Updated: Roe v. Wade overturned

[DKW 86 7,424]

19 hours ago, AUDub said:

It's being dominated by a wing and actually a minority, and the way our country is set up gives this minority outsized say. 

It's why I think a parliamentary system would be better. The Ds would likely be 3 different parties and the Rs would likely be another 2 or 3. 

AAANNNDDD there would be nothing but benefits from this. Right now we have:

Dems have about four groups. 
1) Traditional Democrats, Middle-Class, Labor Union folks that have just about zero say in anything that the party does.
2) You have Corporate Dems. They are from the Clinton Era and are just sold out for the Corporate and Tech Oligarch Money.
3) You have a small group of sane Democrats that want encramental Progressive ideas moving forward. M4A, Min Wage Reform, Education Reform.
4) You got the batcrap crazies in BLM and Antifa that arent happy unless buildings are burning and they are running voters away.

Reps:
1) You have traditional Reps that are horrified at trump, the Never trumpers.
2) You have some batcrappers that are true trump cultists.
3) You have a large contingent that just hate the Dems from years of RusHannity brain washing and that loosely hold on to trump because he pisses off the right folks in their eyes. These people have a religious need to suck Corporate Dick and Stab their fellow citizens in the back. They hate anyone working minimum wage and feel superior to them in EVERY WAY. 
4)   The Racist hacks that just do not care that they are racist and troglodytes. They do not want to mingle with any other Races. s my next door neighbor said to me recently, he hates that people inter-marry. That we would soon all be "Mud People." (I have several interracially married friends.) He said that from the safety of his three decade US Govt Job on the Arsenal. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

On 6/27/2022 at 10:36 AM, Didba said:

Could you explain why you think Miranda is narrower than its succession of cases have ruled?

Let me give you the abbreviated explanation. I don't think the constitution requires Miranda warnings as a threshold for admissibility. Nor do I think a fair reading of Miranda permits that result.  

Note that Dickerson is where the "rubber hits the road" for me here.

The Court has long held that coerced confessions cannot be introduced in evidence at criminal trials, generally based on the Due Process Clause. Under that succession of caselaw, the ultimate question was: "Was the defendant's will overborne?" Then, two years before Miranda, the Court first held that the Due Process Clause "incorporates" the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of compelled self-incrimination. Still, though, the fundamental question centered on whether a confession was voluntary under the circumstances. 

In Miranda, the Court said a confession's admissibility hinged on whether police give "Miranda warnings" or their equivalent, i.e., notifying suspect of right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against him in court, that he has right to counsel, and that if he cannot afford counsel, counsel would be appointed. Crucially, Miranda did not pretend to be a "constitutional rule" in the sense that the Court itself indicated Congress/States may replace Miranda's scheme with one that is equally or more effective. In other words, I don't read Miranda as saying its warnings are "constitutionally required." 

Neither did Congress read Miranda as constitutionally mandated, because it later enacted a law that essentially said federal courts - to determine whether a confession from interrogation is admissible - should consider whether the suspect's statement was voluntarily made (that it was not coerced); note, this is more in tune with the long line of pre-Miranda caselaw. 

Then, in Dickerson, the Court struck down the statute on the basis that Miranda was a "constitutional" decision that could not be replaced or "overturned" legislatively. In the same vein, the Court was painfully cryptic in suggesting that Miranda was constitutionally based; it avoided outlining the actual relation of Miranda to the constitution. The dissent honed in on this, noting the Court's insistence that Miranda has constitutional underpinnings, a constitutional basis, a constitutional origin, and amounted to a constitutional rule; yet, the Court confirmed that the Constitution does not require the particular Miranda warnings. The Court never addressed the issues highlighted by the dissent. For example, the Court did not say that the use at trial of a voluntary confession, without Miranda warnings, violates the constitution; how then, could the Court strike down Congress' enactment by imposing Miranda? 

