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

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,400
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
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.



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



"Of course the party doing the worse things will look worse" is a hell of a defence.
Unless it's some protected right, what can't be made into a law? Are seatbelt laws overreach? The federal government can't make a seatbelt law because that's overreach on them but the state can.

No it wasn't.

Democrats do even worse shit, it's just isn't in your face.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,527
4,583
118
Country
United States
I AM FUCKING AWARE OF WHAT IT SAYS. Having prisoners work is not inherently bad.
Disagree. Our largest-in-the-world-per-capita prison slave force effectively drives down the price of labor in ways that are impossible for private or public labor to compete with, while giving a direct financial incentive to drive up sentencing, prison population, and bullshit rules that end in prison time. There's reasons that we have the world's largest proportional prison population, and those reasons are racism, capitalism, and constitutionally legal slavery
STOP PARROTING BULLSHIT.
I have stated nothing but truth about the Court That Decides What Is Actually Constitutional. 4 thought it didn't apply the first time around and are joined by two more. One has explicitly stated it should be reversed. I'm sorry that you do not like the objective reality you currently live in.
 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,158
157
68
Country
USA
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.
And you think it's bollocks because it is bollocks. They are in support of the SCOTUS' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade not because they actually believe that it's overreach for Roe v. Wade to exist, or overreach for Roe v. Wade to not exist, or any number of other excuses. They don't give a damn about Roe v. Wade, government overreach, or the rights of the people. What they give a damn about is taking everything they possibly can to get rid of abortion, that's it. They hate abortion for... well, no logical reason to put it simply so they want everything done that can undermine it on every level. Even though banning abortion either on the state or federal level is clear overreach, is a blatant violation of human rights, massively destructive, and counterproductive on everything from a national to personal level.

Flip it around so that the Supreme Court was overturning a hypothetical "Blank v. Blank's" SCOTUS "You know what? Every woman who ever gets pregnant can't have an abortion" and these people would be calling doing THAT government overreach. Anything these people try to say to justify Roe v. Wade being removed comes down to "I hate abortion" and nothing else.
 
Last edited:

Agema

You have no authority here, Jackie Weaver
Legacy
Mar 3, 2009
8,598
5,951
118
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.
No, it wasn't "bound" to be overturned.

It's not the first time SCOTUS have made a ruling some people thought iffy, and plenty of those stuck (and probably no-one now considers them controversial just because they did stick). It was overturned by concerted political effort to rig SCOTUS with justices who would rule that way on that issue. For instance, one might note the gross hypocrisy of the Republican-controlled Senate refusing Obama's nomination on the grounds a president in his last year should not appoint, and then rushing through Trump's pick just before Trump exited. Or even the simple fact that the party that has controlled the presidency for 12 of the last 30 years has picked 6 out of 9 of the currently sitting justices.

And anyone can do this. Almost anything "settled" can be overturned, it just takes a simple majority of SCOTUS to say something is the case and boom, it's done. The Democrats could force a majority onto SCOTUS in the future and simply restore a Constitutional right to abortion. The law is nothing but what the current 9 people in black robes say it is.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,400
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Disagree. Our largest-in-the-world-per-capita prison slave force effectively drives down the price of labor in ways that are impossible for private or public labor to compete with, while giving a direct financial incentive to drive up sentencing, prison population, and bullshit rules that end in prison time. There's reasons that we have the world's largest proportional prison population, and those reasons are racism, capitalism, and constitutionally legal slavery

I have stated nothing but truth about the Court That Decides What Is Actually Constitutional. 4 thought it didn't apply the first time around and are joined by two more. One has explicitly stated it should be reversed. I'm sorry that you do not like the objective reality you currently live in.
INHERENTLY there is nothing wrong with having prisoners work. I didn't say that it couldn't be exploited.


What they give a damn about is taking everything they possibly can to get rid of abortion, that's it. They hate abortion for... well, no logical reason to put it simply so they want everything done that can undermine it on every level.
I'm pro-abortion...

No, it wasn't "bound" to be overturned.

