Anyone else think it's kind of weird how rabid liberals feel so motivated to change the names of mountains, because the name is associated with racism/slavery but also have a strong desire to fund Planned Parenthood, which was founded by a white supremacist whose plan was to keep the Black population in check through eugenics?
I always found that very weird, but what do I know, I'm just a bigot.
I also find it weird that Biden’s solicitor general argued in front of the Supreme Court that there could be no middle ground in the Dobb’s case. Either overturn or uphold roe, even though John Roberts was attempting to find a middle ground. They forced the hand of SCOTUS and SCOTUS chose to send the power back to the states.
all this other talk is just getting stuck in weeds. A lot of times people choose to drag a conversation into the weeds when they know they have no standing on the actual topic. The 14th amendment has no mention of abortion. The 10th amendment is clear. Federalism in action.
The 14th amendment pretty clearly says that the state cannot interfere with other fundamental rights not enumerated in the constitution without due process - setting up a well established right to privacy that would encompass abortion. If they ruled that this right to privacy does not pertain to abortion because fetuses are humans with rights, that would be different. But they incorrectly, against years of precedent, claimed no such right to privacy exists in the 14th amendment. Therefore, there is no longer a justification for not allowing states to ban contraception of any form for married couples or interracial marriage. Do you think this should be a state by state decision as well?
Your post is depraved and disgusting. No different than saying: Everyone man should kill at least one woman in order to properly form an opinion on murder of women.
Agreed - we should also make all men talk to a women who is seeking an abortion and watch the doctor perform it before they get to have an opinion!
It's very clear reading this thread that those who have strongest anti-abortion feelings have never really interacted with or cared for a woman on a deep level. The things being said are downright sociopathic.
That guy who claimed "maternal deaths are a part of the natural birth process and therefore acceptable" really sticks out. It's shocking how f**king sick the depths of the incel internet really are.
This. There’s a shocking lack of empathy on display by the pro-lifers in this thread. I’m not sure they’re all incels. I think some are just young and don’t have the life experiences to engender that kind of empathy.
Anyone else think it's kind of weird how rabid liberals feel so motivated to change the names of mountains, because the name is associated with racism/slavery but also have a strong desire to fund Planned Parenthood, which was founded by a white supremacist whose plan was to keep the Black population in check through eugenics?
I always found that very weird, but what do I know, I'm just a bigot.
So is Planned Parenthood aim at implementing white supremacy and eugenics? Or is it simply offering planned parenthood?
Your country was founded by slaveowners. So is racial oppression the purpose of your government? (Some might say it still is).
Jeff Wigand and Wise Old Man are too stupid. They keep repeating the same point or question over and over as if no one responded. Jeff Wigand in particular keeps wanting to smear menses on his face to search for zygotes, for god knows what purpose.
Sure, that’s exactly what I wrote.
I’m sorry that reading is hard.
Dude, I gave your obsessive non-sequitorious point the dismissiveness it deserved. To be honest, if you insist on perusing menses as badly as you seem to fetishize, you will invariantly get some on your face. People already told you that you have no next point to make after finding dead zygotes in period blood, yet you keep whatabouting on that front. I can only surmise you have some kind of a period blood fetish.
Anyone else think it's kind of weird how rabid liberals feel so motivated to change the names of mountains, because the name is associated with racism/slavery but also have a strong desire to fund Planned Parenthood, which was founded by a white supremacist whose plan was to keep the Black population in check through eugenics?
I always found that very weird, but what do I know, I'm just a bigot.
I also find it weird that Biden’s solicitor general argued in front of the Supreme Court that there could be no middle ground in the Dobb’s case. Either overturn or uphold roe, even though John Roberts was attempting to find a middle ground. They forced the hand of SCOTUS and SCOTUS chose to send the power back to the states.
all this other talk is just getting stuck in weeds. A lot of times people choose to drag a conversation into the weeds when they know they have no standing on the actual topic. The 14th amendment has no mention of abortion. The 10th amendment is clear. Federalism in action.
John Roberts has become irrelevant in the Court. He cannot be a bridge between the dogmatists on the Right and the liberals on the Court. The gulf between them exemplifies the irreconcilable differences in your nation - but the minority is doing everything in its power to hold on to power in the US, as the SCOTUS has just shown. The majority on the Court has used the Constitution as a weapon against women's rights - which is the opposite of how it is meant to be used and how previous decisions have chosen to see it. The angry white conservative minority is bent on taking you back into your country's past. It will split your nation apart.
