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

[Trunkage]

Gay marriage is covered by the 14th. That is not what the Supreme Court stated at all...

Dude, gay marriage want a thing for a 150 years after the 14th Amendment was written.

What are you even talking about?

Just because something says 'Equal Protection' or 'Due Process', that doesn't mean equal protection or due process.

You already proved how easy it is. Just say its not a right and it gone.

The 14th Amendment was used to make sure gay marriage wasn't a thing. That's why civil unions were a thing. It's seperate but equal again.

The US has 14 states that has laws against sodomy still. Even though these laws should be unconstitutional just under the 14th Amendment

What are you even talking about?

 

[Silvanus]

Because the state government has the power to do it and the federal government doesn't. Is a parent disciplining their kid overreach because a neighbor punishing said kid is overreach? Why isn't the parent "overreaching"?

!?! A neighbour punishing someone else's kid is "overreach" for reasons that are completely inapplicable to different branches of government.

Firstly, it's not the neighbour's job. But it explicitly is the assigned job of both state and federal government to legislate and regulate. So it would be more accurate to cast the federal government as the parent, and the state government as a babysitter.

Secondly, the state government wants to restrict the individual, and the federal government wants to stop them being restricted. So it would be more appropriate to say the babysitter wants to punish the kid for something they personally dislike (that the parent and child are both OK with), and the parent has forbade the babysitter from doing so.

That is not what the Supreme Court stated at all...

The Supreme Court explicitly stated that a right is not protected if the original writers of the Constitution didn't have it in mind, and it didn't have a "historical basis". You still have not addressed this-- just given your personal opinion that its not important.

 

[Agema]

One's body being within the scope of another right (for example unreasonable search and seizure including taking DNA) does not make a general right to bodily autonomy a thing, and it's hard to argue it is. Especially since it doesn't apply any time it would be inconvenient, and this particular topic is one of the only cases where it's treated as this sacred and inviolable thing.

That's interesting for you to use the word "sacred", because that's exactly the word used by SCOTUS in an 1891 ruling stating:
"No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person"

What is the point of the concept that you should not be harmed by others, if it does not include your body? What is the point of freedom of movement without your body? The principles that underlie all these, plus common law, sum up to a fairly clear set of principles. I certainly think that the lack of explicit reference in the Constitution can however lead to a lack of focus and muddle, such that the grey area might be quite broad.

A general right to bodily autonomy somehow even manages to cover this one class of drugs and procedures while not covering any others that one might find questionable. The same thing gets done with medical privacy, where a right to medical privacy barring regulating this class of drugs and procedures somehow doesn't prevent regulating any other class of drugs or procedures in the slightest.

A basic assumption is that people do as they please with theirs, with the law stepping in where there is a problem. Regulation of medical procedures exists because of the risk of harm, as patients do not have the competence to oversee their own treatment and require advice (obviously much less so for over-the-counter treatments). This leaves patients at risk of exploitation, malpractice, and so on. However, patient autonomy is an absolutely core, central plank of this: patients seek treatment, and healthcare practitioners (theoretically) deny services where those treatments will cause more harm than good as the patient is not competent to judge.

The most straightforward denial of bodily autonomy is to set against it the right for others (in this case, a fetus) to not be harmed, because it does create a rationale to infringe bodily integrity: any right may bend where it causes excessive damage to another right (such as incitement to violence for free speech). There is a clear case to restrict narcotics under a rationale of causing harm to others: wider damage beyond the user in terms of crime, accidents and more undeniably occurs. Whether prohibition is best practice is another matter, but there is a principle there.

To argue that there isn't a right of bodily integrity at all however is completely inconsistent with obvious implications of the Constitution and centuries of legal precedent to that effect. Although, of course, I cannot deny that at a practical level, as SCOTUS can just make up whatever shit they like and add or delete "rights" at will.

 

[tstorm823]

Hilarious.

All you really need to know to understand my point is the Kerner Commission. They did a presidential commission, approved by Lyndon Johnson himself, to study why there was so much civil unrest in the late 60s, after several Civil Rights Acts had passed. The major conclusion was that people in authority were still racist. LBJ rejected the report because he thought it made him look bad, and the policies of the Great Society cut against the report's conclusions at basically every turn.

The commission found black people wanted better jobs but weren't being hired by the white employers, the Great Society dramatically expanded welfare so that white people wouldn't have to hire black people. The commission found black people wanted to live in better neighborhoods, the Great Society built the projects so that poor black people could live in government-built ghettos instead. The commission found black people were upset at their treatment by the police, and Johnson was like "I just finished nationalizing and militarizing them, I can't turn back on that now."

