Protecting the Constitution

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

More worried that elected officials are defiantly disregarding a Supreme Court ruling.

Who's doing that?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

More worried that elected officials are defiantly disregarding a Supreme Court ruling. This country is so fooked up and knocking on the door of the 3rd world. Equally amazed that Mayor Light-in-the-Loafers advocates fookin' Clarence Thomas, hey?

You are more worried that local people are trying to manage the free-for-all created by sending decision making on this to the local level? This is what chaos looks like when you create chaos. 

[4everwarriors]

As stated previously, RBG ultimately and selfishly, fooked over all women, hey?

[Frenns Liquor Depot]

As stated previously, RBG ultimately and selfishly, fooked over all women, hey?

That's a terrible take.  Some person who didn't take people's rights away is at fault? 

If you are going to erode the system and take away a right that has been in place for more than a generation...the people that stacked the court and took the right away own it and the chaos.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Here’s a solution to ponder, mandated vasectomy’s for everyone until they’re ready to have kids. Can always have the procedure reversed.

That’ll solve any unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions.

Oh wait, you guys don’t like someone telling you what to do to your own body now? Weird.

Side note, if it’s not about controlling women then how come men can go get a vasectomy almost instantly without any permission, but some healthcare providers require a spouses signature to get a tubal ligation?

[4everwarriors]

Not true. Terminal RBG should have, for the good of the country, resigned under BO. A liberal justice would have been confirmed and this problem would probably never occurred. Presidential elections do matta. But, as it is, to the victor belongs the spoils, hey?

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Not true. Terminal RBG should have, for the good of the country, resigned under BO. A liberal justice would have been confirmed and this problem would probably never occurred. Presidential elections do matta. But, as it is, to the victor belongs the spoils, hey?

And if Merrick Garland was on the bench this is also a non issue.

Your argument is weird because 90% of democrats agree with you. But the hypocrisy shows when every conservative is a okay with Coney Barrett getting pushed through to confirmation, but Garland couldn’t even get a hearing.

[Hards Alumni]

I urge people to be skeptical about how limited the decision is and to read Thomas' concurrence as more possible than you might think.

One thing that is clear in the wake of this decision is that people on the left/the Democratic party as a operation simply did not entertain the possibility that the Supreme Court would ever overturn Roe and Casey. They seem to have had fundraising emails drafted, but not a single operable tactic ready to go. But, more particularly, they had a long time to be proactive and do something more to advance their stated goals of ensuring abortion access than to merely presume the Roe/Casey wall would never fall. They elected not to do any of those things, and well, here we are.

I say all that because I think you would be engaging in the exact kind of passive behavior if you read Dodds and concluded that "well that Thomas is sure out on his own island, isn't he. Good thing nobody else would overturn Obgerfell, Griswold, and Lawrence" then you're falling into the exact same trap.

Force me to handicap the likelihood of those three being overturned, and I'd say less than a coinflip. However, I'd put the likelihood of their drawing a challege to be 100%, and I'm not sure it's wise to simply wishcast that the SCOTUS as currently assembled couldn't possibly strike down something that is as tenuous as unenumerated rights reliant on substantive due process precedent.

100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.

[Jockey]

Here’s a solution to ponder, mandated vasectomy’s for everyone until they’re ready to have kids. Can always have the procedure reversed.

That’ll solve any unwanted pregnancies and potential abortions.

Oh wait, you guys don’t like someone telling you what to do to your own body now? Weird.

Side note, if it’s not about controlling women then how come men can go get a vasectomy almost instantly without any permission, but some healthcare providers require a spouses signature to get a tubal ligation?

Mini-guillotines would solve the abortion issue 100%.

Oh, wait. The gov't has no right to tell men what to do with their bodies.

[Uncle Rico]

100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.

Hopefully, Thomas will die sooner than later

[Hards Alumni]

   " a right was taken away"


  what right was taken away?

you are absolutely correct that "just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away."

  we have been saying that for years about things people don't hold value in see it taken away from another and could care less...until it happens to them...then holy hell breaks out.  now where have we seen that occur?

  all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways

You ever see those, "Let's Go Brandon" flags, shirts, stickers, etc?

Odd that you didn't mention those.

Dumbest person on the board strikes again.

[Jockey]

100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.

Don't forget that there are a lot of catholics on the court when it comes to ruling about contraception.

[Hards Alumni]

I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.

See the second post in this thread. 

[muwarrior69]

I do not think these two statements are reconcilable.

