Probable overturning of Roe v Wade

I presume a liberal justice had it leaked to get protesters out to scare some other judges into picking the keep Roe side.
 
bystander said:
I'm just reading what Biden, Schumer, AOC, Warren, Sanders et al are saying. Then there's tweets all over of shrieking ("I cried all night") Liberals. They think Republicans are monsters for giving the right back to the states.
Click to expand...
Extrapolating that what Biden, Schumer, et al have said in the last 24 hours as lamenting for late term abortions is irresponsible. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

I think the fear is as follows: Many people, including more than one SCOTUS judge, have told Congress that they weren't there to upend settled law. Turns out that's not accurate. The question is now, what's next? I saw a National Review person say "Brown v. Board of Education is next". We're heading towards The Handmaiden's Tale, in a world where the majority of the population is actually progressive.
 
OUBubba said:
Extrapolating that what Biden, Schumer, et al have said in the last 24 hours as lamenting for late term abortions is irresponsible. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

I think the fear is as follows: Many people, including more than one SCOTUS judge, have told Congress that they weren't there to upend settled law. Turns out that's not accurate. The question is now, what's next? I saw a National Review person say "Brown v. Board of Education is next". We're heading towards The Handmaiden's Tale, in a world where the majority of the population is actually progressive.
Click to expand...
There is a difference in upending 'settled law' versus revisiting an issue in light of a new and/or novel presentation of a question of law.

Sadly, the left is incapable of taking this into consideration while ignoring that Biden wanted to overturn the precedent some 40 years ago. And lest you question the source, I am even giving you a link to an article from some time back that appeared in the New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/us/politics/biden-abortion-rights.html
 
OUBubba said:
I think the fear is as follows: Many people, including more than one SCOTUS judge, have told Congress that they weren't there to upend settled law.
Click to expand...

Roe v. Wade is not "settled law." It is the most contentious and disputed case since Dred Scott. By the way, it's just a legally dubious. In fact, it was decided under the same doctrine.

OUBubba said:
The question is now, what's next? I saw a National Review person say "Brown v. Board of Education is next". We're heading towards The Handmaiden's Tale, in a world where the majority of the population is actually progressive.
Click to expand...

I don't know who said that, but it's nonsense, and anyone who says that doesn't understand why Roe is right to be overturned. The big difference is that there was textual support for Brown. There wasn't for Roe. Besides, a liberal court would more likely overturn Brown than a conservative court.
 
OUBubba said:
Extrapolating that what Biden, Schumer, et al have said in the last 24 hours as lamenting for late term abortions is irresponsible. If I'm wrong, please point it out.

I think the fear is as follows: Many people, including more than one SCOTUS judge, have told Congress that they weren't there to upend settled law. Turns out that's not accurate. The question is now, what's next? I saw a National Review person say "Brown v. Board of Education is next". We're heading towards The Handmaiden's Tale, in a world where the majority of the population is actually progressive.
Click to expand...
I could almost agree with your first paragraph, then you hypocritically did the same thing in the next paragraph.
 
OUBubba said:


Click to expand...


A few points. First, Dan Eberhart is a handjob. He has me blocked on Twitter and not for anything I said on Twitter. He has me blocked because I know something bad he did for which he would not have plausible deniability.

Second, Senator Braun is wrong. Again, there is actual constitutional text to restrict a state's right to ban interracial marriage.

Third, despite being wrong, saying something is a state issue isn't the same as wanting to ban it.

Finally, Peter Brimelow hasn't worked for NR for 20 years. His views have no bearing beyond that of any goofball off the street.
 
Last edited:
Mr. Deez said:
There is a libertarian argument in favor of abortion rights. It's basically the same argument that the Court applied in Dred Scott to justify slavery.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Those libertarians give me heart burn.

Libertarian theory is supposed to be about non-aggression except in defense. The argument equates pregnancy with aggression against a women. It is really a sick thought. A woman decides to have sex. Her reproductive organs work as intended. She goes through the natural process of pregnancy and birth. Birthing is intense. No doubt. It can even result in injury so I get that. But the baby isn't purposefully harming the woman. Also, abortion is a woman willfully aggressing against a baby that she is responsible for brining into the world.

It is a lazy way of looking at it in my view. It also doesn't include any other moral issues than aggression. It's oversimplified.
 
Biden has made millions over the last 50 years telling people what they want to hear in order to get kickbacks.
 
Mr. Deez said:
A few points. First, Dan Eberhart is a handjob. He has me blocked on Twitter and not for anything I said on Twitter. He has me blocked because I know something bad he did for which he would not have plausible deniability.

Second, Senator Braun is wrong. Again, there is actual constitutional text to restrict a state's right to ban interracial marriage.

Third, despite being wrong, saying something is a state issue isn't the same as wanting to ban it.

Finally, Peter Brimelow hasn't worked for NR for 20 years. His views have no bearing beyond that of any goofball off the street.
Click to expand...
I can't argue with any of that, as much as you know I'd love to. That said, drop some tea on the Eberhart thing...
 
OUBubba said:
I think it's a decision that shouldn't vary by state. It seems to me that when life begins is a question that should be answered for all states equally.
Click to expand...

The fact is that our political system does not give the Supreme Court the power to legalize abortion if there are State laws against it. It was bad logic, based on bad law, based on no science whatsoever.

The decision isn't when live begins. The decision is about laws restricting a procedure or not.

"should be answered for all states equally" is one of the most un-American statements I have heard. The states are sovereign entities unto themselves with broad authority.

The Federal government was made by the states. Ratified based on state results. The Federal government in the Constitution only has specified, limited powers. That is how the Federalists argued for the Constitution. No implied powers. Add implied powers after the fact is an act of dishonesty and betrayal of those who voted on ratification.
 
Monahorns said:
The fact is that our political system does not give the Supreme Court the power to legalize abortion if there are State laws against it. It was bad logic, based on bad law, based on no science whatsoever.

The decision isn't when live begins. The decision is about laws restricting a procedure or not.

"should be answered for all states equally" is one of the most un-American statements I have heard. The states are sovereign entities unto themselves with broad authority.

The Federal government was made by the states. Ratified based on state results. The Federal government in the Constitution only has specified, limited powers. That is how the Federalists argued for the Constitution. No implied powers. Add implied powers after the fact is an act of dishonesty and betrayal of those who voted on ratification.
Click to expand...
Disagree. We couldn't have a state decide that murder, or rape, or spousal abuse was legal. There are certain things that must be across the board. I'm not the arbiter of those things but it has to be that way.
 
OUBubba said:
Disagree. We couldn't have a state decide that murder, or rape, or spousal abuse was legal. There are certain things that must be across the board. I'm not the arbiter of those things but it has to be that way.
Click to expand...

Agree. The best I've come up with is pro-lifers know there is no federal law stating when abortion can be legal; therefore, each state should get to write when abortion can be legal. From the pro-life perspective, it's better to have no legal abortion in say, about half the states than legal in all 50. They'd all gladly support a federal law that banned it completely, but fear they'd get a federal law that would legalize it nationwide.
 
The argument is whether or not we are murdering viable babies. So, the Dallas Morning News goes viral with this one because it's apparently obvious to them that not allowing people to murder babies has a direct link to gay rights:

upload_2022-5-4_9-21-3.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top