Supreme Court strikes down Roe v. Wade?

Quote: AZDuffman

At least you admit it is a choice.

Abortion is a choice.

Homesexuality is not a choice as people do not "choose" to be gay, but it is something they certainly can and will choose to remain when conservatives try to force / convince them that they should be straight.

Quote: Wizard

Jim's quote seems to be taken from
Roe v. Wade / Excerpts from Majority Opinion.

I can see the writer's point, but I don't read between the lines of the Constitution in the same way. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the word privacy does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.

I don't have time to get into every point, but the majority opinion emphasizes the 14th Amendment.



Source: US Constitution

I don't have any brilliant interpretation of that, but think it's worthwhile to look at the Constitution if there is going to be debate about it.

I am no constitutional scholar and I haven't read the opinion since the 80s, so I am clearly addressing an issue that I have no qualification for, but isn't that why we are all here?

The Ninth Amendment (bill of rights, James Madison and all) states:

Quote:

Amendment IX

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

So the bill of rights makes vague reference to rights not enumerated. Examples that are often used are right to associate and right to travel as fundamental rights not mentioned in the constitution. Seems kinda open ended to me, but that combined with the clause of the 14th that you quoted above that forbids states from abridging "privileges and immunities" is what Roe relies on, as I understand it.

Quote: JimRockford

So the bill of rights makes vague reference to rights not enumerated. Examples that are often used are right to associate and right to travel as fundamental rights not mentioned in the constitution. Seems kinda open ended to me, but that combined with the clause of the 14th that you quoted above that forbids states from abridging "privileges and immunities" is what Roe relies on, as I understand it.

I think we see things roughly the same way on this one. It seems to me few people argue legal points when it comes to this topic, but have their mind made up based on other factors. This would include me.

I thought conservatives believe in "medical freedom" and "bodily autonomy" , seems counterintuitive when you restrict people from engaging in a medical procedure that they desire, and force them to remain in a bodily state that they do not desire.

Quote: Wizard

I will be part of any conversation I wish. Furthermore, you seem to have no compunction in the rest of your post in spouting your opinion about it.

Wizard, of course my previous post was sarcastic, smh.
I thought you were good at discerning the "intent" of a poster.
You know, like if they intended to lie or just were misinformed in their post/belief.
Never mind, that one will fly over your head as well.

If you want an actual legal argument, you won't get one from the Left/Pro Abortion crowd.
If you really care, read Alito's draft opinion, the legal argument is pretty clear.
He even goes into why the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Abortion.
And how this decision to reverse Roe doesn't apply to the concepts of Gay Marriage or other personal freedoms.

But the Left won't address any of the legal arguments Alito's opinion presents.
Because they got nothing that makes any legal sense to argue.
All they will talk about will be "undoing 50 years of precedent", "settled law" & how Nominees lied to them.
You mean like how the most recent Nominee couldn't define a woman? That kind of lying?

The issue is that reversing precedent/Stare Decisis is exactly what Brown v. Board of Education did.
58 years after the Plessy decision, the SCOTUS reversed the previous Court's decision.
Just like the SCOTUS is doing here to Roe. That is also an example of "precedent".
You just need well founded legal argument as to why the previous SCOTUS got it wrong.
And Alito's argument is so strong, the Left won't even challenge it on its merits.

The Dem agenda will be to distract between now and November from all the other Biden disasters.
They will try and make Abortion the issue in November, but it won't work SooPoo.
While Inflation rages and we fall into recession, they think putting abortion in the hands of state legislatures is a swing issue?
Someone said it before, no one really cares about this issue as a voting litmus test except the fringe Left.
Just think about how many times getting an abortion is a big issue in your social circle?
If the answer is more than once a decade, that says more about your social circle than anything else.
That and the fact that you likely live in a Blue State that will still offer abortions on demand.
The only silver lining is the Left may finally drop all the Jan 6th melodrama, because that was getting pretty old.

The fact is Roe v. Wade has no basis in Constitutional Law, it was made up "out of whole cloth"
The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted when 30 states had prohibitions on all forms of abortion.
How does someone now argue that the States that ratified the 14th Amendment in 1789,
really meant it to reverse laws already on their books? If so, how did those laws stay in effect until Roe in 1972?
It's total BS, but when you got nothing, that is what you sling at the wall to see if it sticks.

Casey, which sort of sided with Roe in 1992, actually reversed the "trimester" approach of Roe.
The Casey Court took this approach because they couldn't find legal basis for affirming Roe.
Eventually, 3 of the 5 judge majority opinion just decided that Stare Decisis would control.
So the argument was back to precedent & some new concept called "undue hardship"
With precedent/Stare Decisis ruling the day, is it time to reverse Brown & bring back the segregation in Plessy?
If precedent is all that matters let's get back to white & black water fountains and seats at the back of the bus.
If the Dems want precedent to control, I say let's give it to them.

This issue, like many unenumerated rights, will be back in the State Legislatures hands.
It is where they belong unless they are deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.
The "Great Sorting of America" will continue and Americans will move to states that represent their views.
Florida and Texas are going to get huge and California and New York will continue to shrink in population.
Nothing wrong with that and it is the only way this Nation continues to exist; as A Republic of 50 States
That "One Country" ship sailed when the 51% decided cramming their views down from DC was Democracy
No, that is why we have a filibuster and the provision that it takes a 60 vote large majority to pass federal laws.
Effectively if 30 State's worth of Senators don't agree, the federal government doesn't get to do it.
This country is not a pure democracy, it is a Republic of States that agreed to limited federal governance.

