SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Gestopft]

Eh, its been effectively that way for a while. That's not going to make things that much worse.

It isn't good, but there are a lot of things that would be worse.

No no, if the court decides to toss Chevron deference out the window that will be major.

[Endus]

This is why you have people like Endus saying that the cruelty is the point.

Endus pointed it out. It is all about cruelty against others they feel are lesser then themselves and they feel they don't deserve the same rights(or any rights at all).

Like, I really wish I wasn't, and I used to give a whole lot more benefit of the doubt, presuming there must be something I was missing.

But I kept asking, and breaking it down kept ending up at "intentional, deliberate cruelty". And frankly, I'm a hell of a lot more concerned over the people they'll victimize than I am about the feelings of their abusers for being called out as abusers. Especially when they can just, like, stop. Any day now.

I wish we could go back to debating the merits of supply-side economics vs Keynesian economics in creating a functional society, but pleasant debates like that have to take a back burner when people are trying to marginalize and dehumanize women, as is happening here, among other comparable issues I'm not gonna raise because I'm not gonna even risk derailing. It shouldn't be this way. But the only way for it not to be this way is to call the fascist shit out as fascist, so we can ostracize and marginalize those fascist abusers and prevent them inflicting harm for harm's sake.

[Traveler Voltin]

We need a new Supreme Court.

[Axxil]

It really doesn't matter which side you stand on with this. It was the correct ruling. Even bade Ginsburg, champion of women, thought it was bad law and should have been approached a different way.

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

- - - Updated - - -

The Pentagon has stated that any abortion laws enacted as a result of the Supreme Court's decision will not be recognized, and that they will continue to provide abortion services to service members, the civilian workforce and DOD families.

Federal law currently allows military medical facilities to provide abortions only in cases of rape, incest or if a woman’s life is in danger, while the military's health program is allowed to cover abortions at private facilities for those same reasons only.

Yes, because people in the military are subject to the military and not the state they reside in, unless they are in the Guard. That's all this means.

[Fugus]

It really doesn't matter which side you stand on with this. It was the correct ruling. Even bade Ginsburg, champion of women, thought it was bad law and should have been approached a different way.

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because people in the military are subject to the military and not the state they reside in, unless they are in the Guard. That's all this means.

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of gerrymandering and voter disfranchisement and the fact we have states where you can get 70%+ of the representation and steamroll through with less than 50% of the vote not even including the ones you kept from voting.

The main ones agreeing with this ruling are also the same ones who hate democracy and packed the court to subvert it.

[david0925]

America needs a fundamental overhaul on a lot of things to be actually Democratic, and it's actually sad/aggravating to see people always go "FoUnDinG fAtHeRs" like people from 200 years ago didn't make plenty of mistakes.

People (especially the BoTh sIde people, disingenuous or not) always like to talk about increasing partisanship in today's politics but how do you reason with people that refuse to acknowledge facts? Pack the court, increase number of judges. Impose limited time on SC, if not all branches of government. Get rid of EC. None of this is going to be close to being easy but waiting is the worst thing to do.

It's time to stop trying to "play nice", you need to play the Republican's games and hope to keep yourself in check that, when you do fix some of these stupidities that exist in the American political system, that you don't turn out to be a worse party than current day Republicans and voters current Conservatives (although it would be an achievement to actually pull that off)

[Gestopft]

It really doesn't matter which side you stand on with this. It was the correct ruling. Even bade Ginsburg, champion of women, thought it was bad law and should have been approached a different way.

Yes clearly people should care more about the legal technicalities than...ya know...their rights disappearing?

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

So should we return the issue of segregation back to the states? Or gay marriage? Or interracial marriage? Is that the pro-democracy position?

[Axxil]

Allow me to introduce you to the concept of gerrymandering and voter disfranchisement and the fact we have states where you can get 70%+ of the representation and steamroll through with less than 50% of the vote not even including the ones you kept from voting.

The main ones agreeing with this ruling are also the same ones who hate democracy and packed the court to subvert it.

How do you see this as a packed court? The justices orange man appointed were within his limits to appoint. Packing a court is what people are calling for now.

[david0925]

The whole "states rights" is pretty stupid too. If they want to take an opposing direction from another state, they should not be subsidized from taxes from those other states.

Yeah, there are things that make more sense to be done on a local/state level, like how to allocate your budget. Leaving human rights to "interpretation" and "each state" is one of the dumbest things that conservatives can ever spew, and they already spew plenty of nonsensical shit.

Let's see how these southern states do without leeching off the northern states.

[Fugus]

How do you see this as a packed court? The justices orange man appointed were within his limits to appoint. Packing a court is what people are calling for now.

You mean the one where they held open a seat for over a year to prevent Obama from getting his seat?
The one that committed perjury during his own hearings and is a potential serial rapist?
Or the one they shoved through during an election?

