Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice

[Coyote]

it means the same for keep your experimental shots away from me.

If the federal governmentforced all American's to have any vaccination against their will, I would not support that.

My body, my choice.

fundamental rights are about as local as you can be. if you don't protect them at that level, you really don't have them.

I don't think so - what one locality might think of as a "fundamental right" might not be thought so by another. It seems to me that fundamental rights must apply to all across the board. It is one thing that is responsibility of the federal government to protect even when local levels reject them.

going to the feds seems to be an escalation of a decision you don't like. while I agree the right is going too far, I also feel the left has been pushing their idealogy for years.

You feel the left has been pushing their ideology for years....and I feel the right has. So we aren't going agree on that whatsoever.

The feds, in the form of the Supreme Court SHOULD be the final abritor of fundamental rights but that seems to be eroding, evidenced by the increasing number of sharply ideologically split decisions that we've seeing for a while or things like the demonizing of Roberts for not ruling in line with conservative ideology.

The original Roe ruling was 7-2 in support of it.

For:
Henry Blackmun (Nixon)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower)
William Brennan (Eisenhower)
Thurgood Marshall (Johnson)
William Douglas (FDR)
Lewis Powell (Nixon)
Warren Burger (Nixon)

Opposed:
William Rehnquist (Nixon)
Byron White (Kennedy)

Compare that to the sharply ideological splits today...

remove this statue. we just want this one statue gone, the left said. the problem is, that was bullshit n everyone knew it but played along.

I'm sure you disagree, but what you are seeing today is a direct result of years of pushing "woke" bullshit. if I don't have a right to say you can't have an abortion, there's a lot of shit the left does to tell others how to live many don't care, because they agree.

The pendulum swings to far on both sides and then swings back. Yes, the left goes too far which creates pushback from the right. But yes, the right also goes too far which creates pushback from the left. Just depends on the era. What is happening now though (again, imo) is that the pushback from the right has turned into broad overreach (ie, for example pursuing women across state lines to prevent them from getting an abortion) and our political systems are so messed up there might not be a political pushback to this to match the cultural pushback. That might be unduly pessamistic.

BUT I don't think the statue example is comparable, it's more a part of a litany of rightwing grievances against what they perceive as leftwing excess AND in some cases I do agree with them.

But, IMO, there is a frequent blurring of the actions of culture and the actions of legislature when it's usually the legislative actions that most directly affect our rights and freedoms. We can argue about statues (or more accurately...history, since at one time there was a push to install confederate monuments and now there is a push to remove them...) but has Congress passed any laws regarding these? On the other hand Congress has passed laws that have substantially affected rights at one time or another.

finding agreement in views isn't a justification of them. only validation others feel that way too.

right or wrong is what you fight about. push hard one way, it eventually flips and never centralizes but goes extreme the other way.

here we go.

I tend to believe in the power of balance - push too far, too fast and there will be a counter move to it. We are in the midst of multiple counter moves but (again, my opinion) within that rights countermove in regards to the culturewars - they trying to overturn something that is really not a part of the current culture war, and that is because they finally have the power to do it even though they LACK majority support from Americans to do so.

 

[Coyote]

My god you're an idiot or the boldest liar humanly possible. Judicial activism is a leftist thing, correcting the leftist direction the court is going is not activism it's called constitutionalism.

You just keep on believing that hon'....you know what the rightwing definition of "judicial activism" is don't you?

"When the other guy does something I don't like".

'nuff said.

 

[meaner gene]

Radical? All it means is it's up to the states to decide if they want to allow abortion in their state. Some states will, some won't. You call that radical? Give me a break.

It's no different than some states allow marijuana and some don't, helmet laws, some kinds of traffic laws, and so on.

The argument that something is not explicitly enumerated in the constitution rings hollow, because the constitution clearly acknowledges the declaration of independences contention that all men are created equal, and endowed by their created with certain inalienable rights. Rights that come from God and not from the constitution. These being the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Some rights can't be the purview of states when they transit between states, in order for people to have the privileges and immunities of the several states.

 

[meaner gene]

And the Constitution doesn’t make any reference to an allegedly fundamental “right” to abort a human life.

The constitution doesn't make any reference to an allegedly fundamental "right to marry" either.

