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.”
Or the Dems can pass legislation codifying those rights into law, something they didn't do any time during the 50 years of RvW.
BTW the current president was in the Senate 36 of those years, and another 8 as a VP. The current VP was in the Senate as well, and neither he nor she did anything about abortion rights during any of the time they served. Don't fall for their BS any more. Call them out.
SCOTUS’ mandate isn’t to “expand rights”, but to interpret law. As for history, it depends on whose rights you speak of. It took away the “right” to own slaves, right to segregate, right to discriminate, right to refuse to pay union fees, etc. All of these rights were taken away from the majority of the population.
You could say Dobbs took away the right to abortion or that it simply took itself out of the determination by reverting the issue to the Legislative.
No, that's not the issues I'm asking about. I've made it clear what I'm asking about. You are unable to provide any adequate explanation, or any explanation at all. Your posts above that are deemed non-responsive will be stricken during the next board maintenance period.
Come back when you can explain the glaring inconsistency between arguing abortion is a degree of murder, on the one hand, and then announcing that murderers are free to commit the act considered a degree of murder, on the other. Until that time, you are instructed to keep your mouth firmly shut regarding this topic or any related topics.
Please try writing a few more paragraphs explaining your thoughts clearer.
You had a promising start in this thread, but then you got cocky after beating up on B-level guys like Armstrong. Your newly formed sense of bravado caused you to step into a discussion on an issue for which you were ill-equipped. The results were predictable: you disassembled, deflected, engaged in passive-aggressive behavior, etc. All your usual defensive coping mechanisms on display (except the vulgarity regarding semen). See above.
So while its laudable that you strayed outside your comfort zone, you also needed to be better prepared. You needed more and better tools in your pillbox. That is a "life lesson" for you going forward.
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.
At least you're admitting that in Roe the court "confers fundamental rights on women". Of course we all know that the court can't do that. Now it said "oops" we didn't have the right to do that, the legislature should do that. Sorry for the temporary interruption while we wait for Congress to finally pass legislation that they're afraid of.
Please try writing a few more paragraphs explaining your thoughts clearer.
You had a promising start in this thread, but then you got cocky after beating up on B-level guys like Armstrong. Your newly formed sense of bravado caused you to step into a discussion on an issue for which you were ill-equipped. The results were predictable: you disassembled, deflected, engaged in passive-aggressive behavior, etc. All your usual defensive coping mechanisms on display (except the vulgarity regarding semen). See above.
So while its laudable that you strayed outside your comfort zone, you also needed to be better prepared. You needed more and better tools in your pillbox. That is a "life lesson" for you going forward.
I tried to “see above” and only saw a request to write a few more paragraphs to explain your thoughts clearer, and you did manage to write two paragraphs, I suppose.
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.
At least you're admitting that in Roe the court "confers fundamental rights on women". Of course we all know that the court can't do that. Now it said "oops" we didn't have the right to do that, the legislature should do that. Sorry for the temporary interruption while we wait for Congress to finally pass legislation that they're afraid of.
The state of affairs is still vastly better for pro-choicers than pre-Roe. Roe caused like 30 states to revise their abortion laws in order to be compliant and not all of them went with the “trigger” approach planning for the day when Roe might be overturned.
At least you're admitting that in Roe the court "confers fundamental rights on women". Of course we all know that the court can't do that. Now it said "oops" we didn't have the right to do that, the legislature should do that. Sorry for the temporary interruption while we wait for Congress to finally pass legislation that they're afraid of.
The state of affairs is still vastly better for pro-choicers than pre-Roe. Roe caused like 30 states to revise their abortion laws in order to be compliant and not all of them went with the “trigger” approach planning for the day when Roe might be overturned.
Yes but as we know they're deliberately misleading the headline readers (most of them fed through iphones) into thinking that rights have been taken away.
When Gearldo Rivera heard about the upcoming decision he expressed real fear for the terrible life his daughters now face. Imagine them letting his grandchildren live! Oh the horror!