 

[Silvanus]

All you really need to know to understand my point is the Kerner Commission. They did a presidential commission, approved by Lyndon Johnson himself, to study why there was so much civil unrest in the late 60s, after several Civil Rights Acts had passed. The major conclusion was that people in authority were still racist. LBJ rejected the report because he thought it made him look bad, and the policies of the Great Society cut against the report's conclusions at basically every turn.

The commission found black people wanted better jobs but weren't being hired by the white employers, the Great Society dramatically expanded welfare so that white people wouldn't have to hire black people. The commission found black people wanted to live in better neighborhoods, the Great Society built the projects so that poor black people could live in government-built ghettos instead. The commission found black people were upset at their treatment by the police, and Johnson was like "I just finished nationalizing and militarizing them, I can't turn back on that now."

This is such an simplistic understanding of welfare policies, and obvious/ intentional misrepresentation of the intentions behind them.

Like... expanded welfare for the worst off makes it so "white people wouldn't have to hire black people"? It's such a grossly inaccurate understanding of how welfare functions in reality, mixed up with regressive stereotypes about people and how they must be left suffering in poverty to address unemployment. The same standard right-wing bootstrap ideology, void of compassion or sense, that's been used for decades to justify cutting what little safety nets poorer people have.

 

[Agema]

All you really need to know to understand my point is the Kerner Commission. They did a presidential commission, approved by Lyndon Johnson himself, to study why there was so much civil unrest in the late 60s, after several Civil Rights Acts had passed. The major conclusion was that people in authority were still racist. LBJ rejected the report because he thought it made him look bad

More strictly, LBJ rejected because it would make white, middle class America look bad - and white, middle class America would then blame him.

And, holy shit, we can just imagine how batshit berserk conservative America would have gone if LBJ had embraced the report, because it was their worst nightmare. So I don't think any conservative has good grounds to criticise LBJ for declining to do something they'd have just hated even more.

 

[tstorm823]

More strictly, LBJ rejected because it would make white, middle class America look bad - and white, middle class America would then blame him.

LBJ didn't care about anyone but himself.

This is such an simplistic understanding of welfare policies, and obvious/ intentional misrepresentation of the intentions behind them.

Like... expanded welfare for the worst off makes it so "white people wouldn't have to hire black people"? It's such a grossly inaccurate understanding of how welfare functions in reality, mixed up with regressive stereotypes about people and how they must be left suffering in poverty to address unemployment. The same standard right-wing bootstrap ideology, void of compassion or sense, that's been used for decades to justify cutting what little safety nets poorer people have.

No, it isn't. It is completely the opposite of what you are suggesting. A presidential commission went out into the black communities across the country and spoke directly to the people, and the people said they wanted to work. They wanted jobs, but the good jobs wouldn't hire black employees. The welfare didn't encourage them to avoid work, it enabled the rest of society to ignore them while assuaging the guilt of excluding a permanent racial underclass.

 

[Silvanus]

No, it isn't. It is completely the opposite of what you are suggesting. A presidential commission went out into the black communities across the country and spoke directly to the people, and the people said they wanted to work. They wanted jobs, but the good jobs wouldn't hire black employees. The welfare didn't encourage them to avoid work, it enabled the rest of society to ignore them while assuaging the guilt of excluding a permanent racial underclass.

All of this is still relying on the discredited, regressive stereotype of welfare encouraging unemployment. An age-old right-wing trope used to justify cutting any and all societal safety net.

No, the presence of fairly basic welfare policies does not encourage unemployment. Rich assholes would have you believe that they do, because they want zero expenditure on ensuring people don't starve.

 

[Trunkage]

All you really need to know to understand my point is the Kerner Commission. They did a presidential commission, approved by Lyndon Johnson himself, to study why there was so much civil unrest in the late 60s, after several Civil Rights Acts had passed. The major conclusion was that people in authority were still racist. LBJ rejected the report because he thought it made him look bad, and the policies of the Great Society cut against the report's conclusions at basically every turn.

The commission found black people wanted better jobs but weren't being hired by the white employers, the Great Society dramatically expanded welfare so that white people wouldn't have to hire black people. The commission found black people wanted to live in better neighborhoods, the Great Society built the projects so that poor black people could live in government-built ghettos instead. The commission found black people were upset at their treatment by the police, and Johnson was like "I just finished nationalizing and militarizing them, I can't turn back on that now."

'So white people wouldn't have to hire black people'
'The commison found black people... werent being hired by white employers'
Did you just write this? Its a slight paraphrasing but close right?

