SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Draco-Onis]

Its weird ppl say it should be left for the states and not say it should be a federal issue

Because the only lesson these people have learned from our history was that the Jim Crow era didn't last long enough since that's what happens when you leave rights like abortion, civil rights, race to the states.

[Poopymonster]

Why, though?

Because REEEEEEEEEEEEEsons.

[Zan15]

"Doxxing" is the silliest thing.

A lot of this stuff is public record. Ownership of property, for instance, is recorded with the city, and looking up the ownership of a piece of property is public access. There's often a fee, but you pay the money and they tell you who owns the property. Phone numbers get sold around all the time, too, and some of us grew up at a time when the local phone company would deliver books full of everyone's phone numbers, in the city/region. This stuff isn't big secret classified kind of stuff that anyone should expect is kept protected and hidden, in the first place.

Like, if you're hacking into people's tax records or engaging in some other kind of illicit action to get information you shouldn't normally have access to, sure, that's bad. But figuring out what a public figure's address is? By, like, just looking it up? Or having their neighbour talk about their awful neighbour? Yeah, that wasn't a secret. Who gives a fuck if people figure that out?

Especially weird when we're in the world of posting your colonoscopy images to Facebook publicly, and posting a detailed schedule of your entire day for everyone to read.

same group of people had / have no problem supporting the total "doxxing" of hunter biden's entire life, email and private pictures.....
but the horror of protesting outside someone house.

[Xyonai]

same group of people had / have no problem supporting the total "doxxing" of hunter biden's entire life, email and private pictures.....
but the horror of protesting outside someone house.

I mean, if we want to make a more pointed comparison: Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who testified against Kavanaugh, has had to move four times since her hearing because right wing lunatics kept sending her death threats. Whereas ol' Bret himself is just being annoyed by protesters with signs.

I'm finding it incredibly difficult to feel bad for him, a public official, being 'doxxed'.

[Edge-]

I'm finding it incredibly difficult to feel bad for him, a public official, being 'doxxed'.

It's all unsourced bullshit to begin with. Just a handful of right wing sites taking a tiny protest group with no social media footprint super cereally and uncritically believing that they did indeed provide the public addresses (THE HORROR! PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATOIN!) of those Justices.

Not a one of them seems to have actually verified if the addresses are even real.

[Xyonai]

It's all unsourced bullshit to begin with. Just a handful of right wing sites taking a tiny protest group with no social media footprint super cereally and uncritically believing that they did indeed provide the public addresses (THE HORROR! PUBLICLY AVAILABLE INFORMATOIN!) of those Justices.

Not a one of them seems to have actually verified if the addresses are even real.

Then my statement remains half true, because I'd feel bad if unrelated randoms were dealing with sudden protests popping up on their front lawns when they didn't do anything.

[Endus]

I mean, if we want to make a more pointed comparison: Christine Blasey Ford, the woman who testified against Kavanaugh, has had to move four times since her hearing because right wing lunatics kept sending her death threats. Whereas ol' Bret himself is just being annoyed by protesters with signs.

I'm finding it incredibly difficult to feel bad for him, a public official, being 'doxxed'.

To be clear, I have zero patience for death threats and if we're talking residential areas, there's almost certainly noise and possibly nuisance by-laws that would somewhat restrict protests (not completely, but no chanting loudly while blaring music and spotlights at 2am or something).

But their e-mail being flooded with critical messages, their voicemail inbox being full, and having to otherwise experience that people are annoyed at you? Welcome to a free society, I guess. You chose to hold a public office. Dealing with public outcry's kinda part of the territory, particularly when your decisions impact directly upon them.

Speaking as someone who lives just outside Ottawa and just had to deal with that fucking truck convoy for weeks, where the issue was always that they were intentionally blocking traffic, causing residents to go without sleep due to constant horn-blaring, and engaging in regularly threatening behaviour up to and including trying to burn an entire apartment building down and seal everyone inside in the process (which they failed at, because they were morons, but I'm more concerned about the intent). Nobody would've given a shit if they'd just been protesting outside MP's houses peacefully.

[Xyonai]

...and engaging in regularly threatening behaviour up to and including trying to burn an entire apartment building down and seal everyone inside in the process (which they failed at, because they were morons, but I'm more concerned about the intent).

The news cycle has been chalk full of fuckin' bullshit the last couple months that I almost forgot about this nugget, was anyone arrested for that because holy shit that's heinous.

