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

[Agema]

Having prisoners work is part of paying off their debt to society.

Having prisoners work denies labour opportunities to the unemployed, because any worthwhile job would otherwise need a paid worker. It is exploitation for the primary benefit of whoever owns the means of production. The "debt" prisoners owe society is for their crime, which they pay simply by having their freedom denied.

There is certainly a point offering prisoners work, but that is rehabilitation: to encourage them to develop relevant skills and habits of employment which will hopefully keep them on the straight and narrow when they are released. Where such work is commercially viable prisoners should receive a substantial chunk of it: by principle as workers, as incentive, and as beneficial to help them to support themselves whilst they get back on their feet after release.

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.

What the hell are you talking about? How exactly did a pregnant woman not have standing? Did she shove a pillow up her blouse for a few months with no-one noticing, and quickly adopt a baby on the sly to produce to the world when her nine months were up? At best you can point out she later said she lied about being raped, but the manner of her impregnation is far from crucial to the case put forward that women have a right to abortion.

Where I'm objecting is not particularly that Roe v Wade was insuperable, but the superficiality and narrow-mindedness that thinks it has some sort of unique legal nature. People are too taken in by the anti-abortion propaganda to apply consistent standards. There are a substantial number of laws currently in the USA decided by SCOTUS that are of similarly weak standards, and yet not remotely on the radar of people convinced Roe v. Wade was a colossal screw-up. Nor do they appear concerned (or are even aware) that the current SCOTUS looks set on re-writing a whole series of established precedents on little more than specious ideology, or any number of wider issues.

In that sense, waffle about legal strength from people like you is a sort red herring, and the fact you apparently understand so little about and around it merely reinforces that point. It's not the basis of why you oppose Roe v Wade, it's a convenient fig leaf to provide some cover to whatever real motive is rattling around your skull.

 

[Silvanus]

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.

This is talking about the morality of the act itself (something you previously said was not affecting your position), not overreach.

You've concocted a situation in which a state government involving itself in the peoples' personal lives is not overreach, but another branch of government preventing interference in those peoples' personal lives is overreach. I'm asking for a principled explanation that doesn't boil down to 'my reading of an old slavers' charter'.

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

OK, so which Democratic policies caused this?

 

[Trunkage]

OK, so which Democratic policies caused this?

He's just citing Clarance Thomas

Thomas separates the Amendments between the 'White Constitution' and 'Black Constitution'. The latter apparently hurts African Americans because all social justice hurts the target, and doesn't help them

This is really funny because Thomas got into law school through Affirmative Action. And I don't mean the made-up nonsense from the GOP. He had the skill, but would never have gotten in because of his skin colour

The Supreme Court justice would benefit from Affirmative Action thinks Affirmative Action is destructive to African Americans..... so, so funny

 

[tstorm823]

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

Did you stop reading at the 9th, or just skip over the 10th?

 

[Agema]

OK, so which Democratic policies caused this?

He's talking about disparities between national policies and what some Democratic-controlled local governments do.

Segregation, for instance, is not coded into law. What it's a factor of is usually things like money and forms of school selection. So, because white and black communities are often geographically distinct, also heavily connected with social class and family wealth. Thus it ends up with de facto "black schools" (i.e. schools in predominantly black parts of town) and "white schools". Plus other issues, such that that school funding laws can also be disadvantageous, because they are localised such that they relate to the wealth of the surrounding area, such that "black" schools, because they are in a poorer area, get less funding. In other situations, where Democrats nationally favour house-building and accessible accommodation, local Democrats sometimes block it down in their constituency.

So there is a certain level of validity, that in ways Democratic voters and local politicians do not talk and act the same as the party does on a national level.

On the other hand, there's a lot of sophistry / naivety involved, too. "Segregation", contextually, is a misleading word because its history implies forced separation, which is not what's happening. Secondly, there is always tension and disparities between local and national politics. But there is for every party in every constituency. Of course there is! A national party obviously cannot run a cohesive policy platform to take into account all sorts of local variances and circumstances important to voters at a local level.

In summary, despite a sort of weak underlying truth, it's basically just a lazy sort of "but both parties" that sounds deep to people who know and think little about politics.

 

[tstorm823]

OK, so which Democratic policies caused this?