It's not the first time SCOTUS have made a ruling some people thought iffy, and plenty of those stuck (and probably no-one now considers them controversial just because they did stick). It was overturned by concerted political effort to rig SCOTUS with justices who would rule that way on that issue. For instance, one might note the gross hypocrisy of the Republican-controlled Senate refusing Obama's nomination on the grounds a president in his last year should not appoint, and then rushing through Trump's pick just before Trump exited. Or even the simple fact that the party that has controlled the presidency for 12 of the last 30 years has picked 6 out of 9 of the currently sitting justices.

And anyone can do this. Almost anything "settled" can be overturned, it just takes a simple majority of SCOTUS to say something is the case and boom, it's done. The Democrats could force a majority onto SCOTUS in the future and simply restore a Constitutional right to abortion. The law is nothing but what the current 9 people in black robes say it is.
Roe was a complete shit-show. IIRC the original lady that made it a case perjured herself to have standing, she didn't even have standing. It was really bad law, there's examples currently where the argument for Roe is not applied to other medical procedures because it's such a bad argument.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,527
4,583
118
Country
United States
INHERENTLY there is nothing wrong with having prisoners work. I didn't say that it couldn't be exploited.
Slavery is inherently exploitative. The Supreme Court could overrule Obergfell the instant they get a case related to it. Dunno why you keep posting that video like it matters
 
Last edited:

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,527
4,583
118
Country
United States
Anyway, Arkansas passed a complete ban on abortion baring likely literal death. No exceptions for rape or incest or permanent injury, because fuck rape victims twice, I guess

Does have an exception for IVF, just in case you mistakenly thought that they actually believe a fertilized egg is a person

 

immortalfrieza

Elite Member
Legacy
May 12, 2011
2,158
157
68
Country
USA
I'm pro-abortion...
If you actually were, you wouldn't be arguing that overturning Roe v. Wade was a good idea in any sense. Roe v. Wade was the only thing protecting abortion and there was neither a federal law nor constitutional amendment assuring that abortion was protected regardless of Roe v. Wade's status despite having 50 years to make one. It's not going to happen now that Roe v. Wade is gone either.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,733
2,254
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
INHERENTLY there is nothing wrong with having prisoners work. I didn't say that it couldn't be exploited.

You keep using this video

You clearly don't have any comprehension of what is being said in this video

Let me make this clear. This video is about the US Constitution. It's got nothing to do with the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court broke this 9th Amendment to overturn Roe v Wade.

I don't even mean the right to have an abortion. I mean the right to confidentiality with medical staff. I mean the right to privacy. I mean the right to bodily autonomy. Edit: I Forgot: I mean the right to Religious Freedom (I don't mean freedom from Christianity; I mean to be able to follow the rules of their religion as there are religions that are pro-abortion)

Being an Originalist means you don't believe in the 9th Amendment. In fact, that's the definition of Originalist when talking about the US Constitution. Most of the Supreme Court ARE Originalist. They don't think the 9th Amendment is real

This guy in the video is saying the constitution protects gay marriage just as it protects abortion rights. This is very true

The Supreme Court cares very little about the Constitution and you assumed that it does. This is a bad assumption. They will break the constitution to get what they want

It's like how the church as an intuition has very little to do with Jesus or the Bible. They parrot some words to change the laws to suit their needs

Again, I'll say it. This video has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court. It's about the US Constitution. It's a totally different subject
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,099
3,541
118
Country
United Kingdom
Unless it's some protected right, what can't be made into a law? Are seatbelt laws overreach? The federal government can't make a seatbelt law because that's overreach on them but the state can.
Arbitrary line you've drawn.

Laws are practical restrictions. A person who is denied her bodily autonomy by a state government is no more liberated or free than someone who has it denied by the federal government.

Except in this case, the federal government wanted to allow her bodily autonomy, and the state government wanted to deny it. So you're classing someone being denied their bodily autonomy by the state government as being freer than someone who still has their bodily autonomy because the government isn't allowed to deny it. Someone who is denied a right is freer than someone who still has that right, in your conception. It's insanity.

No it wasn't.
Cool argument, I'm convinced.

Democrats do even worse shit, it's just isn't in your face.
Go ahead, then, let's hear some rip-roaring examples.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hipsters

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
13,829
4,735
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
Anyway, Arkansas passed a complete ban on abortion baring likely literal death. No exceptions for rape or incest or permanent injury, because fuck rape victims twice, I guess
We're talking about the mindset that said a ten-year-old girl who was raped and wound up pregnant should have the baby and "learn to enjoy being a mother".

