cope and seethe
-
19
-
2nd amendment yesterday, and affirmative action next term. thank you President Trump
1014 -
No abortions, reduced womens' rights, more access to guns, restricting voting for poor people.... are we heading back to the "good old days" in the 1700s?
275 -
wazzu1452 wrote:
Clarence Thomas, concurring: "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
Jeez, is this where this is heading?
Just so we're clear, the right to contraception, gay marriage and even the right to be in a gay relationship without being prosecuted, are now up for debate?
There will actually be social unrest and civil disobedience if they try and do this.
242 -
#45
This post was removed.
-
1. it returns the issue of abortion to the states
2. what is a woman? what about pregnant men?
3. 2nd amendment
4. why do you not like election integrity measures? is it ok to have doubts about election results if your side loses?216 -
the facts wrote:
one can still wear a condom, get an IUD, take birth control pills, etc
Not in states like missouri you cant
182 -
Half true wrote:
samcallan wrote:
I support the overturning of Roe, but am a squish on abortion and want the matter settled through legislation not court action. I find that far more palatable than justices making such decisions. Roe, to me, was poorly decided. When you have to use "penumbra" it throws a lot of questions up.
I agree. It was overreach by the Supreme Court in the initial ruling. Now we’ve had to let the court reverse that decision in what is seen by many as overreach. This isn’t a loss of a right, it’s a return to neutral. The right to abortion was based on a shaky interpretation of a right to privacy. I’m surprised it took this long for Roe to get overturned.
I see that argument often. Many think Heller was also poorly decided and found an individual right where there is none. Maybe it will one day also be "return[ed] to neutral."
11 -
This is awful for any couples struggling to get pregnant and need IVF. This will impact fertility practices in red states and create medical tourism in the country.
122 -
Wrong
04 -
Tatar... wrote:
wazzu1452 wrote:
Clarence Thomas, concurring: "in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell."
Jeez, is this where this is heading?
Just so we're clear, the right to contraception, gay marriage and even the right to be in a gay relationship without being prosecuted, are now up for debate?
There will actually be social unrest and civil disobedience if they try and do this.
well the way a democracy is supposed to work is that if your reps do something you don't like, for example outlawing abortion or contraception, you vote them out.
I'm telling you, this could reshift politics if the Rs overplay their hands here. Could drive a lot of people - esp women - to pull the D lever.
Another aspect is that it really isn't right for a court to decide these things. Many things should be decided by legislatures at the state and national level.
131 -
the Dobbs decision sent abortion back to the states
32 -
agip wrote:
agip wrote:
As states across the country prepare for the likely overturning of Roe v. Wade in June, attention has shifted to the forthcoming efforts to outlaw abortion in Republican-controlled states. And, despite the unpopularity of such measures, it seems that many red states are planning to ban abortion without any exceptions for rape or incest.
Of the 22 states with abortion bans that will instantly take effect if the landmark Supreme Court ruling is overturned, 10 have passed laws that make no exceptions for rape or incest: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.The biggest sh1thole states in the union just got sh1tier.
313 -
agip wrote:
Tatar... wrote:
Jeez, is this where this is heading?
Just so we're clear, the right to contraception, gay marriage and even the right to be in a gay relationship without being prosecuted, are now up for debate?
There will actually be social unrest and civil disobedience if they try and do this.
well the way a democracy is supposed to work is that if your reps do something you don't like, for example outlawing abortion or contraception, you vote them out.
I'm telling you, this could reshift politics if the Rs overplay their hands here. Could drive a lot of people - esp women - to pull the D lever.
Another aspect is that it really isn't right for a court to decide these things. Many things should be decided by legislatures at the state and national level.
The decision puts it back to the states. So what exactly is the issue here?
310 -
#55
This post was removed.
-
why is Texas one of the fastest growing states? in fact, why are nearly all states that grew more than 0.5% Republican?
317 -
2022 and the US is fast descending into a Theocratic Oligarchy. For the top sliver of the rich, endless opportunity and unconstrained wealth and power. For everyone else, eat __it.
I'm old now and increasingly see that the US is falling back and falling behind. The current Trumpist Supreme Court has been laid bare as nothing but an instrument of political partisan power and very soon you'll see states and even federal executive branch elements outright ignoring their rulings. Good.
193 -
#58
This post was removed.
-
overexposure wrote:
agip wrote:
As states across the country prepare for the likely overturning of Roe v. Wade in June, attention has shifted to the forthcoming efforts to outlaw abortion in Republican-controlled states. And, despite the unpopularity of such measures, it seems that many red states are planning to ban abortion without any exceptions for rape or incest.
Of the 22 states with abortion bans that will instantly take effect if the landmark Supreme Court ruling is overturned, 10 have passed laws that make no exceptions for rape or incest: Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.The biggest sh1thole states in the union just got sh1tier.
Does that mean you won’t come here? Sweet!
410 -
the facts wrote:
no they can't. churches, synagogues, mosques, etc are tax-exempt.
From FEDERAL taxation. The states are free to impose what they wish on churches within their borders. It will be appealed to SCOTUS but, will the conservatives contradict themselves by declaring that state's do not have a right to self-govern as they see fit? Looking forward to property taxes being levied on churches, synagogues, mosques, and megachurches.
42
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.