No no no, we are following your argument now. You said a single human cell is human life. Your words not mine.
Exactly, the pro-choicers found the sanctity argument so compelling that they got overdrunk on the koolaid to the point of insanity and have now started worshipping skin cells and demonizing soap.
It’s real funny watching when your debate opponents twist themselves into a pretzel thinking on behalf of you and then starts crying out loud.
The sanctity argument is that of the pro-lifers. Do keep up.
Some interesting points have been raised about Clarence Thomas's concurrence, where he basically says he is going to try and find cases where he can overturn a list of substantive due process cases like Griswold (contraception), Lawrence (same-sex sex), and Obergfell (same-sex marriage). Thomas notably left the Loving case off his list of targets, which did use the Due Process clause (as well as Equal Protection) to strike down miscegenation laws. A little bit of hypocrisy is smoldering here as Thomas is presumably a big fan of miscegenation (he practices it to some degree), while he's harsh critic of same-sex anything. While there are differences between interracial sex and marriage and same-sex sex and marriage, they are much more similar than they are different for Constitutional purposes. Thomas may have to explain in an opinion some day soon why he is allowed to marry who he wants against the objection of many, while other people are not. He can do it, but it will take some legal gymnastics that will be difficult and tenuous.
(Frankly, after seeing photos of Ginni Thomas, I just assumed she had to be Clarence's gay beard and he would drop the campaign against Obergfell once it was decided. I was wrong.).
You are jumping to conclusions here. Thomas pointed out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to roe. He never said he was going to look for cases to overturn the old ones though. Quit trying to fuel the fire of misinformation.
I think my characterization of Thomas' Concurrence is correct, Yawn. And judging from your post, I don't think you read Thomas' Concurrence. Here is what Thomas said:
"[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous. [Citation omitted]. [W]e have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. [Citation omitted]. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated." Thom Con., pg. 3.
Note the words of temporal emphasis (which I have bolded for you), Yawn. Especially note the words "AFTER overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions." Those are express, literal indications for you as to what Thomas intends to do going forward.
Thomas then laid out a lengthy road map of exactly how he would overrule at least the three cases he specifically mentioned (notably Loving which allowed miscegenation was not listed). See Thom Con., pgs. 4-7.
Thomas then concluded:
"Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."
Again, note the temporal language, Yawnie. And especially consider Thomas' concluding sentence (which I have bolded for you) and the words "earliest opportunity." That is a Judge on a mission to destroy the doctrine of substantive due process, which Thomas has criticized for decades. He did a lot more than "point out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to Roe" as you claim. If you had actually read Thomas Concurrence, you would have come to the quick conclusion that Thomas is going to find cases where the Court will "eliminate [substantive due process] from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity." There is really no other way read what he said other than that.
I also find it weird that Biden’s solicitor general argued in front of the Supreme Court that there could be no middle ground in the Dobb’s case. Either overturn or uphold roe, even though John Roberts was attempting to find a middle ground. They forced the hand of SCOTUS and SCOTUS chose to send the power back to the states.
Yup, Roberts tried to keep Roe alive with a narrow decision on just Mississippi, so it’s not like the court didn’t respect stare decisis at all.
The dissenting justices’ strongest argument was that if Roe goes, a number of other things based on the same principle go as well (despite the majority opinion that they are not at risk), not that the original decision was based on sound interpretation of constitutional law.
Yes - it is life. As a foetus is life. So how do you apply the argument that there is no right to end that life, the life of a cell, as you do in respect of the foetus?
a sperm cell contains half the chromosomes needed for human life. It is half of a whole.
but I’m so glad you agree that a fetus is life.
I have never disputed it is life. But as I have said, so is a human cell. We don't equate a right to life to a cell. It is therefore absurd to argue that the right to life occurs simply because life exists. The "right to life" is a value we accord life at a given point in its existence - and that will depend entirely on an arbitrary moment that we think life should have that right. For the pro-lifers, it is at conception - and even before - but for 65% of Americans it is when a foetus is likely capable of life independent of the mother. That is why most Americans supported Roe v Wade.
You are jumping to conclusions here. Thomas pointed out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to roe. He never said he was going to look for cases to overturn the old ones though. Quit trying to fuel the fire of misinformation.
I think my characterization of Thomas' Concurrence is correct, Yawn. And judging from your post, I don't think you read Thomas' Concurrence. Here is what Thomas said:
"[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous. [Citation omitted]. [W]e have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. [Citation omitted]. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated." Thom Con., pg. 3.
