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
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 5483
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 8:47 pm
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.
Yes, five members of the Supreme Court can overrule a prior case that they conclude was wrongly decided. That's how the system works. We don't get to just ignore the Supreme Court when we don't like a ruling. I don't recall what K and G testified to in their hearings, but they also haven't signed an opinion yet.

I like and respect Senator Warren, but I'd be curious to her her reasoning for how Congress could pass a statute that passes constitutional muster if the Court holds that the federal government has no power to regulate abortion. Has she penned an article that explains that?
he/him
"Everything we see hides another thing, we always want to see what is hidden by what we see."
– Rene Magritte
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Kishkumen »

An interesting side note to this whole debate:

I have noticed people citing a 12th century collection of canon law by Gratian, the Decretum Gratiani in connection with this impending Supreme Court decision. Since the posters generally do not provide an explanation of the quote, I can only guess that these folks are quoting the Decretum as proof that the Catholic Church did not always share current extreme views opposing abortion.

The Decretum says that abortion is not murder if the spirit has not entered the body. As Catholic commentators argue, however, canon law is not a definition of sin, but a pronouncement regarding legality. But here’s the thing: it shows that the Catholic Church was able, in the Medieval Period, to distinguish between law and religion at a time when the two were practically one and the same.

That our modern radicals are incapable of making similar distinctions suggests to me that in some ways the Protestant reformation has proven to be a huge failure that has resulted in regression from a more reasonable, thoughtful, and informed Christian civilization. The demagoguery of confused opinions is poised to turn justice on its head at the risk of literally thousands of lives.

I get that Catholic theocracy was awful, which is why this is all the more shocking and disturbing.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Kishkumen »

Another interesting thing I have recently run across. One of my more thoughtful and spiritual ex-LDS friends posted something about being “pro-circumstance.” Meaning, I suppose, that we should tailor our decisions and judgment in the matter of abortion to circumstances. Obviously one can’t make a law code that covers all circumstances, and I think he knows that.

But you would think the guy had just advocated sticking children in factory jobs. The usual statements in the key of leftist feminist ideology were dutifully put up in opposition to his view. Communication did not ever get off the ground. Internet, eh?

Of course, we have collectively become crappy interlocutors. Everyone is poised to be triggered. Hardly anyone really listens to others. People just wait their turn to intone righteously and loudly the mantras they have learned. They are ready to put the worst words in the mouths of others.

When this person made the mistake (tactical at the very least) of saying married partners are not fully autonomous, the almost immediate reply was, “So you are saying a wife is her husband’s property?”

Oy vey!

Rescue me from the concatenation of hasty, rude, and thoughtless verbal scuffling that wastes everyone’s time and does more harm than good.

My well intentioned friend does not seem to understand that law is the best we have to navigate often terrible circumstances. Ideals of mutual care and responsibility are aspirations that the law cannot be based on. His interlocutors, to describe them more generously than they deserve, seem to forget who he is and where his mind is at as they fall into their ideological scripts after understandably being triggered.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
huckelberry
God
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:48 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by huckelberry »

Kishkumen, "Pro circumstance" or"' tailor our decision to circumstance".

I find it difficult to imagine what meaning was intended by this cryptic comment. That uncertainty might trigger negative responses and those responses might be completely unfair.

Considering circumstances would reasonable be a part of all decisions but that is a very broad observation.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 2974
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Kishkumen »

It is, huckelberry. It seems tantamount to dismissing law from the center of the discussion.
“Academia’s continual campaign to disregard or neglect the classics is a sign of spiritual decay, moral decline and a deep intellectual narrowness running amok in American culture.” ~ Cornel West
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by doubtingthomas »

Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 10:40 pm
Striking down Roe would be the biggest threat to Americans' individual liberty in a long time.
If Roe doesn't get overturned, then the midterms will be a disaster for Democrats.

And relying on precedents is bad philosophy in my view.
K Graham
God
Posts: 1640
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2021 6:25 am

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by K Graham »

doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:51 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Tue May 03, 2022 10:40 pm
Striking down Roe would be the biggest threat to Americans' individual liberty in a long time.
If Roe doesn't get overturned, then the midterms will be a disaster for Democrats.

And relying on precedents is bad philosophy in my view.
Seriously? Precedents are bad huh. Even when establishing rights? When has Supreme Court ever ruled to take away anyone's rights before?
"I am not an American ... In my view premarital sex should be illegal" - Ajax18
doubtingthomas
God
Posts: 1101
Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2021 6:04 pm

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by doubtingthomas »

K Graham wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 3:42 am
doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:51 am


If Roe doesn't get overturned, then the midterms will be a disaster for Democrats.