The Great Society. Lyndon Johnson really, really screwed this country up.

 

[Schadrach]

I don't even mean the right to have an abortion.

Good, because that would be weirdly narrow and specific to be a constitutional right. Like, I can't imagine anyone arguing for a narrowly defined constitutional right to have any other specific medical procedure.

I mean the right to confidentiality with medical staff.

Sure, sure. Do you have a constitutional right to have any surgery or procedure performed on you you might want? Is it unconstitutional to regulate medical procedures at all? Is it unconstitutional to regulate drugs at all? If you answered no to those to questions, why would it be unconstitutional to regulate these particular classes of drugs and procedures and what other classes of drugs and procedures should be immune to regulation?

I mean the right to privacy.

Define precisely what you mean by that phrase. I know that sounds silly, but I want to make sure I'm arguing regarding the right thing.

I mean the right to bodily autonomy.

Doesn't actually exist (even if it should). It's just that the low-hanging examples of bodily autonomy being ignored and people who might hypothetically need abortions only barely overlap, and "bodily autonomy" as a right is almost exclusively invoked regarding the sorts of people who might hypothetically need abortions. Hell, there's even an exception to dead organ and tissue donors needing to provide explicit prior consent - sperm. In some states, "implied" consent is sufficient for post-mortem sperm extraction and in many others there's just nothing on the books about it at all.

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)

There are very few laws you can simply ignore because of religious belief. See Rastafarianism and weed for easy examples, like US v Lepp and US v Jefferson. Or FGM for that matter, in case we need an example where you are very unlikely to support the practice.

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.

Worst case given the kind of arguments used by SCOTUS recently would be that the states are free to decide who may or may not marry in their territory, even regarding the sex of participants (as opposed to just age) but are also required to accept gay marriages done in other states. Marriage requirements are all over the place on a state by state basis (for example once you consider all the exceptions CA and MA have no hard minimum age), but all states are required to accept all marriages from all other states.

Having prisoners work is part of paying off their debt to society.

Not just that, but a penal system in which convicts cannot be legally made to act against their will is totally unworkable.

 

[Agema]

Doesn't actually exist (even if it should).

That claim is somewhere between highly questionable and untrue.

Bodily integrity may not be explicitly mentioned as such, but it, or aspects of it, can clearly be inferred from general rights of personal freedom, privacy and protections from harm. It is incredibly obvious that if these rights somehow do not include one's own body, they are rendered almost completely meaningless.

Any rights to bodily integrity are not absolute - but then no rights exist without exceptions. The onus should be on anyone proposing a constraint to supply sufficient justification (an example for instance might be making illegal consumption of certain narcotics, on the grounds of wider societal damage.)

 

[Phoenixmgs]

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

14th amendment protects gay marriage. I don't know why you'd think the 9th amendment would extend to something like abortion anyway.

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.

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

Again, inherently there is nothing wrong with having prisoners work. I'm not here to talk about how it's been exploited, I'm just here to state there is nothing wrong with the 13th amendment as it is.

I'm definitely in on that bet, though nothing is going to happen and no one will win or lose.

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.



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.

What I just said above.

And what people say is always what people do? Also, that's one justice and also he said to reconsider not that he even thought it would be overturned. It is parroting bullshit because it's not gonna happen.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

They really shouldn't be, and when they are it generally means that it's a flaw of the legal system.

If you argued for something I value but argued it very poorly, I'm not just going to going along with it because I like the conclusion, I'm gonna call you out on your shit argument. It's like doing a math problem, getting the right answer, but the work was wrong, that means you did the problem wrong. Roe was a math problem where they did the work wrong, very wrong.

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...

You vote for the best candidate...

Having prisoners work denies labour opportunities to the unemployed, because any worthwhile job would otherwise need a paid worker. It is exploitation for the primary benefit of whoever owns the means of production. The "debt" prisoners owe society is for their crime, which they pay simply by having their freedom denied.

There is certainly a point offering prisoners work, but that is rehabilitation: to encourage them to develop relevant skills and habits of employment which will hopefully keep them on the straight and narrow when they are released. Where such work is commercially viable prisoners should receive a substantial chunk of it: by principle as workers, as incentive, and as beneficial to help them to support themselves whilst they get back on their feet after release.



