SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Adam Jensen]

Chin up, American libs! Just think, you're gonna get to VOTE on it now in your respective state! Isn't that exciting!?


Infracted.

Well shit, he's gone. I guess that means something insane's gonna happen before he gets back.

[fwc577]

To all the anti-choice idiots, if you buy on Amazon or you buy Levis you're supporting the funding of abortion. Enjoy hell with the rest of us, fuckos! Keep the seat warm for me when you get down there first!

- - - Updated - - -

How pathetic is your life where fishing for reaction on a serious issue like this is your greatest accomplishment? Like don't you want to actually do something good or worthwhile? Something that actually makes the world a better place?

Likely lacks the capacity to do something useful with his life. Kind of like an unborn fetus without a developing brain.

[Adam Jensen]

To all the anti-choice idiots, if you buy on Amazon or you buy Levis you're supporting the funding of abortion. Enjoy hell with the rest of us, fuckos! Keep the seat warm for me when you get down there first!

TBF, if I boycotted every company that supported some shitty thing, I would have no one to buy from.

[Poopymonster]

Well shit, he's gone. I guess that means something insane's gonna happen before he gets back.

72 minutes. 87 if you count the 15 minutes until the flag was thrown on the play.

[Mehrunes]

If a Justice's ruling risks decades or even centuries of judicial rulings and overthows the rights of millions of people, a leak to stop radicalism is a just thing to do cubby.

You can rant about how this isnt how its supposed to go because of idealism, but the SC as is risks fucking over the US entirely for just about every privacy based issue under the sun.

Also, if leaking it was so horrifying, one would think it would have been made illegal. But even though SCOTUS justices themselves deliberate on their rulings in secrecy, it's not actually confidential information and there's no penalty tied to leaking things like drafts of rulings. Which is why Roe v. Wade itself was also leaked back in the day. And plenty other rulings. This whole outrage over the leak is just pointless pear clutching distracting from the actual problem at hand.

[beanman12345]

Also, if leaking it was so horrifying, one would think it would have been made illegal. But even though SCOTUS justices themselves deliberate on their rulings in secrecy, it's not actually confidential information and there's no penalty tied to leaking things like drafts of rulings. Which is why Roe v. Wade itself was also leaked back in the day. And plenty other rulings. This whole outrage over the leak is just pointless pear clutching distracting from the actual problem at hand.

I'm pretty sure it's entirely to distract from the fact that Sir Hale was referenced in it.

[Finlandia WOAT]

Seeing graduates of elite law schools like Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro and Matt Gaetz go all in on "over educated out of touch cultural elites" culture war bs will never not be amusing to me.

[Kaleredar]

Seeing graduates of elite law schools like Ted Cruz, Ben Shapiro and Matt Gaetz go all in on "over educated out of touch cultural elites" culture war bs will never not be amusing to me.

Remember, these are the people that elected Trump, a new yorker billionaire media mogul, to strike back at the ivory tower wealthy coastal elites.

[Somewhatconcerned]

Chin up, American libs! Just think, you're gonna get to VOTE on it now in your respective state! Isn't that exciting!?


Infracted.

It's not ideal, but at least some will have a choice, re: moving to a state that better fits their values.

And yes, some will not be able to. I'm not sure if a one size fits all solution exists for such a polarizing issue.

[Belize]

such a polarizing issue.

It's not but ok

[Kaleredar]

It's not ideal, but at least some will have a choice, re: moving to a state that better fits their values.

And yes, some will not be able to. I'm not sure if a one size fits all solution exists for such a polarizing issue.

How about this:

1) The women who want abortions have the right to get one.

2) The people who are against abortions, or don't want to get one... never have to get one.

3) Aaaaand it's literally no one else's concern outside of that.

That sounds pretty good to me.

Funny, 'cuz that's the way things were before. The only people complaining were republicans, in that they couldn't tell people what to do.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm not sure if a one size fits all solution exists for such a polarizing issue.

It does.

It's actually really simple.

If you don't like abortions... don't have an abortion.

[Mehrunes]

Compared to 1990?

Sure are, yes. Welcome to objective reality.

And that you consider a basic respect for women's basic human rights to be "progressive", you've kind of outed yourself.

GOP and its voters don't do objective reality though (case in point, their latest talking outrage point about LGBT people "grooming" children to also become LGBT). So you can welcome them all you want, but you'd have more success extending that welcome to leprechauns.

Apparently this only covers "valuable" workers in-house. Not folks like warehouse workers/drivers.

Amazon kinda doesn't consider their drivers and warehouse workers to be people in the first place, so that's par for the course.

I'm pretty sure it's entirely to distract from the fact that Sir Hale was referenced in it.

