Leaked/breaking:Roe v. Wade expected to be overturned

[Tombs]

Agreed

Republican majority = nothing gets done

Democratic majority = shifts America left

Lather, rinse, repeat

I believe we had a thread about this last year in which we discussed how Democrats don't hesitate losing seats pushing unpopular socialist agenda because they understand it won't be a permanent loss and the GOP won't do anything to counter/reverse the agenda while they're in power. Meanwhile, Republicans are scared to death to ever push ANY agenda for fear it might upset someone and they're scared of ever losing a single seat.

Basically both parties are about fear - one instills it and the other lives in it constantly.

I don't know about that.

I think a lot of the GOP is on the same train as the democrats, they just play ball in ways that are favorable to the ultimate democrat agenda. As in, they are intentionally doing this, not out of fear of losing seats or keeping them.

 

[jake blue]

I don't know about that.

I think a lot of the GOP is on the same train as the democrats, they just play ball in ways that are favorable to the ultimate democrat agenda. As in, they are intentionally doing this, not out of fear of losing seats or keeping them.

I'd believe that also

 

[bwframe]

Just seen a congressman on FNC, saying that there are maps to the republican appointed SCOTUS judges' homes posted online.


.

 

[HoughMade]

Before going to law school, I was morally opposed to abortion.

After I read Roe and Griswold before it, I was royally PISSED that the Supreme Court was making up rights on the fly and paying little to no attention to what the Constitution actually said, choosing instead to enact the whims of at least 5 of 9 flatulent old men (and now men and women).

Here's the thing- I am still morally opposed to abortion, but I would be royally PISSED if the Supreme Court used the same logic to declare a constitutional right to something I favored. It's bad law and it flies in the face of the founders intention to allow the judiciary to declare rights where there is no basis to believe that any part of the Constitution was intended to include that right when when ratified.

Years ago, someone argued to me that in the right case, the Sup. Ct. could overturn Roe then declare abortion illegal in the same decision. I would oppose that. That would not be constitutional. Murder, generally, is not outlawed by the federal government because it is properly a state law issue.

This leads to constant end runs around the legislature. I may not like what my state legislature or Congress does at times, but at least when they make new laws, they are following the Constitution's blueprint.

I would be immensely pleased if this decision returned the abortion fight to the state legislatures where it always should have been. I may or may not agree with what the legislatures do with that responsibility, but at least in the legislative process, to some extent, what the people want matters.

The process matters as much as the result because if we choose to ignore the process (as is common) looking only for our desired result, everything become arbitrary and anarchy or dictatorship are just around the corner. What ever gets the result, right?

 

[printcraft]

Before going to law school, I was morally opposed to abortion.

After I read Roe and Griswold before it, I was royally PISSED that the Supreme Court was making up rights on the fly and paying little to no attention to what the Constitution actually said, choosing instead to enact the whims of at least 5 of 9 flatulent old men (and now men and women).

Here's the thing- I am still morally opposed to abortion, but I would be royally PISSED if the Supreme Court used the same logic to declare a constitutional right to something I favored. It's bad law and it flies in the face of the founders intention to allow the judiciary to declare rights where there is no basis to believe that any part of the Constitution was intended to include that right when when ratified.

Years ago, someone argued to me that in the right case, the Sup. Ct. could overturn Roe then declare abortion illegal in the same decision. I would oppose that. That would not be constitutional. Murder, generally, is not outlawed by the federal government because it is properly a state law issue.

This leads to constant end runs around the legislature. I may not like what my state legislature or Congress does at times, but at least when they make new laws, they are following the Constitution's blueprint.

I would be immensely pleased if this decision returned the abortion fight to the state legislatures where it always should have been. I may or may not agree with what the legislatures do with that responsibility, but at least in the legislative process, to some extent, what the people want matters.

The process matters as much as the result because if we choose to ignore the process (as is common) looking only for our desired result, everything become arbitrary and anarchy or dictatorship are just around the corner. What ever gets the result, right?

Clearly a radical. Where were you Jan. 6?

 

[HoughMade]

Clearly a radical. Where were you Jan. 6?

I have time sheets to prove what I was doing every minute of the 32 hours that day.

 

[phylodog]

Only leftists would think voting democrat this November would change a SCOTUS decision back in their favor.

