Protecting the Constitution

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

They're still going to die.  Just now the mothers as well.

Truly Pro-life delusion.  May your God have mercy on your soul.

It's forced birth, not pro-life.

[Billy Hoyle]

If you read the ruling, and Thomas' concurrence in particular - he literally calls for reconsideration of Obergfell, Griswold and Lawrence - you wouldn't be foolish enough to call it fearmongering.

and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

I don't celebrate death, fool.  You do.

Then what about women who need abortions because of ectopic pregnancies?

With certain states proposed restrictions they are literally sentencing those women to death.

Rape, incest, miscarriages, other dangerous pregnancies. This isn’t pro life, this is pro forced birth.

Sickeninng

[Uncle Rico]

Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed.

Religion is the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind

[Hards Alumni]

and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

Ah, so you're saying he is unfit for office and should resign?

Odd that we agree on this.

[wadesworld]

I mean, Thomas made it clear that’s next

Right?

and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

What’d the justices say about Roe v. Wade when they were sworn in?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Religion is the most efficient killing machine in the history of mankind

Indeed

[Pakuni]

Not exactly.  Just can’t sue the cop personally.

Do you know what the phrase "without recourse" means?
Did you read Alito's ruling?
The court explicitly ruled that being Mirandized is no longer a Constitutional right, but rather a " prophylactic rule" that should be decided on a case-by-case basis using a "cost-benefit" analysis.

[Pakuni]

and Kavanaugh said this ruling does NOT affect those decisions. Thomas went off on his own, nobody joined him. He's a nut in his own world.

Well, who would ever question the veracity of Justice Kavanaugh?

“This decision is inconsistent with what Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh said in their testimony and their meetings with me, where they both were insistent on the importance of supporting long-standing precedents that the country has relied upon," Collins said in a statement.

"I trusted Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh when they testified under oath that they also believed Roe v. Wade was settled legal precedent and I am alarmed they chose to reject the stability the ruling has provided for two generations of Americans," he said.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

before the lock: gun legislation was passed this morning (15 Republicans voted in favor to avoid a filibuster).

RBG disagreed with the basis upon which Roe was decided, using privacy and it was more focused on the rights of the doctor to perform abortions rather than the right of a woman to have one.

https://www.newsweek.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-roe-wade-abortion-scotus-1702948

It's up to either the states or Congress to act, what RBG always felt should have been done.

To me it's always been straight forward.  On the 1st Amendment - Don't force your religious beliefs which include forced birth (anti-abortion) on anyone.
It should also be legal based on the 9th Amendment.  Citizens have rights not listed in the first 8 including this 
And it's the living breathing walking citizens that have rights.

[Billy Hoyle]

Ah, so you're saying he is unfit for office and should resign?

Odd that we agree on this.

Yes, he is.

Right?

What’d the justices say about abortion when they were sworn in?

Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law too. But, as RBG said, Roe was decided on a flimsy foundation that left it open to being overturned if the right case came along. The others were not; they were decided on solid, legal grounds. Even Alito said this in the opinion:

"To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," the document states. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Thomas is going off on his own and his opinion quoted himself for precedent. It's red meat for the media while they ignore the comments of the other justices, and interest groups who will fundraise a ton off this.

[ZiggysFryBoy]

Ah, yes.  Margaret Sanger.  The classic whataboutism.  I suspect her views about race being shared by say, Tucker Carlson, don’t matter then

Sentence 1:  accuse someone of whayaboutism.
Sentence 2:  use whataboutism.

0/10.

[Dickthedribbler]

49 years of 'settled law' up in smoke determined by an unelected body.

What this has shown us is that there is no such thing as stare decisis and any ruling can be overturned based on the make up of the Supreme Court.

Make no mistake, abortions will still happen and illegal ones will kill mothers and babies all across the country.

Fundamental Christian Extremists are taking this country back a hundred years.

Your love affair with the "Stare Decisis" is misplaced. SD is not law and it is not codified anywhere. It is a doctrine or guide that has evolved over centuries to provide clarity and consistency to prior rulings on the same issue. While SD has a virtual binding effect on lower courts and on intermediate appellate courts, it is not absolute when it comes to the US Supreme Court. The US SC can re-visit its own prior decisions anytime it has the proper case before it.

