Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
Post Reply
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by ajax18 »

Chap wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 12:26 pm
Kukulkan wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 1:28 am
...
I personally don't think that Roe being overturned presents a dire threat to women's lives, but I might be wrong on that. ...
You are wrong, I am afraid. There are, for instance, women who without an abortion will be forced to bear a child that is the product of rape and/or incest, and who know that their lives would be destroyed by the experience. If abortion is banned, many of them will inevitably resort in desperation to illegal and dangerous procedures without proper medical help, as they once used to. And, as they once used to, many of them will die or be maimed for life.

Roe v. Wade ended all that. But soon many women will again face the risks that we once thought were gone for ever. Thanks Mr Trump.
No they won't. They just need to go to a blue state. All this legislation does is leave the abortion question up to the states, which is how it always should have been according to the constitution.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
K Graham
God
Posts: 1636
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 4:13 pm
What if it was one of the Conservatives Justices?
If one of the conservative justices leaked this document? Sure, absolutely he/she should be impeached. You can't leak documents like that without consequence. It puts the supreme court justices in danger of violent reprisal.
When Kavanaugh and Gorsuch lied in their sworn testimony about their views on Roe, just so they could get confirmed, I think that's also an impeachable offense. Of course Republicans never cared about honesty, integrity or the rule of law, so you'll probably spin this as a big nuthin burger as well.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
K Graham
God
Posts: 1636
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 4:53 pm
Chap wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 12:26 pm


You are wrong, I am afraid. There are, for instance, women who without an abortion will be forced to bear a child that is the product of rape and/or incest, and who know that their lives would be destroyed by the experience. If abortion is banned, many of them will inevitably resort in desperation to illegal and dangerous procedures without proper medical help, as they once used to. And, as they once used to, many of them will die or be maimed for life.

Roe v. Wade ended all that. But soon many women will again face the risks that we once thought were gone for ever. Thanks Mr Trump.
No they won't. They just need to go to a blue state. All this legislation does is leave the abortion question up to the states, which is how it always should have been according to the constitution.
Point us to the part in the Constitution that discusses abortion. This is the same line of reasoning that forbid women the right to vote and black people to marry white people (which you have already said you're against!). "Just leave it up to the states" if the Constitution hasn't already enshrined a specific right? This is why Republicans are going to be a relic in the coming decades. This move is going to all but guarantee the majority of the Country sees right through them for the hypocritical tyranny loving sheeple that they truly are.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5472
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Res Ipsa »

Kukulkan wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 4:36 pm
I guess I view Roe v Wade akin to a new president passing a bunch of executive orders only to have the next president nullify them at the start of their term. The idea that Roe v Wade was untouchable I think was somewhat naive of a stance to take, as we know that landmark cases have been overturned in the past. I agree with a woman's right to an abortion, yet I don't believe that right should be afforded through judicial review, it should be granted through legislation which is much more robust and galvanized.

I think of Brown v Board which overturned Plessy v Ferguson (which was thought to be untouchable), though we are seeing the reverse. While the ruling did have somewhat immediate affects (Little Rock Nine), it was truly only bolstered with the passing of the Civil Rights Act a decade later. Unfortunately we cannot trust fundamental rights to a court that has shown time and time again that it IS willing to overturn landmark cases (for the better or worse) that do deal with fundamental rights.
My own view is that no Supreme Court decision should be thought of as untouchable. But, they also tend to stay in place much longer than executive orders or legislation. Both Stare Decisis and the practice of avoiding addressing Constitutional issues if there is some other basis for deciding a case provide, in my opinion, more stability to court decisions than to executive orders and laws, that can change as a result of a single election.

I think the effect of the Brown decision is a fascinating topic. Court's have limited ability to enforce orders, and just telling District judges to integrate the schools was ineffective. One my favorite teachers in law school wrote a book on the subject. Here's a link to an interview with her: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... -ed/66820/
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5472
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Res Ipsa »

ajax18 wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 4:53 pm
Chap wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 12:26 pm


You are wrong, I am afraid. There are, for instance, women who without an abortion will be forced to bear a child that is the product of rape and/or incest, and who know that their lives would be destroyed by the experience. If abortion is banned, many of them will inevitably resort in desperation to illegal and dangerous procedures without proper medical help, as they once used to. And, as they once used to, many of them will die or be maimed for life.