Note the words of temporal emphasis (which I have bolded for you), Yawn. Especially note the words "AFTER overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions." Those are express, literal indications for you as to what Thomas intends to do going forward.
Thomas then laid out a lengthy road map of exactly how he would overrule at least the three cases he specifically mentioned (notably Loving which allowed miscegenation was not listed). See Thom Con., pgs. 4-7.
Thomas then concluded:
"Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."
Again, note the temporal language, Yawnie. And especially consider Thomas' concluding sentence (which I have bolded for you) and the words "earliest opportunity." That is a Judge on a mission to destroy the doctrine of substantive due process, which Thomas has criticized for decades. He did a lot more than "point out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to Roe" as you claim. If you had actually read Thomas Concurrence, you would have come to the quick conclusion that Thomas is going to find cases where the Court will "eliminate [substantive due process] from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity." There is really no other way read what he said other than that.
Thank you for proving my point for me, though you could have done it in fewer words. Your initial claim was Thomas is going to find cases and ways to overturn precedent. It is not in his power or purview to pick exactly which cases get to the whole court, yet alone which cases get started at the grassroots level where all the cases originate anyway.
You are jumping to conclusions here. Thomas pointed out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to roe. He never said he was going to look for cases to overturn the old ones though. Quit trying to fuel the fire of misinformation.
I think my characterization of Thomas' Concurrence is correct, Yawn. And judging from your post, I don't think you read Thomas' Concurrence. Here is what Thomas said:
"[I]n future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous. [Citation omitted]. [W]e have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents. [Citation omitted]. After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated." Thom Con., pg. 3.
Note the words of temporal emphasis (which I have bolded for you), Yawn. Especially note the words "AFTER overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions." Those are express, literal indications for you as to what Thomas intends to do going forward.
Thomas then laid out a lengthy road map of exactly how he would overrule at least the three cases he specifically mentioned (notably Loving which allowed miscegenation was not listed). See Thom Con., pgs. 4-7.
Thomas then concluded:
"Because the Court properly applies our substantive due process precedents to reject the fabrication of a constitutional right to abortion, and because this case does not present the opportunity to reject substantive due process entirely, I join the Court’s opinion. But, in future cases, we should “follow the text of the Constitution, which sets forth certain substantive rights that cannot be taken away, and adds, beyond that, a right to due process when life, liberty, or property is to be taken away.” Carlton, 512 U. S., at 42 (opinion of Scalia, J.). Substantive due process conflicts with that textual command and has harmed our country in many ways. Accordingly, we should eliminate it from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity."
Again, note the temporal language, Yawnie. And especially consider Thomas' concluding sentence (which I have bolded for you) and the words "earliest opportunity." That is a Judge on a mission to destroy the doctrine of substantive due process, which Thomas has criticized for decades. He did a lot more than "point out that some cases were decided in similar grounds to Roe" as you claim. If you had actually read Thomas Concurrence, you would have come to the quick conclusion that Thomas is going to find cases where the Court will "eliminate [substantive due process] from our jurisprudence at the earliest opportunity." There is really no other way read what he said other than that.
Agree Thomas says that and that that was an overexuberant overreach, no wonder the majority opinion didn’t side with him on that, so the threat is not credible.
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.
Theocratic Oligarchy? If this were true, there would be more help for the poor than there currently is. You just don't like Christianity, so you throw out terms like this.
So is Planned Parenthood aim at implementing white supremacy and eugenics? Or is it simply offering planned parenthood?
Your country was founded by slaveowners. So is racial oppression the purpose of your government? (Some might say it still is).
You argue America is still a bad country because it was founded on slavery and racism. You, if you want to be intellectually consistent, have to apply that same concept to planned parenthood. It was founded on racist grounds, therefore, it is still evil and racist if we are using your logic.
The argument I was addressing was the claim an organisation - Planned Parenthood - having been founded by "racial supremacists" must be therefore implementing their goals. if that is true then the same argument must therefore apply to the founding of the US by slave-owners. Thus, it is still implementing their vices. if you don't accept the latter then the former doesn't follow, either.
One of the most humorous parts of this thread is an American pointing the finger at others over racism and flaws in their democracy. You keep forgetting - in this also, you lead the world.
Stop with the moral outrage. No one cares, that tactic is overplayed and ineffective. China is also the leading nation as far as racism and oppression, let’s be honest.
