Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[jj3jordan 2,053]

54 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

That is another lie. 

The video did not lie. Take off your blinders. 

[icanthearyou 4,463]

8 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

The video did not lie. Take off your blinders. 

Please, believe all of the deceptive and fake videos you care to.  Ignore the proven lies.

Project Veritas has no credibility outside of the extreme right.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

23 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

Please, believe all of the deceptive and fake videos you care to.  Ignore the proven lies.

Project Veritas has no credibility outside of the extreme right.

Wrong ace. They are very credible. Just not in your warped world.

[icanthearyou 4,463]

4 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Wrong ace. They are very credible. Just not in your warped world.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

My warped world.

[jj3jordan 2,053]

6 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Veritas

My warped world.

Wikipedia. Solid. Most of their videos are available unedited on their web site. There is a reason Wikipedia is not allowed as a source for college or even high school research papers. You know anybody can edit that info right?

[icanthearyou 4,463]

5 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Wikipedia. Solid. Most of their videos are available unedited on their web site. There is a reason Wikipedia is not allowed as a source for college or even high school research papers. You know anybody can edit that info right?

Believe what you will. 

[AUDub 11,149]

Welp, it's done. 

[autigeremt 6,630]

2 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Welp, it's done. 

Monumental historically speaking. I hope people use some restraint when protesting but I’m not optimistic. 

[PUB78 1,358]

VICTORY!!! PTL!!!🙏

[AUDub 11,149]

Hey remember when ya'll told me i was just being hyperbolic? 

 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

1 minute ago, autigeremt said:

Monumental historically speaking. I hope people use some restraint when protesting but I’m not optimistic. 

Yeah, I'm gonna be avoiding crowded areas...not any different than most of my days, but it will be conscious today.

So, this kicks abortion legislation back to the states.  IANAL, but if a state has its own laws that permitted abortion, this pretty much doesn't change anything there?

I know this decision triggers abortion-related statutes in Texas.  I figure that there will be more states crafting legislation to get this on November ballot, if it wasn't already.  Vermont, Kansas, Kentucky and Montana have some form of abortion legislation on their ballots.

[AUDub 11,149]

From the dissent. 

[AUDub 11,149]

7 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

Yeah, I'm gonna be avoiding crowded areas...not any different than most of my days, but it will be conscious today.

So, this kicks abortion legislation back to the states.  IANAL, but if a state has its own laws that permitted abortion, this pretty much doesn't change anything there?

I know this decision triggers abortion-related statutes in Texas.  I figure that there will be more states crafting legislation to get this on November ballot, if it wasn't already.  Vermont, Kansas, Kentucky and Montana have some form of abortion legislation on their ballots.

Reason has a good rundown. 

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/

[AUDub 11,149]

29 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Hey remember when ya'll told me i was just being hyperbolic? 

 

Ironic he doesn't mention Loving. 

[SLAG-91 1,483]

8 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Hey remember when ya'll told me i was just being hyperbolic? 

 

Meaning that those issues would be returned to the states to decide on their own as well.  Broadly speaking, I'm in favor of letting states decide things that are not specifically under federal purview.

No one else joined him in his opinion, for what it's worth.  

This is from Kavanaugh's opinion:

"When precisely should the Court overrule an erroneous constitutional precedent? The history of stare decisis in this Court establishes that a constitutional precedent maybe overruled only when (i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ______ (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 78)."

Overturning those that you mentioned would definitely fall into part (iii), since many states wouldn't ban same-sex marriage.  Abortion clearly has some very unique things about it that do not apply to the same-sex marriage issue, so I'm not sure extrapolating Thomas' opinion to the others in this particular instance would be a worry.

Honestly, I wish government would get out of the marriage business altogether.  If two non-related adults wish to enter a binding agreement for the purposes of tax benefits, raising children, health care decisions, etc., then that's fine by me.

