To show how far the right has come,

[Flash]

So, according to your illogical nonsense, I have the right to murder you?

Cool. No mention of it anywhere in the Constitution,

That is not my nonsense, that is the 9th Amendment. It does not say you have a right to do anything you want. The states have the power to make murder illegal.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have the right to travel, send your kids to private school, or use contraception. Nothing about any of those things in the Constitution, either.

 

[Guno צְבִי]

Biden just claimed god gives him the inalienable right to kill the unborn and government can't stop him

The rabid christer goyim can believe anything they want, such as abortion is murder. doesn't make is so

Not everyone is a christer nor should laws be based on what the majority religion thinks, they are free not to avail themselves, but to decide for other? No way
example :
Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

 

[zymurgy]

The rabid christer goyim can believe anything they want, such as abortion is murder. doesn't make is so

Not everyone is a christer nor should laws be based on what the majority religion thinks, they are free not to avail themselves, but to decide for other? No way
example :
Jewish law does not share the belief common among abortion opponents that life begins at conception, nor does it legally consider the fetus to be a full person deserving of protections equal those accorded to human beings. In Jewish law, a fetus attains the status of a full person only at birth. Sources in the Talmud indicate that prior to 40 days of gestation, the fetus has an even more limited legal status, with one Talmudic authority (Yevamot 69b) asserting that prior to 40 days the fetus is “mere water.” Elsewhere, the Talmud indicates that the ancient rabbis regarded a fetus as part of its mother throughout the pregnancy, dependent fully on her for its life — a view that echoes the position that women should be free to make decisions concerning their own bodies.

cuckoo

 

[Walt]

SCOTUS isnt a political body. it would look foolish if they tried.

Republicans sure do treat it like a political body.

Republicans have worked hard for nearly 50 years to get a Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. They kept promising it. Now they have delivered... And are not doing a victory lap?

 

[Celticguy]

Republicans sure do treat it like a political body.

Republicans have worked hard for nearly 50 years to get a Supreme Court majority to overturn Roe v. Wade. They kept promising it. Now they have delivered... And are not doing a victory lap?

hasnt worked out very well. Roberts and the others are not nearly as lockstep as the Blue Team.

 

[Walt]

hasnt worked out very well. Roberts and the others are not nearly as lockstep as the Blue Team.

We have seen the same play for 50 years. Republicans promise if elected to put justices on the court that will reverse Roe v. Wade. Republicans putting justices on the court, and those justices hearing a case to overturn Roe v. Wade. They write a draft opinion overturning it. They consult with political advisors, and then change the draft opinion to just paring back Roe v. Wade a little. Then Republicans promising if elected... The cycle repeats itself again and again for 50 years.

That is what makes me think that this was an anti-abortionist. This leak has broken the cycle. The conservative justices cannot change their opinion to be more politically acceptable. They have been forced to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

[RB 60]

We have seen the same play for 50 years. Republicans promise if elected to put justices on the court that will reverse Roe v. Wade. Republicans putting justices on the court, and those justices hearing a case to overturn Roe v. Wade. They write a draft opinion overturning it. They consult with political advisors, and then change the draft opinion to just paring back Roe v. Wade a little. Then Republicans promising if elected... The cycle repeats itself again and again for 50 years.

That is what makes me think that this was an anti-abortionist. This leak has broken the cycle. The conservative justices cannot change their opinion to be more politically acceptable. They have been forced to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Walt, do you disagree that it should be a state issue rather than a federal one?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

it was a Republican Supreme Court that set Roe v Wade as law by a 7-2 majority

How soon do you think birth control, contraception, will follow?

This is obviously just a Trojan horse...

 

[Lionfish]

it was a Republican Supreme Court that set Roe v Wade as law by a 7-2 majority

How soon do you think birth control, contraception, will follow?

Poor anchovies, NOW you decide that government overreach is a bad thing? Must be a different ox being gored.

 

[Walt]

Walt, do you disagree that it should be a state issue rather than a federal one?

Constitutional rights are a federal issue rather than a state issue. Or more accurately federal constitutional rights; state constitutional rights are a state issue. So when conservatives tell us that slavery, or civil rights are "states rights" issues, I would disagree.

There is an interesting point, that they only think it is a states rights issue when they are losing nationwide. They were adamant that states did not have the right to free runaway slaves, or even slaves that were moved there. They wanted segregation nationwide. And even with abortion...

