SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Edge-]

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.

Yo, who got repeatedly tagged by Twitter for spreading misinformation? Who exerted an excessive amount of control over the agencies under his purview?

I mean, the only way your arguments make any sense is if you were in a coma and treat both Trump and Biden as equal when it comes to behavior, temperament, words, and actions.

Which isn't remotely true, as we know.

You're all the same...attack attack attack but don't answer the simple question posited.

Answering bad questions isn't very interesting, and you don't seem to know what "attack" means since there were no attacks in that post, or others.

You voted AGAINST Trump, but not for Biden.

No, we voted for Biden. Not because we were all super excited about his policies, but because he was objectively the better/less-bad choice between the two.

So every answer has to involve Trump because you have no logical argument for what Biden is doing.

In this case it's relevant, as the initiative apparently began in 2020 under Trump.

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.

I'm just gonna engage in some whataboutism here with two words for the conservative movement in the US: Hillary Clinton.

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.

Yeah, but what about for the USA? I'm less interested in "what's good for democrats/republicans" than I am in, "What's good for the nation and everyone who lives here"?

But it's telling that you seem to view it as a binary choice of sportsball rather than two differing ideologies ostensibly working towards a better America. Probably because the Republicans don't seem to be doing that right now, unfortunately.

what else can they run on?

American Recovery Act
Infrastructure bill (AFTER 4 YEARS OF WAITING ON INFRASTRUCTURE WEEK)
The federal deficit coming down over $1T for the first time in 6 years (FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY)
Strong foreign policy marks in his predictions of the war in Ukraine and how the US has used loopholes in treaties to provide maximum support to Ukraine in the face of Russia invading them
A record 6.6M jobs added in his first year (for comparison Trump had only 2M)

I could go on here.

You think they will care when you trot out Trump rhetoric when the price of gas keeps rising?

Considering nobody is really blaming it on Trump, but instead global issues and oil companies making record profits...I think you're thinking about Trump too much (in a thread that's not even about Trump).

Do you think the optics will be that Trump caused all of this and roe vs wade?

I mean...literally yes, him and McConnell are directly responsible for the current makeup of the court.

[Canpinter]

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.

I mean ya we would have a problem with the compulsive liar making a disinformation panel, how is that a hard idea to grasp?

[Mehrunes]

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.

And since that already varies from state to state and the states that don't want abortions in the third trimester simply don't allow them as it is, that has no bearing on whether Roe v. Wade should be removed whatsoever. Unless you want to ban that on national level, but something something muh state rights.

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.

Except the issue of human rights and freedoms is one of the key parts of constitutional law.

[tehdang]

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.

Cite it if you know it. Supreme Court justices were forced to flee their homes, a bipartisan Senate measure on security for Supreme Court justices is heading towards unanimous consent passage, and Psaki just decried "violence, threats, or vandalism ("Judges perform an incredibly important function in our society, and they must be able to do their jobs without concern for their personal safety.") But maybe you know something I don't that rules out their security advising them of threats and measures.

[Mehrunes]

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.

Except your bad faith question has been answered. Trump is a pathological liar that lied even about the most inane things because the truth flat out doesn't matter to him. And there's a difference between a pathological liar creating such a thing and a functional human being creating such a thing. That's not "attack attack attack", that's other forum members managing to operate within context-based reality, which for "some" reason you failed to do. You not liking the answers you got doesn't change that.

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.

Given how the question at hand was about Trump, this is really desperate deflection.

But they were chanting. And waving signs around.

PANIC.

I'm surprised they aren't already railing about how liberals are looting their houses. Perhaps not enough black protesters yet.

[Rasulis]

Texas passed the anti-abortion bounty law and banning abortion medication law in September 2021. How well do they work so far?

State data showed the number of abortions performed in Texas fell 60% in the first month after the law went into effect, dropping from more than 5,400 in August to 2,200 in September. Texas Right to Life, an anti-abortion organization that backed the law, maintains that SB 8 “has saved an estimated 17,000 lives” in the nearly six months since it was implemented.

However, according to a study from the University of Texas at Austin, an average of 1,400 people left Texas every month to receive abortion care. A separate study from University of Texas at Austin found that Aid Access, an organization based in Austria that provides abortion medication by mail, received 1,100 requests from Texas in the month after the laws took effect in September, and doubled over the next three months.

Here are the studies.

Out-of-State Travel for Abortion Following Implementation of Texas Senate Bill 8

Association of Texas Senate Bill 8 With Requests for Self-managed Medication Abortion

[Elegiac]

If the shoe was on the other foot

Yeah, just imagine if all the people who've spent the past fifty years harassing rape victims and bombing abortion clinics decided to start peacefully protesting outside someone's house.

[Paranoid Android]

Senate eyes quick passage of security for Supreme Court family members

I swear if any Dem. Senate votes for this.