What the hell are you talking about? How exactly did a pregnant woman not have standing? Did she shove a pillow up her blouse for a few months with no-one noticing, and quickly adopt a baby on the sly to produce to the world when her nine months were up? At best you can point out she later said she lied about being raped, but the manner of her impregnation is far from crucial to the case put forward that women have a right to abortion.

Where I'm objecting is not particularly that Roe v Wade was insuperable, but the superficiality and narrow-mindedness that thinks it has some sort of unique legal nature. People are too taken in by the anti-abortion propaganda to apply consistent standards. There are a substantial number of laws currently in the USA decided by SCOTUS that are of similarly weak standards, and yet not remotely on the radar of people convinced Roe v. Wade was a colossal screw-up. Nor do they appear concerned (or are even aware) that the current SCOTUS looks set on re-writing a whole series of established precedents on little more than specious ideology, or any number of wider issues.

In that sense, waffle about legal strength from people like you is a sort red herring, and the fact you apparently understand so little about and around it merely reinforces that point. It's not the basis of why you oppose Roe v Wade, it's a convenient fig leaf to provide some cover to whatever real motive is rattling around your skull.

There is nothing wrong with having prisoners do basic jobs of the state like cleaning garbage off roads or working in the actual prison. There's a reason they excluded prisoners in the 13th amendment. Just because you can exploit that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

I've heard someone say that, I don't care enough to look it up because it's not very relevant to the case anyway. You just can't do any medical procedure you want cuz of right of privacy, it's a really poor argument for abortion.

This is talking about the morality of the act itself (something you previously said was not affecting your position), not overreach.

You've concocted a situation in which a state government involving itself in the peoples' personal lives is not overreach, but another branch of government preventing interference in those peoples' personal lives is overreach. I'm asking for a principled explanation that doesn't boil down to 'my reading of an old slavers' charter'.



OK, so which Democratic policies caused this?

That literally happens all the fucking time with regards to laws, I don't know why abortion is some different thing. There's tons of law involving itself in people's personal lives.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Again, inherently there is nothing wrong with having prisoners work. I'm not here to talk about how it's been exploited, I'm just here to state there is nothing wrong with the 13th amendment as it is.

First you said the 13th doesn't allow for slavery, now you're justifying slave labor. Amazing. The inherent problem with slave labor is how it incentivizes having slaves.

I'm definitely in on that bet, though nothing is going to happen and no one will win or lose.

#screenshot

You vote for the best candidate...

Which sure as shit isn't that clusterfuck

 

[Agema]

There is nothing wrong with having prisoners do basic jobs of the state like cleaning garbage off roads or working in the actual prison. There's a reason they excluded prisoners in the 13th amendment. Just because you can exploit that doesn't mean it's a bad thing.

That depends on what you mean by "nothing wrong". If you mean "legal", then it is necessarily legal if the US law says so. If you mean economically and morally preferable, well...

If the streets need to be cleaned, that's work required, for which a worker could and should be paid. If you instead use unpaid penal labour, you deny non-criminals who seek work the opportunity to have work, and thus their ability to pay their rent, food, medical care, etc. This also increases the supply of labour relative to demand for work, and makes labour less valuable, leading to wage suppression. Therefore, you are disadvantaging certain innocent people.

We accept that maintaining the criminal justice system is going to cost society. But at least the basic principle of taxes spreads it across society, and ideally (depending on the tax system) roughly proportional to people's income / wealth. But penal labour, like slave labour, disproportionately benefits "employers" at the expense of workers, in a world where employers already hold most of the cards.

I've heard someone say that, I don't care enough to look it up because it's not very relevant to the case anyway.

Well then why did you bring it up?

 

[Trunkage]

14th amendment protects gay marriage. I don't know why you'd think the 9th amendment would extend to something like abortion anways

The 14th? The one that allowed Black Codes and Segregation

What is this nonsense?

Gay marriage is not covered by the 14th. Definitely not under this Supreme Court.

The 9th is about stating that you could have a right to somrthing even if its not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court stated that you CANNOT have a right unless its in the Constitution

 

[Trunkage]

The Great Society. Lyndon Johnson really, really screwed this country up.

