Still haven’t seen a good argument for why the court should have kept roe.
The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
The fundamentalism thinking assiciated with overturning Roe V Wade is the same fundamentalism that worked to restrict womens rights to work, womens right to vote, interracial marriage and gay marriage. This is just the beginning.
The fundamentalism thinking assiciated with overturning Roe V Wade is the same fundamentalism that worked to restrict womens rights to work, womens right to vote, interracial marriage and gay marriage. This is just the beginning.
The fundamentalism thinking assiciated with overturning Roe V Wade is the same fundamentalism that worked to restrict womens rights to work, womens right to vote, interracial marriage and gay marriage. This is just the beginning.
Ha ha ha, consider switching from humanities and social sciences to a more useful major like STEM. That will unrestrict your thinking. Your namesake would approve.
Threads like this show why your country is going to come apart. A passionate commitment to utterly irreconcilable positions on matters of fundamental rights. It isn't confined to Roe v Wade but can be seen everywhere. Guns, race, gender, vaccines, masks, election results, religion - it goes on - you are effectively living in separate countries.
Politically this is bad for the Dems because it takes it away from the Federal level. There is nothing short of a Constitutional amendment that they can do to Federally legalize abortion across all 50 states. Just like with legalization of marijuana there are things the Federal government can do to make it easier to access, less red tape, but they can't just pass a law that say "Abortion is legal, no limits!"
This pushes the issue to the states, and each side, both ProChoice or AntiChoice/ProLife and fight it out there.
I will concede that is could be good for the Dems because it can be used to raise money, but as a practical issue abortion will now have to be dealt with on a state by state level.
The fundamentalism thinking assiciated with overturning Roe V Wade is the same fundamentalism that worked to restrict womens rights to work, womens right to vote, interracial marriage and gay marriage. This is just the beginning.
Ha ha ha, consider switching from humanities and social sciences to a more useful major like STEM. That will unrestrict your thinking. Your namesake would approve.
LOL! Fvck me for wanting freedom. Thought this was America.
Still haven’t seen a good argument for why the court should have kept roe.
The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
You don’t need “privacy” to make the Loving argument. “Life, liberty” suffices.
Still haven’t seen a good argument for why the court should have kept roe.
The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
I don’t think the federal government should have any say in marriage, civil unions, or any of that. If the court scrapped both loving and pace I’d be fine with that (I’m assuming you are summarizing both rulings accurately)
The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
I don’t think the federal government should have any say in marriage, civil unions, or any of that. If the court scrapped both loving and pace I’d be fine with that (I’m assuming you are summarizing both rulings accurately)
Politically this is bad for the Dems because it takes it away from the Federal level. There is nothing short of a Constitutional amendment that they can do to Federally legalize abortion across all 50 states. Just like with legalization of marijuana there are things the Federal government can do to make it easier to access, less red tape, but they can't just pass a law that say "Abortion is legal, no limits!"
This pushes the issue to the states, and each side, both ProChoice or AntiChoice/ProLife and fight it out there.
I will concede that is could be good for the Dems because it can be used to raise money, but as a practical issue abortion will now have to be dealt with on a state by state level.
I disagree. Politically this good be a boon for Dems. I know so many one issue voters that only vote for Republicans on the federal level because they are passionate about being pro-life/anti-abortion. If this issue is off the table at the federal level, it frees up a base of voters who may be aligned with Dems on many issues except abortion. If it is played right, this could widen the tent.
Politically this is bad for the Dems because it takes it away from the Federal level. There is nothing short of a Constitutional amendment that they can do to Federally legalize abortion across all 50 states. Just like with legalization of marijuana there are things the Federal government can do to make it easier to access, less red tape, but they can't just pass a law that say "Abortion is legal, no limits!"
This pushes the issue to the states, and each side, both ProChoice or AntiChoice/ProLife and fight it out there.
I will concede that is could be good for the Dems because it can be used to raise money, but as a practical issue abortion will now have to be dealt with on a state by state level.
I disagree. Politically this good be a boon for Dems. I know so many one issue voters that only vote for Republicans on the federal level because they are passionate about being pro-life/anti-abortion. If this issue is off the table at the federal level, it frees up a base of voters who may be aligned with Dems on many issues except abortion. If it is played right, this could widen the tent.
I agree. I’m reading reports that on average 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Most of the republicans I know only vote right because they are scared of trans and gas prices.
I don’t think the federal government should have any say in marriage, civil unions, or any of that. If the court scrapped both loving and pace I’d be fine with that (I’m assuming you are summarizing both rulings accurately)
You just draw the line at abortions. Got it.
The constitution presents an inherent conflict in the two words “life, liberty”.
The people who wrote the Constitution also had an expectation of privacy from the government, and also didn’t expect the government to come in between them and decisions of family making. The men who wrote it may not of have considered women to be whole persons of agency at the time but we do now.
Alito’s reasoning would strike down Loving v. Virginia. Tell me what I have wrong here:
1. When the 14th Amendment was ratified, many states had laws against interracial relations and marriages.
2. Pace vs Alabama in 1883 confirmed that laws prohibiting interracial relations didn’t violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because penalties applied equally to all parties.
3. Loving vs Virginia overruled the precedent of Pace vs Alabama on the basis that the racists who ratified the 14th Amendment shouldn’t hold sway over 20th Century America.
I don’t think the federal government should have any say in marriage, civil unions, or any of that. If the court scrapped both loving and pace I’d be fine with that (I’m assuming you are summarizing both rulings accurately)
As the very clear right to privacy in the constitution is now ignored, this could open up many new laws on the state level including banning interracial marriage (which you say you are fine with so I am assuming it wouldn't affect you directly), banning contraception of any form including between married couples, banning pre-marital sex, banning non-heterosexual sex, banning gay marriage, and so much more. Are you okay with living in that society?
I don’t think the federal government should have any say in marriage, civil unions, or any of that. If the court scrapped both loving and pace I’d be fine with that (I’m assuming you are summarizing both rulings accurately)
You just draw the line at abortions. Got it.
…I also think the government should ban murder, rape, and theft. You know, the crimes that negatively impact others.
I disagree. Politically this good be a boon for Dems. I know so many one issue voters that only vote for Republicans on the federal level because they are passionate about being pro-life/anti-abortion. If this issue is off the table at the federal level, it frees up a base of voters who may be aligned with Dems on many issues except abortion. If it is played right, this could widen the tent.
I agree. I’m reading reports that on average 2/3 of Americans support Roe. Most of the republicans I know only vote right because they are scared of trans and gas prices.
Those polls are crap. Same ones that have Hillary a 99% chance.