[Rasulis]

Yeah, just imagine if all the people who've spent the past fifty years harassing rape victims and bombing abortion clinics decided to start peacefully protesting outside someone's house.

N.H. Republicans pass repeal of abortion clinic ‘buffer zone’

That's about all I have to say.

[Jastall]

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.

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.

I understand your position, while we disagree on it.

We'll disagree then.

You said 12-13k viable fetuses couldn't be dismissed. That was your number that you extrapolated from sources that did not use such terminology. You also had a comparison with gun homicides for reasons I still don't quite get but whatever.

"More authority" or "less authority" means nothing. "What authority" is what matters, and the issue is a lot more muddled than "whatever isn't explicitly mentioned as going to the national government goes to the States". If it were clear, well, there wouldn't be a wide variety of interpretations on the subject. Subjectively as well, I really don't believe fundamental rights should be up to States much like they shouldn't be up to provinces in Canada or landers in Germany or whatnot. And again, whenever you're arguing from the position of the mother or the fetus, abortion very much is a fundamental rights issue. If federal government powers must be restricted, so must be the power of states, and some things should be too big for them.

As for the rest, yes agree to disagree, I feel like this has gone on enough already.

[Zan15]

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

Wait protesting is intimidation now?

Funny how people have to change the definition of something in order to make it sound so much more nefarious that it really is.


The point of protesting is to show Politian's that the majority do not support this ridiculousness and if they proceed with it, they are going to face repercussions politically.

It's not even necessary directed at the SCOTUS members since they don't have to listen to anyone now that they are elected for life.

[Edge-]

Wait protesting is intimidation now?

Funny how people have to change the definition of something in order to make it sound so much more nefarious that it really is.


The point of protesting is to show Politian's that the majority do not support this ridiculousness and if they proceed with it, they are going to face repercussions politically.

It's not even necessary directed at the SCOTUS members since they don't have to listen to anyone now that they are elected for life.

Apparently First Amendment protected peaceful protest is actually very scary!

[Glorious Leader]

Yeah, just imagine if all the people who've spent the past fifty years harassing rape victims and bombing abortion clinics decided to start peacefully protesting outside someone's house.

I think hes trying to say hey can you imagine if they ruled against some case that limited the second ammendment or some bullshit you wouldn't want them protesting Sotomayor. To him I say bad things are bad and good things are good and im pretty sure Sotomayor wouldn't fuckkng cry about it. Unlike say Clarence Thomas.

[Realtalk]

Funniest part of all this is people will forget all about this come Nov because of high gas prices. Republicans will take back house and senate.

[Edge-]

Funniest part of all this is people will forget all about this come Nov because of high gas prices. Republicans will take back house and senate.

Maybe people should be more upset with the oil companies turning record profits than a POTUS who has literally no control over the price that private companies sell their products at.

Unless y'all are grabbing your hammers and sickles and joining us as comrades!

[Mehrunes]

Apparently First Amendment protected peaceful protest is actually very scary!

But don't forget that it's dem filthy democrats that hate the First Amendment and want to take it away! I'd say something about double think, but I have serious reservations about the "think" part.

[Paranoid Android]

If the SC need protection all the sudden maybe some self reflection is in order?

I will and should and more context to my original post. Obviously any violence, destruction and harassment, not involving protesting outside house should be taken seriously. Yet this atm is peaceful and if the Senate is going to overreact, yes I see this as an overreaction, then this shows they just want to immediate pass laws to protect people with no consequences. I mean they it's not like they are elected.

[Elegiac]

Waiting for the "muh federalism" folks in this thread to condemn sweeping national legislation that would mandate how SCOTUS justices should be protected. Surely it should be left to the states, right? And if the states decide not to provide additional security then we aren't allowed to criticise it?

[NED funded]

Free Speach.



No, it's Free Speach.

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

- - - Updated - - -



No, protesting. That's the point.

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

- - - Updated - - -



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.



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.

You kinda have to be unhinged to not see what the goals of protesting his house are. If you agree with those then I am worried

Yeah its free speech and yeah its a protest but what is the goal of protesting in front of his house where they live as opposed to the supreme court building?

Would you be cool if conservatives staked out the house of judges to protest the legalization of gay marriage? Or is this a case by case thing where only certain causes are granted the benefit.

Its not cool to do it. Simple as.

[Elegiac]

Would you be cool if conservatives staked out the house of judges to protest the legalization of gay marriage? Or is this a case by case thing where only certain causes are granted the benefit.

If they chose to do that rather than their usual MO of, as I said, harassing rape victims and bombing abortion clinics, it'd be a marked improvement.

Also, reminder that SCOTUS said it's okay for anti-LGBT protesters to picket military funerals so I'm not certain why they're complaining when the same principle applies.