Since I live in the real world, though, the same-sex marriage issue, imo, should be viewed similarly to a driver's license.  My driver's license is valid in every state, even though there may be differences in the requirements to obtain said driver's license from state to state.  Valid license in TX = valid license in VT. 

Same should be true of states that allow same-sex marriage...if you're married in a state that permits it, you're married in all 50 of them, regardless of whether a given state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage or not.  If you get divorced in one, you're divorced in all of them.

[SLAG-91 1,483]

56 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Reason has a good rundown. 

https://reason.com/2022/06/24/here-is-a-state-by-state-rundown-of-what-will-happen-now-that-scotus-has-freed-lawmakers-to-restrict-abortion/

Thanks...pretty much no surprises to be found in that list.

[AU9377 4,933]

24 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

Meaning that those issues would be returned to the states to decide on their own as well.  Broadly speaking, I'm in favor of letting states decide things that are not specifically under federal purview.

No one else joined him in his opinion, for what it's worth.  

This is from Kavanaugh's opinion:

"When precisely should the Court overrule an erroneous constitutional precedent? The history of stare decisis in this Court establishes that a constitutional precedent maybe overruled only when (i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ______ (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 78)."

Overturning those that you mentioned would definitely fall into part (iii), since many states wouldn't ban same-sex marriage.  Abortion clearly has some very unique things about it that do not apply to the same-sex marriage issue, so I'm not sure extrapolating Thomas' opinion to the others in this particular instance would be a worry.

Honestly, I wish government would get out of the marriage business altogether.  If two non-related adults wish to enter a binding agreement for the purposes of tax benefits, raising children, health care decisions, etc., then that's fine by me.

Since I live in the real world, though, the same-sex marriage issue, imo, should be viewed similarly to a driver's license.  My driver's license is valid in every state, even though there may be differences in the requirements to obtain said driver's license from state to state.  Valid license in TX = valid license in VT. 

Same should be true of states that allow same-sex marriage...if you're married in a state that permits it, you're married in all 50 of them, regardless of whether a given state chooses to legalize same-sex marriage or not.  If you get divorced in one, you're divorced in all of them.

Same sex marriage was decided differently than the others as well.  The Court ruled that the right to marry was a "fundamental right", which makes overturning that decision extremely unlikely.  In addition to that, the 14th Amendment should preclude the over turning of that decision, due to the fact that it would then be used to the same ends.

[AU9377 4,933]

The Republicans have opened Pandora's Box.  Everybody hold on.

[AUDub 11,149]

31 minutes ago, SLAG-91 said:

This is from Kavanaugh's opinion:

"When precisely should the Court overrule an erroneous constitutional precedent? The history of stare decisis in this Court establishes that a constitutional precedent maybe overruled only when (i) the prior decision is not just wrong, but is egregiously wrong, (ii) the prior decision has caused significant negative jurisprudential or real-world consequences, and (iii) overruling the prior decision would not unduly upset legitimate reliance interests. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ______ (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 78)."

Overturning those that you mentioned would definitely fall into part (iii), since many states wouldn't ban same-sex marriage.  Abortion clearly has some very unique things about it that do not apply to the same-sex marriage issue, so I'm not sure extrapolating Thomas' opinion to the others in this particular instance would be a worry.

They're creating a subjective legal fiction, which the dissent spells out. 

"The majority (or to be more accurate, most of it) is eager to tell us today that noth­ ing it does “cast[s] doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66; cf. ante, at 3 (THOMAS, J., concurring) (advocating the overruling of Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell). But how could that be? The lone rationale for what the majority does today is that the right to elect an abortion is not “deeply rooted in history”: Not until Roe, the majority argues, did people think abortion fell within the Constitution’s guarantee of liberty. Ante, at 32. The same could be said, though, of most of the rights the majority claims it is not tampering with. The majority could write just as long an opinion showing, for example, that until the mid­20th century, “there was no support in American law for a constitutional right to obtain [contraceptives].” Ante, at 15. So one of two things must be true. Either the major­ ity does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid­ 19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other."