[Jastall]

Again, semantics battles are fruitless. The court is not the battleground for such immense social legislation; it should be left to the states. The very act of choosing not to set policy is a policy, but very weakly one. We disagree on the meaning of politicization as it applies to the court. I made it in the previous post, but you reject that reasoning, so whatever.

I think we've been back and forth over the same ground, talking on our own non-intersecting points. You're transitioning to viability from what was originally on "rare, therefore not worth discussing." Unaddressed are the magnitude-10,000 pregnancies covered in previous post.

The national government has no business making 1 giant decision for all 50 states, rather than the people's voice 50 times in 50 states. Each state makes the law, and bears responsibility for the outcomes. The constitution does not empower Congress with setting abortion policy. But it's nice to see you have ethical quandaries when it comes to partial birth abortion. It will set you against current legislation in Congress made by the Democratic party, which has no restrictions for all nine months. It's quite radical when it comes to very late term abortions, parental notice, parental consent, abortions based on race/sex/disability, and religious exemptions for doctors or religious hospitals.

He refused to allow a breach in the filibuster rule to enact the ban, so from his context, it won't happen. I don't see a pro-life majority seating 60 on the Senate. But, yes, this sets me against McConnell, the minority leader. The judge with the leaked opinion did not say that "homosexual rights and interracial marriage may be next in the line of fire." He wasted a lot of breath (for people that won't read the opinion) to say how removed abortion is from other considerations of substantive due process, etc. Literally, read the first 10 pages. It'll do you some good if you really, truly, believe you have an accurate summary of Alito. Like you want to say, context matters. I continue to argue that it's unfalsifiable conspiracy theory to state that someone's angling for legislation against interracial marriage in the guise of state rights (last I checked, something like 96% approval).

Uh, you're the one who was talking about viability and imposing your definition on the matter using sources that did not. Given that the actual number of "viable" fetuses that get aborted is in the realm of 2-3k in a country with nearly a million abortions/year, yes I still do consider not worth discussing the same way you consider rapes, incest and other cases not worth discussing. Is it an issue in my eyes, yes, should it drive policy by itself, no.

Why should the national government have no say in the matter? That's literally what a national government does, decide for everyone on matters that affect everyone after being elected by everyone. Local governments should be empowered to make important decisions that impart local populations most, but abortion is a fundamental rights issue, whenever you see it from the PoV of the mother or the fetus. I see no compelling reason to leave it to the States beyond "it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution" which as I've said is a complete cop-out considering 1) interpretation is a thing and 2) SCOTUS has liberally interpreted said Constitution to give broad powers to the national governments that weren't mentioned verbatim in the document before.

As for my ethical quandaries RE partial term abortions, they're dwarfed by my quandaries RE removing bodily autonomy for tens of million of women or the quagmire of issues that arise if you try to give the fetus personhood, to say nothing of my more practical issues with some States outlawing or severely limiting abortions (which are many and varied but beyond the scope of the current discussion). So no, I don't feel that Roe v Wade is anything close to radical or extreme in comparison. Radical was what happened in China during the one-child policy, or a theoretical scenario where a certain race or class of people is targeted for encouraged/mandatory abortion of some sort. Radical is legalizing virtual bounty hunting on women obtaining an otherwise legal abortion, or banning all abortions no matter what and trying to avoid people doing it in other States as well. Roe is identical to the law of the land in mine old country up north, except we codified it in a criminal code that is the same countrywide- something which I approve far more of than the patchwork of criminal laws in the States. And in case you go "oh so that makes you a hardline federalist!" or something, I most definitely am not when it comes to civil matters. Again, details beyond the scope of the current discussion.

I have read the opinion, and those passages are far from the only ones I have an issue with, by the by. Your condemnation of McConnel is noted, but we'll have to disagree on the subject of the memo because I very much interpreted it as preparing the ground for further conservative interpretations.

[NED funded]

same group of people had / have no problem supporting the total "doxxing" of hunter biden's entire life, email and private pictures.....
but the horror of protesting outside someone house.

I mean what is the point of protesting outside a judge's house

Intimidate them into changing their opinion? Cuz thats messed up.

The right focusing on that is obvi a hypocritical cuz they literally tried to raid the capitol literally just last year

[Mehrunes]

Donald Trump's "Disinformation Governance Board" would be the ones coming up with the Disinformation.

You know like "The election was stolen", "Jan. 6 was a peaceful protest and if it wasn't than it was antifa."