Of course, the recent decision in Vega cuts against the cloth. 

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/30/2022 at 3:51 PM, NolaAuTiger said:

Let me give you the abbreviated explanation. I don't think the constitution requires Miranda warnings as a threshold for admissibility. Nor do I think a fair reading of Miranda permits that result.  

Note that Dickerson is where the "rubber hits the road" for me here.

The Court has long held that coerced confessions cannot be introduced in evidence at criminal trials, generally based on the Due Process Clause. Under that succession of caselaw, the ultimate question was: "Was the defendant's will overborne?" Then, two years before Miranda, the Court first held that the Due Process Clause "incorporates" the Fifth Amendment's prohibition of compelled self-incrimination. Still, though, the fundamental question centered on whether a confession was voluntary under the circumstances. 

In Miranda, the Court said a confession's admissibility hinged on whether police give "Miranda warnings" or their equivalent, i.e., notifying suspect of right to remain silent, that anything said can be used against him in court, that he has right to counsel, and that if he cannot afford counsel, counsel would be appointed. Crucially, Miranda did not pretend to be a "constitutional rule" in the sense that the Court itself indicated Congress/States may replace Miranda's scheme with one that is equally or more effective. In other words, I don't read Miranda as saying its warnings are "constitutionally required." 

Neither did Congress read Miranda as constitutionally mandated, because it later enacted a law that essentially said federal courts - to determine whether a confession from interrogation is admissible - should consider whether the suspect's statement was voluntarily made (that it was not coerced); note, this is more in tune with the long line of pre-Miranda caselaw. 

Then, in Dickerson, the Court struck down the statute on the basis that Miranda was a "constitutional" decision that could not be replaced or "overturned" legislatively. In the same vein, the Court was painfully cryptic in suggesting that Miranda was constitutionally based; it avoided outlining the actual relation of Miranda to the constitution. The dissent honed in on this, noting the Court's insistence that Miranda has constitutional underpinnings, a constitutional basis, a constitutional origin, and amounted to a constitutional rule; yet, the Court confirmed that the Constitution does not require the particular Miranda warnings. The Court never addressed the issues highlighted by the dissent. For example, the Court did not say that the use at trial of a voluntary confession, without Miranda warnings, violates the constitution; how then, could the Court strike down Congress' enactment by imposing Miranda? 

Of course, the recent decision in Vega cuts against the cloth. 

Thanks bud, I understand how you get there from a textualist perspective, I disagree but that's because I'm not a textualist and think it's important to read between the lines of the Constitution but that's just my view. I'm a pretty staunch proponent of the Constitution being a living document. If we updated/rewrote it every 50 years like federalists had talked about in the federalist papers then I'd be more of a textualist. 

Edited July 1, 2022 by Didba

[Didba 5,256]

Zappa called the theocracy.

[AUDub 11,148]

10

Year

Old 

Girl

[AUDub 11,148]

Why aren't Biden and Pelosi at the podium pointing out this example of abject fundamentalist cruelty from a bullhorn right now? A 10 year old kid should not be asked nor expected to carry a pregnancy to term. End of story. 

[aubiefifty 16,791]

CDT readers

Fri, July 1, 2022 at 5:00 AM

 

 

Roe a matter of religious rights for Jewish women

Attention Jewish women! Assert your religious rights! In Jewish law, the fetus is regarded as a physical part of the mother’s body, not separate from the mother, and not yet having life of its own or independent rights.

Looking at abortion as viewed in the Old Testament, abortion is permitted, even required should the pregnancy endanger the physical or psychological life of the mother. Judaism values life and affirms that protecting existing life is paramount — and supersedes that of the fetus.

The decision to overturn Roe v. Wade was pushed through by the Court’s self-avowed “originalists” who believe that because abortion wasn’t specifically mentioned in our 236-year-old Constitution, there is no constitutional right to one.

