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

[Silvanus]

No, they did not.

In deciding whether a right falls into either of these categories [of protected rights], the question is whether the right is “deeply rooted in [our] history and tradition” and whether it is essential to this Nation’s “scheme of ordered liberty.” The term “liberty” alone provides little guidance. Thus, historical inquiries are essential whenever the Court is asked to recognize a new component of the “liberty” interest protected by the Due Process Clause.

[...]

Guided by the history and tradition that map the essential components of the Nation’s concept of ordered liberty, the Court finds the Fourteenth Amendment clearly does not protect the right to an abortion. Until the latter part of the 20th century, there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain an abortion.

The Court surveyed more than 700 years of “Anglo-American common law tradition,” and made clear that a fundamental right must be “objectively, deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition,”

^ They state that a fundamental right must have a "historical" basis, and argue that abortion is not protected because it was not considered constitutionally protected in the past.

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.

^ They state that the Due Process arguments in other cases, including Obergefell, are wrong and should be "corrected".

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

And how, exactly, does protecting same-sex marriage detract from those other issues? Why is the defence of it a distraction, but the attack on it isn't?

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

You may recall that at the time of the Constitution being written, people kept other people as slaves, and women could not vote, and gay people were legally disallowed from having sexual relationships.

 

[Trunkage]

Everyone supports better wages for the working class. Everyone does.

No

 

[Trunkage]

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

The way you are writing it sounds like the Great Society was fixing a problem

 

[Phoenixmgs]

^ They state that a fundamental right must have a "historical" basis, and argue that abortion is not protected because it was not considered constitutionally protected in the past.



^ They state that the Due Process arguments in other cases, including Obergefell, are wrong and should be "corrected".



And how, exactly, does protecting same-sex marriage detract from those other issues? Why is the defence of it a distraction, but the attack on it isn't?



You may recall that at the time of the Constitution being written, people kept other people as slaves, and women could not vote, and gay people were legally disallowed from having sexual relationships.

Abortion =/= gay marriage...

Marriage and equality is not historically apart of America?

Reconsider doesn't mean wrong.

You're wasting your time in a very minor battle and ignoring the actual war. The "attack" itself is just there to distract you, it's not serious.

And you're actually going to argue that the original intent was that only white men are equal? Gay marriage should be the least of your worries if you think that. Plus, they'd have to repeal several amendments first to actually say the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to others other than white men. And the SC can't do that because it has to go through Congress. The SC can do anything it wants is pure BS.

 

[Silvanus]

Abortion =/= gay marriage...

So? The Supreme Court justices said they believe the same rationale applies to Obergefell as it did to Roe.

Marriage and equality is not historically apart of America?

Same sex marriage isn't, no.

You're wasting your time in a very minor battle and ignoring the actual war. The "attack" itself is just there to distract you, it's not serious.

I'd love to share your complacency. But so far you've just demonstrated that your opinion is completely at odds with that of the people who actually wield the power.

Besides which, I haven't ignored anything else in favour of this argument. People are actually capable of having views on more than one thing at once. At least, I am.

And you're actually going to argue that the original intent was that only white men are equal? Gay marriage should be the least of your worries if you think that. Plus, they'd have to repeal several amendments first to actually say the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to others other than white men. And the SC can't do that because it has to go through Congress. The SC can do anything it wants is pure BS.

They wouldn't need to repeal any Amendments; merely come up with a flimsy justification for why they didn't apply. And they themselves have already said that simply not having a "historical basis" is justification enough.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Then they gotta pay for rent, food, etc.

No they don't, they're being held against their will. Prisons *should* cost, so that we have less incentive to keep people there unnecessarily.

What's stopping a left SC from doing whatever as well?

Nothing. You really don't get how flimsy the US government can be, huh

I don't recall you all being so fearful of a left leaning court.

Why would I be scared of people doing what I want? Did you even think about this argument? Besides, if "the left" ever got close to that kind of power, the FBI would ramp up assassinating activists.

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.

Killed Roe, directly stated what they're going after next, party supporting them wants it bad enough to write in their party platform, plus just...the loads of other bullshit they've been up to.

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.

It is if they want it to be. And it was until a 5-4 decision said it wasn't less than a fucking decade ago.

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

I don't care, it's hurting people.

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

Correct: That was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, you needed to own property to vote, women didn't count, and they owned slaves, dumbass.