Of course the Dems are screaming again to repeal the filibuster & to pack the SCOTUS.
But somehow the Republicans and three hours on Jan 6th are the big threat to our Democratic Republic?
Well obviously!!!! That and Elon Musk buying Twitter, LMAO

6-3 SCOTUS Ams, this is why it matters. That one trick pony sure is working out!

This is why the argument should be whether a state can prevent you from removing another human from inside your body. They shouldn't. Period.

You may not have the right to outright kill it, but if it dies because you remove it, that's not your problem.

Quote: JCW09

If you want an actual legal argument, you won't get one from the Left/Pro Abortion crowd.

Thinking that Alito's explanations are infallible is your first mistake. For instance, rather than noting that abortion is not rooted in our nation's history and tradition, simply changing that to "The right to make your own medical decisions is deeply rooted in our nation’s history and tradition." and it would be true. You think early settlers were being told what medical care they were allowed or following it? Hell, they were taking snake oil cures at that time if they believe in them.

I've heard more today, but it's past my bedtime.

Quote: JCW09

Wizard, of course my previous post was sarcastic, smh.
I thought you were good at discerning the "intent" of a poster.
You know, like if they intended to lie or just were misinformed in their post/belief.
Never mind, that one will fly over your head as well.

If you want an actual legal argument, you won't get one from the Left/Pro Abortion crowd.
If you really care, read Alito's draft opinion, the legal argument is pretty clear.
He even goes into why the 14th Amendment doesn't apply to Abortion.
And how this decision to reverse Roe doesn't apply to the concepts of Gay Marriage or other personal freedoms.

But the Left won't address any of the legal arguments Alito's opinion presents.
Because they got nothing that makes any legal sense to argue.
All they will talk about will be "undoing 50 years of precedent", "settled law" & how Nominees lied to them.
You mean like how the most recent Nominee couldn't define a woman? That kind of lying?

The issue is that reversing precedent/Stare Decisis is exactly what Brown v. Board of Education did.
58 years after the Plessy decision, the SCOTUS reversed the previous Court's decision.
Just like the SCOTUS is doing here to Roe. That is also an example of "precedent".
You just need well founded legal argument as to why the previous SCOTUS got it wrong.
And Alito's argument is so strong, the Left won't even challenge it on its merits.

The Dem agenda will be to distract between now and November from all the other Biden disasters.
They will try and make Abortion the issue in November, but it won't work SooPoo.
While Inflation rages and we fall into recession, they think putting abortion in the hands of state legislatures is a swing issue?
Someone said it before, no one really cares about this issue as a voting litmus test except the fringe Left.
Just think about how many times getting an abortion is a big issue in your social circle?
If the answer is more than once a decade, that says more about your social circle than anything else.
That and the fact that you likely live in a Blue State that will still offer abortions on demand.
The only silver lining is the Left may finally drop all the Jan 6th melodrama, because that was getting pretty old.

The fact is Roe v. Wade has no basis in Constitutional Law, it was made up "out of whole cloth"
The Fourteenth Amendment was enacted when 30 states had prohibitions on all forms of abortion.
How does someone now argue that the States that ratified the 14th Amendment in 1789,
really meant it to reverse laws already on their books? If so, how did those laws stay in effect until Roe in 1972?
It's total BS, but when you got nothing, that is what you sling at the wall to see if it sticks.

Casey, which sort of sided with Roe in 1992, actually reversed the "trimester" approach of Roe.
The Casey Court took this approach because they couldn't find legal basis for affirming Roe.
Eventually, 3 of the 5 judge majority opinion just decided that Stare Decisis would control.
So the argument was back to precedent & some new concept called "undue hardship"
With precedent/Stare Decisis ruling the day, is it time to reverse Brown & bring back the segregation in Plessy?
If precedent is all that matters let's get back to white & black water fountains and seats at the back of the bus.
If the Dems want precedent to control, I say let's give it to them.

This issue, like many unenumerated rights, will be back in the State Legislatures hands.
It is where they belong unless they are deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition.
The "Great Sorting of America" will continue and Americans will move to states that represent their views.
Florida and Texas are going to get huge and California and New York will continue to shrink in population.
Nothing wrong with that and it is the only way this Nation continues to exist; as A Republic of 50 States
That "One Country" ship sailed when the 51% decided cramming their views down from DC was Democracy
No, that is why we have a filibuster and the provision that it takes a 60 vote large majority to pass federal laws.
Effectively if 30 State's worth of Senators don't agree, the federal government doesn't get to do it.
This country is not a pure democracy, it is a Republic of States that agreed to limited federal governance.

Of course the Dems are screaming again to repeal the filibuster & to pack the SCOTUS.
But somehow the Republicans and three hours on Jan 6th are the big threat to our Democratic Republic?
Well obviously!!!! That and Elon Musk buying Twitter, LMAO

6-3 SCOTUS Ams, this is why it matters. That one trick pony sure is working out!

Precedence
50 years of established law in the toilet
Too long. Did not read.
Is this a copy and paste with a few lines thrown in?
You should give credit to the writer and use punctuation quote marks
You constantly insult me(breaking the rules here) for posting then you post this?
Lol

Quote: Gandler

I thought conservatives believe in "medical freedom" and "bodily autonomy" , seems counterintuitive when you restrict people from engaging in a medical procedure that they desire, and force them to remain in a bodily state that they do not desire.

I thought the liberals cared about "the children" and were against hurting them. Seems counterintuitive when you cheer tearing them ti shreds and even support killing them at the moment of birth.

Based on the extremely phony “freakout” yesterday by everyone in the GOP about “the leak,” I’d say there is a 99% chance it was someone on the far-right who leaked the draft opinion.

Perhaps Roberts was close to swaying the crazy-eyed church lady or the beer-loving rapist off this opinion and someone thought leaking this now would lock them into their positions.