The highest court in the land has sent a major issues back to the states for them, through the democratic process, to decide how to handle said issue. But yeah, total kill shot to democracy.
If the right to abortion really is as popular as people say it is, the constituents of each state will make their voices heard and state reps will either address the concern or find themselves out of office. That sounds pretty democratic to me.
Ha ha ha, the wannabe American New Zealander further confirms that he hasn’t read the opinion, bloviating like a kid who hasn’t actually read the book he supposed to summarize. The dictatorship that scotus apparently is is the same one that enshrined Obergefell, but the NZ’er probably thinks that’s the name of a vegetable 🍆 🥦 or something.
Hardly the first time SC has gone against “majority wishes” (aka opinion polls). Thank goodness the SC is more intellectual than being into Instagram likes.
If a poll came out tomorrow and said that a majority wanted to eliminate the first amendment and make Scientology the official religion of the US, Armstrong would be pissed if the court shot it down. He just doesn’t understand the Supreme Court’s function, which is funny because doesn’t he claim to be a lawyer
The highest court in the land has sent a major issues back to the states for them, through the democratic process, to decide how to handle said issue. But yeah, total kill shot to democracy.
If the right to abortion really is as popular as people say it is, the constituents of each state will make their voices heard and state reps will either address the concern or find themselves out of office. That sounds pretty democratic to me.
Ha ha ha, the wannabe American New Zealander further confirms that he hasn’t read the opinion, bloviating like a kid who hasn’t actually read the book he supposed to summarize. The dictatorship that scotus apparently is is the same one that enshrined Obergefell, but the NZ’er probably thinks that’s the name of a vegetable 🍆 🥦 or something.
Hardly the first time SC has gone against “majority wishes” (aka opinion polls). Thank goodness the SC is more intellectual than being into Instagram likes.
So courts can take away people's rights but it's ok because it's "judges' who are doing it. There are Chinese and Russian judges who are happy with that. Interesting that there were three other judges on the Supreme Court who were utterly opposed to their colleagues' decision. I suppose they were "bloviating", too. More likely, they recognized the majority were implementing a decision based on their ideological preferences - just as you do, on the similar pretence of an intellectual argument. You aren't an intellectual. You are merely a pile of words, most of which are in the service of your own overweening ego.
Ha ha ha, the wannabe American New Zealander further confirms that he hasn’t read the opinion, bloviating like a kid who hasn’t actually read the book he supposed to summarize. The dictatorship that scotus apparently is is the same one that enshrined Obergefell, but the NZ’er probably thinks that’s the name of a vegetable 🍆 🥦 or something.
Hardly the first time SC has gone against “majority wishes” (aka opinion polls). Thank goodness the SC is more intellectual than being into Instagram likes.
If a poll came out tomorrow and said that a majority wanted to eliminate the first amendment and make Scientology the official religion of the US, Armstrong would be pissed if the court shot it down. He just doesn’t understand the Supreme Court’s function, which is funny because doesn’t he claim to be a lawyer
A poll might come out tomorrow and say most Americans think blue-eyed babies should be killed at birth. But it won't, just as your fictional "scientology" poll won't, either. But when there are surveys that shows most Americans support Roe, which confers fundamental rights upon women, it is a court that goes against both established legal practice in overturning a long-accepted precedent and even its own judicial role which has become oriented towards expanding rights and not taking them away. Apart from your prejudices, and those males here - and they are all males - who also support taking away women's rights, you lack the intellectual equipment to meaningfully discuss these issues.
The brain-dead Monkey has a tendency of saying just random raging things because it doesn’t actually understand the legal arguments here, so it simply bloviates.
It will be disappointed to learn that the Whitehouse made it clear it will just quietly pass the buck to congress. Senators have little incentive to run on the abortion platform, especially in red states, so federal abortion legalization is unlikely to get 60 votes.
Twist reality all you want but it's quite clear the overturning of Roe results in a net loss of rights for Americans. That's a fact. You can justify it all you want but your words carry little weight, regardless. You admitted that you think killing an unimplanted embryo is murder, but you're fine with IVF clinics slaughtering them by the thousands.
Your focus on voluntary abortion is completely disproportionate under your moral framework and basically topples all your rhetoric into a trash heap.
Discarding embyro's is murder. Are you happy to know my abortion stance is consistent?
Those who oppose human embryonic stem cell research argue for a clear position on the metaphysical and moral status of human embryos. This position does not differ whether the embryo is present inside its mother's reproductiv...
Pro-abortionists/anti-lifers seem to define human life as "something we don't feel bad about killing," which is why their definitions are so hard to pin down. Multiple people on this forum and probably in this thread have argued "you wouldn't feel as bad about discarding an embryo as you would about a 5 year old dying, therefor an embryo isn't human life." Truly disturbing and sociopathic argument.