You don't need to go this far into his presidency. Even the very start has such gems as God personally preventing rain from falling during his inauguration, when half of the memes from it focused on Bush fucking around with a poncho because it very much rained.

[Belize]

Intimidate them into changing their opinion? Cuz thats messed up.

Is it when the vast majority of the country opposes what they're doing? I don't see the issue protesting a minority trying to impose their law on the majority. Authoritarian shit like this needs to be snipped at the bud asap, if it takes a couple corrupt judges fearing for their livelihood, then *shrug*.

No ones forcing them to be corrupt christofascists.

[Edge-]

I mean what is the point of protesting outside a judge's house

Free Speach.

Intimidate them into changing their opinion? Cuz thats messed up.

No, it's Free Speach.

[tehdang]

Uh, you're the one who was talking about viability and imposing your definition on the matter using sources that did not. Given that the actual number of "viable" fetuses that get aborted is in the realm of 2-3k in a country with nearly a million abortions/year, yes I still do consider not worth discussing the same way you consider rapes, incest and other cases not worth discussing. Is it an issue in my eyes, yes, should it drive policy by itself, no.

I talked about third trimester precisely because it's the biggest area where Americans desire restrictions, or consider that abortions should generally be illegal in that range (second trimester less so, but still majorities in polls I've seen) . Go back and quote what part of my posts made you think I was citing viability to you.

Why should the national government have no say in the matter? That's literally what a national government does, decide for everyone on matters that affect everyone after being elected by everyone. Local governments should be empowered to make important decisions that impart local populations most, but abortion is a fundamental rights issue, whenever you see it from the PoV of the mother or the fetus. I see no compelling reason to leave it to the States beyond "it's not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution" which as I've said is a complete cop-out considering 1) interpretation is a thing and 2) SCOTUS has liberally interpreted said Constitution to give broad powers to the national governments that weren't mentioned verbatim in the document before.

Because we have a constitution meant to give states authority, and the federal government far less authority. It's a meaningful compromise that enticed states to even consent to a damned national government in the first place. No restrictions on the federal government on questions this far removed from constitutional powers, no United States of America in the first place.

As for my ethical quandaries RE partial term abortions, they're dwarfed by my quandaries RE removing bodily autonomy for tens of million of women or the quagmire of issues that arise if you try to give the fetus personhood, to say nothing of my more practical issues with some States outlawing or severely limiting abortions (which are many and varied but beyond the scope of the current discussion). So no, I don't feel that Roe v Wade is anything close to radical or extreme in comparison. Radical was what happened in China during the one-child policy, or a theoretical scenario where a certain race or class of people is targeted for encouraged/mandatory abortion of some sort. Radical is legalizing virtual bounty hunting on women obtaining an otherwise legal abortion, or banning all abortions no matter what and trying to avoid people doing it in other States as well. Roe is identical to the law of the land in mine old country up north, except we codified it in a criminal code that is the same countrywide- something which I approve far more of than the patchwork of criminal laws in the States. And in case you go "oh so that makes you a hardline federalist!" or something, I most definitely am not when it comes to civil matters. Again, details beyond the scope of the current discussion.

I understand your position, while we disagree on it.

I have read the opinion, and those passages are far from the only ones I have an issue with, by the by. Your condemnation of McConnel is noted, but we'll have to disagree on the subject of the memo because I very much interpreted it as preparing the ground for further conservative interpretations.

We'll disagree then.

[Endus]

The news cycle has been chalk full of fuckin' bullshit the last couple months that I almost forgot about this nugget, was anyone arrested for that because holy shit that's heinous.

Yeah, they've got a couple arrests for that attack specifically, and they're still looking.

- - - Updated - - -

I mean what is the point of protesting outside a judge's house

Intimidate them into changing their opinion? Cuz thats messed up.

No, protesting. That's the point.

That you jump from that to intimidation betrays way more about you than you seem to realize.

- - - Updated - - -

Because we have a constitution meant to give states authority, and the federal government far less authority.

This is completely backwards. The Constitution explicitly states that its authority supercedes State authority. It is the greater authority of the two, and that's always been true.

You're repeating Confederate bullshit propaganda. Their claims didn't hold merit then, and they haven't improved with age.

It's a meaningful compromise that enticed states to even consent to a damned national government in the first place. No restrictions on the federal government on questions this far removed from constitutional powers, no United States of America in the first place.

This is nonsense, since the original 13 States all collaborated in developing the Constitution, and there was no "compromise" there to get any of them to join; they were all active participants in shaping what they had already agreed needed to be a federal, united system.