 

[HoughMade]

Only leftists would think voting democrat this November would change a SCOTUS decision back in their favor.

Correct....except for court packing.

 

[KG1]

Before going to law school, I was morally opposed to abortion.

After I read Roe and Griswold before it, I was royally PISSED that the Supreme Court was making up rights on the fly and paying little to no attention to what the Constitution actually said, choosing instead to enact the whims of at least 5 of 9 flatulent old men (and now men and women).

Here's the thing- I am still morally opposed to abortion, but I would be royally PISSED if the Supreme Court used the same logic to declare a constitutional right to something I favored. It's bad law and it flies in the face of the founders intention to allow the judiciary to declare rights where there is no basis to believe that any part of the Constitution was intended to include that right when when ratified.

Years ago, someone argued to me that in the right case, the Sup. Ct. could overturn Roe then declare abortion illegal in the same decision. I would oppose that. That would not be constitutional. Murder, generally, is not outlawed by the federal government because it is properly a state law issue.

This leads to constant end runs around the legislature. I may not like what my state legislature or Congress does at times, but at least when they make new laws, they are following the Constitution's blueprint.

I would be immensely pleased if this decision returned the abortion fight to the state legislatures where it always should have been. I may or may not agree with what the legislatures do with that responsibility, but at least in the legislative process, to some extent, what the people want matters.

The process matters as much as the result because if we choose to ignore the process (as is common) looking only for our desired result, everything become arbitrary and anarchy or dictatorship are just around the corner. What ever gets the result, right?

I agree. Overturning Roe v Wade is based upon returning the issue to proper legislative procedures outlined by the Constitution. While it doesn't make the issue itself more palatable it will right a judicial overstep by a previous SCOTUS.

 

[Cameramonkey]

And when your friends and family say its settled case law and cant be overturned, remind them of the Dred Scott decision.

(SCOTUS ruled that just because he escaped to a free state he was still a slave.)

 

[BigRed]

If everyone were more like BigRed, you'd have some pretty stiff competition for your other offer. So you're probably talking $5M instead of $5B. Still. Not a bad haul if you're the lucky one.

"More like" does not equal "same as".

"Luck" does not factor into the equation.

$5B. Deed is done.

 

[hoosierdoc]

It's amazing how historical precedent only matters to the left once they've changed the historical precedent once.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

And when your friends and family say its settled case law and cant be overturned, remind them of the Dred Scott decision.

(SCOTUS ruled that just because he escaped to a free state he was still a slave.)

But then Dred became a judge and showed them all!

 

[jamil]

I doubt they offered anything. More likely, they have dirt on him.

His name was on the Lolita Express list.

 

[Shadow01]

I'm sure Mitch will deliver for that interest group just as well as he delivered for gun owners last time the Republicans controlled all three.

Just like they got rid of obamacare

 

[Expat]

I was watching the VP this morning ranting about how you can't tell a woman what she can do with her body. I assume that goes for prostitution, drugs...

 

[jamil]

Then wouldn't Breyer be able to leak it without much to worry about?

Could have been Breyer. He strikes me as a traditional liberal. Not so much the postmodern activist ideologue. I’d be surprised if it came from him. But I guess anyone fresh out of IVY league law school working for a lefty judge would do something like this. But I’ll acknowledge that my intuition is to assume it’s a purely ideological motive. It’s possible it has a monetary motive.

 

[jamil]

I was watching the VP this morning ranting about how you can't tell a woman what she can do with her body. I assume that goes for prostitution, drugs...

Someone should ask her why she’s so certain this affects women uniquely. Wouldn’t it affect any birthing person?

 

[rooster]

At what point does this all lead to terrorism charges?

There are now groups and people openly threatening the court because they didn’t get their way and clearly whomever leaked the document had this in mind when they leaked it.

Like it or not the Jan 6 events kinda set a precedent for how this type of thing is handled.

 

[BigRed]

At what point does this all lead to terrorism charges?

There are now groups and people openly threatening the court because they didn’t get their way and clearly whomever leaked the document had this in mind when they leaked it.

Like it or not the Jan 6 events kinda set a precedent for how this type of thing is handled.

We will just have to wait to be told by the ministry of truth.