If a poll came out tomorrow and said that a majority wanted to eliminate the first amendment and make Scientology the official religion of the US, Armstrong would be pissed if the court shot it down. He just doesn’t understand the Supreme Court’s function, which is funny because doesn’t he claim to be a lawyer
A poll might come out tomorrow and say most Americans think blue-eyed babies should be killed at birth. But it won't, just as your fictional "scientology" poll won't, either. But when there are surveys that shows most Americans support Roe, which confers fundamental rights upon women, it is a court that goes against both established legal practice in overturning a long-accepted precedent and even its own judicial role which has become oriented towards expanding rights and not taking them away. Apart from your prejudices, and those males here - and they are all males - who also support taking away women's rights, you lack the intellectual equipment to meaningfully discuss these issues.
All I can say is you are not even good at trolling. the polls regarding abortion break down under scrutiny. Why can’t a court overturn an old ruling? Slavery was upheld by the court at one point, you think of a case had come up 50 years after Dred scot they should have ignored it?
their judicial role isn’t to expand rights. Again, for a lawyer you sure don’t understand legal principles.
Maybe try more carefully re-reading my responses involving the word “murder” to identify one of the two big points of disagreement between you and SD here. Noem’s strategy seems legal and smart to me, so I’m good.
I read your responses carefully. They don't explain what you think they do.
Once again, because you can't seem to address it -- on its face, South Dakota's policy that it will not prosecute women who deliberately seek abortions is glaringly inconsistent with the entire reason, purpose, emotions and morality behind the abortion law that the governor of South Dakota and others wanted so much. They finally prevailed on the argument that abortion is murder, but immediately announce that the murderers are absolutely free to commit the now prohibited murders. That Catch-22 like paradox seems to grow more absurd each time I'm forced to reexplain it for you.
It's just right-wing virtue signalling. They ban it to make a point and signal how "pro-life" they are.
A poll might come out tomorrow and say most Americans think blue-eyed babies should be killed at birth. But it won't, just as your fictional "scientology" poll won't, either. But when there are surveys that shows most Americans support Roe, which confers fundamental rights upon women, it is a court that goes against both established legal practice in overturning a long-accepted precedent and even its own judicial role which has become oriented towards expanding rights and not taking them away. Apart from your prejudices, and those males here - and they are all males - who also support taking away women's rights, you lack the intellectual equipment to meaningfully discuss these issues.
Oh “but it won’t”? Wasn’t it just a couple pages ago that the SimianFolk were chanting how the the anti-Roes when pushed to their beliefs’ extremes just throw their hands up and say that would never happen. Well, 1) we never said that; 2) NZ Monkey seems to have fallen for just that. Inconsistent!
NZ Monkey also seems to think a woman’s privates comprise “intellectual equipment”, presumably whiteknighting out of the wisdom of his moobs.
It's just right-wing virtue signalling. They ban it to make a point and signal how "pro-life" they are.
Virtue signaling means only lip service, so when one actually goes ahead and bans what they believe is a crime, and pursues a prosecutorial strategy that would have the greatest impact in deterring it, it’s putting one’s money where the mouth is, aka opposite of virtue signaling.
The USA had one of the most open and liberal policies toward abortion. Most European countries are more restrictive than we were. I imagine that most states will land somewhere along the European model.
This will work itself out and will be a nonissue soon enough. People rarely concern themselves with laws of other states. Also abortion is an ugly thing to discuss, and defending late term abortions (3rd trimester) is a particularly nasty business. Most people are more concerned about the collapsing economy, economic stability than whether someone in Mississippi can get an abortion or not.
A poll might come out tomorrow and say most Americans think blue-eyed babies should be killed at birth. But it won't, just as your fictional "scientology" poll won't, either. But when there are surveys that shows most Americans support Roe, which confers fundamental rights upon women, it is a court that goes against both established legal practice in overturning a long-accepted precedent and even its own judicial role which has become oriented towards expanding rights and not taking them away. Apart from your prejudices, and those males here - and they are all males - who also support taking away women's rights, you lack the intellectual equipment to meaningfully discuss these issues.
All I can say is you are not even good at trolling. the polls regarding abortion break down under scrutiny. Why can’t a court overturn an old ruling? Slavery was upheld by the court at one point, you think of a case had come up 50 years after Dred scot they should have ignored it?
their judicial role isn’t to expand rights. Again, for a lawyer you sure don’t understand legal principles.
That you equate a case that confers rights upon women with one that upheld slavery says everything one needs to know about what you think. Abortion equals slavery. As I said, you lack the mental equipment to discuss these issues.
Oh “but it won’t”? Wasn’t it just a couple pages ago that the SimianFolk were chanting how the the anti-Roes when pushed to their beliefs’ extremes just throw their hands up and say that would never happen. Well, 1) we never said that; 2) NZ Monkey seems to have fallen for just that. Inconsistent!
