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

[Phoenixmgs]

It's not a hard concept to understand. But you haven't actually given a reason. This is just restating your position again.

So, in your conception:

* State government bans something, taking the choice out of the hands of the people: Not overreach.

* Federal government says the state governments must not ban it-- which puts the choice back in the hands of the people: overreach.

So it's government overreach to... let people decide for themselves? But it's not government overreach to rob them of that decision and have the government make it for them? This is such topsy-turvy logic.

Because the fucking constitution, that's the reason.

Correct, it should be determined on a federal level.

Why? It's not in the constitution.

Nah, it's easy to explain: Government overreach is when the government lets people not live how he lives, because living how he does is the natural and good state.

Government overreach, in Republican lingo, is the Federal government telling state governments what to do.

Beyond that, state governments should be allowed to do what they like: such as ban abortion, gay marriage, teach creationism in biology classes and allow slavery. Nothing should be beyond their reach. Oh, except banning guns.

I'm not a Republican, I've literally never even voted for one. However, it's not that hard to read the constitution, it protects gay marriage and not having slaves, it doesn't protect abortion.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Why? It's not in the constitution.

Lmao

I'm not a Republican, I've literally never even voted for one. However, it's not that hard to read the constitution, it protects gay marriage and not having slaves, it doesn't protect abortion.

It doesn't protect gay marriage and it explicitly allows for slavery.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Lmao

It doesn't protect gay marriage and it explicitly allows for slavery.

13th and 14th amendments say otherwise.

 

[Agema]

I'm not a Republican, I've literally never even voted for one.

It does not matter whether you are a Republican or not: you appear to be talking about things in the same terms as Republicans employ.

 

[Silvanus]

Because the fucking constitution, that's the reason.

I don't give a toss about that reason. It's an amendable document. D'you have a reason related to... I don't know, morality or good governance? Something relevant to the actual merits of the law?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

It does not matter whether you are a Republican or not: you appear to be talking about things in the same terms as Republicans employ.

And Republicans are always wrong...?

I don't give a toss about that reason. It's an amendable document. D'you have a reason related to... I don't know, morality or good governance? Something relevant to the actual merits of the law?

I've only ever said Roe being overturned was the thing to do from a legal perspective. That's what a body like the Supreme Court is supposed to do, make decisions based on the legality of something, they aren't the Moral Court. Why didn't "your team" amend the document so such bad things didn't happen?

 

[Silvanus]

I've only ever said Roe being overturned was the thing to do from a legal perspective.

Oh, so you don't actually have an objection to "overreach" yourself, then; you were just espousing your specific reading of a document about which you have no strong feelings. K.

That's what a body like the Supreme Court is supposed to do, make decisions based on the legality of something, they aren't the Moral Court.

Supposed to, yes. That's not how it functions; it decides on the basis of the political inclinations of the sitting judges.

Why didn't "your team" amend the document so such bad things didn't happen?

"My team", lol.

 

[Agema]

I've only ever said Roe being overturned was the thing to do from a legal perspective.

Why? What expertise do you have on jurisprudence?

Your belief that overturning Roe is right is due to your disapproval of abortion and federal government power.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

13th and 14th amendments say otherwise.

The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery (please read it) and the 14th amendment doesn't apply as a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man (which will be the Supreme Court's justification)

 

[Trunkage]

The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery (please read it) and the 14th amendment doesn't apply as a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man (which will be the Supreme Court's justification)

The constitution and the amendments have a mythology to them that isn't based on real life facts

That is why Thomas had to use the 14th Amendment to make happen what the NRA pretends the 2nd Amendment says. Gun laws were always acceptable until something like Brown v BoE or Roe v Wade happened. The irony of what Thomas has done is not lost of me

Also, when people like Thomas say they are Originalists, they mean the original document with further amendments. Thomas openly talls about a 'White Constitution' and after the civil war, a 'Black Constitution.' The later is NOT original thus can be discarded... unless its politically advantageous. I.e. Originalist just means Anti-SJW

 

[Seanchaidh]

Because the fucking constitution, that's the reason.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

In case you were still operating under the delusion that the GOP just cares about federal overreach, they're arguing to ban mailed prescriptions of abortion inducing drugs on a federal level

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Oh, so you don't actually have an objection to "overreach" yourself, then; you were just espousing your specific reading of a document about which you have no strong feelings. K.



Supposed to, yes. That's not how it functions; it decides on the basis of the political inclinations of the sitting judges.



"My team", lol.

Government shouldn't overreach regardless of how "good" or "bad" something is.

The right decision was overturning it regardless of political inclinations...

You definitely back one team way way way way more than the other team so, yes, your team.

Why? What expertise do you have on jurisprudence?

Your belief that overturning Roe is right is due to your disapproval of abortion and federal government power.

RBG said as much...

Also, if any medical procedure could be done due to privacy, then euthanasia wouldn't be done on a state-by-state basis.

The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery (please read it) and the 14th amendment doesn't apply as a gay man is just as free to marry a woman as a straight man (which will be the Supreme Court's justification)

OMFG, stop parroting fucking bullshit. And, yes, I fucking know what the 13th amendment says and it's perfectly fucking fine.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That doesn't say what you think it says.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

OMFG, stop parroting fucking bullshit. And, yes, I fucking know what the 13th amendment says and it's perfectly fucking fine.

You said we got rid of slavery, 13th amendment says that slavery is fine if it's for the punishment of a crime. The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery, your protests notwithstanding.

You claim the 14 amendment would prevent states from outlawing gay marriage, but that decision was 5-4 and 2 of the 5 got replaced by people who'd definitely vote with the 4. And I just noted the argument they'd use. But hey, if they make that definitely wrong decision, we'll just appeal to the Supremer Court

 

[Silvanus]

Government shouldn't overreach regardless of how "good" or "bad" something is.