If abortion is murder, and life is one of the rights under the Constitution, then states do not have the right to legalize it. The only reason it suddenly magically becomes a states rights issue is because anti-abortionists will lose on a federal level.

 

[Earl]

it was a Republican Supreme Court that set Roe v Wade as law by a 7-2 majority

How soon do you think birth control, contraception, will follow?

It was never a law, Anchovies.

It was a terribly flawed Supreme Court decision that is now being corrected.

 

[Earl]

Constitutional rights are a federal issue rather than a state issue. Or more accurately federal constitutional rights; state constitutional rights are a state issue. So when conservatives tell us that slavery, or civil rights are "states rights" issues, I would disagree.

There is an interesting point, that they only think it is a states rights issue when they are losing nationwide. They were adamant that states did not have the right to free runaway slaves, or even slaves that were moved there. They wanted segregation nationwide. And even with abortion...

If abortion is murder, and life is one of the rights under the Constitution, then states do not have the right to legalize it. The only reason it suddenly magically becomes a states rights issue is because anti-abortionists will lose on a federal level.

Since the Supreme Court leak says that abortion is not a Constitutionality protected right, it is within the purview of the states.

There will be no federal level involving abortion, the win is for those who oppose the murder of unborn children.


The Tenth Amendment's simple language—“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”—emphasizes that the inclusion of a bill of rights does not change the fundamental character of the national government.

 

[Walt]

Since the Supreme Court leak says that abortion is not a Constitutionality protected right, it is within the purview of the states.

You kind of gave the game away there. No, Supreme Court leaks do not have the force of law. In fact, they have no legal meaning whatsoever. It would have to be an actual decision to set precedent, and change laws.

The leak has locked the Supreme Court into an action they might not have been willing to take. Given the political complications of this decision, they may not have been willing to go through with this. They were at the next stage in the process where conservative justices ran the draft past their political masters, when it was leaked short circuiting everything. Remember when justices didn't have political masters?

There will be no federal level involving abortion, the win is for those who oppose the murder of unborn children.

Now that is simply untrue. Millions of Americans are not under any state authority, and there must be federal laws covering them. How it would work is that where states have authority, their laws apply, and the rest federal laws apply.

There is a major issue where all this collides. Interstate commerce is under the authority of the federal government, as is the mail. In other words, the federal government decides whether you can order abortion pills online, and have them mailed to you. Abortion pills have been making advancements recently, so this is becoming a bigger issue.

 

[RB 60]

Constitutional rights are a federal issue rather than a state issue. Or more accurately federal constitutional rights; state constitutional rights are a state issue. So when conservatives tell us that slavery, or civil rights are "states rights" issues, I would disagree.

There is an interesting point, that they only think it is a states rights issue when they are losing nationwide. They were adamant that states did not have the right to free runaway slaves, or even slaves that were moved there. They wanted segregation nationwide. And even with abortion...

If abortion is murder, and life is one of the rights under the Constitution, then states do not have the right to legalize it. The only reason it suddenly magically becomes a states rights issue is because anti-abortionists will lose on a federal level.

Abortion is not a constitutional right. It never was.

 

[Walt]

Abortion is not a constitutional right. It never was.

Is desegregation a constitutional right? Is freedom from slavery a constitutional right? Is same sex marriage a constitutional right? Is interracial marriage a constitutional right?

Where is the line?

 

[RB 60]

Is desegregation a constitutional right? Is freedom from slavery a constitutional right? Is same sex marriage a constitutional right? Is interracial marriage a constitutional right?

Where is the line?

Walt. We are talking about abortion. Stay on topic.

 

[Walt]

Walt. We are talking about abortion. Stay on topic.

We are talking about states rights over individual rights. Of course the state has some rights over individual rights, but where is the line?

Simple one, do states have the right to ban same sex marriage?

 

[RB 60]

This is obviously just a Trojan horse...

Does Trojan make them to fit a horse?

 

[RB 60]

We are talking about states rights over individual rights. Of course the state has some rights over individual rights, but where is the line?

Simple one, do states have the right to ban same sex marriage?

No, we are talking about abortion being a constitutional right. You say abortion is a constitutional right. I say it is not.

Yes, they do if they chose. The individual states have been screwed for years by the fed gov't.

 

[Walt]

No, we are talking about abortion being a constitutional right. You say abortion is a constitutional right. I say it is not.

Is marriage a constitutional right? This decision says that any individual right not explicitly found in the Constitution is actually a state right. Is marriage even mentioned in the Constitution?