A lot of presidents screwed up the US. I cannot think of a bunch of worse people to run the country

 

[tstorm823]

A lot of presidents screwed up the US. I cannot think of a bunch of worse people to run the country

If we consider just the last 100 years, the only president I would consider irredeemable is Lyndon Johnson. All the rest of them I would say either were good people or did a decent job or sometimes both. Lyndon Johnson was a complete douchebag who ruined American politics and government for over half a century running.

 

[Silvanus]

The Great Society. Lyndon Johnson really, really screwed this country up.

Hilarious.

That literally happens all the fucking time with regards to laws, I don't know why abortion is some different thing. There's tons of law involving itself in people's personal lives.

Of course there are. But you're the one objecting to "overreach". You've specifically put forward an objection about the government's power going too far... and simultaneously you want to allow governments to interfere in private lives. The only key factor for you seems to be which specific branch of government does it, which doesn't affect the actual substance of the law one iota.

Why does something become fine and doesn't qualify as "overreach" if it's the state government that does it?

 

[Trunkage]

If we consider just the last 100 years, the only president I would consider irredeemable is Lyndon Johnson. All the rest of them I would say either were good people or did a decent job or sometimes both. Lyndon Johnson was a complete douchebag who ruined American politics and government for over half a century running.

Look, I'm pretty sure I've discussed my distaste for LBJ. Clarence Thomas called pretty much everyone in the Reagan administration a bigot. Many of the problems Trump was dealing with was a direct result of Regean, including Q. Nixon leading the country in a drunk stupor like Stalin and letting Kissinger get a job. FDR created some very Nazi policies. Bill was a known sex pest before he even became president and they still fucking nominated him. Let alone him just not fixing the problems Reagan created. Teddy made many terrible foreign policies standard that has lead to many shithows overseas. Both Bushes using lies to get into Iraq (the younger lies were worse).

Anyway, where you put LBJ.... That's where I put most presidents

 

[Schadrach]

Bodily integrity may not be explicitly mentioned as such, but it, or aspects of it, can clearly be inferred from general rights of personal freedom, privacy and protections from harm. It is incredibly obvious that if these rights somehow do not include one's own body, they are rendered almost completely meaningless.

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. 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.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

First you said the 13th doesn't allow for slavery, now you're justifying slave labor. Amazing. The inherent problem with slave labor is how it incentivizes having slaves.
#screenshot

Which sure as shit isn't that clusterfuck

It doesn't allow for slavery that people consider as bad.

That depends on what you mean by "nothing wrong". If you mean "legal", then it is necessarily legal if the US law says so. If you mean economically and morally preferable, well...

If the streets need to be cleaned, that's work required, for which a worker could and should be paid. If you instead use unpaid penal labour, you deny non-criminals who seek work the opportunity to have work, and thus their ability to pay their rent, food, medical care, etc. This also increases the supply of labour relative to demand for work, and makes labour less valuable, leading to wage suppression. Therefore, you are disadvantaging certain innocent people.

We accept that maintaining the criminal justice system is going to cost society. But at least the basic principle of taxes spreads it across society, and ideally (depending on the tax system) roughly proportional to people's income / wealth. But penal labour, like slave labour, disproportionately benefits "employers" at the expense of workers, in a world where employers already hold most of the cards.



Well then why did you bring it up?

Having prisoners work is not stealing jobs. Perhaps, exploitation of it can.

The 14th? The one that allowed Black Codes and Segregation

What is this nonsense?

Gay marriage is not covered by the 14th. Definitely not under this Supreme Court.

The 9th is about stating that you could have a right to somrthing even if its not in the Constitution. The Supreme Court stated that you CANNOT have a right unless its in the Constitution

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

Of course there are. But you're the one objecting to "overreach". You've specifically put forward an objection about the government's power going too far... and simultaneously you want to allow governments to interfere in private lives. The only key factor for you seems to be which specific branch of government does it, which doesn't affect the actual substance of the law one iota.

Why does something become fine and doesn't qualify as "overreach" if it's the state government that does it?

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"?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

It doesn't allow for slavery that people consider as bad.

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

Having prisoners work is not stealing jobs. Perhaps, exploitation of it can.

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

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

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

Because the state government has the power to do it and the federal government doesn't.

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