Roe is dead

OUBubba said:
I’m unsure why the left is in shock. This has been coming for years.

I look forward to the surge in foster parents and adoptions that will come from the pro-life crowd. **** in one hand and wish in the other. See which one fills up faster.
Click to expand...

I want to see you **** in your hands. We'll get to the wish part , later.
 
I like Kamala a lot; quite aside from that delightful laugh of hers, always being deployed in such unlikely moments, there is the fact that she has achieved a level of mental ability equal to Joe's in just half the time. How is that possible? Would I like to see a point/counterpoint between those two? Most certainly.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Apparently Billy Joe Armstrong of Green Day is renouncing his citizenship and moving to the UK. Typical stupidity of the modern Left. He craps on his own country to move to a country with tighter abortion laws than in his home state.

(Of course, the tax rates in UK may make him rethink think decision.)
Click to expand...
This decision gets better each day.
 
Well, for a brief window in time, I had an avatar and signature that was directly on point to this… until our Moderator got complaints about it…
 
So, despite warnings, Biden admin. was totally obtuse and asleep at the wheel for MONTHS re the upcoming baby formula shortage ....

Yet, predictably, see the reactions to Roe vs. Wade decision being returned to the STATES. Including Pocahontas Warren and AOC quickly stepped up & want the Feds to create "Abortion Camps" on Federal lands in RED states. You know, to help kill babies in any states abortions are limited or forbidden.

There is much more I'd like to state re, but will only say these hateful reps and their ilk are evil ********!

Why aren't you showing similar passion for Americans suffering with RECORD inflation or a porous border letting in thousands including terrorists and criminals.
 
Last edited:
OUBubba said:
Let’s see some pro-lifers stepping up.
Click to expand...

There are roughly 1.3 million abortions every year and roughly 1.5 million seeking to adopt while only 54,000 women put babies up for adoption. International adoptions were roughly 20,000 per year until severe restrictions were passed. Seems to me there is plenty of demand considering we'll still have over 50% of the current abortions performed then a big part of the remaining less than 50% will keep their kids anyway. Much ado about nothing as we will still have a lot of people not being able to adopt.
 
How do y'all think this decision will impact the midterms?
There is so much hateful information out there, and for once it seemed the Right had regained some of the educated, middle class women they lost prior and after Trump. Also, I guess there will be no repercussions regarding the threats, vandalism, non-peaceful protests, but that is sadly to be expected these days.

They don't even know their beloved RBG herself thought the law was weak, (sorry I don't know the proper legal term for that, I never said I was an attorney!)
They don't understand that abortion wasn't in the Constitution.
They don't understand that it began as a privacy case more than an abortion case. I guess they don't believe in condoms, birth control, morning after pills, or that each state will decide.

I will admit that I am in a bit of a grey area regarding abortion. My beautiful and smart niece was date raped in her first semester of college. I was her first call, and she was going to the student center the next day to get the morning after pill. But at that moment, I was so angry at this guy, who lived in her dorm, who she had to see daily, who received no punishment, who was not kicked out of Furman, or at least the dorms...well, if she had been pregnant through no fault of her own, I wouldn't have wanted her to leave school for a year to have a child. As it was, her grades suffered significantly over the next couple of semesters, which hurt the law school she could attend. Unbelievably, she pulled it together and graduated cum laud, and was accepted at Emory Law.

But I also saw sorority sisters have more than one abortion and used it as a form of birth control, which sickened me then and now.

I do agree that it sure seems like the new members of SCOTUS were disingenuous when they claimed Roe was "settled law."

And I have no idea what to believe about Clarence Thomas. Is he really talking about reversing things such as gay marriage? My friends are going ape shite over this, and I have read some articles that seem to say it is true.
That would be very bad.
A few of my OG liberal friends who are lawyers and judges have told me they are surprised it took Roe this long to overturn.

Coming on the heals of the gun decision, and now the prayer decision, I am worried that the Right and moderates will somehow muck this up.

It will be interesting to see the polls in the next several weeks. Beto is gaining on Abbott, if you believe the polls.
I would like to hear what the learned brains of Hornfans think.
 
Which polls show Beta gaining on Abbott?
You are right. It will be interesting to see polls in next weeks
And their internals
 
As I think about it, maybe these absolute loons in favor of abortion SHOULD be allowed to do it. Who wants more of them being spawned? Maybe they are on to something.
 
Why didn't the Rs bring up, pun intended, all of this when she was on her moral high ground soap box during Kavanaugh?

RINOs, that's why.
 
Hollandtx said:
How do y'all think this decision will impact the midterms?
There is so much hateful information out there, and for once it seemed the Right had regained some of the educated, middle class women they lost prior and after Trump. Also, I guess there will be no repercussions regarding the threats, vandalism, non-peaceful protests, but that is sadly to be expected these days.

