Roe Vs Wade Overturned

[StrictlyBiz]

(06-24-2022, 05:31 PM)grampahol Wrote: Screw this 9 person appointed for life bullshit room full of nutbags..  Make all decisions the impact every American a decision we all have an equal vote in. 

vs this 350 million person bullshit country full of nutbags 

[*Nately120*]

(06-24-2022, 06:07 PM)grampahol Wrote: Life isn't as difficult as some make it out to be moving place to place. Nobody ever promised it would be easy, but it's always an option. Then again I am a bit of a strange bird myself.. I was willing to uproot and lose everything I owned a few times in life already .. You'd be surprised how quickly you acquire new crap after losing everything.. I moved to SC with an old guitar and the clothes on my back just about 8 years ago. I now have a full shop full of equipment, all new clothes and a whole lot of other crap I don't know what to do with anymore.. I dread the idea of moving again.. We've considered selling everything and taking off in a van  to parts unknown, but it's just myself and the Mrs and we have about $50000 in the bank between us and a house completely paid for worth about $250,000.. We could get a pretty slick van I suppose.. 

You and I were the same way, down to the guitar part.  With that being said, I'm the only one I know who did it.  Most people are more attached that you and I, and it seems like we are both not into moving now, so even we nomads settle down.

I don't think the average person is going to pull up stakes and move on because state X has thing Y legal.  It just isn't economically feasible and our wealth gap has further tethered people to their comfort zones.  Hell, I bet most folks are saddled with a wife and kids and stuff like that before they even get the itch to move anyplace else. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 05:56 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: What made our court system special was their respect for precedent. Now were like every other shithole country where we are at the mercy of what political party a judge happens to be.

You're right, precedent like Plessy V. Ferguson and the Dredd Scott case should really have been respected.  In addition to that obviously facetious remark I would point out that overruling past precedent is hardly new, unique, or all that rare.  The court has overturned precedent numerous times, according to this source 232 times since 1810.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions#:~:text=The%20Library%20of%20Congress%20tracks,since%201810%2C%20says%20the%20library.

Don't let emotion rule you, try logic and reason in its stead.

[grampahol]

(06-24-2022, 06:02 PM)basballguy Wrote: Bro, the right to bear arms is literally in the constitution.  You know this.  I get your frustration but it's supposed to be a simple formula....if it's in the constitution, you can expect federal laws.  If it's not...the states get it.

Edit:  And terminating pregnancy is not a "right"....we just think it is because it was loosely tied to privacy.  If it was a right it would be in the constitution.

The 2nd is still too vague and subject to interpretation like everything else in the constitution. People like to pretend it's all carved in stone and nothing can ever be changed, but the fact of the matter the constitution has been altered several times in the past in several ways.
If you want to go back to the 2nd it says gun rights should be directly tied to a well regulated militia which in modern speak would be our military, not whatever you can lay your hands on at a sporting goods store. leave it to the right to be our ever present interpreters of everything.. including screwing and the results of it.

[basballguy]

(06-24-2022, 06:17 PM)grampahol Wrote: People like to pretend it's all carved in stone and nothing can ever be changed, but the fact of the matter the constitution has been altered several times in the past in several ways.

This is entirely the point!  If democrats and advocates really want abortion as a "right" then amend the constitution....it won't be the first time and it won't be the last.....at that point the discussion is over.  

The democrats had literally 50 years to get it in the constitution but never even tried because it wasn't convenient.  

[Bengalfan4life27c]

(06-24-2022, 06:14 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're right, precedent like Plessy V. Ferguson and the Dredd Scott case should really have been respected.  In addition to that obviously facetious remark I would point out that overruling past precedent is hardly new, unique, or all that rare.  The court has overturned precedent numerous times, according to this source 232 times since 1810.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions#:~:text=The%20Library%20of%20Congress%20tracks,since%201810%2C%20says%20the%20library.

Don't let emotion rule you, try logic and reason in its stead.

How many in the last 100 years?

[samhain]

(06-24-2022, 04:55 PM)WeezyBengal Wrote: 1. This isn't a Biden thing. Trump appointed the people responsible for this. Trump always wanted to overturn Roe vs. Wade. 

