SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Huehuecoyotl]

Yep, he will do what DeSantis did about covid or change the definition of Rape.

"Women are no longer allowed to say no. Rape no longer exists".

And they'd call it a win.

[postman1782]

"Women are no longer allowed to say no. Rape no longer exists".

And they'd call it a win.

I mean, some Republican men have said that married women can't say no to their husbands and they don't consider that rape. So, it wouldn't surprise me.

[Miffinat0r]

I mean, some Republican men have said that married women can't say no to their husbands and they don't consider that rape. So, it wouldn't surprise me.

Only 8 years ago we had Todd Akin saying rapes don't cause pregnancies' because the body can reject it.

Like what Disney written story are you existing in? (you being republicans, not you as postman1782, for clarification)

[jna]

The separation of powers and the separation of Church and State ensure that religious zeal doesn't get away with such heinous manipulation of the State. It has worked so far. Good men and woman work everyday to ensure this basic principle and it is our civic duty to be a part of this lawful process.

Oh dude, come on. You just described what happened lol. But I get you are having some fun around here. Good for you, I guess.
I can't wait for the government to ban jerking off, because you know, human cells are now treated as "persons" for criminal legislation. Masturbation is clearly mass murder, a genocide of "babies".

State's rights give individual states the right to pass and enforce laws and operate independently of and with minimal interference by the federal government. This means each state has the right and the power to operate independently from the federal government as long as there is no violation of the US constitution.

violation of the US constitution.

Which, at this point, can really mean anything you want it to, right? At the end of the day, what seems to matter is who have the power to decide what is a violation and what is not, as we just saw.
It works almost like magic: You just need to get X "judges" of your political faction (or religious sect, that works too) and voilà, suddenly and magically, the constitutional flavors change dramatically in your favor... after 50 fu****g years. High level magic.

Constitutions and laws are just imaginary things we create for organization, to set the guidelines of a society. Similar to tools and technology, we create them to improve our lives.
We create tech and tools to serve us, right? Not to become servants of these creations, right? Same thing for laws, constitutions, institutions, etc.
So, rules, laws, constitutions are as good as they fulfill their role as entities/tools to create a social structure capable of bringing peace, harmony, prosperity = improving the life of citizens who live under these systems. Because that's all that matters.

(hyper) legalist arguments tend to treat "constitution" like some kind of flawless, infallible, sacred "Bible" that holds all the "truths". While SCOTUS are some kind of high clerics who can verify if the "truth" is intact or was violated.
If a constitution or law doesn't represent the will of the people anymore, if it doesn't fulfill its role organizing social life for the better, then it's worth less than toilet paper. Maybe it's time for a new one? More modern and more democratic?

According to polls, republicans don't trust elections anymore (unless they win). After the SCOTUS shitshow, democrats won't trust an institution that is removing their rights for absolutely no reason. The future doesn't look very bright. The legitimacy crisis just got bigger. Advocating for unity, while ignoring the real consequences of recent events, doesn't sound very practical or smart, imo. Maybe a new social pact could bring americans together, who knows.

[Kathandira]

Oh dude, come on. You just described what happened lol. But I get you are having some fun around here. Good for you, I guess.
I can't wait for the government to ban jerking off, because you know, human cells are now treated as "persons" for criminal legislation. Masturbation is clearly mass murder, a genocide of "babies".

I'm really liking the call to start child support and health benefits for the child beginning at the date of conception. Especially if any of that money comes at the expense of the taxpayers. That can set quite a precedent. Either it will make conservatives rethink the whole "a mass of cells is a human being" stance, or if they go for it, it can open the door for national health care a little further.

[Poopymonster]

I'm really liking the call to start child support and health benefits for the child beginning at the date of conception. Especially if any of that money comes at the expense of the taxpayers. That can set quite a precedent. Either it will make conservatives rethink the whole "a mass of cells is a human being" stance, or if they go for it, it can open the door for national health care a little further.

Licenses. Schooling. Joining the military. Everything.

But legally it's not "life" until it's born. We'd have to change that.

[Kathandira]

Licenses. Schooling. Joining the military. Everything.

But legally it's not "life" until it's born. We'd have to change that.

If legally it is not life until it is born, then abortion should be legal. Which I guess is the entire point of the discussion. lol

[Poopymonster]

If legally it is not life until it is born, then abortion should be legal. Which I guess is the entire point of the discussion. lol

I agree whole heartedly. I pointed out earlier in the thread 2 fun ones.

[gondrin]

Women ‘don’t have an absolute right to bodily autonomy’, says Tory MP Danny Kruger

Great, we've got idiots like this across the pond, too...