Roe v. Wade ended all that. But soon many women will again face the risks that we once thought were gone for ever. Thanks Mr Trump.
No they won't. They just need to go to a blue state. All this legislation does is leave the abortion question up to the states, which is how it always should have been according to the constitution.
Not all women can afford to just "go to a blue state." Also, laws in some states impose financial penalties on anyone who helps a citizen of that state travel to another state for an abortion. That would include giving the woman a ride, helping her afford gas or a bus ticket, giving her time off from work, and actually performing the abortion, even though the abortion is legal in the state in which it is performed.

The Constitution is silent on abortion. It also says that citizen's rights aren't limited to those specified in the Constitution.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
K Graham
God
Posts: 1636
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

With virtually everyone sharing the same opinion for many months that Democrats are about to get walloped in the mid-terms, I think the purpose of the leak should be obvious if not downright genius. The American people need to know what's at stake here and now they know. The overturning of Roe can be remedied by and act of Congress, but the problem is the unConstitutional filibuster. All the Dems need really is for Manchin and Sinema to jump on board. Hell, a female Republican may even jump on board given how high the stakes are now.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
K Graham
God
Posts: 1636
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

Given the Republican mishandling of the pandemic which placed tremendous amounts of stress on our healthcare system, we're seeing more and more medical professionals leaving. I suspect that after a few years of doctors and nurses go to jail for providing legit medical care to women, this problem will get even worse. Many are likely to just up and quit the industry on principle.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5472
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Searching for the missing pieces of the Bothell Codex

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Res Ipsa »

K Graham wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 5:15 pm
With virtually everyone sharing the same opinion for many months that Democrats are about to get walloped in the mid-terms, I think the purpose of the leak should be obvious if not downright genius. The American people need to know what's at stake here and now they know. The overturning of Roe can be remedied by and act of Congress, but the problem is the unConstitutional filibuster. All the Dems need really is for Manchin and Sinema to jump on board. Hell, a female Republican may even jump on board given how high the stakes are now.
I strongly disagree. The midterms are in November. The actual opinion would have been issued by early July at the latest. If the final opinion were going to actually be this extreme, then the impact of the actual opinion as opposed to an early draft would have equal, if not greater, impact on the mid terms. As it is, the issue of what's in the draft is competing with the ethics of leaking the draft for attention.

Depending on what the final opinion says, Congress may have no authority to pass laws that legalize abortion nationwide. The same Supreme Court that is deciding the current case will also rule on whether Congress has constitutional authority to pass such a law.

The filibuster is not unconstitutional. The Constitution leaves each chamber of Congress the authority to adopt its own rules.
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
ajax18
God
Posts: 1424
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:12 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by ajax18 »

I think the purpose of the leak should be obvious if not downright genius.
I agree that the purpose of the leak is obvious, as well as which side leaked it. Given that this criminal act will likely go unpunished, it should become the new standard in what is fair game in politics. Republicans need to stop taking the high road as Romney did against the Obama sleaze campaign. We need a brawler and a fighter willing to get his hands dirty. We need Trump.
And when the Confederates saw Jackson standing fearless like a stonewall, the army of Northern Virginia took courage and drove the federal army off their land.
K Graham
God
Posts: 1636
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 5:38 pm
Depending on what the final opinion says, Congress may have no authority to pass laws that legalize abortion nationwide. The same Supreme Court that is deciding the current case will also rule on whether Congress has constitutional authority to pass such a law.
So just five people, two of whom lied under oath to get their positions, and another useless piece of garbage who voted to block any investigation into Trump, these are the people who get to overturn nearly 40 years of settled law which will in turn force the majority of our population to give birth or else suffer legal ramifications.

According to Sen. Warren, "I've got news for them. They can take away a woman's right to abortion, at least for a little while. But the United States Congress can come roaring back and pass a law to protect and even do a better job of protecting anyone who needs or wants access to an abortion." (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHjMRiUE8Hg)

Starting roughly at the 4:30 mark

The filibuster is not unconstitutional. The Constitution leaves each chamber of Congress the authority to adopt its own rules.
It is unconstitutional in the sense that it isn't in the Constitution. It is a relic that needs to be done away with and serves no purpose other than to obstruct Congress.
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
Post Reply