Setting aside the sense that I have from both this post and your general posting history that your perception of what "most of us can live with" is unlikely to be something those who do not agree with you are likely to be willing to "live with," I am extremely skeptical that "cooler heads will come to [any] compromise" on this issue. Nothing in the history of the past fifty years suggests to me that there is a compromise solution where abortion is accessible that the "prolife" community would accept. There has been a singular defining unity of purpose that has animated the organized "right" on this issue that suggests to me that when some state legislator rattles their saber about total abortion bans with no exclusions or a modern day fugitive slave act that reaches out to punish those who travel or aid travel to states where abortion is accessible that we ought to believe that is absolutely a goal and a possibility.

Also, I really don't think the "Grant embryos equal protection" crowd has really thought through the unintended consequences of doing so.

...but the question of granting personhood to the unborn will eventually be decided in the courts.

[rocket surgeon]

Are you seriously this dense?  A woman's Constitutional right to chose to have an abortion.

  abortion is a "constitutional" right?  i guess to you guys it is, but a dog ain't a cat.  i suppose this follows along with you will just enforce the laws you agree with too, eyn'a?


   " Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as such under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it as a “living document,” as “progressives” like to call it."

[Hards Alumni]

...but the question of granting personhood to the unborn will eventually be decided in the courts.

Nope.

[rocket surgeon]

You ever see those, "Let's Go Brandon" flags, shirts, stickers, etc?

Odd that you didn't mention those.

Dumbest person on the board strikes again.

  you really think you are the "man" don't you...and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft? 

[Uncle Rico]

  you really think you are the "man" don't you...and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft?

I give this 7 of 10

Air quotes and ellipses are classic work but the lack of depth with regards to your usual inanities is disappointing.

[Pakuni]

and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft?

Not everybody can be gifted a dental practice by their daddy.

[Hards Alumni]

  you really think you are the "man" don't you...and what is it you do again? drive uber and lyft?

Lordy.

I guess no one can fault you for trying, but holy hell, you're embarrassing yourself again.

[The Hippie Satan of Hyperbole]

  abortion is a "constitutional" right?  i guess to you guys it is, but a dog ain't a cat.  i suppose this follows along with you will just enforce the laws you agree with too, eyn'a?

   " Abortion is not a constitutional right according to a direct reading of the text of the Constitution, but it has been justified as such under the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy. In short, the constitutional right to abortion is found not in the Constitution itself, but in a loose reading of it as a “living document,” as “progressives” like to call it."

You have such a fundamental lack of understanding on this issue. Most Constitutional rights are implied through Supreme Court decisions. They aren't explicitly stated anywhere. So by that standard, a whole bunch of rights would need to be rescinded in your eyes. Perhaps you should learn a little bit more about constitutional law?

And yes, a woman's right to choose to have an abortion was considered a Constitutional right for 50 years. You may not like that right, but it was a right nevertheless.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

I am surprised everyone is not more concerned/shaken that a right was taken away with precedent thrown out the window. Also, in a abrupt manner that takes no concern on the chaos caused by withdrawing a way the country and people have been operating for over a generation.   

It pretty much means they can and are willing to do whatever they want. 

So celebrate today — just as easily tomorrow something you care about can be taken away.

I don't think people aren't concerned, they just aren't surprised. It was pretty clear once the Christian Jihadists had a big enough majority they intended to remake the country in their fundamentalist image. McConnell stole two seats to ensure this happened.

It has been clear they intended to do whatever they want, screw settled law, since the days when Scalia started all decisions with the political outcome he wanted and then went through contortions, often conflicting, to give his pre-made decisions a patina of "reasoning".

[TSmith34, Inc.]

     all of a sudden, our democracy is in peril, the sky is falling and all decorum is thrown ot the window.  when you have a sitting mayor telling a SCOTUS to go F themselves, says a lot about that person and those who see no problem here.  we can disagree in so many other ways

I was going to say to one can be this unnatural carnal knowledgeing stupid, but it's coming from the Buffon guy who calls Jan 6 a "thingy" and a "disturbance". So yeah...

[TSmith34, Inc.]

100%.  Thomas kicked open the door on those rulings for a REASON, otherwise why mention them by name?  He is practically begging a plaintiff to challenge them just by bringing them up.

The Texas AG has already said he will oblige

[jficke13]

...but the question of granting personhood to the unborn will eventually be decided in the courts.

To the extent that anybody says they want this outcome, I guarantee they have not thought through the implications of such a ruling.