Psst, the idiots are everywhere, in every country across the planet. The thing is to keep them at a minimum(or outright removed) from politics and lawmaking.

[Glorious Leader]

Constitutions and laws are just imaginary things we create for organization, to set the guidelines of a society. Similar to tools and technology, we create them to improve our lives.
We create tech and tools to serve us, right? Not to become servants of these creations, right? Same thing for laws, constitutions, institutions, etc.
So, rules, laws, constitutions are as good as they fulfill their role as entities/tools to create a social structure capable of bringing peace, harmony, prosperity = improving the life of citizens who live under these systems. Because that's all that matters.

(hyper) legalist arguments tend to treat "constitution" like some kind of flawless, infallible, sacred "Bible" that holds all the .

The right wingers tend to follow or ascribe to the phenomenon they call natural law which is immutable and not like man's laws.... that is until the Supreme Court rules in their favor then they support all kinds of state intervention.

[gondrin]

The right wingers tend to follow or ascribe to the phenomenon they call natural law which is immutable and not like man's laws.... that is until the Supreme Court rules in their favor then they support all kinds of state intervention.

Well, right wing zealots tend to think of the US Constitution as some immutable and unchangeable holy document instead of a thing that needs to be updated every so often to either add or remove things that don't pertain to today's world.

The way laws are written(at least in the US), no law is actually physically removed from the actual law books, just repealed or changed. I mean, go look at the US Tax code. The first 30 - 40 pages deal with one code and all the changes to it over the years.

[Miffinat0r]

Well, right wing zealots tend to think of the US Constitution as some immutable and unchangeable holy document instead of a thing that needs to be updated every so often to either add or remove things that don't pertain to today's world.

The way laws are written(at least in the US), no law is actually physically removed from the actual law books, just repealed or changed. I mean, go look at the US Tax code. The first 30 - 40 pages deal with one code and all the changes to it over the years.

The fed society teaches Originalism. Originalism implies that there's value to the original intent of how the framers of the constitution and amendments can provide guidance on modern day issues.

Problems were that in 1789, black people could not vote, women could not vote, and only land owners could vote.

The intent of these guys is not something we should be using considering they all agreed that black people were 3/5ths of a person.

Originalism is a flawed legal framework and the Civil War proved that Originalism is an ideology that will always fail, and the reason it fails when it comes to minority civil rights, women's civil rights, and matters that tie into those two is because the framers did not think they were issues because their society was fundamentally ignorant, and immoral by our own enlightenment.

The biggest issue I have with Originalism is it takes the enlightenment of the 19th century and elevates it over any other enlightenment that occurred after that.

Then when you step back you realize that bragging we have this old document that governs us is not a brag worthy issue. It shows we're willing to hold onto old prejudices and we as a society fail to evolve.

[Endus]

Originalism is a flawed legal framework and the Civil War proved that Originalism is an ideology that will always fail, and the reason it fails when it comes to minority civil rights, women's civil rights, and matters that tie into those two is because the framers did not think they were issues because their society was fundamentally ignorant, and immoral by our own enlightenment.

Worse; it's either an intended lie, or whoever's pushing "originalism" is a brutalizing human rights atrocity waiting to happen. Literally; everyone pushing Originalism is either lying to your face about their motives, or they're a slavery-endorsing extremist who wants to bring back the dehumanization and enslavement of non-whites.

Take your pick, but there isn't an alternative, because the "original" Constitutional intent was to support and protect the institution of slavery. "Oh, but I don't mean THAT bit", they say; well, then they know full well that the "original intent" is garbage reasoning for anything and the entire concept of using it is indefensible; that's why we know they're lying to you.

Originalists are liars, or they desperately want to go back to owning black people as livestock. One or the other. Either's enough to discard the idea.

[Gestopft]

The fed society teaches Originalism. Originalism implies that there's value to the original intent of how the framers of the constitution and amendments can provide guidance on modern day issues.

And the immediately obvious problem with originalism is that the founders...didn't agree with each other. The "intent" carried within the Constitution, assuming you can accurately ascertain it, is the product of a compromise.

The founders also did not agree on the concept of originalism, and how much future generations should be tied to their own.

[Miffinat0r]

Founders were bullied into supporting Virginia and her stance on Slavery which brought the Southern Colonies in tow.

Again as I stated the South never really got their due punishment for the Civil War and the North blinked in 1877.

But Originalism will always be a flawed logic because the Civil War happened and changed the constitution which is where these issues lie at. Conservatives want us to go back before the Civil War as our guidance, and when we do that we wind up making the same mistakes that led to the Civil War.