2. What you said is true, but I believe there was motive behind it. Why even mess with it if there wasn't? Federal government is staying out of it, but by doing so they are SEVERLY limiting a woman's right to an abortion and making it illegal for over half the Woman in the US. That is purposeful. If you think this is "giving people more power" then I just straight up disagree with that. Rights that were protected by the government are now not. 

3. I personally disagree with the decision. I have struggled with whether I am pro life or pro choice my entire life (and am still unsure to be honest) but the effects of this are going to be devastating. Woman who are raped or unable to provide or care for a child will be unable to have an abortion. Healthy woman who have a compromised pregnancy could be in danger by not being able to have an abortion. Crime rates will sky rocket. Mental health and families will deteriorate. 

It's a big deal. 

I don't think Trump personally wanted to overturn Roe.  He supported abortion rights for most of his life, right up until he decided to run for president as a Republican.  He didn't really love to talk about the issue.  Trump wanted a legacy more than the specific legislation, and the legislation is a significant milestone for the right to say the least.  There are plenty of rumors floating around about him telling people in confidence that he feels like the decision will hurt Republicans in the long term.  I'm not sure.

I think the ruling will push Trump further out from the party at a time when he's already fending off DeSantis.  Pence will gladly be the champion of theocracy's march on the Court, and he will do it earnestly and not as facade required to be a legit member of his party.

I personally don't feel like the ruling will be super-injurious to Republicans in November.  Biden is a horrific president and the midterms always favor party out of power anyway.  

I do, however think it's the start of a bad downward spiral for the right.  The far-right justices, particularly Thomas have already indicated that they will go after gay marriage and birth control if there's a path to ending either legally.  They won big and are now emboldened to institute theocracy, as they are indeed interested in remaking the nation as a pure  Christian state.  This will not be good for Republicans, particularly with birth control. Abortion is a tight issue in terms of percentages and support.  Birth control is likely not even close.  They need to tread carefully and avoid overreach.  if they don't they'll surpass the legislature as the most hated branch of government in short order.

[basballguy]

(06-24-2022, 06:25 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: How many in the last 100 years?

I wasn't lazy like you...i clicked the link

literally 200 were in the last 100 years.

It seems to happen very often these days

[grampahol]

(06-24-2022, 06:21 PM)basballguy Wrote: This is entirely the point!  If democrats and advocates really want abortion as a "right" then amend the constitution....it won't be the first time and it won't be the last.....at that point the discussion is over.  

The democrats had literally 50 years to get it in the constitution but never even tried because it wasn't convenient.  

Same argument could be made of Republicans when they had majorities in both houses and the presidency. They used abortion as a wedge issue for years to divide people and now that wedge is done..it's toast and they'll never get it back. They could have made it law of the land through legislation just like Democrats.. 
Demographics are not on Republican's side. They have to use courts to ram through nonsense the electorate doesn't want because the republican base is dying off.. 

[basballguy]

(06-24-2022, 06:40 PM)grampahol Wrote: Same argument could be made of Republicans when they had majorities in both houses and the presidency. They used abortion as a wedge issue for years to divide people and now that wedge is done..it's toast and they'll never get it back. They could have made it law of the land through legislation just like Democrats.. 
Demographics are not on Republican's side. They have to use courts to ram through nonsense the electorate doesn't want because the republican base is dying off.. 

Not the same.  The Republicans are fine with it being governed by the states...so why would they push to have it in the constitution?  

What's going on here is you're assuming every republican thinks abortion should be illegal.  Which isn't the case.  

The "republican base" is not dying off. It's just that democrats are reproducing at a much faster rate because they don't know how to use birth control.  If anything, the ruling on Roe v Wade today increases the number of democrats you'll have over time!  

What a time to be alive.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

A talking head on TV earlier said if Republicans gain control of both chambers mcconnell will refuse to pass a budget unless a federal abortion ban comes with it. Mcconnell is calculating and evil he plays the long game.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 06:25 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: How many in the last 100 years?

(06-24-2022, 06:29 PM)basballguy Wrote: I wasn't lazy like you...i clicked the link

literally 200 were in the last 100 years.

It seems to happen very often these days

No response to basballguy on this?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(06-24-2022, 06:55 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: A talking head on TV earlier said if Republicans gain control of both chambers mcconnell will refuse to pass a budget unless a federal abortion ban comes with it. Mcconnell is calculating and evil he plays the long game.