Yet, without any mention at all, it's considered a fundamental right also.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You just keep on believing that hon'....you know what the rightwing definition of "judicial activism" is don't you?

"When the other guy does something I don't like".

'nuff said.

Dumbass, you can lie too yourself all that you want but when you lie to me I will call you out. activism goals is to change the standard trying to re-correct activism is a leftist thing. Conservatives trying to keep America in guidance of the Constitution is not activism.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The constitution doesn't make any reference to an allegedly fundamental "right to marry" either.

Yet, without any mention at all, it's considered a fundamental right also.

Right to marry isn't a fundamental right it's a man given privilege because it also need a license.

 

[meaner gene]

The Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what GOVERNMENT can do to the individual. And one final option.

Government confers NO RIGHTS. Government takes Rights away.

That is all Governments have ever done.

Starting with that premise, you realize that means those rights the government doesn't explicitly have the power to deny, is an inalienable right that is preserved to the people.

 

[iceberg]

If the federal governmentforced all American's to have any vaccination against their will, I would not support that.

My body, my choice.



I don't think so - what one locality might think of as a "fundamental right" might not be thought so by another. It seems to me that fundamental rights must apply to all across the board. It is one thing that is responsibility of the federal government to protect even when local levels reject them.



You feel the left has been pushing their ideology for years....and I feel the right has. So we aren't going agree on that whatsoever.

The feds, in the form of the Supreme Court SHOULD be the final abritor of fundamental rights but that seems to be eroding, evidenced by the increasing number of sharply ideologically split decisions that we've seeing for a while or things like the demonizing of Roberts for not ruling in line with conservative ideology.

The original Roe ruling was 7-2 in support of it.

For:
Henry Blackmun (Nixon)
Potter Stewart (Eisenhower)
William Brennan (Eisenhower)
Thurgood Marshall (Johnson)
William Douglas (FDR)
Lewis Powell (Nixon)
Warren Burger (Nixon)

Opposed:
William Rehnquist (Nixon)
Byron White (Kennedy)

Compare that to the sharply ideological splits today...


The pendulum swings to far on both sides and then swings back. Yes, the left goes too far which creates pushback from the right. But yes, the right also goes too far which creates pushback from the left. Just depends on the era. What is happening now though (again, imo) is that the pushback from the right has turned into broad overreach (ie, for example pursuing women across state lines to prevent them from getting an abortion) and our political systems are so messed up there might not be a political pushback to this to match the cultural pushback. That might be unduly pessamistic.

BUT I don't think the statue example is comparable, it's more a part of a litany of rightwing grievances against what they perceive as leftwing excess AND in some cases I do agree with them.

But, IMO, there is a frequent blurring of the actions of culture and the actions of legislature when it's usually the legislative actions that most directly affect our rights and freedoms. We can argue about statues (or more accurately...history, since at one time there was a push to install confederate monuments and now there is a push to remove them...) but has Congress passed any laws regarding these? On the other hand Congress has passed laws that have substantially affected rights at one time or another.


I tend to believe in the power of balance - push too far, too fast and there will be a counter move to it. We are in the midst of multiple counter moves but (again, my opinion) within that rights countermove in regards to the culturewars - they trying to overturn something that is really not a part of the current culture war, and that is because they finally have the power to do it even though they LACK majority support from Americans to do so.

since Biden took office, which side has been trying to change the rules solely for their benefit?

which side was rioting in the streets, demanding social change?

which senators n congressmen were helping tear down statues?

which side doxes at will n demands we, cancel anyone disagreeing with their mindset?

which side is pushing sex ed at a very young age?

denying all this is happening doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[BluesLegend]

If the left can't manipulate the US Constitution they attack it or ignore it. Remember Dems have zero respect for the Constitution or our laws when it gets in the way of their radical Dem agenda.

 

[meaner gene]

Dumbass, you can lie too yourself all that you want but when you lie to me I will call you out. activism goals is to change the standard trying to re-correct activism is a leftist thing. Conservatives trying to keep America in guidance of the Constitution is not activism.

You realize that the original constitution is in many way abhorrent to our way of life. It has been 27 times changed to make us a more perfect union.

 

[meaner gene]

You just keep on believing that hon'....you know what the rightwing definition of "judicial activism" is don't you?