 

When the Supreme Court narrowly ruled in 2018 that a Christian baker, opposed to gay marriage for religious reasons, could not be forced to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, the ruling was considered a victory for religious freedom. Religious freedom!? What about the religious freedom of Jewish women?

That life begins at conception is a Christian notion. The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade is, therefore, a de facto declaration that this is a Christian nation. The signers of the U.S. Constitution sanctioned a secular republic, not a Christian nation. And according to our First Amendment, individual citizens are free to bring their religious convictions into the public arena, but the government is prohibited from favoring one religious view over another.

Let’s test religious freedom regarding abortion.

Marilyn Goldfarb, Boalsburg

A destructive Republican Party

Not your dad’s Republican Party? It’s not just Trump’s autocratic destruction of democratic principles. It’s also that the Republican Party has been taken over by libertarians, led by a massive infusion of funds over decades. The Koch brothers and a cadre of millionaires and billionaires have funded numerous organizations and they believe they have the right to do whatever they want without government interference. They are incrementally destroying peoples’ confidence in government, unions and collective bargaining, science and the press in order to destroy women’s rights, sexual preference rights, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, environmental protection, and any other program that entails costs for themselves. They control the Republican House and Senate members through threat of being primaried, massive reelection support for those who cooperate and through “economic liberty” education. Where economic “freedom” for themselves trumps all other rights. It is a key reason why so few stood up for fair democratic elections, added to Trump’s veiled threats. This “education” has been done stealthily, not only to those congressional members but to lawyers and judges, including the Supreme Court judges with the results just beginning to be seen. Over 40% of the judiciary has now been indoctrinated. They take this approach because they know the public would not support these ideas. Rule by majority is anathema to these people. They have been working to affect and install state Republican leaders to enact their ALEC group measures as well. It will mean servitude for most and no democracy. Read “Democracy in Chains.”

Doug Keith, State College

Apply SCOTUS’ ‘twisted reasoning’ further

So six unelected ideological extremists on the Supreme Court — most of them nominated by Presidents who received a minority of the popular vote, and holding lifetime appointments making them utterly unaccountable to the public in our supposed democracy — have told us that individual states will decide whether or not you can get an abortion.

Why didn’t they take this idea further? Why didn’t they decree that each individual congressional district can make that decision on behalf of the women who live there?

Or why not individual counties? Or make it even more democratic. Let each town and city decide whether or not abortion will be legal there? Or better yet, each ZIP code?

In fact, let’s take the twisted reasoning of the six Supreme Court radical ideologues to its logical conclusion:

Let each individual woman decide whether or not she wants an abortion!

Howard Bond, State College

 

[AUDub 11,148]

36 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Why aren't Biden and Pelosi at the podium pointing out this example of abject fundamentalist cruelty from a bullhorn right now? A 10 year old kid should not be asked nor expected to carry a pregnancy to term. End of story. 

Seriously? Don't they know how this works? Are they so milquetoast that they won't even try to swing at this - for lack of a better term - hanging curve?

I'd be foaming at the mouth.

[AUDub 11,148]

Assuming it's true, you can dash most talking points about "most abortions being for economic reason" aside, because you now have your one single proof. You have a concrete example of the worst parts of this coming true.

Play the game like the Rs do. Buy the ticket. Take the ride. Get serious. 

Edited July 2, 2022 by AUDub

[Didba 5,256]

On 6/30/2022 at 5:29 AM, DKW 86 said:

They do not want to mingle with any other Races. s my next door neighbor said to me recently, he hates that people inter-marry. That we would soon all be "Mud People." (I have several interracially married friends.) He said that from the safety of his three decade US Govt Job on the Arsenal. 

Great write-up, also this is horrifying.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

Abortion bans totally have nothing at all to do with Religion. 

 

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/25371/judge-lets-near-total-abortion-ban-take-effect-pink-house-must-close-thursday

At the beginning of the hearing in the trigger law case Tuesday morning, Rev. Calvin Cosnahan, a United Methodist Church pastor, led a prayer as a “special chaplain” at Halford’s (the Republican judge) request.