And states joining past the 13th weren't offered concessions to lure them in, in this regard. They got to sign on with the Constitution as it already was.

The existence of State and Federal authorities isn't unique, and wasn't unique even then, and the idea that States would retain some authority is just a recognition that State governments existed and there would be elements the Federal Government wouldn't rule on.

[tehdang]

I mean what is the point of protesting outside a judge's house

Intimidate them into changing their opinion? Cuz thats messed up.

The right focusing on that is obvi a hypocritical cuz they literally tried to raid the capitol literally just last year

If the shoe was on the other foot, and a conservative protest mob forced Sotomayor to evacuate her house based on some leaked opinion against conservatives, I think we'd see comparisons to Jan 6th. Their work is in Supreme Court Building, go voice your protest there. Family and kids have nothing to do with it, except if you're deranged.

[TexasRules]

Donald Trump's "Disinformation Governance Board" would be the ones coming up with the Disinformation.

You know like "The election was stolen", "Jan. 6 was a peaceful protest and if it wasn't than it was antifa."

You basically admit you would have a problem with Trump creating such a board but will not admit you have a problem with Biden doing it. You're all the same...attack attack attack but don't answer the simple question posited. The answer was: No, no one will give an honest answer, just attack.

Everyone on here has the same refrain. You voted AGAINST Trump, but not for Biden. So every answer has to involve Trump because you have no logical argument for what Biden is doing. Every answer HAS to involve Trump because he lives rent free in your head. At what point can you guys get over your derangement over Trump and actually take a look at the person you voted in to office. You're going to find that voting out Trump may have been good in the present, but the worst thing long term for your party. Biden is widely unpopular and going down hill even more. The midterms for democrats are going to be running on keeping roe vs wade and....what else? what else can they run on? You think Independents give 2 shits about Trump who hasn't been President in a year and half where we have record inflation? You think they will care when you trot out Trump rhetoric when the price of gas keeps rising? Do you think the optics will be that Trump caused all of this and roe vs wade? Trump gets you part of your base, the part not mad at Biden for not doing what they voted him in to do. Trump doesn't get you independents. But keep telling yourself if you repeat it enough and make everything about him like every liberal does in this board that the midterms will sweep in a great majority for democrats.

[Endus]

If the shoe was on the other foot, and a conservative protest mob forced Sotomayor to evacuate her house based on some leaked opinion against conservatives, I think we'd see comparisons to Jan 6th. Their work is in Supreme Court Building, go voice your protest there. Family and kids have nothing to do with it, except if you're deranged.

"Forced to evacuate". It was some chanting and sign-waving. Stop being absolutely fuckin' ridiculous. You folks really hate freedom of speech.

Also, context kinda matters. It really depends on what you're protesting, and why, because yeah, we'll judge protestors' character based on that. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

- - - Updated - - -

You basically admit you would have a problem with Trump creating such a board but will not admit you have a problem with Biden doing it.

Because both sides aren't the same, and pretending they are is just intentional dishonesty and shitposting.

You're all the same...attack attack attack but don't answer the simple question posited. The answer was: No, no one will give an honest answer, just attack.

You've been given honest answers, you just ignore them.

Everyone on here has the same refrain. You voted AGAINST Trump, but not for Biden. So every answer has to involve Trump because you have no logical argument for what Biden is doing.

You haven't made a single argument against the idea of a disinformation board. Literally, not one. Just fearmongering about how Republicans would abuse such a thing if they created it, and you can't believe Democrats aren't that dishonest.

Every answer HAS to involve Trump because he lives rent free in your head. At what point can you guys get over your derangement over Trump and actually take a look at the person you voted in to office.

Dude, you're the one who brought up Trump. In this response to a post of mine, that didn't talk about Trump at all; https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...7#post53759137

[Belize]

If the shoe was on the other foot, and a conservative protest mob forced Sotomayor to evacuate her house based on some leaked opinion against conservatives, I think we'd see comparisons to Jan 6th. Their work is in Supreme Court Building, go voice your protest there. Family and kids have nothing to do with it, except if you're deranged.

No one forced the special snowflakes to "evacuate" their house. That's just the good ol' Conservative victim complex rearing up its ugly head again.

[Endus]

No one forced the special snowflakes to "evacuate" their house. That's just the good ol' Conservative victim complex rearing up its ugly head again.

But they were chanting. And waving signs around.

PANIC.