SCOTUS removes Roe V Wade

[Draco-Onis]

Didn't see anyone post anything about this and thought is was interesting.

NPR reporter says ‘leading theory’ on SCOTUS leak is conservative clerk



If the bolded part is true, I'm not really sure what leaking the draft would do to solidify the majority. If anything, I would think it would have had the opposite effect.



That part I did find amusing. All week all we have heard from these assclowns is that it had to come from some liberal court clerk. Boy won't their face be re.... who am I kidding. They have no shame.

Technically that theory isn't so far fetched now that the ruling is out they are boxed in. If they reverse course then the right wing media will rip them to shred for caving into the "woke" crowd. Since the court is basically ruled by right wing extremists they would dread losing face to the mob. The whole obsessions over the leak is silly since they haven't committed any crime, there is no law that the DOJ could prosecute them on that would result in a conviction.

[gondrin]

But they cannot prevent the USPS from shipping something that is federally legal can they?

I know the reserve is true, the USPS can stop shipping weed because its illegal on a federal level still.

USPS is quite protected in the constitution and I am wondering if they could play a part in keeping the flow of pills going to these states?



man, the problem with these muddled cases and laws is they will all end up in the lap of the SCOTUS and we know how that will turn out.

Outside of the police trying to search every package(4th amendment and all of that would come into play), there is no way for a state to even do this as the mail is a federal thing. Hell, the police cannot even do anything in a post office outside of kicking out someone causing a disturbance. I mean they can punish someone for having it but no state will be able to stop a distributor from out of state from actually shipping it outright. People will still be able to order pills from California or whatever states will sell them and other then shaking their fists in the air, nothing can be done legally.

- - - Updated - - -

I know I won't get a serious response from this board...but can anyone honestly say they would be okay if Donald Trump created a Disinformation Governance Board? And even the secretary of homeland security was weary of the person picked to run it after actually learning things she has done. No, it's not created to stifle free speech, just like twitter people are going nuts because they can't censor the same people like they used to when Musk takes over, having some of them stating they need more censorship. But I'm pushing propaganda.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ime-rates.html

Funny thing here is that this is something that started under Donald Trump. It started with the DHS creating a Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency in 2018. This is a continuation of that as that agency basically dealt extensively with the spread of misinformation online. So yes, this was a Trump thing to begin with.

[Endus]

I know I won't get a serious response from this board...but can anyone honestly say they would be okay if Donald Trump created a Disinformation Governance Board?

The error in your reasoning, here, is the expectation that both sides behave the same in this regard. Where the reality is that Republicans have been consistently lying about basic facts for years and years, predating Trump. And Trump's administration scaled that up to eleven.

So no, I wouldn't be okay with it if Trump created such a Board, because it's Trump, and he has a long history of intentionally pushing disinformation to serve his own interests. It has nothing to do with him being Republican, however. If it had been, say, George H. W. Bush who'd proposed it back during his tenure, it likely would've passed muster in the same way it is today with Biden. Because the difference in character here isn't partisan, it's individual.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ime-rates.html

So a DA is holding a sheriff to a basic standard of scrutiny that thousands of his charges fail to live up to?

This is how a nation bashing Canadian always reacts, calling the statement an empty lie.

Haven't engaged in nation-bashing yet. Hot tip; criticising choices by another nation is not "nation-bashing". Damning large segments of a nation's population for actual things they have actually said or done or believe is not nation-bashing.

The word you're looking for is "criticism". I've been critical. Oh noes.

The da will not pursue enhancement charges and refuses to prosecute certain charges. I guess I am lying because I provide proof of how the da is being soft on crime and Endus results to just saying I am lying. But he always does this. Next he will call me racist or homophobic for saying the da is soft on crime. That's his other M.O.

No, I'll point out that "tough on crime" approaches have, consistently and basically without exception, done nothing to lower crime rates, and have only increased human suffering and recidivism. Look at basically any developed nation but the USA and compare recidivism and crime rates; they'll be lower. Largely because we're "softer on crime", and focus on intervention and rehabilitation over incarceration and suffering.

Kudos on the persecution complex, though.

So if I post links that support what I say, does that mean I have a clue what's going on and you don't, or you just keep attack me? You think you're more knowledgeable because you live in racist country where blackface users get to be prime minister, whereas in America they just get to be democratic governors.

That link was about one county sheriff's opinion of one DA, and crimes are still being prosecuted there, so even if we take the Daily Fail's account as accurate (and we shouldn't), it still doesn't support your claim that nobody's being charged with crimes in LA.

He can't help craft laws because he is not American

Fun fact; countries other than the USA also have laws.

Also, there's literally no restriction against me writing laws on behalf of any American legislative body, up to and including Congress itself, as a Canadian. In fact, international consultation on these things is pretty common.

but is an expert on how Americans should live their lives and which freedoms they deserve.

"People". I have an interest in how people should act, and the freedoms they should enjoy. And I never claimed any special expertise.

He's always opinion but thinks his opinion is better and more nuanced then everyone else.

Than everyone else? Definitely not, and I've literally never made that claim. You're making that shit up.