But to get back to the issue at hand, did you know that the lawyer in the Dobb’s case argued that the Supreme Court had only two options: strike down roe or uphold roe. John Roberts wanted a middle ground compromise. It appears Biden’s team overplayed their hand, knowing that the court leaned conservative. They didn’t give them the option to compromise, so now roe is dead. Sounds like progressives need to blame incompetent lawyers.
I disagree that the Respondent's lawyers (or the Department of Justice's lawyers) were incompetent or that their strategy and argument was the wrong one, or that they "overplayed their hand." Casey was the "middle ground compromise," and it was looking shaky. The strategy to leverage the difficulty in the SCOTUS overruling its own precedent and force then to do so was sound. It didn't work, but it was the best strategy at the time.
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.
Theocratic Oligarchy? If this were true, there would be more help for the poor than there currently is. You just don't like Christianity, so you throw out terms like this.
Bear in mind that liberal Americans are the dumbest people on the planet.
Most European countries don't allow abortions after 12 weeks unless the health of the mother is in jeopardy.
Allowing leftist trash in places like California and Washington to pass laws legalizing infanticide even AFTER birth is hardly "theocratic oligarchy".
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.
Theocratic Oligarchy? If this were true, there would be more help for the poor than there currently is. You just don't like Christianity, so you throw out terms like this.
Since when have devout Christians showed compassion for the poor? Mitt Romney recent brought back his child benefit plan. During COVID lockdowns, the federal government paid out a monthly child benefit. Biden let it expire (like the doddering a-hole he is). But Romney had a similar plan and is back floating it in the Senate.
What is very telling is that Romney's plan has a phase in income requirement. The prior version had no work requirement. Everyone got the benefit up to a certain phase out income level. But, under Romney's re-proposed plan, if you do not work and have no income, you do not get the benefit. Nothing. Nada. Zip. Zero. If you work just a little, you get a little bit of the benefit and so on until the full benefit kicks in at a certain income level. Turns out that Romney put in the phase in work/income requirement at the insistence of pro-life groups. And it would actually have a tax claw back for families that make less than $10k (i.e. they get the benefit but then have to pay it back in whole or in part when filing their taxes).
So, there you have it. The Oligarchic Theocrats want to force women to endure forced labor while at the same time denying a financial benefit for the poorest American families.
Stop with the moral outrage. No one cares, that tactic is overplayed and ineffective. China is also the leading nation as far as racism and oppression, let’s be honest.
But to get back to the issue at hand, did you know that the lawyer in the Dobb’s case argued that the Supreme Court had only two options: strike down roe or uphold roe. John Roberts wanted a middle ground compromise. It appears Biden’s team overplayed their hand, knowing that the court leaned conservative. They didn’t give them the option to compromise, so now roe is dead. Sounds like progressives need to blame incompetent lawyers.
I disagree that the Respondent's lawyers (or the Department of Justice's lawyers) were incompetent or that their strategy and argument was the wrong one, or that they "overplayed their hand." Casey was the "middle ground compromise," and it was looking shaky. The strategy to leverage the difficulty in the SCOTUS overruling its own precedent and force then to do so was sound. It didn't work, but it was the best strategy at the time.
Maybe so, but the fact that Roberts was working toward a middle ground decision shows that, contrary to most of the vitriol, the SCOTUS didn’t just throw roe and Casey out without much deliberation and at least an attempt to find a middle ground.
You argue America is still a bad country because it was founded on slavery and racism. You, if you want to be intellectually consistent, have to apply that same concept to planned parenthood. It was founded on racist grounds, therefore, it is still evil and racist if we are using your logic.
The argument I was addressing was the claim an organisation - Planned Parenthood - having been founded by "racial supremacists" must be therefore implementing their goals. if that is true then the same argument must therefore apply to the founding of the US by slave-owners. Thus, it is still implementing their vices. if you don't accept the latter then the former doesn't follow, either.
Planned parenthood did implement some of the goals of Sanger early on. That’s why they targeted poor communities that were made of people of color.
The issue is that, multiple times in this topic and others, you have accused the United States as being the leader in oppression. If you believe that, based on your own assertions, it’s because of how the country was founded. You have to also hold that same standard to planned parenthood.
I can be logically consistent and say yes, the US and planned parenthood had some troublesome issues in their genesis but worked toward remedying those issues.
You, on the other hand, demonize the US but want to give planned parenthood a pass. Thus, you are intellectually inconsistent .