In 1896 the US SC in Plessy v. Ferguson held that " separate but equal" was permitted and did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution ( public accomodations----separate railroad cars for Blacks and Whites). The adherence to "Stare Decisis" caused that to be the law for 58 years and resulted in mandated separate schools; separate restrooms; separate hotels; etc. For segregationists and other Democrats, Plessy was the gift that kept on giving.

Until 1954 when the US SC realized the grave error they had made, and in Brown v Board of Education, held that separate schools were inherently UNEQUAL, thereby implicitly overrulind Plessy. This opened the door for school and other integration. Stare Decisis be damned.

So under your position, SD should prevent today's court from overruling Roe, and the 1954 Court should have been prevented from overruling Plessy because of SD. Or in other words, keep aborting and keep Blacks in separate train cars. Unless you're a rank hypocrite, today's SC decision overturning Roe is completely reconcilable with Brown.

And Stare Decisis has little, if nothing, to do with it.

[MuggsyB]

Thomas made an idiotic comment.

[Uncle Rico]

Sentence 1:  accuse someone of whayaboutism.
Sentence 2:  use whataboutism.

0/10.

Margaret Sanger has as much to do with this decisions as Tucker Carlson.  Get it?

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

I mean, Thomas made it clear that’s next

He's plotting the next J6 with Ginny

[Uncle Rico]

He's plotting the next J6 with Ginny

He’s unfit to be on the court and his wife is a traitor.  She’ll be great for fundraising efforts, however

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

He’s unfit to be on the court and his wife is a traitor.  She’ll be great for fundraising efforts, however

One among several unfit.

[Uncle Rico]

One among several unfit.

Lying under oath should be a disqualifier.  Alas, we’ve long proven on both sides that doesn’t really matter

[MuggsyB]

It seems to me that the majority of people believe after 15 weeks abortion should be illegal while the overall  majority is also pro-choice.  What I don't understand is why there cannot be some legislation, or movement on both sides, regardless if this is now going to be a State issue, which would lead to laws siding with the majority opinion?  Because as far as I understand the left's idea of codifying Roe wouldn't actually be accurate.  It goes much further than that and includes late term abortions.  Personally, I think this is a poor decision and partly because people will still get black market abortions which is a disaster. 

[Merit Matters]

Celebrating all the babies’ lives that will be saved. This was never in the constitution. If you can find abortion in there, let me know. It’s about time people start being held accountable for their sexual decisions. If you don’t like it, move to another state I suppose. Or another country.

[wadesworld]

Yes, he is.

Plessy v. Ferguson was settled law too. But, as RBG said, Roe was decided on a flimsy foundation that left it open to being overturned if the right case came along. The others were not; they were decided on solid, legal grounds. Even Alito said this in the opinion:

"To ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right," the document states. "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion."

Thomas is going off on his own and his opinion quoted himself for precedent. It's red meat for the media while they ignore the comments of the other justices, and interest groups who will fundraise a ton off this.

Solid dodge.

[Hards Alumni]

It seems to me that the majority of people believe after 15 weeks abortion should be illegal while the overall  majority is also pro-choice.  What I don't understand is why there cannot be some legislation, or movement on both sides, regardless if this is now going to be a State issue, which would lead to laws siding with the majority opinion?  Because as far as I understand the left's idea of codifying Roe wouldn't actually be accurate.  It goes much further than that and includes late term abortions.  Personally, I think this is a poor decision and partly because people will still get black market abortions which is a disaster.

I'm the left and I don't think that abortions should be any of the government's business.  Ziggy's access to genital wart medication isn't questioned, so why should a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy be?  They're medical procedures and they're performed routinely all over the global north. 

If you want to draw the line 15 weeks that's fine, I guess, since there has to be a compromise.  I can be baby stepped to go to 15 weeks since that is a reasonable enough amount of time to know of the pregnancy and discuss all options.

[Merit Matters]

Well abortion does. 

I fail to see how babies being born is more tyrannical than babies being destroyed.

Bingo

[Hards Alumni]

Celebrating all the babies’ lives that will be saved. This was never in the constitution. If you can find abortion in there, let me know. It’s about time people start being held accountable for their sexual decisions. If you don’t like it, move to another state I suppose. Or another country.

How perfectly cruel of you.