More abortion insanity

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Apparently it doesnt.

Like I said...

So ,because some stranger on the internet didn't spoonfeed it to your ignorant ass, it doesn't exist.

Got it.

 

[ding]

Thanks.

I want a right, though. So we will wait for some of the assholes to die off, replace them, reinstitute the right.

The point was there was never a right. Didn't you read the ruling? There's nothing to re-institute.

 

[BlackSand]

Thanks.

I want a right, though. So we will wait for some of the assholes to die off, replace them, reinstitute the right.

.

If you want a Constitutionally Protected Right to Abortion ...
All you need is a Supermajority in the House and Senate, and 38 States to agree.

Why am I not surprised the only thing you can come up with is another stupid attempt to Legislate from the Bench ...

.​

 

[ding]

4!

No one has ever made that argument in that manner

 

[ding]

That's right. Go read why. Or stay ignorant to spite a stranger on the internet, when really only achieving the effect of keeping yourself ignorant. Your call.

No one has ever made that argument in that manner before.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you want a Constitutionally Protected Right to Abortion ...
All you need is a Supermajority in the House and Senate, and 38 States to agree.

Oh, that's all? Thanks!

Funny, we managed to have it for 49 years without that.

 

[Toro]

Not in this manner. And if you don't know the difference or why that is, it means you don't know enough about that to comment on it. Go read up before commenting on it again.

What do you mean by "not in this manner." SCOTUS has reversed its opinions before.

 

[ding]

Funny, we managed to have it for 49 years without that.

No one has ever managed it in that manner before.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

.

If you want a Constitutionally Protected Right to Abortion ...
All you need is a Supermajority in the House and Senate, and 38 States to agree.

Why am I not surprised the only thing you can come up with is another stupid attempt to Legislate from the Bench ...

.​

Both sides are talking about passing national legislation to either protect or get rid of abortion.

It will be interesting to see where this goes after the mid-terms

 

[TNHarley]

Like I said...

So ,because some stranger on the internet didn't spoonfeed it to your ignorant ass, it doesn't exist.

Got it.

5

 

[ding]

What do you mean by "not in this manner." SCOTUS has reversed its opinions before.

He won't say. It's a secret.

 

[BlackSand]

Oh, that's all? Thanks!

Funny, we managed to have it for 49 years without that.

.

And that's why it got overturned ...

.​

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The IRS didn't need one. All the trump fall out folks were taken without cause. Nope, demofks have shown that privacy is not a right.

If Americans aren't willing to police their own government that's their problem

 

[ding]

Both sides are talking about passing national legislation to either protect or get rid of abortion.

It will be interesting to see where this goes after the mid-terms

No one has ever talked before in that manner.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What do you mean by "not in this manner." SCOTUS has reversed its opinions before.

Never before have they violated Stare Decisis in this manner. In fact, they destroyed it,possibly forever.

I would suggest you let an expert explain it, go read up. It's not as if you would take my word for it anyway, and I am not asking anyone to do so.

 

[ding]

5

No one has ever replied with 5 before in that manner.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

.

And that's why it got overturned ...

.​

No, activist religious nutter judges with no respect for basic principles of jurisprudence is why it got overturned.

Not exactly something you are going to want in the scotus, going forward.

 

[ding]

Never before have they violated Stare Decisis in this manner. In fact, they destroyed it,possibly forever.

I would suggest you let an expert explain it, go read up. It's not as if you would take my word for it anyway, and I am not asking anyone to do so.

It's explained in the ruling. What part of that didn't you understand?

 

[marvin martian]

No, activist religious nutter judges with no respect for basic principles of jurisprudence is why it got overturned.

Not exactly something you are going to want in the scotus, going forward.

You know that Dobbs was brought by an abortion clinic that wanted to kill late-term babies, right? Nothing to do with religion. It was actually baby-killers like you who caused this, because of your blood lust.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

He's simply wrong, and can't admit, about the scotus creating privacy rights.

As I posted above, we have privacy rights, but abortion was different ... and it came down to religious grounds, plus Gorsuch - who simply is inconsistent in his judicial philosophy and reads the Federalist Papers and the const selectively to reach his desired position.

Equal Protection and the 8th Amend simply change with society. What Roberts cautioned with gay marriage being an "expanded right" right was that it would have to work out if it were left to the states, just as divorce worked out. Once society reached some "critical mass" with having to enforce judicial decrees from other states because of the full faith and credit act ... gay marriage would be a fact in all states. So, Loving was not really necessary either, but .... really, is that the society we want!? And at some point, capital punishment will be accepted in only a few states in the South, and at some point it will be "cruel and unusual."

But do we want a society where abortion will eventually be legal even in places like Ohio and even Missouri and Iowa, yet illegal in Alabama and Miss? That's what Lincoln proposed for slavery. I'm not sure of the answer. Personally I HATE theocrats. They are authoritarian and think their justification is God-given. Fuck that. Life is not fair. God doesn't give a shit about you or me or anybody. What happens after death is an individual concern, but don't burden me with someone else's myth. So, I wish we'd have just cut off their nuts in the 70s. (-: If we have to watch this play out for another 50 years ... that's what they won.

The Obergefell ruling made sense under the 14th Amendment and equal protection clause. What kind of mess would there be if a gay couple got married in New York and then moved to Mississippi who wouldn't recognize it, but that logic doesn't work with abortion. However, if you want to argue that banning abortion in some states violates equal protection of women in those states that might be a valid argument, which begs the question, why didn't the Berger court state that in the first place instead of pulling some invisible right to privacy out of their ass?