It is absolutely nothing but a Puritan desire to punish women for being women. That'll show Eve for getting us kicked out of the Garden of Eden!
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
7,400
589
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Slavery is inherently exploitative. The Supreme Court could overrule Obergfell the instant they get a case related to it. Dunno why you keep posting that video like it matters
Having prisoners work is part of paying off their debt to society. Gay marriage is not going to be overturned, please stop parroting bullshit.

If you actually were, you wouldn't be arguing that overturning Roe v. Wade was a good idea in any sense. Roe v. Wade was the only thing protecting abortion and there was neither a federal law nor constitutional amendment assuring that abortion was protected regardless of Roe v. Wade's status despite having 50 years to make one. It's not going to happen now that Roe v. Wade is gone either.
Being a good idea and being the right legal decision are 2 different things.

You keep using this video

You clearly don't have any comprehension of what is being said in this video

Let me make this clear. This video is about the US Constitution. It's got nothing to do with the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court broke this 9th Amendment to overturn Roe v Wade.

I don't even mean the right to have an abortion. I mean the right to confidentiality with medical staff. I mean the right to privacy. I mean the right to bodily autonomy. Edit: I Forgot: I mean the right to Religious Freedom (I don't mean freedom from Christianity; I mean to be able to follow the rules of their religion as there are religions that are pro-abortion)

Being an Originalist means you don't believe in the 9th Amendment. In fact, that's the definition of Originalist when talking about the US Constitution. Most of the Supreme Court ARE Originalist. They don't think the 9th Amendment is real

This guy in the video is saying the constitution protects gay marriage just as it protects abortion rights. This is very true

The Supreme Court cares very little about the Constitution and you assumed that it does. This is a bad assumption. They will break the constitution to get what they want

It's like how the church as an intuition has very little to do with Jesus or the Bible. They parrot some words to change the laws to suit their needs

Again, I'll say it. This video has NOTHING to do with the Supreme Court. It's about the US Constitution. It's a totally different subject
They did not break the 9th amendment overturning Roe. There is no right for doctor/patient to just do any agreed upon procedure for many reasons. The 9th amendment does not protect abortion or else it would've been used in Roe but wasn't. The justices that were against overturning Roe just used precedent as their argument, they didn't mention the 9th amendment or anything other legal argument.

Arbitrary line you've drawn.

Laws are practical restrictions. A person who is denied her bodily autonomy by a state government is no more liberated or free than someone who has it denied by the federal government.

Except in this case, the federal government wanted to allow her bodily autonomy, and the state government wanted to deny it. So you're classing someone being denied their bodily autonomy by the state government as being freer than someone who still has their bodily autonomy because the government isn't allowed to deny it. Someone who is denied a right is freer than someone who still has that right, in your conception. It's insanity.



Cool argument, I'm convinced.



Go ahead, then, let's hear some rip-roaring examples.
You're leaving out the other half of abortion, the baby; there's 2 bodies involved, that's why it's not a simple case of bodily automomy. You're acting like abortion is equal to getting an ear piercing, it's not. It's not about being freer or not, it's about who has the power to enact a law or not. There's many laws that I'm sure your for that cause people to be less free.

Democratic policy causes more inequality. NYC schools are the most segregated in the nation for example.
 

Trunkage

Nascent Orca
Legacy
Jun 21, 2012
7,733
2,254
118
Brisbane
Gender
Cyborg
They did not break the 9th amendment overturning Roe. There is no right for doctor/patient to just do any agreed upon procedure for many reasons. The 9th amendment does not protect abortion or else it would've been used in Roe but wasn't. The justices that were against overturning Roe just used precedent as their argument, they didn't mention the 9th amendment or anything other legal argument.
See, it wasnt so hard for you to prove that gay marriage isn't covered by 9th Amendment under this Supreme Court, was it?

Just make up this absolute nonsense like you said here and you've gotten rid of gay marriage. Just say gay marriage is not a right and bam, its done.