 

[Trunkage]

And you're actually going to argue that the original intent was that only white men are equal? Gay marriage should be the least of your worries if you think that. Plus, they'd have to repeal several amendments first to actually say the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to others other than white men. And the SC can't do that because it has to go through Congress. The SC can do anything it wants is pure BS.

The constitution at the time of writing was not for white men. It was for rich white men.

Anyway, this Supreme Court ruling stated that women don't have the rights access to health and privacy as a man

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

They wouldn't need to repeal any Amendments; merely come up with a flimsy justification for why they didn't apply. And they themselves have already said that simply not having a "historical basis" is justification enough.

"Gay men have the same right to marry women as straight men do, and it's up to States if they want to allow Extra Rights" is the easy flimsy justification. Add in a federal law based on that that says any state marriage that isn't the above counts as a separate but equal federal civil union so that other states don't have to recognize them and they're golden.

It's an Obvious Injustice, but that doesn't actually matter if most of the Supreme Court doesn't care.

 

[Agema]

LBJ didn't care about anyone but himself.

Extraordinarily doubtful, and it suggests you have only come to that conclusion by simply ignoring myriad things he said and did. He may have had a welter of character flaws, but a person does not work so hard and put so much on the line to try to improve the lives of others because they only care about themselves.

 

[Elijin]

@Phoenixmgs you get the original intent of "all men are born equal" is that they split off from a monarchy, where certain men are born with a divine right to rule???

Over the years it evolved to be more progressive, but it was initially a direct opposition of divine mandate of the monarchy and the royal and noble power structure.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

*Slow Clap*


Louisiana's abortion ban says you can't have an abortion when the fetus has a heartbeat. The fact that it doesn't have a skull is irrelevant

Edit: And "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" can fuck *all* the way off, fucking hell

In desperation, Davis visited Care Pregnancy Clinic, a pregnancy crisis center that discourages abortions, on Flannery Road. Staff gave her information on how to bury the baby and said their prayers were with her.

 

[tstorm823]

Extraordinarily doubtful, and it suggests you have only come to that conclusion by simply ignoring myriad things he said and did. He may have had a welter of character flaws, but a person does not work so hard and put so much on the line to try to improve the lives of others because they only care about themselves.

He put nothing on the line, and did everything to glorify himself.

The way you are writing it sounds like the Great Society was fixing a problem

No. The Kerner Commission acknowledged the problem, and the Great Society programs exacerbated the problem. When the problem is people being actively excluded from society, taxing people's money away to pay for those excluded to live in an even more excluded community is not fixing the problem.

 

[Trunkage]

They wouldn't need to repeal any Amendments; merely come up with a flimsy justification for why they didn't apply. And they themselves have already said that simply not having a "historical basis" is justification enough.

The historical basis justification is utter nonsense. Some places banned abortion. Some places was pro-abortion. Most didn't have a law and just let abortion happen

I like pro-coal people pretending coal power plants have always been the most important power source. We can't get rid of it, it's tradition. Instead of reality, where coal power only been really important to the energy grid since just before Roe v Wade, particularly when they pushed out Nuclear

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

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

It sure didn't mean black people.

 

[Trunkage]

He put nothing on the line, and did everything to glorify himself.

No. The Kerner Commission acknowledged the problem, and the Great Society programs exacerbated the problem. When the problem is people being actively excluded from society, taxing people's money away to pay for those excluded to live in an even more excluded community is not fixing the problem.

The black people were being banned from gaining money by society. The people doing the banning should pay for it

It not like the white employers were ever going to be interested in hiring them.

That's not exerbating. That's a pay out for those being punished for their skin tone.

Edit: Stop making LBJ sound like a good person

Edit: How the fuck was this the black person problem? Why did they need to be punished for other people's racist behaviour? Why would you think this would be convincing in the 60s? Why would it be convincing now?

 

[tstorm823]

It not like the white employers were ever going to be interested in hiring them.

You seem to be ignorant of the last 60 years of history.

 

[Trunkage]

You seem to be ignorant of the last 60 years of history.

Well, I'll say it again. Did you forget anything? Or do you see any logical fallacies?

EDIT: Maybe make it so that 'tax is the only thing saving African Americans' not be the backbone of your argument. Because if that's the only thing saving African Americans, I don't care if you don't want to do to , it must be mandatory, or the government is killing people. It's like a person with a disability, you don't take money away from them just because employers wont hire them. They aren't magically employable if welfare doesn't exist. Your punishing people for other people's actions

Maybe stop making all white people so insanely racist

Fucking Christians and their 'helping'

 

[Cheetodust]

Abortion =/= gay marriage...