"When the other guy does something I don't like".

'nuff said.

Recognizing an inalienable right of the people, is now "judicial activism".

 

[Coyote]

when did birth control become a fundamental right? the scotus as I can see is simply saying there is no constitutional basis for the federal gov making this decision.

Access to birth control is fundamental right. The ability of a woman to control how many children to have is a fundamental right. Privacy is a fundamental right (otherwise the state could legally spy on us for any reason at any time). It doesn't need to be specifically enumerated in the Constitution to be a right or we are royally screwed.

calling something not in the constitution "fundamental" is when we start going sideways.

Disagree. The problem is we no longer live in the world of 1776 and 300 years have made tremendous changes in our view of what constitutes rights and a lot of other things. The Constitution and Bill of Rights, are deliberately worded to be broad enough to acknowledge this without restricting us to the mores of a bygone era.

show me where this fundamental right exists in the bill of rights and I can work to support it.

There are a LOT of things not specifically enumerated that we take as rights but are interpreted by various legal scholars to be. One example:

The 4th Article/2nd Amendment- which starts out with "A well regulated Militia..." does not specifically enumerate the idea of everyone being allowed to have a gun outside of the militia, yet a portion of Americans take that as a "right" (not arguing 2A, just using it as an example)...but that is really irrelevant because of Amendment X:

Amendment X​

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.

In other words, just because there is a list of rights in the Constitution, that doesn't mean those are the ONLY rights or that the government can take away other rights that are not listed.

 

[Coyote]

since Biden took office, which side has been trying to change the rules solely for their benefit?

which side was rioting in the streets, demanding social change?

which senators n congressmen were helping tear down statues?

which side doxes at will n demands we, cancel anyone disagreeing with their mindset?

which side is pushing sex ed at a very young age?

denying all this is happening doesn't mean it isn't.

You and I can agrue of which side blah blah blah til the cows come home, but is it really relevant? We each have our biases and our points of view.

 

[meaner gene]

Right to marry isn't a fundamental right it's a man given privilege because it also need a license.

Marriage is a fundamental right. It existed long before governments existed to oversee it. It was a right bestowed by the created upon the created. And enjoys a historical record older than recorded records.

 

[2aguy]

“America is a different place, with most of its population born after Roe was decided. And a decision to overturn Roe — which the court seems poised to do, according to the leak of a draft of a majority opinion from Justice Samuel Alito — would do more to replicate Roe’s damage than to reverse it.

It would be a radical, not conservative, choice.

What is conservative? It is, above all, the conviction that abrupt and profound changes to established laws and common expectations are utterly destructive to respect for the law and the institutions established to uphold it — especially when those changes are instigated from above, with neither democratic consent nor broad consensus.”

Opinion | Overturning Roe Is a Radical, Not Conservative, Choice (Published 2022)

An abrupt and profound change to an established law is utterly destructive to respect for the law.

www.nytimes.com

Overturning Roe is therefore repugnant to conservativism – it is radical, extreme, reckless, and irresponsible.

Since when is ending murder....in those states that end murder of babies...radical?

 

[2aguy]

giving the states back power.

I'm fine with that.

Yep......we will then have baby killing states, states that limit, but allow baby killing, then states that stop killing babies.......

It really is that simple.

 

[meaner gene]

If the left can't manipulate the US Constitution they attack it or ignore it. Remember Dems have zero respect for the Constitution or our laws when it gets in the way of their radical Dem agenda.

You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document, and requires changes in order to make us a more perfect union.

Attacking the Constitution is thus a requirement. The difference is whether the attack is to make it better or worse. Whether to take away rights, restore rights, or expand rights.

 

[2aguy]

You realize that the Constitution itself says that it's a flawed document, and requires changes in order to make us a more perfect union.

Attacking the Constitution is thus a requirement. The difference is whether the attack is to make it better or worse. Whether to take away rights, restore rights, or expand rights.

And there is a process to change the Constitution.........

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You realize that the original constitution is in many way abhorrent to our way of life. It has been 27 times changed to make us a more perfect union.

No it hasn't but try a little harder next time.

 

[meaner gene]

Since when is ending murder....in those states that end murder of babies...radical?

Nobody is killing babies, they are terminating unviable fetuses.