[Politico] Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

or why ectopic pregnancies have to go to term and kill the mother ... for reasons.

 

Both of these arguments annoy me because they only resonate with people who already agree with you. Both sides have to say their thing to keep their bases disciplined, but neither argument (or perhaps argument) will be winning anyone over.

 

In one of my cancer support groups someone was sued in Texas for seeking an abortion because her doctor said it wasn’t safe for her to continue with the pregnancy due to the growth of her tumors.

Apparently we have religious zealots monitoring the group and coming after people looking for advice in these situations.

These people need to die.

 

Your dumbass doesn't realize the argument cuts both ways, so now that we overturn wade should we be able to make the mask and the jab mandatory?

Since we are all about preserving life right?

 

So if a women gets pregnant in a no abortion state, which fire station can she drop off the 6 week old fetus?

 

Ted Cruz’s house.

 

Like honestly. How much a ****ing loser are you to seek legal action on a cancer patient looking for advice on the most difficult decision of your life?

Anyone who does this should be late stage aborted. You’re a terrible human being and don’t deserve to live.

 

Basically, the same questions I asked - I don't think they are illogical questions to ask. And this Tim Ryan guy answered just like DD.

 

This is good stuff. I disagree with parts of it, but still good stuff.

During the founding era, you are correct that States were seen as protectors/definers of rights, while the national government was this new, far, big scary thing that needed a Bill of Rights to be checked (well, according to the anti-feds). To me, the unenumerated rights of the 9th Amendment were less of a call to description through text, history, and tradition and more of a catch-all like, "we're not done yet, and there's a ton of crap that is constitutional, and we don't have to write it all...leaving it open ended because Fed Gov sucks and we don't even really want to sign this new Constitution, but fine." Post Civil War Congress left things even more open ended in the arena of unenumerated rights with the super expansive 14th.

Nothing wrong with using tradition as part of a legal constitutional interpretation theory. That's what Harlan did and Scalia did. A lot depends on if you think a law being Constitutional depends on the specifics of it or the themes of it. This impacts both unenumerated and enumerated rights.

For example, a strict originalist would say executing a 14-year-old for sexing a goat is probaby a bad modern law, but still constitutional. A living constitutionalist who believes in the themes would argue that we have a modern understanding of brain development, and executing a 14-year-old violates the constitution's cruel and unusual pushiment clause.

A strict originalist would argue states can prevent people from carrying guns in public (Scalia got this wrong imo, from an originalist founding era standpoint). During the writing of the US Constitution, there already were several State Constitutions that expressed the individual right to bear arms for self-defense and hunting. There is a lot more easy access to historical text now than there was in 08 and 10 when the gun cases went to SCOTUS. From a text, history, and tradition standpoint, many states regulated carrying guns - many for bad reasons like black people can't have guns. From a living constitutionalist standpoint, it's commonly accepted among modern Americans that the right bear arms should be construed to everyone being able to have a gun at home, and probably in public too (this will be resolved in a few weeks). This living constitutionalist argument regarding gun rights was made by conservative appeals court judge Sutton.

A strict originalist would argue that police can wire tap your phones, search your emails, and your computer files all without a warrant as long as they don't go inside your house. Not saying an originalist would say police should do that, but that it's consitutional. In fact, local and state police being able to search homes without a warrant wasn't considered unconstitutional until like 1960. Before that, only the FBI needed warrants to search your home, because you know, big bad federal government. A living constitutionalist like Brandies believed in themes and that privacy isn't about how to get something, but the private thoughts in your head and home.

And of course a strict originalist hates unenumerated rights and if forced to uphold some would choose those entrenched in text, history, and tradition - still subjective even if implemented. A living constitutionalist would tie in themes, especially the ones found in the 14th because everybody uses the 14th (liberal, conservative, everyone) as the sword and shield that can make almost anything constitutional if you try hard enough - then you end up debating where to draw the line.

 

The Court of 50 years ago disagree (7-2). What changed isn't the rules, but the make up of the Court.

Some will have no choice, will face jail time, and will die because of this. It's a huge deal to many people.