No is no right to marriage, gay or straight. There is no right to having children. There are no Miranda rights. There is no right everyone having guns (because the second amendment doesn't say that at all.) There is no right for patients to be given appropriate medical treatment (i.e. a doctor can hack off a limb if you have appendicitis). There is no right to privacy. There is no right to being not be conscripted. There is no right to have any control of your child's education

We can get rid of all these now. You just have to call these not a right and its gone.

Note: The Supreme Court did not attack Roe with this ruling. There were attacking Substantive Due Process. I.e. the Supreme Court REMOVED all precedent for figure out if ANY right not enumerated in the Constitution. This is not about Roe or abortion rights. This is taking away as many rights as possible

They didn't use any precedent. They REMOVED precedent and say you cannot use the Substantive Due Process to figure out if something is a right not enumerated in the Constitution. This includes anything that used Substantive Due Process to help figure out if its a right or not

Let me say this again. There is now no way for anyone to figure out if a right exist, unless explicitly stated in the Constitution

Esit: it is fucking baffling you think a response to one right somehow counters all the other 3 I stated
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TheMysteriousGX

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,527
4,583
118
Country
United States
Having prisoners work is part of paying off their debt to society.
Pro-slavery argument aside, the fact that we have the greatest percentage of our population in prison *in the world* by a wide margin shows that that's bullshit. Putting prisoners to work simply provides an explicit incentive to enslave as many people as possible.
Gay marriage is not going to be overturned, please stop parroting bullshit.
Open bet: if a challenge to Obergfell shows up in front of this specific Court and survives, I'll send you $100 in video game currency of your choice. If it dies and goes back to "State's Rights" or some form of "Separate but Equal", you send me $100 in video game currency of my choice. Open bet, anybody on the forum except the two people on my ignore list, send me a DM to sign up.

Because the Constitution *should* protect gay marriage. But it didn't used to, the vote for interpreting it to was 5 yes vs 4 no, and if that vote was held today it would likely be 3 Yes vs 6 No
 

Dirty Hipsters

This is how we praise the sun!
Legacy
Feb 7, 2011
7,419
1,740
118
Country
'Merica
Gender
3 children in a trench coat
Having prisoners work is part of paying off their debt to society.
Maybe if they were working on something that was actually good for society you could make that justification. Instead they're just being rented out to corporations so those corporations can use slave labor to make a profit and depress wages.

Gay marriage is not going to be overturned, please stop parroting bullshit.
Thomas has LITERALLY SAID he's looking into overturning gay marriage.

“In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.” Thomas is saying that because the court decided that the foundations for the original Roe and Casey rulings were faulty, rulings based on those same foundations (Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell), should also be “reconsidered.” This isn't fear mongering and "parroting bullshit" this is parroting what the supreme could HAS LITERALLY SAID. They want to get rid of gay marriage rights and the rights to contraception and return them to the states as well.
 

TheMysteriousGX

Elite Member
Legacy
Sep 16, 2014
6,527
4,583
118
Country
United States
This shit is why I can't vote for 3rd parties. Like, the Dems have a problem with identity and just being an opposition party but at the end of the day...

 

Casual Shinji

Should've gone before we left.
Legacy
Jul 18, 2009
18,161
2,564
118
This shit is why I can't vote for 3rd parties. Like, the Dems have a problem with identity and just being an opposition party but at the end of the day...

I don't think it's the idea of a third party, it's thinking that there's a large enough group of people in America that's more conservative than the democrates but more left leaning than the republicans. ...Yeah. Just keeping stating 'forward' I guess and maybe it'll get you somewhere Yang - I remember when I was a kid and I wanted to find a dinosaur bone, so I just started digging in the ground assuming I would find one if I just dug deep enough.
 

Gordon_4

The Big Engine
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
4,057
3,221
118
Australia
I don't think it's the idea of a third party, it's thinking that there's a large enough group of people in America that's more conservative than the democrates but more left leaning than the republicans. ...Yeah. Just keeping stating 'forward' I guess and maybe it'll get you somewhere Yang - I remember when I was a kid and I wanted to find a dinosaur bone, so I just started digging in the ground assuming I would find one if I just dug deep enough.
Honestly, your idea had better chance of turning up some kind of result. Maybe not a dinosaur bone, but dig deep enough and often enough and you'd likely have found a fossil of some kind.