They don't even know their beloved RBG herself thought the law was weak, (sorry I don't know the proper legal term for that, I never said I was an attorney!)
They don't understand that abortion wasn't in the Constitution.
They don't understand that it began as a privacy case more than an abortion case. I guess they don't believe in condoms, birth control, morning after pills, or that each state will decide.

I will admit that I am in a bit of a grey area regarding abortion. My beautiful and smart niece was date raped in her first semester of college. I was her first call, and she was going to the student center the next day to get the morning after pill. But at that moment, I was so angry at this guy, who lived in her dorm, who she had to see daily, who received no punishment, who was not kicked out of Furman, or at least the dorms...well, if she had been pregnant through no fault of her own, I wouldn't have wanted her to leave school for a year to have a child. As it was, her grades suffered significantly over the next couple of semesters, which hurt the law school she could attend. Unbelievably, she pulled it together and graduated cum laud, and was accepted at Emory Law.

But I also saw sorority sisters have more than one abortion and used it as a form of birth control, which sickened me then and now.

I do agree that it sure seems like the new members of SCOTUS were disingenuous when they claimed Roe was "settled law."

And I have no idea what to believe about Clarence Thomas. Is he really talking about reversing things such as gay marriage? My friends are going ape shite over this, and I have read some articles that seem to say it is true.
That would be very bad.
A few of my OG liberal friends who are lawyers and judges have told me they are surprised it took Roe this long to overturn.

Coming on the heals of the gun decision, and now the prayer decision, I am worried that the Right and moderates will somehow muck this up.

It will be interesting to see the polls in the next several weeks. Beto is gaining on Abbott, if you believe the polls.
I would like to hear what the learned brains of Hornfans think.
Click to expand...

Re: Clarence Thomas's concurrence. There is disagreement on the Right about the substantive due process (SDP) doctrine. This is the idea that the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments protect unenumerated, so-called "fundamental" rights. (There is pretty much no debate about it on the Left. They love SDP, because it's a massive source of judicial power they can wield to get their way when they lose in the political branches.) Some on the Right are OK with SDP in principle but think liberal courts have misused it - meaning they've said that many of the rights they've assumed into law aren't really fundamental. Some, like Don Willett would also like to use SDP to impose a laissez-faire economic policy, such as reviving the Lochner Doctrine that struck down minimum wage laws.

Others on the Right (like Thomas, Bork, and myself) think the entire doctrine is wrong. First, not only is it not in the Constitution, the very concept of substantive due process is an oxymoron. It is the opposite of what the law actually says, and let's remember what a court is. It is supposed to apply laws (especially acts of Congress, including the Constitution) to facts. Well, if it's acting without a law to support its actions and definitely when it's acting in opposition to the written law (as every SDP case is), its actions are wholly illegitimate and an abuse of judicial power.

Second, though the SDP doctrine has come up with certain criteria it considers to determine if a right is "fundamental," all of those criterion are subjective and can be spun in any direction. In practice, a right is deemed "fundamental" if the Court is sympathetic to it, and it is not deemed fundamental if the Court isn't sympathetic to it. It's nothing more than an exercise of raw and lawless judicial power regardless of who is doing it and to what end.

Here's where it gets really dicey. SDP is the legal mechanism by which the substantive rights in the Bill of Rights (like freedom of speech, religion, etc.) get applied to the states. If you dump it, most of the gun rights cases go. The religious liberty cases also go. A state could theoretically declare an official religion, have taxpayer funded churches, etc. unless they were prohibited by state law. (The procedural rights like right to a trial by jury, right to counsel, etc. would not be affected.)

Though Justice Thomas rejects the entire doctrine, the rest of the Court (including the other conservative justices) do not. Otherwise, they would have joined his opinion instead of Alito's. I'm not sure why gay marriage would necessarily have to go. Though Obergfell relied in part on SDP, it also relied on the equal protection clause. That means you could dump SDP and keep gay marriage. Same for interracial marriage. So is gay marriage really in jeopardy? No. Even if Thomas wanted to dump it, he's one vote. The rest were very clear that they weren't going to do that.

Re: the justices calling Roe "settled law." They weren't disingenuous. When they were answering, they were doing so based on the circumstances at that time. It was settled law. Something can be settled and still be overturned. See Plessy v. Ferguson, which was very much settled law - until it wasn't. They never promised not to overturn it. During their confirmation hearings, Earl Warren and William Brennan would have said the same thing about Plessy.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Re: Clarence Thomas's concurrence. There is disagreement on the Right about the substantive due process (SDP) doctrine. This is the idea that the due process clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments protect unenumerated, so-called "fundamental" rights. (There is pretty much no debate about it on the Left. They love SDP, because it's a massive source of judicial power they can wield to get their way when they lose in the political branches.) Some on the Right are OK with SDP in principle but think liberal courts have misused it - meaning they've said that many of the rights they've assumed into law aren't really fundamental. Some, like Don Willett would also like to use SDP to impose a laissez-faire economic policy, such as reviving the Lochner Doctrine that struck down minimum wage laws.