Eh, I don't know where the posters whining about the leak as the most important issue to discuss here stand on Hale, so I can't comment on that. Unless you mean in more general sense than just this thread, in which case that could very well be motivation for some. After all even some (though, let's face it, most certainly not all) modern Republicans would consider Hale's views to be a bit too much and would feel the need to deflect from them.

It does.

It's actually really simple.

If you don't like abortions... don't have an abortion.

That's not really the small government way, is it now?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

72 minutes. 87 if you count the 15 minutes until the flag was thrown on the play.

Regardless of how we measure the time... it took 4 posts. He didn't even branch out of the thread.

- - - Updated - - -

That's not really the small government way, is it now?

No it's not... which is odd...because that seems to require the least possible amount of government. Practically zero.

[Blur4stuff]

Issues like this is how the GOP fuels itself. Even if they got everything they wanted concerning abortion they would then need to move on to something else in order to keep power. It will never be enough. They have no solutions for the real problems we face.

They won't suddenly stop and say, "Well, now that abortion is illegal we're ready to deal with income inequality, climate change, and healthcare costs". Next up is anything gay related, which they are already working to ban in several states. After that it's just going to be something else.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well, I guess it's time for the next phase of the "Gay Agenda". Start adopting all them unwanted babies and "turning" them all gay. Also, you don't have to be gay yourself to "turn" your children. Just tell them if they don't want to be teenage parents... they should "choose" to be gay.

[Edge-]

Well, I guess it's time for the next phase of the "Gay Agenda". Start adopting all them unwanted babies and "turning" them all gay. Also, you don't have to be gay yourself to "turn" your children. Just tell them if they don't want to be teenage parents... they should "choose" to be gay.

Too bad the states that have/are planning to pass laws banning abortion are also largely states that have laws allowing non-state sponsored adoption agencies to refuse adoption to same sex couples etc.

[s_bushido]

Well, I guess it's time for the next phase of the "Gay Agenda". Start adopting all them unwanted babies and "turning" them all gay. Also, you don't have to be gay yourself to "turn" your children. Just tell them if they don't want to be teenage parents... they should "choose" to be gay.

They'd just make it illegal for LGBT parents to adopt, if they haven't done that already.

[cubby]

Honestly, I kind of think that's backwards. The 9th states there are a lot of rights that are Constitutionally protected but not strictly enumerated, which means those rights are federally protected. The 9th would be utterly superfluous if it were to be interpreted the way Alito's trying to do, because those rights not explicitly enumerated would, due to the 10th, fall to the States anyway, automatically. The 9th only makes sense if it's meant to cover non-enumerated rights that are protected by the Constitution at the Federal level and not​ left to the States.

Unfortunately, that's not how it's played out in our courts. The 9th essentially lets us address issues that aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution, to cover items and issues that the Founders didn't specifically lay out. However, what it doesn't say is that those unenumerated rights will or won't be covered by the federal government.

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

It's entirely vague and literally left open to interpretation. Which the lower courts and SCOTUS have done, thoroughly and inconsistently, over the years.

- - - Updated - - -

As Endus himself says, that's backwards logic. The 10th already says rights not granted to the United States in the Constitution fall to the States. The 9th exists to tell that rights can be protected by the Constitution without being named verbatim. Kinda pointless if non-verbatim rights automatically go to the States anyway, which simply has not happened historically. The SCOTUS has a long history of interpreting the Constitution to favor the federal government; the Commerce Clause is but one example of this. It is no accident that they suddenly jettison this sort of broad interpretation when it is politically convenient for the politically nominated members of the current Court.

Unfortunately, the court and it's history of rulings disagrees with you and Endus.

SCOTUS does have a long history of favoring the federal government over state government rights. That history is now shifting, much to the detriment of us all.

[Glorious Leader]

Unfortunately, that's not how it's played out in our courts. The 9th essentially lets us address issues that aren't specifically laid out in the Constitution, to cover items and issues that the Founders didn't specifically lay out. However, what it doesn't say is that those unenumerated rights will or won't be covered by the federal government.

It's entirely vague and literally left open to interpretation. Which the lower courts and SCOTUS have done, thoroughly and inconsistently, over the years.

- - - Updated - - -



Unfortunately, the court and it's history of rulings disagrees with you and Endus.

SCOTUS does have a long history of favoring the federal government over state government rights. That history is now shifting, much to the detriment of us all.

What bugs me the most is that Alito anticipates the objection that the ruling he is authoring can and will be used to undermine a host of rights enumerated under the 14th . He's a shitty used car salesman telling you not to look under the hood because he knows how broad and sweeping this ruling is and he's either worried about the court of public opinion or worried that some future case will involve using his ruling to undermine some rights he favors as he says are deeply rooted in American history which itself is meaningless bullshit. Conservative justices do this all the fucking time. Reingold did the same bullshit when they gave Bush the election. Its disgusting they're craven fucking hacks.