NZ Monkey also seems to think a woman’s privates comprise “intellectual equipment”, presumably whiteknighting out of the wisdom of his moobs.
I knew I could rely upon you to flounder about and not grasp what I said. I don't speak for anyone here - including your so-called "Simianfolk". My views are my own. Your cheap crack about "women's privates" shows you cannot grasp that women's rights should not be decided by men only, and, in the same way, the rights of POC should not be decided by whites. But they typically are in the US. White male privilege holds the reins in everything. This SCOTUS is firmly in that tradition.
Not only do you have the demonstrated empathy level of an axolotl you are of only mediocre intelligence, and an inept adversary in debate. You are therefore a worthy flag-bearer for showing how badly the SCOTUS got it wrong.
The USA had one of the most open and liberal policies toward abortion. Most European countries are more restrictive than we were. I imagine that most states will land somewhere along the European model.
This will work itself out and will be a nonissue soon enough. People rarely concern themselves with laws of other states. Also abortion is an ugly thing to discuss, and defending late term abortions (3rd trimester) is a particularly nasty business. Most people are more concerned about the collapsing economy, economic stability than whether someone in Mississippi can get an abortion or not.
The rest of the developed world is appalled at this loss of rights for women in America. It speaks to your decline in relation to other nations that you say most Americans don't care about that loss of rights. But you are in fact wrong. The great majority supported Roe, and women are angry. The SCOTUS has fallen badly in public respect and the Right will wear the consequences in the mid-terms.
The USA had one of the most open and liberal policies toward abortion. Most European countries are more restrictive than we were. I imagine that most states will land somewhere along the European model.
This will work itself out and will be a nonissue soon enough. People rarely concern themselves with laws of other states. Also abortion is an ugly thing to discuss, and defending late term abortions (3rd trimester) is a particularly nasty business. Most people are more concerned about the collapsing economy, economic stability than whether someone in Mississippi can get an abortion or not.
The rest of the developed world is appalled at this loss of rights for women in America. It speaks to your decline in relation to other nations that you say most Americans don't care about that loss of rights. But you are in fact wrong. The great majority supported Roe, and women are angry. The SCOTUS has fallen badly in public respect and the Right will wear the consequences in the mid-terms.
I very ProChoice, I think this is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, but.. other countries have more restrictive policies than we had. So I don't why they'd feel that way.
This will have no affect on the midterms.
You are probably too young to remember this but... "It's the economy stupid!"
I very ProChoice, I think this is a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, but.. other countries have more restrictive policies than we had. So I don't why they'd feel that way.
This will have no affect on the midterms.
You are probably too young to remember this but... "It's the economy stupid!"
Yup, women are far smarter than the white knighters assume.
Ha ha ha, the wannabe American New Zealander further confirms that he hasn’t read the opinion, bloviating like a kid who hasn’t actually read the book he supposed to summarize. The dictatorship that scotus apparently is is the same one that enshrined Obergefell, but the NZ’er probably thinks that’s the name of a vegetable 🍆 🥦 or something.
Hardly the first time SC has gone against “majority wishes” (aka opinion polls). Thank goodness the SC is more intellectual than being into Instagram likes.
So courts can take away people's rights but it's ok because it's "judges' who are doing it. There are Chinese and Russian judges who are happy with that. Interesting that there were three other judges on the Supreme Court who were utterly opposed to their colleagues' decision. I suppose they were "bloviating", too. More likely, they recognized the majority were implementing a decision based on their ideological preferences - just as you do, on the similar pretence of an intellectual argument. You aren't an intellectual. You are merely a pile of words, most of which are in the service of your own overweening ego.
You keep up with the idea of taking away rights, but abortion is still legal in the United States.
This ruling actually allows pro-choice states to become even more radical in their abortion policies if they so choose. To frame the Dobb’s decision as only making abortion more restricted is disingenuous.
States can vote to allow abortion up before the moment of birth if they want to, or they can choose to limit abortion beyond the first trimester aside from specific exceptions, or to limit abortions aside from certain exceptions. And we, who are residents of the states, can vote on representatives who reflect our values.
People can get an abortion if they want one bad enough. stop trying to make it out as if the Dobb’s decision expressly said “abortion is now illegal”. The Dobb’s decision said: “here you go voters, you decide. This isn’t in our constitutional scope.”
A poll might come out tomorrow and say most Americans think blue-eyed babies should be killed at birth. But it won't, just as your fictional "scientology" poll won't, either. But when there are surveys that shows most Americans support Roe, which confers fundamental rights upon women, it is a court that goes against both established legal practice in overturning a long-accepted precedent and even its own judicial role which has become oriented towards expanding rights and not taking them away. Apart from your prejudices, and those males here - and they are all males - who also support taking away women's rights, you lack the intellectual equipment to meaningfully discuss these issues.