[Rommon64]

Originalism also gives a false sense of legitimatize to their legal arguments, in a way to avoid being just another interpretation of the Constitution. Instead of having to argue based the merits of their interpretation, they can pretend it's not an interpretation, that anything else is deviation from what the original writers actually meant. They don't have to prove their right, they win by default.

[tehdang]

The fed society teaches Originalism. Originalism implies that there's value to the original intent of how the framers of the constitution and amendments can provide guidance on modern day issues.

Problems were that in 1789, black people could not vote, women could not vote, and only land owners could vote.

The intent of these guys is not something we should be using considering they all agreed that black people were 3/5ths of a person.

Originalism is a flawed legal framework and the Civil War proved that Originalism is an ideology that will always fail, and the reason it fails when it comes to minority civil rights, women's civil rights, and matters that tie into those two is because the framers did not think they were issues because their society was fundamentally ignorant, and immoral by our own enlightenment.

The biggest issue I have with Originalism is it takes the enlightenment of the 19th century and elevates it over any other enlightenment that occurred after that.

Then when you step back you realize that bragging we have this old document that governs us is not a brag worthy issue. It shows we're willing to hold onto old prejudices and we as a society fail to evolve.

There's obviously also value in amending the constitution, and knowing that justices are bound by the new language as written, and not subject to the caprice of judges who claim it meant something else. You've cited several aspects that were successfully changed by the amendment process (3/5ths compromise, black suffrage, women's suffrage), and it's important to recognize that future amendments would do the same for whatever you want to call civil rights and guarantee across every state. The constitution itself has been amended in over two dozen ways ... importantly proving that the old document that governs us informed us also on the need for changes. It's the question about who has the power to compel something to be unlawful or undeniable that plagues the court.

[Miffinat0r]

There's obviously also value in amending the constitution, and knowing that justices are bound by the new language as written, and not subject to the caprice of judges who claim it meant something else. You've cited several aspects that were successfully changed by the amendment process (3/5ths compromise, black suffrage, women's suffrage), and it's important to recognize that future amendments would do the same for whatever you want to call civil rights and guarantee across every state. The constitution itself has been amended in over two dozen ways ... importantly proving that the old document that governs us informed us also on the need for changes. It's the question about who has the power to compel something to be unlawful or undeniable that plagues the court.

But the amendment process you cited there wasn't used in it's true form with all the state legislatures. The 3/5ths compromise and black sufferage were not done because of the amendment process. They were done because states left the union and were in open rebellion and the remaining states passed the amendments because Originalism as a framework was used to support slavery.

So this wasn't some successful amendment process this was done while we were killing each other. Originalism leads to civil war because there's no way to rectify the egregious behaviors that the founders supported, which were Slavery, Anti-Woman Suffrage, and support for a welfare state.

I'm not sure how you gloss over the fact that the Civil War was being fought and then the Civil War Amendments were passed largely without the Southern States approval.

I should also note the Reconstruction Acts kinda forced the Southern States to ratify the 13th and 14th amendments as requirements for them rejoining. Civil War forced the South to adopt the 13th amendments against their will and reconstruction acts did 14 against their will but again Americans killed a bunch of the treasonous scum so they really weren't in a position to give their opinion, which was good.

But again Originalism shows it supported slavery.

[Rasulis]

Yeah Blur is more optimistic about the Democrats chances, at least according to a previous post they made before this newest one that you quoted. I still feel like it could go other way, my hope is that if the Democrats do lose seats it's not many, effectively leading to a stalemate on many issues, at least then the GOP will have trouble passing their usual horrendous agenda.

If abortion supporters don't show up to vote in the mid-term and 2024, then the right to have abortion in the US is doomed.

The only thing protecting the right currently is the Fed. The pro-life states may be able to control pharmacies and doctors in their states. However, mail is the Fed sole jurisdiction. As long as the Fed says it is legal to mail abortion pills, women in pro-life states will be able to legally order those pills from companies based in pro-abortion states. There is not a damn thing anti-abortion states can do about it. If the GOP win in 2024, that's when women will see real abortion nightmare scenario in real life.

[Endus]

Founders were bullied into supporting Virginia and her stance on Slavery which brought the Southern Colonies in tow.

Some of those Founders, like Jefferson, were Virgianian.

A lot of Americans like to pretend their Founding Fathers were mythic heroes who stood head and shoulders above their fellow men, ethically and morally and intellectually, but a lot of them were pretty fucking stupid, and a lot of the rest were amoral sons-of-bitches like Jefferson, the brutal slave-raping slaveowner. Who, despite writing some supposedly pro-abolition stuff, went home and raped his wife's half-sister (whom he owned, as a slave) repeatedly, fathering children on her, and then never emancipating her or his children, even though he absolutely could have.