Most Liberals Appear to Be Clueless About the Supreme Court's Abortion Decision

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Equal Protection Clause (to me) was never a strong argument when you consider how it can be otherwise interpreted:

"The constitutional guarantee that no person or group will be denied the protection under the law that is enjoyed by similar persons or groups."

The way that this is worded does not make same-sex marriage unconstitutional if same-sex marriage is illegal for  everyone regardless of demographic. In this case, there is no legal protection for any same-sex couple to marry. The violation would exist if (for example) the law was protecting same-sex couples of a certain ethnicity but not others.

To simplify it further, if interracial same-sex couples are enjoying the protection under the law of same sex marriage then all same-sex couples of any race should be able to enjoy the same.

The equal protection applies to marriage, not same-sex marriage.

You are convoluting the issue more than it actually was. Read the decisions in those cases.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Roe v. Wade News Is Devastating for Active-Duty Military

Allison Gill, a U.S. Navy veteran, shares what this news means for those serving our country.

www.oprahdaily.com

All of that occurred 10 years ago. Your article is not current despite its claims.

 

[Derecho]

The equal protection applies to marriage, not same-sex marriage.

You are convoluting the issue more than it actually was. Read the decisions in those cases.

The Equal Protection Clause was applied to marriages in those specific cases but it has also been applied to cases involving racial segregation. The clause is intended to cover far more broadly than just marriage or any one specific social issue and the meat and potatoes of the clause revolve around equal protection of any given law regardless of group which is why there is a comparison being made within the clause. This can also be interpreted (as it was) as violating the protection of homosexual groups. There is much ambiguity in the way that it was written and lawyers have feasted for years on the ambiguity of amendments.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Your side spent decades lyiing about how they didn't want to overturn Roe.

Therefore, don't pretend you're not lying now when you say you're content with stopping here. You were lying then, you're lying now.

We know you want to keep going with your fascist agenda. You want a complete abortion ban, gay marriage ban, contraception, gay rights, interracial marriage, the list goes on.

How do we know this? You told us.

What woman in the United States can’t get an abortion after Friday’s decision?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The Equal Protection Clause was applied to marriages in those specific cases but it has also been applied to cases involving racial segregation. The clause is intended to cover far more broadly than just marriage or any one specific social issue and the meat and potatoes of the clause revolve around equal protection of any given law regardless of group which is why there is a comparison being made within the clause. This can also be interpreted (as it was) as violating the protection of homosexual groups. There is much ambiguity in the way that it was written and lawyers have feasted for years on the ambiguity of amendments.

I guess it just sucks to be you!

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Because it's like allowing a state legislature to regulate slavery.

Good grief. Not killing your child is like slavery

 

[BlueGin]

Jesus. Apples to tomato cans.

They have to invoke slavery to get the black people to fight for their cause of the day.

 

[busybee01]

Reading the hysterical, bizarre liberal reactions to the Supreme Court's abortion decision makes it obvious that most liberals have no clue what the decision actually says. If liberals would break free of their brainwashing and bother to read the Supreme Court's decision, or read a reliable summary of it, they would discover the following facts:

* The ruling does NOT overturn any state law on abortion, whether blue or red. Blue states that allow abortion can continue to do so.

* The ruling does not even attempt to establish any federal restrictions on abortion; it merely turns the issue back over to the states, where it belonged in the first place.

* The ruling does not prohibit a red state that bans abortion from becoming a blue state that allows abortion. This matter is left entirely up to each state.

Here's the full text of the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

The ruling is right wing liberal big government. Roe vs Wade was small government conservatism. The issue does not belong with the states. It belongs with individuals. The messaged that is sent is that women cannot be trusted to make the correct decision so we must force that decisio0n on them. This is pure fascism.

The full text is bullshit., It is a sexist document that relies on times when women had no right to even vote in this country.

 

[busybee01]

Good grief. Not killing your child is like slavery

It is not a child.

 

[busybee01]

If you find a libal that is NOT cluless please report it to Homeland Security. Much too dangerous to let run loose!

Right wing fascists are dangerous to America.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Come on GG, get off your fat retired Marine ass and prove they lied. You can't, but the exercise will do you good!

Marriage is a fundamental right, same sex or interacial.

Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, Supreme Court of the United States ruled the law violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was based solely on "distinctions drawn according to race" and outlawed conduct—namely, getting married—that was otherwise generally accepted and which citizens were free to do.

Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644, is a landmark civil rights case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Marriage is not in the listed in the Constitution, just as abortion is not.

Thus there is no fundamental right to marriage, according to the logic for revoking RvW

 

[frigidweirdo]

Reading the hysterical, bizarre liberal reactions to the Supreme Court's abortion decision makes it obvious that most liberals have no clue what the decision actually says. If liberals would break free of their brainwashing and bother to read the Supreme Court's decision, or read a reliable summary of it, they would discover the following facts:

* The ruling does NOT overturn any state law on abortion, whether blue or red. Blue states that allow abortion can continue to do so.