Others on the Right (like Thomas, Bork, and myself) think the entire doctrine is wrong. First, not only is it not in the Constitution, the very concept of substantive due process is an oxymoron. It is the opposite of what the law actually says, and let's remember what a court is. It is supposed to apply laws (especially acts of Congress, including the Constitution) to facts. Well, if it's acting without a law to support its actions and definitely when it's acting in opposition to the written law (as every SDP case is), its actions are wholly illegitimate and an abuse of judicial power.

Second, though the SDP doctrine has come up with certain criteria it considers to determine if a right is "fundamental," all of those criterion are subjective and can be spun in any direction. In practice, a right is deemed "fundamental" if the Court is sympathetic to it, and it is not deemed fundamental if the Court isn't sympathetic to it. It's nothing more than an exercise of raw and lawless judicial power regardless of who is doing it and to what end.

Here's where it gets really dicey. SDP is the legal mechanism by which the substantive rights in the Bill of Rights (like freedom of speech, religion, etc.) get applied to the states. If you dump it, most of the gun rights cases go. The religious liberty cases also go. A state could theoretically declare an official religion, have taxpayer funded churches, etc. unless they were prohibited by state law. (The procedural rights like right to a trial by jury, right to counsel, etc. would not be affected.)

Though Justice Thomas rejects the entire doctrine, the rest of the Court (including the other conservative justices) do not. Otherwise, they would have joined his opinion instead of Alito's. I'm not sure why gay marriage would necessarily have to go. Though Obergfell relied in part on SDP, it also relied on the equal protection clause. That means you could dump SDP and keep gay marriage. Same for interracial marriage. So is gay marriage really in jeopardy? No. Even if Thomas wanted to dump it, he's one vote. The rest were very clear that they weren't going to do that.

Re: the justices calling Roe "settled law." They weren't disingenuous. When they were answering, they were doing so based on the circumstances at that time. It was settled law. Something can be settled and still be overturned. See Plessy v. Ferguson, which was very much settled law - until it wasn't. They never promised not to overturn it. During their confirmation hearings, Earl Warren and William Brennan would have said the same thing about Plessy.
Click to expand...
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. We all knew that Gorsuch and Barrett were going to vote the way they voted. Kavanaugh would vote that way on payback alone. I'm shocked at the left that is acting shocked. It's like a slow motion thing we've seen coming since Scalia passed on.
 
OUBubba said:
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. We all knew that Gorsuch and Barrett were going to vote the way they voted. Kavanaugh would vote that way on payback alone. I'm shocked at the left that is acting shocked. It's like a slow motion thing we've seen coming since Scalia passed on.
Click to expand...
Substantive due process was the faulty premise behind approving Roe in the first place. The current court is rolling that back, though they didn't have to do so. They could have practically gutted Roe by their decision in the Dobbs case without specifically addressing Roe, but they went the extra step. The essence of Robert's dissent was "why specifically remove Roe when it isn't necessary to do so"? He voted with the majority in Dobbs.
 
OUBubba said:
Don't piss down my back and tell me it's raining. We all knew that Gorsuch and Barrett were going to vote the way they voted. Kavanaugh would vote that way on payback alone. I'm shocked at the left that is acting shocked. It's like a slow motion thing we've seen coming since Scalia passed on.
Click to expand...

They aren't shocked. They're pretending they are to fire up the base and divert attention from 8 percent inflation and $7 gas.
 
Sangre Naranjada said:
Substantive due process was the faulty premise behind approving Roe in the first place. The current court is rolling that back, though they didn't have to do so.
Click to expand...

Be careful. They're not be really rolling back SDP. They're just saying that the Roe Court incorrectly applied the SDP analysis. Sounds nitpicky, but it makes a big difference for the applicability to other SDP cases.
 
Mr. Deez said:
Because some white nationalist assclown speaks for the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...
this guy is just hyperbole click bait trying to generate hits. No one would ever intentionally describe themselves as Taliban to promote their cause....unless their actual purpose was just to create controversy and clicks.
 
BrntOrngStmpeDe said:
this guy is just hyperbole click bait trying to generate hits. No one would ever intentionally describe themselves as Taliban to promote their cause....unless their actual purpose was just to create controversy and clicks.
Click to expand...
The issue is that these are the drivers of the boat on that side of the lake. Believe me, we have issues with our drivers of the boat as well. This "base" won't compromise and would cut off their own appendages to "own the libs".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top