SCOTUS opinion leaked: Roe v Wade
- Thread starter dukkha
- Start date
Stringfellow Hawk
Member
not all women ignorant dumbass, as a matter of fact women as a group was not mentioned at all, learn to read
Nine out of 10 abortions done before 12 weeks in many high ...
https://www.bmj.com › Home › Newsroom
Generally, most abortions were carried out by 10 or 11 weeks, and in most countries nearly all abortions (90%) were obtained before 13 weeks, with the highest .
UGH...the decision was based on Constitutional Law...there was no "Roe" Law.
What the fuck are you talking about?
The Constitution was not amended or changed at all to include abortion in the right to privacy.
So you're not talking about a law, you're talking about a precedent that is based in Constitutional Law.
An abortion law would need to come from Congress, not SCOTUS.
Jesus fucking Christ.
SO STUPID.
NO, it isn't.
The system has never, until the Roberts Court, worked in this context where the personal beliefs of the justices form as the basis of their decisions.
You would need to prove that the justices decided those along their personal beliefs and not along the letter of the law, which you're not going to be able to do because none of those justices lied during their confirmation hearings.
(Some Critical Race Theory for you: confirmation hearings for SCOTUS justices weren't a thing until the first Jewish justice was nominated)
Why don't you get off your lazy ass and read those decisions so you can see clearly the contrast between a thoughtful, legal interpretation of the law and a thoughtless, personal interpretation?
No they don't.
You mean to tell me that in all their law experience, none of the SCOTUS justices had ever taken the bar or went to law school?
What do they all mean by "precedent", then? When they talk about precedent during their confirmation hearings, what are they talking about if not for this?
Again, you're really fucking stupid.
Just really, really dumb.
But they did make a broad ruling on Roe, despite saying it was settled.
Can you point to any confirmation hearing in the last 100 or so years where the justice said that something was precedent and then completely flip-flopped? Because I can't recall that ever happening.
Yep...exactly.
You now have no legal right to privacy, which means I can doxx you if I wanted.
like (after) Roe the law varies by state
But i take that as a serious threat from a psychopath as yoursself
I just ran across this. they should make a political ad with it. Democrat/liberals/leftist/progressives/Democommies have always been TWO FACED HYPOCRITES. They only get away with it because they have the left-wing medias in their back pockets. How anyone can vote for such a slimy party is astounding to me.
snip;
Flip-Floppin’ Joe Biden Once Voted to Overturn Roe v. Wade
President Joe Biden opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion one year after Roe v Wade.
“I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body,” he told the Washingtonian in 1974, one year after the court legalized abortion.
“I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far,” he added.
All of it with comments:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rn-roe-v-wade/
snip;
Flip-Floppin’ Joe Biden Once Voted to Overturn Roe v. Wade
President Joe Biden opposed the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize abortion one year after Roe v Wade.
“I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body,” he told the Washingtonian in 1974, one year after the court legalized abortion.
“I don’t like the Supreme Court decision on abortion. I think it went too far,” he added.
All of it with comments:
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...rn-roe-v-wade/
You should.
Indeed!
Nothing more effective in energizing the Democrat Socialist base than baby killing.
LV is an industrial strength coward.
Quote Originally Posted by LV426 View Post
“It happened all over PM, Earl. We set a time, then he PM'd me to say he wasn't going to show up. Since then, I've ignored him because he and I both know that he was the one who didn't follow through.“
If this is true, you are releasing PM information which is a violation of the TOS of JPP.
So, you are either a liar or in violation of the TOS of JPP., cobarde. Checkmate.
Where did the little twerp, AKA el cobarde, go?
Second flinch...a double flincher.
CFM posted:
Clearly a lie since the directions were provided over open forum.
His claim was that he had expert investigative abilities and all he needed was a few things he could get by seeing me in order to doxx me. Directions were given. Since he's failed to do what he claimed he'd do, he's the one that didn't follow through. He's welcome to use those directions any time. Doubt he'll follow through at all.
CFM posted:
I asked him to explain how providing him with detailed directions to where I am is cowardly. I'm yet to get an answer. Not long after they were provided, he put me on ignore.
How is that misleading? The issue will return to the states to decide just like before Roe. What was deceptive about the story that said exactly that?
In my state the law would: make abortion a felony with exceptions "only to save the life of the pregnant patient or if they risk “substantial impairment of major bodily function.” Doctors could face life in prison and fines up to $100,000 if they perform abortions in violation of the law"
We all know that. Supreme Court decisions interpreting the Constitution become constitutional law (not statutory law).
You are arguing something we know already and nobody suggested anything to the contrary.
We have long established your lack of knowledge about constitutional issues.
If you do not think the Constitution was changed (through court interpretation) you have not read Roe. It used the right to privacy created by Griswold to make abortion protected by that same right to privacy. Roe became constitutional law when it issued that decision. It did not become "a law" but became part of the Constitution through court interpretation which is the "law of the land"--you know, the "settled law" they all talked about.
"Settled law" can be changed. At one time Plessy (1896) was settled law until it was overturned in 1954. Nobody passed a law to overturn Plessy; instread, the court changed it through constitutional interpretation which is known as constitutional law.
The precedent they used to make that decision was Griswold, Society of Sisters, etc. Precedent can be used to make new constitutional law.
exactly, Im not happy about losing the (implied) right to privacy
That is one of the dumbest things you have ever said--and that says a lot.
You think the justices who ruled in favor of segregation or to overturn segregation were not influenced by their personal beliefs? What law changed that would have changed their opinion?
Or requiring students to salute the flag and reversing themselves three years later?
Or upholding laws making sodomy illegal (between same sex or even opposite sex couples) and then reversing that decision were not influenced by their own personal beliefs? What law changed?
You don't understand basic constitutional law as you made clear when you said government can prohibit Nazi or Confederate flags, symbols, and uniforms.
all good stuff
No one (except that idiot) is saying judges dont have a judicial philosophy or even their own ideas
what matters is if they're rulings are passing Constitutional muster
However in Roe's case it's not based on text (implied right to privacy) but it is based on the American tradition of bodily autonomy - it's a basic right to personal liberty I would argue
I dont think implied rights are inferior, (rights are rights) but they are more subject to change
based on superceding other interpretations
And I think stare decisis as well as the fact turning it back to the states does limit the 14th as well
SCOTUS should have been ruling on state restrictions, not just eliminating that right
They did not strike down the right to privacy but only as it applied to abortion. The draft made it clear it does not threaten all the other privacy rights.
"Roe’s defenders characterize the abortion right as similar to the rights recognized in past decisions involving matters such as intimate sexual relations, contraception, and marriage, but abortion is fundamentally different, as both Roe and Casey acknowledged, because it destroys what those decisions called “fetal life” and what the law now before us describes as an “unborn human being.”[SUP]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...nw6xan7nsaF5QnKGiVGJWC-rwUx4wkFbfbpaOW-AhsxF0
[/SUP]
so they say
and this CASE doesnt strike it down,
but it certainly conceptually weakens it and can be used as a basis for future eliminations