That's a value judgement. It isn't even "overreach" until you think it's gone too far; that's what it means.

The state governments are reaching much further into peoples' personal lives, but that doesn't qualify as overreach in your conception.

The right decision was overturning it regardless of political inclinations...

You've already stated that you don't actually agree with the legal basis the judges used to overturn it. They explicitly said that rights should only be considered protected if they had a "historical basis", and that the founders actually had those rights in mind when they wrote the Constitution. And you've already said you don't agree with that approach.

You're projecting your own layman's armchair understanding of law onto the SCOTUS judges, when their actual stated rationale is one you've already dismissed.

You definitely back one team way way way way more than the other team so, yes, your team.

Certainly I object to the Republicans more, because they're aggressively hostile towards basic human compassion, decency and law. Doesn't mean I particularly like or identify with the limpdick corporatists in the Democratic Party.

 

[Trunkage]

You said we got rid of slavery, 13th amendment says that slavery is fine if it's for the punishment of a crime. The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery, your protests notwithstanding.

You claim the 14 amendment would prevent states from outlawing gay marriage, but that decision was 5-4 and 2 of the 5 got replaced by people who'd definitely vote with the 4. And I just noted the argument they'd use. But hey, if they make that definitely wrong decision, we'll just appeal to the Supremer Court

If you want to know what the War on Drugs was all about, it was about using the 13th Amendment to gain slaves

Oh, and profits from prisons

 

[Schadrach]

Lmao

It doesn't protect gay marriage and it explicitly allows for slavery.

At the very most it doesn't prevent individual states from refusing to permit gay marriages to occur within their state, but they have to accept gay marriages done in other states. Because states are required to accept marriages done in other states, constitutionally.

As for slavery, it explicitly allowed for slavery in general until passage of the 13th amendment, after which neither slavery nor involuntary servitude is permissible except as punishment for a crime. Penal systems are basically unworkable if you cannot legally compel convicts to do things against their will. Notably, other things that would logically be "involuntary servitude" are not included in the 13th, such as conscription - there was a case arguing that being compelled into military service against one's will is involuntary servitude by definition in the early 20th century that basically got laughed out of court.

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

OK, so what sort of rights are we talking here? Is it just "There's a constitutional right to policies I support"? If not, what more general right applies, and does that right apply in all contexts?

 

[Agema]

RBG said as much...

Firstly, in the greater scheme, that's not quite true. She certainly thought there was a case to enforce abortion rights at a federal level, she just preferred it had been through a different rationale.

Secondly, in any case, the 1970s SCOTUS justices said it was legal, and many more subsequently verified that legality. So why does any single justice's opinion count for more than all of them? (Technically, every decision that isn't unanimous - of which are a lot - tells us that the legal interpretation is far less clear than anyone would like to pretend.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You said we got rid of slavery, 13th amendment says that slavery is fine if it's for the punishment of a crime. The 13th amendment explicitly allows for slavery, your protests notwithstanding.

You claim the 14 amendment would prevent states from outlawing gay marriage, but that decision was 5-4 and 2 of the 5 got replaced by people who'd definitely vote with the 4. And I just noted the argument they'd use. But hey, if they make that definitely wrong decision, we'll just appeal to the Supremer Court

I AM FUCKING AWARE OF WHAT IT SAYS. Having prisoners work is not inherently bad.

STOP PARROTING BULLSHIT.

That's a value judgement. It isn't even "overreach" until you think it's gone too far; that's what it means.

The state governments are reaching much further into peoples' personal lives, but that doesn't qualify as overreach in your conception.



You've already stated that you don't actually agree with the legal basis the judges used to overturn it. They explicitly said that rights should only be considered protected if they had a "historical basis", and that the founders actually had those rights in mind when they wrote the Constitution. And you've already said you don't agree with that approach.

You're projecting your own layman's armchair understanding of law onto the SCOTUS judges, when their actual stated rationale is one you've already dismissed.



Certainly I object to the Republicans more, because they're aggressively hostile towards basic human compassion, decency and law. Doesn't mean I particularly like or identify with the limpdick corporatists in the Democratic Party.

State governments have the power to do it, thus it's not overreach. How is this concept so hard to understand?

That was literally only one small part of the argument.

Both parties work together, they are just playing their role, the republicans are the heel so of course they will look worse.

Firstly, in the greater scheme, that's not quite true. She certainly thought there was a case to enforce abortion rights at a federal level, she just preferred it had been through a different rationale.

Secondly, in any case, the 1970s SCOTUS justices said it was legal, and many more subsequently verified that legality. So why does any single justice's opinion count for more than all of them? (Technically, every decision that isn't unanimous - of which are a lot - tells us that the legal interpretation is far less clear than anyone would like to pretend.

Yes, the way Roe was argued, it was bound to be overturned. I didn't say you couldn't argue that abortion is a right via the constitution, it just wasn't 50 or so years ago.

 

[Silvanus]

State governments have the power to do it, thus it's not overreach. How is this concept so hard to understand?

I'm not lacking understanding of your position. I understand exactly what your position is. I just think it's bollocks.

Why is something automatically disqualified from being "overreach" if it's a state government doing it? That's an arbitrary line you've decided on. You're being utterly morally inconsistent if you excuse invasiveness and overreach if it's just the correct branch of government doing it.

That was literally only one small part of the argument.

It was pretty damn central. Your layman's understanding of law is completely at odds with that of the Supreme Court itself.

Both parties work together, they are just playing their role, the republicans are the heel so of course they will look worse.

"Of course the party doing the worse things will look worse" is a hell of a defence.