Do you want to add anything? Do you see any logic fallacies?

 

[tstorm823]

No, the presence of fairly basic welfare policies does not encourage unemployment. Rich assholes would have you believe that they do, because they want zero expenditure on ensuring people don't starve.

The rich people pass the welfare policies and tax largely the middle class to pay for them so that they can justify lower wages for fewer, harder worked employees. The poor people who live with the consequences of these things largely and increasingly vote Republican.

Do you want to add anything? Do you see any logic fallacies?

No, and no. I look forward to whatever unreasonable misinterpretation you're going to come back with.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

The commission found black people wanted better jobs but weren't being hired by the white employers, the Great Society dramatically expanded welfare so that white people wouldn't have to hire black people. The commission found black people wanted to live in better neighborhoods, the Great Society built the projects so that poor black people could live in government-built ghettos instead. The commission found black people were upset at their treatment by the police, and Johnson was like "I just finished nationalizing and militarizing them, I can't turn back on that now."

Because welfare and ghettos are a black people only thing?

 

[tstorm823]

Because welfare and ghettos are a black people only thing?

No, certainly not.

 

[Silvanus]

The rich people pass the welfare policies and tax largely the middle class to pay for them so that they can justify lower wages for fewer, harder worked employees.

And yet those who favour welfare policies also tend to be those who support increasing wages for the working class, whereas those who stand against welfare policies-- the Republicans, largely-- simultaneously fight tooth and nail against increased wages, workplace protections, unionism, and essentially anything else that could improve the lot of the working class. Those who support welfare policies want the tax burden to be on the higher-paid, whereas those who fight against welfare policies also fight to shift the tax burden onto the lower-paid. Your narrative doesn't gel with observation and past experience.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Before the 13th Amendment, most people didn't consider the type of slavery that existed as the type of slavery that was bad

Any time you are forcing people to do labor for free is stealing labor

The 14th covers what the Supreme Court says it covers. They are the arbiter. And this 6-3 Supreme Court would say it doesn't cover gay marriage. There's no higher authority if they make a bad call


That does not mean that power is good. That power, in this case, makes a significant number of people significantly less free

You're seriously arguing having prisoners do work is some evil thing? You guys are just fucking ridiculous.

And then we shouldn't let immigrants in cuz they are stealing our jobs...

No they fucking wouldn't, stop parroting fucking nonsense and fear mongering, you're not fucking helping.

And? It doesn't mean it's overreach.

Dude, gay marriage want a thing for a 150 years after the 14th Amendment was written.

What are you even talking about?

Just because something says 'Equal Protection' or 'Due Process', that doesn't mean equal protection or due process.

You already proved how easy it is. Just say its not a right and it gone.

The 14th Amendment was used to make sure gay marriage wasn't a thing. That's why civil unions were a thing. It's seperate but equal again.

The US has 14 states that has laws against sodomy still. Even though these laws should be unconstitutional just under the 14th Amendment

What are you even talking about?

You guys are reading into a single ruling way too fucking much that has very little to actually do with these other issues. You're fear mongering that all these rights are gonna go away, they are not going anywhere. You're keeping the people and the public concerned about very small issues and causing exactly what "they" want you to be doing and not paying attention to the big picture things. You're not helping. There's lots of laws on the books that are unconstitutional or just plain stupid and are just no longer enforced.

!?! A neighbour punishing someone else's kid is "overreach" for reasons that are completely inapplicable to different branches of government.

Firstly, it's not the neighbour's job. But it explicitly is the assigned job of both state and federal government to legislate and regulate. So it would be more accurate to cast the federal government as the parent, and the state government as a babysitter.

Secondly, the state government wants to restrict the individual, and the federal government wants to stop them being restricted. So it would be more appropriate to say the babysitter wants to punish the kid for something they personally dislike (that the parent and child are both OK with), and the parent has forbade the babysitter from doing so.



The Supreme Court explicitly stated that a right is not protected if the original writers of the Constitution didn't have it in mind, and it didn't have a "historical basis". You still have not addressed this-- just given your personal opinion that its not important.

Every state is basically it's own country and the federal government has rather limited power over the states. The federal government's limited power did not extend to abortion, plain and simple and it's a state power. That's not fucking overreach. I really don't get how you're fucking arguing this. You guys will argue anything to disagree with me on literally anything. It's a pretty fucking simple concept. You just don't like that states can ban abortion and don't like anything that goes along with that.

How many times do I have to link the one video...? Did the orginal writers want every citizen to be equal?