[I_M4_AU 7,839]

5 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

The Republicans have opened Pandora's Box.  Everybody hold on.

The conservative side of the court has actually looked at the Constitution to make a ruling as opposed to creating legislation when the Left has the majority.  We need more of this, thank God for Trump.  It was the best thing he did.

[AUDub 11,149]

14 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Same sex marriage was decided differently than the others as well.  The Court ruled that the right to marry was a "fundamental right", which makes overturning that decision extremely unlikely.  In addition to that, the 14th Amendment should preclude the over turning of that decision, due to the fact that it would then be used to the same ends.

What merit is there in an equal protection case for something not explicitly outlined in the Constitution? 

If Roe and Casey are fair game, Obergefell is too. 

[homersapien 11,374]

23 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The conservative side of the court has actually looked at the Constitution to make a ruling as opposed to creating legislation when the Left has the majority.  We need more of this, thank God for Trump.  It was the best thing he did.

A ruling that destroys the fundamental right of a woman to privately make decisions regarding her own body and transfers that power to government control. 

How conservative.

 

[I_M4_AU 7,839]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

A ruling that destroys the fundamental right of a woman to privately make decisions regarding her own body and transfers that power to government control. 

How conservative.

 

If you think the decision was incorrect it can be overruled by Congress by legislation.  This how it is supposed to work, not having the SCOTUS make legislative rulings.

[TitanTiger 20,482]

I'm not sure if I believed we'd ever see this day.  I think the ruling is correct, no surprise to anyone here.  My prayer is that one day in the future, abortion won't just be illegal or left to the states to decide, but in the minds of all Americans unthinkable.  I hope that our understanding of human dignity allows us to reach that point, but like Roe being overturned, I think it far in the future if it's even possible.  But I do pray hearts and minds change over time.

That said, I also pray that those who consider themselves pro-life will reevaluate what that term means, or what it should mean.  I don't think that opposing abortion in and of itself is enough to label one "pro-life."  "Anti-abortion" would be more accurate.  And that's good as far as it goes, but it falls far short of being pro-life.  I think pro-life needs to be an outlook that seeks to bring about conditions in society that are helpful, encouraging, conducive, and create an environment where children are cared for, families can thrive, where our laws and workplace policies are pro-family.  We should be making it easier for young couples to have children and raise and take care of them, not harder.  It should be more affordable, not less.  We should eliminate structures, policies, and laws that force women to choose between finishing college or having a baby, or between a career that can provide for them and their family or having a baby. 

I can think of a lot of things we could do to address such things.  Some will necessarily involve government through programs, changes in law, and so on.  Some might involve private organizations and religious institutions.  Some will involve businesses.  And some of it will have to come from you and me just seeing the resources we've been blessed with as not being just for "me and mine" but to help and bless others. 

For the truly pro-life, the work is just beginning - if they truly mean it when they call themselves "pro-LIFE."  But it's going to take some rethinking of the typical ways of poltical alignment.  It's going to take pushing back against those who would try to force conformity to a political tribe or party and all its typical stances on things.  Some folks are going to have to shove back against charges of "RINO" or "gone woke" or whatever other mindless epithet gets tossed around.  But for me, as a Christian, I owe no party my unquestioned loyalty.  The fact that I may align with conservatives on most things doesn't mean I'm obligated to do it on all things.  My agreement on abortion doesn't necessitate my agreement on tax policy or paid parental leave for instance.  And neither should you feel that way if you're in the same camp.

So we'll see.  This is gonna be messy for a while.  But I hope people of faith will step up and prove their critics wrong when all the dust settles. 

[W.E.D 11,070]

The hood has been removed.  First step towards Christian Fascism led by the Federalist society's mission since they were founded. Legislate through the courts.

 

Looking forward to contraceptives being banned and gay marriage being overruled.