“Lord, we pray for the presence of your holy spirt in this courtroom today. … We seek your truth, not our own. We seek your wisdom, not our own,” the minister said, asking God to “grant that the cause of truth, justice and humanity should in nowise suffer in the proceedings today.”

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, celebrated the decision in a statement Tuesday evening.

“The trigger law will go into effect on July 7th, as planned. This law has the potential to save the lives of thousands of unborn Mississippi children. It is a great victory for life,” said the governor, whose state boasts the nation’s highest infant death rate, highest fetal death rate, lowest overall life expectancy rate and where the pregnancy-related maternal death rate is 1.9 times higher than the U.S. as a whole.

[homersapien 11,373]

It’s the cruelty that will undo the forced-birth crusade

By Jennifer Rubin

 

When abortion rights advocates accused abortion foes of being disturbingly indifferent to women and even aspiring to cruelly force women to give birth, they were labeled hysterics or exaggerators. But now, just as they were proved correct about the right’s ambition to reverse Roe v. Wade, these advocates can say they had the forced-birth crowd pegged all along. The proof is already here.

Two Republican governors, Kristi L. Noem of South Dakota and Tate Reeves of Mississippi, were asked on Sunday news talk shows about the case of a 10-year-old girl impregnated by her rapist. Are they really insisting that, regardless of the physical harm that giving birth could cause someone so young, the child be further tormented and forced to have the baby? Yes.

Reeves said these are such a “small, minor” number of cases. He wouldn’t say there should be an exception. Noem defended forced birth, insisting, “I don’t believe a tragic situation should be perpetuated by another tragedy.” The tragedy of forcing a 10-year-old to undergo a pregnancy and the pain of childbirth does not register with Noem.

These are not anomalies. Mississippi House Speaker Philip Gunn (R) said, soon after the decision overturning Roe was announced, that, in his view, a 12-year-old impregnated by incest should be forced to complete her pregnancy. Herschel Walker, a Republican nominee for Senate in Georgia, would agree apparently since he wants no exceptions. Not even to save the woman’s life. Ohio state Rep. Jean Schmidt has called forcing a 13-year-old rape victim to give birth an “opportunity.”

Indeed, the number of states contemplating abortion bans with no exception for rape or incest might shock you. Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards — a Democrat — just signed an abortion law with no exception for rape or incest. In Arkansas, Gov. Asa Hutchinson (R) seemed open to making an exception, but its absence won’t slow down implementation of the abortion ban in his state.

The New York Times reports, “There are no allowances for victims of rape or incest in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee or Texas.” In Idaho, a woman would have to file a police report to obtain an abortion, something virtually impossible for incest victims and others who live in fear of their attackers.

The monstrous cruelty of such bills shows how little many conservatives care about the well-being of women and girls who have already experienced the unbelievable trauma of sexual violence.

But it gets worse. Many states no longer consider exceptions for the health of the woman or create dangerous uncertainty that puts her life at risk. In the real medical world, where doctors and patients make decisions based on probabilities, the result of such abortion laws can be deadly for women. If abortion is legal only with the “imminent” risk of death, women can be left in peril, facing what can become fatal complications later in pregnancy — when the chances of survival have declined.

In Tennessee, for example, doctors are supposed to prove the woman couldn’t have lived without an abortion. (They must prove “the abortion was necessary to prevent the death of the pregnant woman or to prevent serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.”)

NBC News reports:

Arizona’s 15-week abortion ban provides exceptions for emergencies when continuing the pregnancy will “create serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function” for the mother. Oklahoma’s recent ban, the most restrictive in the country, is focused on life-threatening situations.

Mental health is almost never seen as enough of a reason to justify an abortion under the laws, said Carol Sanger, professor of law at Columbia University and the author of “About Abortion: Terminating Pregnancy in 21st-Century America.”