Better than some, especially if those individuals are pushing violently bigoted horseshit because they want to make innocents suffer? Sure. But that's about how depraved they are, not how enlightened I am. I'm not special, and I've never claimed to be.

Like when he says the laws are "irrational and predicated on premises that they don't openly express" This is an opinion, but in his mind it is a fact, because he believes it and he says so.

It's a fact, because I can demonstrate how their stated premise entails outcomes they explicitly state they do not agree with, meaning they do not actually agree with their own premise.

So the only option remaining is that there must be some other premise that's going unstated.

This isn't that complicated, and I've explained that rationale in detail repeatedly, so I have by no means demanded that people "just believe me".

[tehdang]

You say you're against the court settling policy but the exact same court isn't even hiding that it has a policy and an agenda, and was nominated specifically to enact it. I don't particularly blame the American right here, it's how the bread has been buttered since at least the New Deal, but pretending otherwise when they rule in your favor is at best disingenuous. There are plenty of Supreme Courts around the world that aren't politicized up the whazoo, but SCOTUS is not one of them.

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.

21 weeks does not a viable baby make. The very link you posted rebuking Guttmacher estimates partial birth abortions from as low to 2K to as high as 5.5K; it's hard to determine what is and what isn't partial birth as it's not really a medical term, and due to the myriad of factors involved it's nigh on impossible to truly know how many of those were viable fetuses (which is also a varible definition). In short, it's a fraction of a percentage of abortions, and if the cases of rape/incest/etc are too rare to be legislated around then so should so-called late term abortions.

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.

That's not actually my position, by the way. I do think partial births are an ethical quandary. As are the other noted exceptions. Which is why a comprehensive national law taking all of this into account would be far, far better for women nationwide than a patchwork of 50+ legislations in 50+ states that may or may not take into account all of this and can and will be circumvented by a wide variety of means. Making abortion illegal, or partially so, in state X but fully legal in nearby state Y only disadvantages those women who do not have the means, time and/or capacity to move to get it. In the absence of such a comprehensive law, Roe v Wade was definitely the lesser ethical evil than some of the already abusive laws seen on display in some States, and Roe isn't even actually repealed yet.

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.

As for state's rights, McConnel has already said it would certainly be possible to ban abortion nationwide. He didn't bristle and say "oh but no that's a state right". This is the man who has driven conservative policy in America more than anyone else in the last decade+. The memo that started this whole discussion has a judge of the court say in no ambiguous terms that indeed, homosexual rights and interracial marriage may be next in the line of fire. This is not "the secret motives of evil men". This is the actual motives of people who actually exist and who have actual power and will to enact their policies. Again, context matters and you seem all to happy to ignore it when it serves your purposes.

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).

[Edge-]

it should be left to the states

I'm still struggling on why "the states" is the "goldilocks" size for enforcing your personal values on others, given that states differ radically landmass, population (some states are smaller than cities!), and actual ideological diversity and values.

Can you share why the state is "just the right size" to enforce personal values upon their population and restrict their freedom/right to bodily autonomy?

[Elegiac]

The national government has no business making 1 giant decision for all 50 states

Y'all keep repeating this but never seem to be willing to answer the question as to why.

[Edge-]

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

This is a strong anti-federalist argument. You know what, maybe those red states don't need all that blue-state welfare to shore up their budgets, eh? Why is the national government making 1 giant decision or all 50 states on that?

And I mean, let's look at the Constitution which makes quite a few major decisions for all 50 states. That's pretty onerous if you're all about "States Rights".

[Elegiac]

I'm still struggling on why "the states" is the "goldilocks" size for enforcing your personal values on others, given that states differ radically landmass, population (some states are smaller than cities!), and actual ideological diversity and values.

Can you share why the state is "just the right size" to enforce personal values upon their population and restrict their freedom/right to bodily autonomy?

Inb4 "it's an imperfect compromise because Reasons™ that totally don't just boil down to slavish adherence to national mythology about a bunch of racist slaveowners being the supreme moral arbiters of humanity."

[Edge-]

Inb4 "it's an imperfect compromise because Reasons™ that totally don't just boil down to slavish adherence to national mythology about a bunch of racist slaveowners being the supreme moral arbiters of humanity."

I mean, we shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment. It should have been left up to the state!

The neoconfederacy ain't dead yet!

[Endus]

it should be left to the states.

Why?

Gradations of policy between federal/state/county/municipal are important as localization becomes increasingly relevant; it wouldn't make much sense to have a national policy for property taxation, for instance, as regional needs vary wildly and handling that at a more local level allows for useful variance to address local needs.

But when the issue is basic human rights, that's not a consideration. "States Rights" activists, in this context, are just pushing the same age-old garbage from the Confederacy that they should be entitled to brutalize and subjugate certain groups of "undesirables" for the sake of that brutalization alone, and they don't want Daddy Federal Government to tell them to stop stepping on that kitten's head until it goes squish.

That's as deep as it goes. It's garbage reasoning in support of garbage principles.

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.