Marriage and equality is not historically apart of America?

Reconsider doesn't mean wrong.

You're wasting your time in a very minor battle and ignoring the actual war. The "attack" itself is just there to distract you, it's not serious.

And you're actually going to argue that the original intent was that only white men are equal? Gay marriage should be the least of your worries if you think that. Plus, they'd have to repeal several amendments first to actually say the constitution doesn't guarantee rights to others other than white men. And the SC can't do that because it has to go through Congress. The SC can do anything it wants is pure BS.

Everyone knows that as soon as SCOTUS comes for gay marriage you will be here explaining why it's fine and good actually so why are you even pretending?

 

[tstorm823]

EDIT: Maybe make it so that 'tax is the only thing saving African Americans' not be the backbone of your argument.

Never said that. Black people are not infants, they don't need white people to survive. Just the quality of life within the broader society is a lot better than if you are excluded from it. Black people in the 60s weren't starving to death in the streets. They wanted better jobs and better homes that they were being denied based on their race. It is exactly the perspective of the self-righteous white racist to think of other races as only wanting to survive and dependent on white people to do so.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So? The Supreme Court justices said they believe the same rationale applies to Obergefell as it did to Roe.



Same sex marriage isn't, no.



I'd love to share your complacency. But so far you've just demonstrated that your opinion is completely at odds with that of the people who actually wield the power.

Besides which, I haven't ignored anything else in favour of this argument. People are actually capable of having views on more than one thing at once. At least, I am.



They wouldn't need to repeal any Amendments; merely come up with a flimsy justification for why they didn't apply. And they themselves have already said that simply not having a "historical basis" is justification enough.

Justice or justices? And, no they didn't.

But equality and marriage are... thus same sex marriage is...

People only have so much time and energy to put into things. You put X amount of time and energy into Y and you can't put that in Z.

So they can just say slavery is OK without repealing the 13th amendment? You have in your head that anyone on the right is some super villain with a mustache stroking a cat on their lap. They are just people like anyone else.

No they don't, they're being held against their will. Prisons *should* cost, so that we have less incentive to keep people there unnecessarily.
Nothing. You really don't get how flimsy the US government can be, huh
Why would I be scared of people doing what I want? Did you even think about this argument? Besides, if "the left" ever got close to that kind of power, the FBI would ramp up assassinating activists.
Killed Roe, directly stated what they're going after next, party supporting them wants it bad enough to write in their party platform, plus just...the loads of other bullshit they've been up to.
It is if they want it to be. And it was until a 5-4 decision said it wasn't less than a fucking decade ago.
I don't care, it's hurting people.
Correct: That was the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, you needed to own property to vote, women didn't count, and they owned slaves, dumbass.

Then, they don't make money working...

You have in your head that anyone on the right is some super villain with a mustache stroking a cat on their lap. They are just people like anyone else.

Exactly my point, you have to have principles and apply them to both things you don't like and things you do like.

Roe was bad law plain and simple, it wasn't even applied to all medical procedures because of how stupid the argument was. Everybody knew it, the left didn't want to do anything about it so they could keep running on that. And now they can run even harder on restoring abortion rights.

No, it is not.

Again, principles...

Isn't the Declaration even more historical than the Constitution? Like I already said, if you think the originalist view of the constitution is that, then gay marriage is the least of your worries.

The constitution at the time of writing was not for white men. It was for rich white men.

Anyway, this Supreme Court ruling stated that women don't have the rights access to health and privacy as a man

Then why do you keep supporting a party that only cares about rich white men?

OMFG, you're just making shit up at this point. The right to privacy never extended to medical procedures and never will regardless if it's men or women.

@Phoenixmgs you get the original intent of "all men are born equal" is that they split off from a monarchy, where certain men are born with a divine right to rule???

Over the years it evolved to be more progressive, but it was initially a direct opposition of divine mandate of the monarchy and the royal and noble power structure.

No, it wasn't. The sentences just after wouldn't make sense then.

It sure didn't mean black people.

Same to the democratic party...

Everyone knows that as soon as SCOTUS comes for gay marriage you will be here explaining why it's fine and good actually so why are you even pretending?

1) It's never gonna happen. 2) Nope, screenshot this if you want.