* The ruling does not even attempt to establish any federal restrictions on abortion; it merely turns the issue back over to the states, where it belonged in the first place.

* The ruling does not prohibit a red state that bans abortion from becoming a blue state that allows abortion. This matter is left entirely up to each state.

Here's the full text of the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Maybe these liberals are aware of the REALITY of what the Supreme Court decision will mean for half of America.

 

[eagle7-31]

Your side spent decades lyiing about how they didn't want to overturn Roe.

Therefore, don't pretend you're not lying now when you say you're content with stopping here. You were lying then, you're lying now.

We know you want to keep going with your fascist agenda. You want a complete abortion ban, gay marriage ban, contraception, gay rights, interracial marriage, the list goes on.

How do we know this? You told us.

Gee another stone cold gutless liar.

 

[mamooth]

Gee another stone cold gutless liar.

We're still waiting for your pledge to not take abortion restrictions any further.

If you're not lying about simply wanting states' rights, you'd do that.

You're no. That indicates that you're a proud servant of the Lord of Lies.

The other fascists here have been smart enough to just shut up. You should follow their example.

 

[mamooth]

What woman in the United States can’t get an abortion after Friday’s decision?

Since you're saying the decision will have no actual affect on abortions, then why did you push it?

Oh, that's right. You're a conservative. To you, actual results aren't the goal. Cruelty, control and fascism are the goal.

 

[Independentthinker]

Reading the hysterical, bizarre liberal reactions to the Supreme Court's abortion decision makes it obvious that most liberals have no clue what the decision actually says. If liberals would break free of their brainwashing and bother to read the Supreme Court's decision, or read a reliable summary of it, they would discover the following facts:

* The ruling does NOT overturn any state law on abortion, whether blue or red. Blue states that allow abortion can continue to do so.

* The ruling does not even attempt to establish any federal restrictions on abortion; it merely turns the issue back over to the states, where it belonged in the first place.

* The ruling does not prohibit a red state that bans abortion from becoming a blue state that allows abortion. This matter is left entirely up to each state.

Here's the full text of the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

Not to mention that liberals seem to have zero clue that the Supreme Court does not issue rulings about what is best or not best for the country or what their feelings and emotions are. They are there to address legalities only, not feelings or emotions. They decided that this is not a right granted by the Constitution because it is nowhere in the Constitution.

 

[Orangecat]

Reading the hysterical, bizarre liberal reactions to the Supreme Court's abortion decision makes it obvious that most liberals have no clue what the decision actually says. If liberals would break free of their brainwashing and bother to read the Supreme Court's decision, or read a reliable summary of it, they would discover the following facts:

* The ruling does NOT overturn any state law on abortion, whether blue or red. Blue states that allow abortion can continue to do so.

* The ruling does not even attempt to establish any federal restrictions on abortion; it merely turns the issue back over to the states, where it belonged in the first place.

* The ruling does not prohibit a red state that bans abortion from becoming a blue state that allows abortion. This matter is left entirely up to each state.

Here's the full text of the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

The useful idiots on the left have been told that the decision illegalizes abortion, when it does no such thing. If they could process information and think for themselves, they wouldnt be emotionally manipulated useful idiots.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Reading the hysterical, bizarre liberal reactions to the Supreme Court's abortion decision makes it obvious that most liberals have no clue what the decision actually says. If liberals would break free of their brainwashing and bother to read the Supreme Court's decision, or read a reliable summary of it, they would discover the following facts:

* The ruling does NOT overturn any state law on abortion, whether blue or red. Blue states that allow abortion can continue to do so.

* The ruling does not even attempt to establish any federal restrictions on abortion; it merely turns the issue back over to the states, where it belonged in the first place.

* The ruling does not prohibit a red state that bans abortion from becoming a blue state that allows abortion. This matter is left entirely up to each state.

Here's the full text of the decision:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

First, thanks for the post. Second, does it really surprise you Dims are well.....Dim?

These are the people who vote Dim year after year in places like Chicago, New York, Baltimore and Los Angeles, and then wonder why they live in complete shit holes?

There is nothing stupider than a Dim voter.

 

[Orangecat]

Your side spent decades lyiing about how they didn't want to overturn Roe.

Therefore, don't pretend you're not lying now when you say you're content with stopping here. You were lying then, you're lying now.

We know you want to keep going with your fascist agenda. You want a complete abortion ban, gay marriage ban, contraception, gay rights, interracial marriage, the list goes on.

How do we know this? You told us.

You are excellent at using bigotry to create straw men.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Still not a single pro-liar making the pledge to take their dictatorship-from-the-bench no further.

They're all liars, and they all know it.

Your butthurt is delicious.