 

[tstorm823]

And yet those who favour welfare policies also tend to be those who support increasing wages for the working class, whereas those who stand against welfare policies-- the Republicans, largely-- simultaneously fight tooth and nail against increased wages, workplace protections, unionism, and essentially anything else that could improve the lot of the working class.

Everyone supports better wages for the working class. Everyone does. Pre-covid Trump years, real wages for the working class were increasing and Republicans were all celebrating.

A high, federal minimum wage isn't about increasing wages for the working class: it's Democrats from blue cities who want to keep businesses in their districts, but the cost of living in cities is so much higher that there are benefits to setting up shop elsewhere in places money has effectively more value, and they want to eliminate those benefits by law.

Unions that you are required to join have no incentive at all to represent you. They take your money and pay it to Democrats who fight in the legislatures to continue making unions mandatory. I've worked for UPS, they required me to join the Teamsters. The guys supposed to represent us showed up only to campaign for their positions in the union, and they specifically stood outside the work area where they couldn't witness any violations they would have to report. And what did they do with my dues? Guess.

Workplace protections are good, but need to be balanced against other reasonable priorities. A lot of these things, there's debate to be had over competing prioripties. But here's the part I think you you get the least:

Those who support welfare policies want the tax burden to be on the higher-paid.

No, they don't. Not Democratic politicians at least. They convince people that the things they are taxing fall on the richest, but it's not true. Look at the so-called "Inflation Reduction Act". How are they funding it?

1) An increased corporate tax. Jeff Bezos' net worth comes from the value of Amazon stock, it is barely affected by taxing Amazon more, but those taxes change the math for how the company functions. The poor and middle class work for corporations, buy from corporations, and have their retirement tied to corporations, and the impact of corporate taxes is carried as much by the poor and middle class as the rich. Democrats want you to think corporate income tax is targeting the rich, but it isn't.
2) An additional tax on oil. Democrats want you to think they're taking money from big oil to pay for their programs, but that oil is being used by the poor and middle class who are paying for it. A tax on oil hits harder against a low wage worker in an old pickup truck than it does the oil baron.
3) Hiring a ton of IRS agents. Let's assume for the moment that the existing IRS activities sensibly prioritized people with larger tax obligations for scrutiny. Who do you think the additional 85,000 agents are going to audit that weren't being audited. It's the middle class. They're funding their programs from the middle class.

You want to target the rich? Where are tax bracket changes? Where's the luxury taxes on ridiculous things? Where's the punishment for tax havens? Where's the capital gains taxes? Democrats included a modest change to capital gains rules in the original bill, and then theatrically debated themselves out of it. Seriously, Schumer put it in so that Sinema could "make" him take it out. Republican's were completely uninvolved in cutting that from the bill. I'm not saying the Republicans are any different on the policy in this regard, Trump promised to close the exact same loophole in 2016 and then Republicans cut it from the 2017 tax reform bill, but at least they're not pretending to target the rich when they aren't.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You're seriously arguing having prisoners do work is some evil thing? You guys are just fucking ridiculous.

I don't care if prisoners work if it's voluntary, unionized, and at market rates

And then we shouldn't let immigrants in cuz they are stealing our jobs...

I don't care is undocumanted immigrants work as long as it's voluntary, unionized, and at market rates.

No they fucking wouldn't, stop parroting fucking nonsense and fear mongering, you're not fucking helping.

Why wouldn't they? No seriously, what's stopping them?

You guys are reading into a single ruling way too fucking much that has very little to actually do with these other issues. You're fear mongering that all these rights are gonna go away, they are not going anywhere. You're keeping the people and the public concerned about very small issues and causing exactly what "they" want you to be doing and not paying attention to the big picture things. You're not helping. There's lots of laws on the books that are unconstitutional or just plain stupid and are just no longer enforced.

Not a small issue and one of our big 2 political parties explicitly want it gone. 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices belong to that party. If gay marriage goes back to State's Rights, and there's no real reason it wouldn't, I've already explained the bad faith argument they'd use, It's instantly illegal in a lot of places including Montana

Every state is basically it's own country and the federal government has rather limited power over the states. The federal government's limited power did not extend to abortion, plain and simple and it's a state power. That's not fucking overreach. I really don't get how you're fucking arguing this. You guys will argue anything to disagree with me on literally anything. It's a pretty fucking simple concept. You just don't like that states can ban abortion and don't like anything that goes along with that.

Yes, because it hurts people. This is not complicated

How many times do I have to link the one video...? Did the orginal writers want every citizen to be equal?

Very obviously no

 

[Silvanus]

You guys are reading into a single ruling way too fucking much that has very little to actually do with these other issues.