And relying on precedents is bad philosophy in my view.
Seriously? Precedents are bad huh. Even when establishing rights? When has Supreme Court ever ruled to take away anyone's rights before?
I am not against abortion.

But I don't think Supreme Court justices should rely on precedents.
User avatar
Jersey Girl
God
Posts: 4798
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 3:51 am
Location: Heart is in Ukraine

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Jersey Girl »

K Graham wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 3:42 am
doubtingthomas wrote:
Thu May 05, 2022 2:51 am


If Roe doesn't get overturned, then the midterms will be a disaster for Democrats.

And relying on precedents is bad philosophy in my view.
Seriously? Precedents are bad huh. Even when establishing rights? When has Supreme Court ever ruled to take away anyone's rights before?
Well, they're working on something for the Selective Service System it seems and have been for quite some time. I'm not following this carefully. I thought of the Selective Service System and did a little searching is all. I think the history is there that might satisfy your question since it looks like the Supreme Court has been ruling on tweaking the original Act.

Update: on June 7, 2021, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari. In denying the petition, Justice Sotomayor issued a brief statement, joined by Justices Breyer and Kavanaugh, acknowledging that "the role of women has changed dramatically" since Rostker was decided, but explaining that it was declining to review the case in order to allow Congress more time to consider the report recently issued by the National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service recommending that the registration requirement be extended regardless of sex.
https://www.aclu.org/cases/national-coa ... stem-et-al

ETA: Huh. This is in the wiki.
Legal issues

The Selective Service System is authorized by the Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution which says Congress "shall have Power To ... provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union;" The Selective Service Act is the law which established the Selective Service System under these provisions.

The act has been challenged in light of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution which prohibits "involuntary servitude".[75] These challenges, however, have not been supported by the courts; as the Supreme Court stated in Butler v. Perry (1916):

The amendment was adopted with reference to conditions existing since the foundation of our government, and the term 'involuntary servitude' was intended to cover those forms of compulsory labor akin to African slavery which, in practical operation, would tend to produce like undesirable results. It introduced no novel doctrine with respect of services always treated as exceptional, and certainly was not intended to interdict enforcement of those duties which individuals owe to the state, such as services in the army, militia, on the jury, etc.[76]

During the First World War, the Supreme Court ruled in Arver v. United States (1918), also known as the Selective Draft Law Cases, that the draft did not violate the Constitution.[77]

Later, during the Vietnam War, a federal appellate court also concluded that the draft was constitutional in Holmes v. United States (1968).[78]

Since the reinstatement of draft registration in 1980, the Supreme Court has heard and decided four cases related to the Military Selective Service Act: Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981), upholding the constitutionality of requiring men but not women to register for the draft; Selective Service v. Minnesota Public Interest Research Group (MPIRG), 468 U.S. 841 (1984), upholding the constitutionality of the "Solomon Amendment", which requires applicants for Federal student aid to certify that they have complied with draft registration, either by having registered or by not being required to register; Wayte v. United States, 470 U.S. 598 (1985), upholding the policies and procedures which the Supreme Court thought the government had used to select the "most vocal" non-registrants for prosecution, after the government refused to comply with discovery orders by the trial court to produce documents and witnesses related to the selection of non-registrants for prosecution; and Elgin v. Department of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1 (2012), regarding procedures for judicial review of denial of federal employment for non-registrants.[79]

The case National Coalition for Men v. Selective Service System resulted in the male-only draft registration being declared unconstitutional by a district court. That decision was reversed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.[41] A petition for review was then filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.[80]
Slava Ukraini!
User avatar
Moksha
God
Posts: 3093
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 3:13 am
Location: Koloburbia

Re: Supreme Court Overturning Roe v Wade

Post by Moksha »

Roundabout Defense wrote:
Wed May 04, 2022 8:30 am
Dirty deeds done in silence was what Chief Justice Snidely Whiplash dedicated his life to and now leakers are unveiling the dastardly plot ahead of time! It ruins the suspense when we would otherwise have learned that young Nell was squished under the train wheels!!!
Look, this parable stuff does not work when we are talking about the sacred obligation to keep perfidy under wraps for as long as possible. Only when it has built up enough virulence to burst its containment barriers can it be released into the wild.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
Post Reply