What's truly unaddressed, in your framing, is that women are people and have bodily autonomy, rather than being breeding livestock who lack any such rights.

The national government has no business making 1 giant decision for all 50 states

That's literally the point of a federal, national government. To do exactly that. Congratulations, you don't have an argument.

[Elegiac]

I mean, we shouldn't have passed the 13th Amendment. It should have been left up to the state!

The neoconfederacy ain't dead yet!

I've yet to see an argument for federalism that isn't just a vehicle for bitching about the fact the South lost the Civil War, so you ain't wrong.

[Ivanstone]

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.

The state government has no business making 1 giant decision for all its municipalities rather than the people’s voice multiple times in multiple municipalities.

Yet somehow GOP state governments have no issue with forcing arbitrary laws on its cities. Would you be fine if Dallas, Miami or New Orleans passed local ordinances that allows abortion?

[Rasulis]

Pretty sure they can. See how tobacco isn’t illegal, but it has restrictions on mailing it. However, there’s no restrictions if you’re mailing intra-state in Hawaii or Alaska. And prescription drugs are already considered controlled substances that you can’t just mail yourself.

It will be very hard to stop. The typical package is one Mifepristone and four Misoprostol. Five tiny pills in a shrink-wrapped package. It could be mailed from anywhere in the US, or pharmacies in India, Canada and Mexico. FDA tried to stop Aid Access since 2018 with no luck.

[Kathandira]

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.

With this line of thinking, looks like slavery is back on the table!!! And if that doesn't fix any employment issues, child labor can be revisited! Power to the states!

/S!

[Rasulis]

"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.

At least the judges have their own security details. The same couldn't be said for abortion facilities and their employees and doctors. Which have been under constant harassment and attacks for the last five decades.

[NED funded]

I'm still struggling on why "the states" is the "goldilocks" size for enforcing your personal values on others, given that states differ radically landmass, population (some states are smaller than cities!), and actual ideological diversity and values.

Can you share why the state is "just the right size" to enforce personal values upon their population and restrict their freedom/right to bodily autonomy?

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

[Vankrys]

Making abortion illegal will not reduce the number of fetus being terminated, but it will make the procedure less safe, and/or add a heavy financial burden on women and families.

I don't think pro lifer are sincere in their argument of life is sacred, when they say they love every lives...
But i'll bite, you pro-lifer out there really want to reduce abortion, here what you do

- Provide pre birth and post birth care for the mother. And make the giving birth free, $10K for giving birth in an hospital is insane
- Provide paid maternity leave, pre birth and post birth. And make it illegal for employers to fire women in maternity leave.
- Provide universal healthcare for the child, until its majority. It should be for all, but one battle at the time
- Provide access to free education, so the education of the child will not be a financial burden on the family

You do that, and some women will consider more keeping their child. You won't save them all, but you will save far more than simply outlaw abortion.

[Edge-]

Making abortion illegal will not reduce the number of fetus being terminated, but it will make the procedure less safe, and/or add a heavy financial burden on women and families.

I don't think pro lifer are sincere in their argument of life is sacred, when they say they love every lives...
But i'll bite, you pro-lifer out there really want to reduce abortion, here what you do

- Provide pre birth and post birth care for the mother. And make the giving birth free, $10K for giving birth in an hospital is insane
- Provide paid maternity leave, pre birth and post birth. And make it illegal for employers to fire women in maternity leave.
- Provide universal healthcare for the child, until its majority. It should be for all, but one battle at the time
- Provide access to free education, so the education of the child will not be a financial burden on the family

You do that, and some women will consider more keeping their child. You won't save them all, but you will save far more than simply outlaw abortion.

No, you see, it's a supply and demand issue. Women need to be forced to have children they don't want so that they can maintain our domestic baby supply for prospective adoptive parents.

At least according to one Justice on the court. Babies are a capitalist commodity, baybee!

[Ivanstone]

You do that, and some women will consider more keeping their child. You won't save them all, but you will save far more than simply outlaw abortion.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...tes-by-country
The US sits at about 20 per 1000 women.
Canada is 15/1000.
Canada has universal healthcare and no abortion restrictions at all. The US does not.

[Kaleredar]

Making abortion illegal will not reduce the number of fetus being terminated, but it will make the procedure less safe, and/or add a heavy financial burden on women and families.

I don't think pro lifer are sincere in their argument of life is sacred, when they say they love every lives...
But i'll bite, you pro-lifer out there really want to reduce abortion, here what you do

- Provide pre birth and post birth care for the mother. And make the giving birth free, $10K for giving birth in an hospital is insane
- Provide paid maternity leave, pre birth and post birth. And make it illegal for employers to fire women in maternity leave.
- Provide universal healthcare for the child, until its majority. It should be for all, but one battle at the time
- Provide access to free education, so the education of the child will not be a financial burden on the family

You do that, and some women will consider more keeping their child. You won't save them all, but you will save far more than simply outlaw abortion.

Doing those things would require legislative acumen, ability, and the care to apply them.

They don’t have those things. All they can do is tell rich people what they can get away with and everyone else what they can’t.