The Justices themselves disagree with you. They explicitly said that the same rationale applies to Obergefell.

You're keeping the people and the public concerned about very small issues and causing exactly what "they" want you to be doing and not paying attention to the big picture things.

"I don't think it's important so you shouldn't care".

Every state is basically it's own country and the federal government has rather limited power over the states. The federal government's limited power did not extend to abortion, plain and simple and it's a state power. That's not fucking overreach. I really don't get how you're fucking arguing this. You guys will argue anything to disagree with me on literally anything. It's a pretty fucking simple concept. You just don't like that states can ban abortion and don't like anything that goes along with that.

You keep talking about how it's a "simple concept" as if there's a failure to understand your position. I understand just fine what your position is. I just think it's bollocks.

If I object to governments interfering excessively in the lives of citizens, and government branch 1 wants to interfere in the lives of citizens, but government branch 2 doesn't, then I'm going to object to government branch 1. I'm not going to give a shit about government branch 2 protecting me from that interference. Because the aspect that matters is not being interfered with.

You're effectively arguing that governments shouldn't hold too much power, and simultaneously arguing that governments must not be prevented from wielding too much power.

How many times do I have to link the one video...? Did the orginal writers want every citizen to be equal?

No, they very explicitly didn't want every citizen to be equal.

 

[Bedinsis]

3) Hiring a ton of IRS agents. Let's assume for the moment that the existing IRS activities sensibly prioritized people with larger tax obligations for scrutiny. Who do you think the additional 85,000 agents are going to audit that weren't being audited. It's the middle class. They're funding their programs from the middle class.

Estimates suggests that ~600 billion dollars of taxes gets uncollected each year, due to an underfunded IRS. Most of those uncollected taxes are from rich people who have the resources to challenge their taxes. In other words, the IRS is not doing their complete job, and it's the most wealthy people that are therefore able to cheat the system.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I don't care if prisoners work if it's voluntary, unionized, and at market rates
I don't care is undocumanted immigrants work as long as it's voluntary, unionized, and at market rates.
Why wouldn't they? No seriously, what's stopping them?
Not a small issue and one of our big 2 political parties explicitly want it gone. 6 of the 9 Supreme Court justices belong to that party. If gay marriage goes back to State's Rights, and there's no real reason it wouldn't, I've already explained the bad faith argument they'd use, It's instantly illegal in a lot of places including Montana

Yes, because it hurts people. This is not complicated

Very obviously no

Then they gotta pay for rent, food, etc.

What's stopping a left SC from doing whatever as well? I don't recall you all being so fearful of a left leaning court. You're all just mad the current SC is right leaning and act like they will undo whatever they want like that has ever happened in history.

They want you bickering of small issues (it is a small fucking issue), that's the point. Stop doing what they want you to do. Marriage isn't a state's right issue.

That doesn't mean the state overreached because it hurts people...

Cuz "all men created equal" doesn't mean everyone is equal...

The Justices themselves disagree with you. They explicitly said that the same rationale applies to Obergefell.



"I don't think it's important so you shouldn't care".




You keep talking about how it's a "simple concept" as if there's a failure to understand your position. I understand just fine what your position is. I just think it's bollocks.

If I object to governments interfering excessively in the lives of citizens, and government branch 1 wants to interfere in the lives of citizens, but government branch 2 doesn't, then I'm going to object to government branch 1. I'm not going to give a shit about government branch 2 protecting me from that interference. Because the aspect that matters is not being interfered with.

You're effectively arguing that governments shouldn't hold too much power, and simultaneously arguing that governments must not be prevented from wielding too much power.



No, they very explicitly didn't want every citizen to be equal.

No, they did not.

There's a such thing as priorities and focusing on minor issues and ignoring the bigger issues makes everything worse for everyone.

I wasn't arguing that at all. All I said was the state had the authority to make abortion laws and that's regardless what I feel about them. If the US was a dictatorship, I'd say the dictator could do anything they want because they have the power to do so. It's that simple.

Cuz "all men created equal" doesn't mean everyone is equal...

 

[tstorm823]

Estimates suggests that ~600 billion dollars of taxes gets uncollected each year, due to an underfunded IRS. Most of those uncollected taxes are from rich people who have the resources to challenge their taxes. In other words, the IRS is not doing their complete job, and it's the most wealthy people that are therefore able to cheat the system.

You mean an interview with the Biden appointed deputy treasury secretary/ former president of the Obama Foundation / former member of the Obama Administration claims those things. "Democrat insists they're only going after the rich people" is exactly the thing I'm disputing. Posting the words of a Democratic official as gospel truth is exactly the wrong response.