Republican candidates for governor in Georgia, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin joined with antiabortion groups to seek bans “that would not allow the procedure even if the mother’s health were endangered,” The Post reports.

Forced-birth advocates can hardly be called “pro-life” when they are willing to gamble with the lives and health of women. To say women will die because of abortion laws or will suffer untold harm, both mental and physical, is not hyperbole. It’s reality for women who are now deprived of the right to make their own decision about their health and even their lives.

When you treat women like less than competent adults, and insist that others, who may have little or no competency, weigh the risks to their health and lives, you wind up not with a culture of life but a culture of devaluing women’s lives.

 

[TexasTiger 12,869]

[jj3jordan 2,053]

On 7/6/2022 at 11:23 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

Abortion bans totally have nothing at all to do with Religion. 

 

https://www.mississippifreepress.org/25371/judge-lets-near-total-abortion-ban-take-effect-pink-house-must-close-thursday

At the beginning of the hearing in the trigger law case Tuesday morning, Rev. Calvin Cosnahan, a United Methodist Church pastor, led a prayer as a “special chaplain” at Halford’s (the Republican judge) request.

“Lord, we pray for the presence of your holy spirt in this courtroom today. … We seek your truth, not our own. We seek your wisdom, not our own,” the minister said, asking God to “grant that the cause of truth, justice and humanity should in nowise suffer in the proceedings today.”

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, celebrated the decision in a statement Tuesday evening.

“The trigger law will go into effect on July 7th, as planned. This law has the potential to save the lives of thousands of unborn Mississippi children. It is a great victory for life,” said the governor, whose state boasts the nation’s highest infant death rate, highest fetal death rate, lowest overall life expectancy rate and where the pregnancy-related maternal death rate is 1.9 times higher than the U.S. as a whole.

With those kinds of stats you would think a change might be welcomed. 

[PUB78 1,358]

On 6/30/2022 at 5:29 AM, DKW 86 said:

AAANNNDDD there would be nothing but benefits from this. Right now we have:

Dems have about four groups. 
1) Traditional Democrats, Middle-Class, Labor Union folks that have just about zero say in anything that the party does.
2) You have Corporate Dems. They are from the Clinton Era and are just sold out for the Corporate and Tech Oligarch Money.
3) You have a small group of sane Democrats that want encramental Progressive ideas moving forward. M4A, Min Wage Reform, Education Reform.
4) You got the batcrap crazies in BLM and Antifa that arent happy unless buildings are burning and they are running voters away.

Reps:
1) You have traditional Reps that are horrified at trump, the Never trumpers.
2) You have some batcrappers that are true trump cultists.
3) You have a large contingent that just hate the Dems from years of RusHannity brain washing and that loosely hold on to trump because he pisses off the right folks in their eyes. These people have a religious need to suck Corporate Dick and Stab their fellow citizens in the back. They hate anyone working minimum wage and feel superior to them in EVERY WAY. 
4)   The Racist hacks that just do not care that they are racist and troglodytes. They do not want to mingle with any other Races. s my next door neighbor said to me recently, he hates that people inter-marry. That we would soon all be "Mud People." (I have several interracially married friends.) He said that from the safety of his three decade US Govt Job on the Arsenal. 

You left out the “professional victims “ wing of the Democrat party.

[AUDub 11,148]

19 hours ago, PUB78 said:

You left out the “professional victims “ wing of the Democrat party.

Right as if the Rs don't have their own strain of folks with a persecution complex lol. 

[homersapien 11,373]

59 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Right as if the Rs don't have their own strain of folks with a persecution complex lol. 

Jews won't replace us! 

[abw0004 10,113]

I didn't know where else to put this, but I thought Pete was well articulated:

 

[AUDub 11,148]

15 minutes ago, abw0004 said:

I didn't know where else to put this, but I thought Pete was well articulated:

 

He's a skilled politician. 