 

The former president, never one to shy away from taking credit for accomplishments, real or imagined, has yet to crow about the majority draft opinion. And when asked about it in interviews, he steered clear of anything resembling a victory lap. Instead, he expressed displeasure that the draft leaked and sidestepped weighing in on the issue of abortion rights. On Wednesday night at Mar-a-Lago, he told POLITICO he was waiting to see “finality” in the case.

“Nobody knows what exactly it represents, if that’s going to be it,” Trump said of the draft opinion. “I think the one thing that really is so horrible is the leaking… for the court and for the country.”

Trump has yet to put out a statement on the draft opinion and has only addressed it when asked in interviews. In one, he even conceded that a portion of the public might blame him for what could soon transpire.

“Some people maybe say it’s my fault,” he said of putting three conservative justices on the Supreme Court during an appearance Wednesday on the Christian Broadcast Network. “And some people say, thank you very much.”

A Washington Post-ABC News poll conducted last week found that 54 percent of Americans want Roe v. Wade to be upheld, while 28 percent want the decision overturned, with 18 percent being neutral.

The fear among Republicans, including those close to Trump, is that a backlash to a decision abolishing a major constitutional right by a Supreme Court stacked with GOP appointees could alter the trajectory of the midterm campaigns.

“I think a lot of Republicans, as excited as they are about this, they realize the election is going to be about what we think it’s going to be about – inflation, crime, schools – so there’s no reason for a Republican to make their campaign a one issue campaign,” said Scott Jennings, a GOP strategist.

Trump’s biggest fans have already begun crediting him for the possibility of Roebeing overturned. Charlie Kirk, founder of the conservative Turning Point USA, told POLITICO that the draft opinion “gives conservatives that did hold their nose — and there was a fair amount — a little bit of like, ‘Hey, we did the right thing,’ and I’m getting a lot of that sense from people.”

But the emergence of abortion as a top-flight issue also places a spotlight on a position that has been historically awkward for the former president.

Born into wealth and living in a penthouse atop a Manhattan skyscraper emblazoned with his name in gold, Trump has long been the least likely representative of deep-red America. He described himself in 1999 as “very pro-choice” but then switched to being an abortion opponent when he became a Republican before seeking the party’s nomination in 2016.

he was asked by the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd if he was ever involved with anyone who had an abortion.

“Such an interesting question,” the candidate told her. “So what’s your next question?”

Though his biography — a twice-divorced billionaire who was caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault — seemed anathema to Christian conservatives, evangelicals have embraced him, looking past his flaws toward what he could do for them. He, in turn, openly pledged to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would end Roe v. Wade — a promise that won over remaining skeptics.

“In 2016, one of the key issues driving Conservative women to the polls was the Supreme Court, mostly due to the issue of abortion,” said Penny Nance, CEO of Concerned Women for America in a text message. “His pledge on the Court gave pro-life women both the confidence and the incentive to turn out for President Trump.”

 

Since babies begin at conception there should be nothing wrong with letting them out a little early.

 

nvm

 

That court was also considered a conservative court.

Just a reminder that the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade was ...
https://www.upworthy.com › roe-vs-wade-majority-opi...

In fact, it was mostly Republican-nominated Supreme Court Justices who made the case for choice in 1973. Roe vs. Wade was decided with a 7-2 vote, ...

 

Doxing should be illegal.
But those justices should be held accountable to the people.

I would like term limits of say 12 years.

DD

 

And unless it is your child it is none of your or the states business.

DD

 

The reporter fails to mention that these "activists" are hardly active. lol.

 

Don’t be surprised when you ignore the majority over and over on policy, that the majority gets annoyed and fights back violently.

That is what causes revolution.

DD

 

Under the federal structure individual states could and did mandate mask mandates. The Federal mask mandate had to do with interstate travel. It's also likely that individual states could mandate vaccinations. There Federal 'mandate" wasn't actually a mandate that forced everyone to get vaccinated but a job regulation through OSHA's power to regulate workplaces. Following the logic of Roe yes you do have body autonomy and the Federal government couldn't force people to take a vaccine but working any job you want isn't a right so under job safety the government can require things like vaccination under the same reasoning as wearing hard hats on a construction site.

To note why the courts did limit the government's power in that regard it didn't ban it and kept the Federal requirement for health care workers to be vaccinated.