Got to say it: the “news” used to be that a 10-year old girl got pregnant. Does no one find that surprising anymore? Seems like reckless upbringing irrespective of the parents’ politics.
I do hope she gets what they want safely at this point and learns to take caution and responsibility.
”For years people have traversed state lines for abortions, particularly if a clinic across the border is closer to their home than the nearest in-state facility.”
Doesn’t this show that abortion is still an option?
Please try writing a few more paragraphs explaining your thoughts clearer.
You had a promising start in this thread, but then you got cocky after beating up on B-level guys like Armstrong. Your newly formed sense of bravado caused you to step into a discussion on an issue for which you were ill-equipped. The results were predictable: you disassembled, deflected, engaged in passive-aggressive behavior, etc. All your usual defensive coping mechanisms on display (except the vulgarity regarding semen). See above.
So while its laudable that you strayed outside your comfort zone, you also needed to be better prepared. You needed more and better tools in your pillbox. That is a "life lesson" for you going forward.
A lecture from another loser. You're both well-matched. Pompous airheads.
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.
At least you're admitting that in Roe the court "confers fundamental rights on women". Of course we all know that the court can't do that. Now it said "oops" we didn't have the right to do that, the legislature should do that. Sorry for the temporary interruption while we wait for Congress to finally pass legislation that they're afraid of.
Not "afraid". That the Republicans will find ways to block. In any case, legislation would struggle to make it past another SCOTUS challenge, as it wouldn't accept Congress simply trying to codify a right it had thrown out.
SCOTUS’ mandate isn’t to “expand rights”, but to interpret law. As for history, it depends on whose rights you speak of. It took away the “right” to own slaves, right to segregate, right to discriminate, right to refuse to pay union fees, etc. All of these rights were taken away from the majority of the population.
You could say Dobbs took away the right to abortion or that it simply took itself out of the determination by reverting the issue to the Legislative.
I see you are unable to distinguish between decisions that expand human rights and those that restrict them. The Court has moved towards the former and against the latter - until this highly partisan right-wing SCOTUS. It is no longer a court for all Americans; it is an instrument for shoring up minority power.
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.”
Or the Dems can pass legislation codifying those rights into law, something they didn't do any time during the 50 years of RvW.
BTW the current president was in the Senate 36 of those years, and another 8 as a VP. The current VP was in the Senate as well, and neither he nor she did anything about abortion rights during any of the time they served. Don't fall for their BS any more. Call them out.
When a right is conferred by the SCOTUS it should be redundant for Congress to legislate. What has happened is that the Court has now become a political vehicle for the extreme right. It no longer respects its own previous decisions according to established precedent. The call for Congress to legislate is because the Court is no longer an interpreter of the law but another political opponent.
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 remember when Kennedy was assassinated. This SCOTUS is more partisan than any in living memory.
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.”
After Dobbs abortion is only legal in some states. With Roe it was a right all American women were entitled to. No longer. The Court has removed it. There are many states that will not allow it. The rest of the developed world sees the decision as the appalling regression that it is.
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.
So you have been deaf to the anger this decision has produced amongst women. I am not surprised. You probably don't know any.
So does this thread exist just so people can practice their debate skills? Do people really get a thrill out of 'winning' such a debate or 'owning' someone in a debate?
Or the Dems can pass legislation codifying those rights into law, something they didn't do any time during the 50 years of RvW.
BTW the current president was in the Senate 36 of those years, and another 8 as a VP. The current VP was in the Senate as well, and neither he nor she did anything about abortion rights during any of the time they served. Don't fall for their BS any more. Call them out.
When a right is conferred by the SCOTUS it should be redundant for Congress to legislate. What has happened is that the Court has now become a political vehicle for the extreme right. It no longer respects its own previous decisions according to established precedent. The call for Congress to legislate is because the Court is no longer an interpreter of the law but another political opponent.
The Supreme Court cannot "confer" rights or take them away. If it wanted to illegitimately "take away" the right to abortion it would have ruled that abortions are forbidden. Show us where it said that.