Or the fact that a super majority of the Supreme Court were nominations from people the majority of the nation voted against?

Pretty firmly anti-democratic when the court is made up of views the nation voted against.

[Endus]

It really doesn't matter which side you stand on with this. It was the correct ruling. Even bade Ginsburg, champion of women, thought it was bad law and should have been approached a different way.

If it's a bad precedent that protects a necessary right, the only ethical approach is to maintain the bad precedent while Congress passes a new "better" law to protect that right directly, at which point the "bad" precedent is superceded and irrelevant.

The way SCOTUS did it was to deny the right at all, which was intended to victimize and marginalize women. Or at least, to allow States to do so freely.

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

No, people hate religious fascists who seek to harm innocents.

[Axxil]

Pretty firmly anti-democratic when the court is made up of views the nation voted against.

Of course the SCOTUS isn't democratic, they aren't part of our democratic system.

[Fugus]

Of course the SCOTUS isn't democratic, they aren't part of our democratic system.

You are trying to pivot there I see. You mentioned how people act like they hate democracy and I pointed out that the people you are agreeing with are the ones who actually hated democracy and subverted it to get the supreme court they wanted to subvert democracy and that is your next response.

Nice circular logic there buddy. As it stands, the Supreme Court doesn't have any credibility when one party subverted democracy to get them appointed to begin with.

[Shadowferal]

Of course the SCOTUS isn't democratic, they aren't part of our democratic system.

Two judges lied through their teeth so they could push their own views...and to thank Trump.

If you're defending them then you're part of the problem.

[Darththeo]

It really doesn't matter which side you stand on with this. It was the correct ruling. Even bade Ginsburg, champion of women, thought it was bad law and should have been approached a different way.

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

It shouldn't be a state's right issue. I am sorry, but taking a case that supported that citizens of the United States have a right to privacy protected by the Constitution and saying "No, this is for the states to decide" is a step backwards. Essentially, now even if a national abortion rights bill get passed, this ruling could be used to justify that law as unconstitutional. Codifying roe as law may not be enough now.

This isn't a democratic answer and doesn't give people more power. It actually takes power away from people.

- - - Updated - - -

How do you see this as a packed court? The justices orange man appointed were within his limits to appoint. Packing a court is what people are calling for now.

Because that's what it is. Packed court doesn't just means "put more justices on it."

The court was packed against the will of the American people. Two seats, one stolen by a made up rule, and then the rule is ignore because "democrats are mean" (I know that isn't the actual reason, but it makes more sense) is what packed the court.

[Glorious Leader]

You are trying to pivot there I see. You mentioned how people act like they hate democracy and I pointed out that the people you are agreeing with are the ones who actually hated democracy and subverted it to get the supreme court they wanted to subvert democracy and that is your next response.

Nice circular logic there buddy. As it stands, the Supreme Court doesn't have any credibility when one party subverted democracy to get them appointed to begin with.

Dude its been subverting democracy for decades now. Bush V Gore... it was never meant to be democratic neither was the senate. Madison in particular is very explicit about the need for these institutions to actually check democracy because the anti federalist were not thrilled with the idea of the opulent minority being ruled by the majority of poor.

[Darththeo]

Two judges lied through their teeth so they could push their own views...and to thank Trump.

If you're defending them then you're part of the problem.

4 judges currently on the Court all said that Roe was settle law and all of them now said "Nah, Roe was wrong!"

There are five justices that have reasons to be impeached, but there is no way to get them removed at the moment.

[NoiseTank13]

It really doesn't matter which side you stand on with this. It was the correct ruling. Even bade Ginsburg, champion of women, thought it was bad law and should have been approached a different way.

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes, because people in the military are subject to the military and not the state they reside in, unless they are in the Guard. That's all this means.

This boy is completely unaware of gerrymandering or the fact a minority of this country has more power than the majority.

[Fugus]

Dude its been subverting democracy for decades now. Bush V Gore... it was never meant to be democratic neither was the senate. Madison in particular is very explicit about the need for these institutions to actually check democracy because the anti federalist were not thrilled with the idea of the opulent minority being ruled by the majority of poor.

The President who nominates them is supposed to be Democratic but the GOP has made sure can't do that and a super majority of nominations were put there by presidents the nation voted against. The Senate was supposed to represent the states but voter disenfranchisement calls that into question as well, while with Congress voter disenfranchisement and gerrymandering has robbed it from them as well.

Quite literally, we have a single party fighting democracy at every point and did some major fuckery to pack the court to expressly block democracy, hell those fuck ups just legalized outright overt bribery of elected officials last month.

[Twdft]

Turns out now, though, with it returning to a states rights issue, where people vote in representatives who represent THEIR views and make laws for their constituents, people hate democracy.

Basic human rights should be the same no matter which state they live in.

Here in Germany states have their own constitutions which may differ for human rights, but these differences can only make them better not worse than in Germanys basic law.