You don't research at all, do you. Six of the Supreme Court judges were Republican appointees. In the 7-2 decision, Byron White, appointed by John F. Kennedy, and William Rehnquist, appointed, like several of the judges who voted for Roe, was appointed by Richard M. Nixon. You are a joke, sir.
Yea, actually, apparently I did more then you who determined the liberality of the justices merely predicated on the party affiliation of the Presidents who appointed them.
I think it's hard to argue that today's SCOTUS is less political compared to the one in the 1970's. There are 4 ideologues from the right on the SCOTUS currently.
There's no doubt the Judicial branch is far more political. It is because many previously Republican appointed justices ended up ruling in ways that differed ideologically from the Presidents that appointed them is why groups like the Federalist society have essentially become the gateway for appointments. Ideology appears far more important than actual experience which is why Garland couldn't even get a vote even though he was Kavanaugh's superior on the Court of Appeals but Barrett was rushed through even though she has less experience that many judges on lower courts. The situation on lower courts is even worse with many recent appointments lacking any experience in actually trying cases and some not even knowing basic legal terms during their confirmation hearings.
I get why people are so emotional about this issue. Abortion is maybe the single most contentious issue to face the country in our time and their are compelling reasons both for pro choice and pro life. Having said that, (and without comment on which side of the abortion debate I stand on), I agree with the premise of the decision as a COURT RULING on Roe vs. Wade and that is at its simplest the following: Abortion and it's potential "legality" is not guaranteed by the Constitution specifically and that the 10th Amendment applies here.
Yes, it was. This is an opinion only (and I do not disagree with it). The only Amendment that specifically superseded another was the 21st repealing the 18th. This is the problem with "implied" rights. They are always open to interpretation and in any case are certainly not SPECIFICALLY guaranteed by the Constitution (such as the right to bear arms for example). This is why these "implied" rights are up for the people through their representatives to decide.
The language of the 14th says: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So while it doesn't directly contradict the 10th it does state that things interpretted at the Federal level do apply to states. Therefore if something is like a right to privacy is determined exists on a a federal level then it will apply to states.
So one is allowed to do anything because of a "right to privacy"? (say for instance a crime?) Again, these decisions are best made by the people and their representatives.
Libertarians are divided on abortion, largely on the same basis that most rational people are. Those that believe the fetus is a living human person generally think that abortion should be prohibited because the right of the fetus to life trumps the right of the mother (or birthing person ) to not be pregnant for 9 months. Those that believe the fetus is a clump of cells, part of the mother's body, etc. tend to believe that bodily autonomy and the freedom of the mother are the controlling factor and you should be as free to abort as you are to get an appendectomy. He is a journalist. At one point he was Managing Director for the University Press Group. He has covered a lot of topics such as gaming, food and beverages, news, and politics. I don't know that he represents the left, that was Jack Posobiac's framing of him, but he certainly seems to lean that way. I would say tweet almost certainly fits the topic of the thread though, which is 2022 Abortion protests.
The bolded is actually a radical stance that not even most democrats believe. Most people are against late term abortion and most people are for early term abortion. As for the nature of this thread well...it's no surprise to me. If the GOP continues to strip away rights history shows that people will eventually turn to violence.
That's right, and the states can charge you for breathing and taking a piss because those are legally guaranteed rights. Or the states can create laws if you are gay. Or black. None of that is in the constitution either. It's a weak argument to say abortion isn't a right and therefore the states should decide it, especially when the states are showing that how it governs the choices women can make it purely based on partisan basis and the Christian belief that life begins at conception. This is a violation of church and state. Imposing religious beliefs on people should not be acceptable.
States cannot charge you for legally guaranteed rights. I imagine this was a typo, but considering that you are an idiot and can't figure out that breathing and pissing are inherent in the right to life, it kind of worked out for the best. It is actually an incredibly strong argument that doesn't depend upon religion at all. That's why the draft opinion didn't mention Christianity or any other religion. Biologically, a fetus or even a zygote is a living human. Killing a living human is unlawful, generally speaking. The weak argument was the one that said abortion was a right. You could tell is was a weak constitutional argument, because it didn't cite to any specific passage of the constitution, it cited to the penumbras of the bill of rights. We don't usually imagine that a legal text has a nebulous glow about it wherein is found additional information.
All i know is if the Republicans wants a chance in hell of winning the mid terms, holding off overturning Roe v Wade is the way to go. They pushed this sht through, democrat voting turnout will explode. Idk why republicans are so against abortion, but does literally nothing to provide welfare to the kid once it's out.
States can make a law saying banning whistling then. Or using headphones. Or scratching your back. That's what you are saying. And there is nothing that says a zygote is a living human. That's a BELIEF. It comes from what GOD told you, not SCIENCE. Too bad you resort to name calling because you can't argue on the merits of what I am saying so you get unhinged and make personal attacks. Abortion is a right because you have a right to privacy from the gov't. The gov't has no right to tell you whqt some religious people saying crazy things that a zygote which you can't even see with the naked eye is a human being. Now that's idiotic.
I think his characterization is correct. What’s missing is that most people see the fetus as transitioning from being a “lump of cells” to a “living human person” during the 9 month development. But there is no objective, absolute definition of when the fetus attains personhood with certain legal rights. Political strategists exploit this by turning the whole thing into a political wedge issue. They try to convince people that the right answer must lie at one of the extremes — personhood is attained either conception or at birth. I would agree, though, that the “extremist” position that personhood starts at conception is FAR more prevalent than the position that personhood starts only at birth.
Women are essentially 2nd class citizens, even slaves to the state when they don't get to make the choice to live. Tubal pregnancy is very common (1 in every 50 pregnancies). It's not viable and cannot result in a baby. It causes a high risk of 1st-trimester maternal death. Striking down Roe means State can and will force women to risk death.
