Future efforts by the Supreme Court should thus come as no surprise.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

meiam

Elite Member
Dec 9, 2010
3,330
1,645
118
Still got time to pack the court before mid term. No point in playing by unwritten rule when rep just ignore them anyway, its clear that if the situation was reverse they'd be doing just that.
 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
19,570
4,374
118
The Republicans have made ti abundantly clear that they would rather rule over a failed dystopia than live in a prosperous state where they're not in charge.
In the shit stained, maggot infested brains of all Republicans them ruling equates to prosperity regardless.
 

Leg End

Romans 12:18
Oct 24, 2010
2,948
58
53
Country
United States
Multi party systems aren't much better. Really we don't have a strict 2 party system, we have a defacto one since the 2 parties just kinda happened. If you want to see the shitshow of a multiparty enforced system then check out Jerusalem's election issues with having to get a majority.
I mean, I'm a proponent of Mad Maxing it, but fair counter.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
In the shit stained, maggot infested brains of all Republicans them ruling equates to prosperity regardless.
Well yeah, because their policies are only beneficial to the already over-privileged. If everyone else suffers, that's just God's will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan

Dreiko

Elite Member
Legacy
May 1, 2020
2,694
895
118
CT
Country
usa
Gender
male, pronouns: your majesty/my lord/daddy
Its more the US fault for having a system where those who convincingly won the vote can still lose the election on a technically such as the loser having performed marginally better in a few random places.
If you fail to beat someone like Trump convincingly enough that's an indictment of you regardless. Also the rules are equal for both parties and both agreed to play by them so complaining after the fact makes no sense.

If they wanna make abolishing the electoral college a campaigning issue I'm 100% for that...but they ACTUALLY have to do that, not just bring it up after losing and never when they win. They have to ahead of time go in with the intention of changing that part of the system. And then actually DO that once they win.


I really hope it does energize the democratic base since things were looking bad mid terms, if we get lucky this might even push us past needing Manchin and Sinema. But I think there are more democratic seats up then republican ones, so we will see if people do care about this kinda thing yet.
We knew they were likely gonna do this but I don't think it has had any effect in the elections so far, has it?


I guess it's interesting to see if it will mobilize more people to vote or make even more people be fed up with the democrats instead.


And hey you never know, it may energize republicans cause their last win has born fruit in their eyes so they may want to go for more. Maybe they can overturn women's right to vote next or something.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Specter Von Baren

Worgen

Follower of the Glorious Sun Butt.
Legacy
Apr 1, 2009
14,415
3,393
118
Gender
Whatever, just wash your hands.
I mean, I'm a proponent of Mad Maxing it, but fair counter.
Mad Maxing it just would mean we end up in the same situation since if its everyone for themselves then the bigger group gets power and grows bigger and bigger and before you know it you have government again.

I've said this before, I'll say it forever.

It is not up to the democrats. It's not up to the Republicans. It is up to the independents. The Fence sitters. If the independents have feelings about this, they need to make their voice heard as well.

Even though I'm not technically a democrat any more (Progressive), it's very convenient to try to pin it on the softest target.

Republicans vote in evil and dumb asses and get to point the fingers to the democrats.

Democrats keep trying to follow rules of civility that no one cares for, and the people just want to see action. Hence the push for Progressives and the distancing of Corporates like Pelosi.

And Independents sit with their thumbs up their ass and go "I'm impartial".

If it's so universally bad that you can blame one, you can blame all. Democrats, be f'ing warriors. Republicans, Be f'ing smarter. Independents, choose a real God Damned Side.
Fence sitters are just that, they tend to be scared of things that go too far one direction or another but its easier to make an argument for changing something to how it was then to push changing everything to how it should be. So democrats need to be more moderate to not scare them off, its why its not uncommon to see the more progressive candidate lose the primary unless its already in a solidly democratic area. Republicans have an easier time making arguments to emotion since they can argue the status quo of childhood, progressives are trying to argue for change which is harder.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
3,129
2,362
118
Country
USA
And illegal in Missouri even in cases of rape, incest, and incestual rape

Fucking ghouls.

Fence sitters are just that, they tend to be scared of things that go too far one direction or another but its easier to make an argument for changing something to how it was then to push changing everything to how it should be. So democrats need to be more moderate to not scare them off, its why its not uncommon to see the more progressive candidate lose the primary unless its already in a solidly democratic area. Republicans have an easier time making arguments to emotion since they can argue the status quo of childhood, progressives are trying to argue for change which is harder.
In other words, fence sitters are stupid and/or have no convictions to have courage in.
 

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,962
118
Why should that matter when we vote? We don't get any say in the Supreme Court justices.
Yes, and one can perhaps understand the shakiness of a system where the justices are semi-democratic (in that they are appointed by the president), and the party that has held the presidency for only 12 of the last 30 years has appointed 6 of the 9 judges.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dalisclock