[homersapien 11,373]

25 minutes ago, AUDub said:

He's a skilled politician. 

..... who is willing to actually address the question instead of the typical shucking, jiveing and evasion that is so typical.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

On 7/8/2022 at 4:20 PM, PUB78 said:

You left out the “professional victims “ wing of the Democrat party.

[PUB78 1,358]

On 7/9/2022 at 11:49 AM, AUDub said:

Right as if the Rs don't have their own strain of folks with a persecution complex lol. 

True, but at least they are not muchers and parasites like the Democrats victims 

[homersapien 11,373]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/29/how-trump-and-republicans-wield-the-politics-of-victimhood/

How Trump and Republicans wield the politics of victimhood

 

https://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/white-victims-unite-donald-trump-and-republicans-sing-the-white-male-victimology-blues/

"White victims, unite!": Donald Trump and Republicans sing the white (male) victimology blues

"The election is rigged" echoes cries of "reverse racism" — inside the new pathology of white victimhood

 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/12/09/dept-of-victimology-trumps-one-last-election-ploy-as-a-fundraising-strategy-stokes-the-base/

Dept. of Victimology: Trump’s One Last Election Ploy as a Fundraising Strategy Stokes the Base

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/gop-impeachment-defense-always-the-victim.html

The GOP Is Always the Victim

The defense is always the same. The effect is infuriating.

 

https://m.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16/videos/trump-victimology-and-conspiracy-theories-are-poisonously-link/876128392517268/

TRUMP VICTIMOLOGY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE POISONOUSLY LINK...

TRUMP VICTIMOLOGY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE POISONOUSLY LINKED: here's how the real “basket of deplorables” (from Putin and Assange to white supremacists) are united by making “rigged” excuses for their own failures

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-white-victimhood-fuels-republican-politics/

How White Victimhood Fuels Republican Politics

 

https://www.recordnet.com/story/opinion/columns/2016/10/20/sad-to-see-gop-play/24737581007/

Sad to see GOP play the victim-ology card

 

 

 

 

[PUB78 1,358]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2018/10/29/how-trump-and-republicans-wield-the-politics-of-victimhood/

How Trump and Republicans wield the politics of victimhood

 

https://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/white-victims-unite-donald-trump-and-republicans-sing-the-white-male-victimology-blues/

"White victims, unite!": Donald Trump and Republicans sing the white (male) victimology blues

"The election is rigged" echoes cries of "reverse racism" — inside the new pathology of white victimhood

 

https://www.postalley.org/2020/12/09/dept-of-victimology-trumps-one-last-election-ploy-as-a-fundraising-strategy-stokes-the-base/

Dept. of Victimology: Trump’s One Last Election Ploy as a Fundraising Strategy Stokes the Base

 

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/02/gop-impeachment-defense-always-the-victim.html

The GOP Is Always the Victim

The defense is always the same. The effect is infuriating.

 

https://m.facebook.com/frank.schaeffer.16/videos/trump-victimology-and-conspiracy-theories-are-poisonously-link/876128392517268/

TRUMP VICTIMOLOGY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE POISONOUSLY LINK...

TRUMP VICTIMOLOGY AND CONSPIRACY THEORIES ARE POISONOUSLY LINKED: here's how the real “basket of deplorables” (from Putin and Assange to white supremacists) are united by making “rigged” excuses for their own failures

 

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-white-victimhood-fuels-republican-politics/

How White Victimhood Fuels Republican Politics

 

https://www.recordnet.com/story/opinion/columns/2016/10/20/sad-to-see-gop-play/24737581007/

Sad to see GOP play the victim-ology card

 

 

 

 

They have learned from the best! The Democrats have been playing the race and victim cards since the 1960’s.

[Didba 5,256]

God would I rather Pete be our Pres right now than Biden. So refreshing to hear him speak.

 

Also I see @PUB78 Is still saying the quiet part allowed.