Oh, well then, it must be true if a "talking head" you can't even name said it.  After all, there's zero incentive for them to engage in hyperbole to boost ratings or anything is there? 

[grampahol]

(06-24-2022, 06:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Oh, well then, it must be true if a "talking head" you can't even name said it.  After all, there's zero incentive for them to engage in hyperbole to boost ratings or anything is there? 

What? A talking head ever be wrong? When did THAT start happening? I thought talking heads had to tell the truth all the time...You know..like the ones that predicted the Bengals would finish last in the AFCN last year.. JAIL THEM! 
I'm going out on a limb to predict the R's have shot their wad on abortion and will regret this for years to come.  Don't forget..Every sperm is sacred so STOP jerking off you evil bastrads! 

[Belsnickel]

So, I have mentioned this in a conversation before but I am with SSF on this for the most part. Hanging our hats on Roe was a doomed thing. The ruling was on shaky grounds. However, I believe there is a strong constitutional argument to be made. From my understanding, the issue of personhood has still not been decided with this decision. Personhood is still determined by viability based on precedent that hasn't been upended with this decision. If personhood is still understood to be at viability, this raises a 5th Amendment question with regards to liberty, as limiting abortion prior to viability restricts the liberty of a pregnant individual without due process under the law. With the 14th Amendment, this would also be a restriction on the states.

This is a different angle than has been used previously on abortion cases and rests on a base civil liberty, that of individual liberty. This means that questions of abortion should fall under strict scrutiny.

[Bengalfan4life27c]

(06-24-2022, 06:29 PM)basballguy Wrote: I wasn't lazy like you...i clicked the link

literally 200 were in the last 100 years.

It seems to happen very often these days

Link I seen 17 on the link I responded too that's hardly 200

[basballguy]

(06-24-2022, 07:46 PM)Bengalfan4life27c Wrote: Link I seen 17 on the link I responded too that's hardly 200

I don’t think you clicked the right link

[samhain]

The more I think about it, the more I agree with what Trump is allegedly telling his inner circle. This will damage Republicans immensely when it comes time to vote., The end of Roe was a fantasy for 50 years, and the idea of it becoming reality was mostly dismissed by anyone other than the fringes of either side.

Now that the deed is done, it will take time for large scale consequences to become part of the national consciousness. Weeks, months. Not years. Women in red states mostly sought abortions in silence. They could access clinics without drawing much attention to themselves. Now, we will see just how many unwanted pregnancies there really were.

Fun fact: Humans like sex. Another fun fact: Most sex is not initiated to procreate. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit. You will also hear about more and more cases of rape victims forced to carry babies to term. I dunno how much incest goes on, but I think it's logical to expect the return of some blue folk in Appalachian regions, lol.

In summary, things that were once relatively private will become much more public. As Americans digest this decision, it's popularity will trend down quickly. There will be a price to be paid at the polls in time.

[Au165]

(06-24-2022, 09:01 PM)samhain Wrote: The more I think about it, the more I agree with what Trump is allegedly telling his inner circle. This will damage Republicans immensely when it comes time to vote., The end of Roe was a fantasy for 50 years, and the idea of it becoming reality was mostly dismissed by anyone other than the fringes of either side.

Now that the deed is done, it will take time for large scale consequences to become part of the national consciousness. Weeks, months. Not years. Women in red states mostly sought abortions in silence. They could access clinics without drawing much attention to themselves. Now, we will see just how many unwanted pregnancies there really were.

Fun fact: Humans like sex. Another fun fact: Most sex is not initiated to procreate. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit. You will also hear about more and more cases of rape victims forced to carry babies to term. I dunno how much incest goes on, but I think it's logical to expect the return of some blue folk in Appalachian regions, lol.

In summary, things that were once relatively private will become much more public. As Americans digest this decision, it's popularity will trend down quickly. There will be a price to be paid at the polls in time.

Thomas bringing up Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell is the rallying cry to mobilize the midterm. Undoubtedly certain states will use that dog whistle to start on laws to potentially overturn those cases as he has given them an opening. Interesting though that he didn’t bring up Loving, almost like since that one effected his rights he didn’t want to reconsider it.

Thomas did them no favors with his separate opinion. He basically said the quiet part out loud that people have claimed could happen if one right was taken, that they wouldn’t stop there and would keep pushing. Many conservatives claimed those who said such things were being dramatic but now that the statement is out there the political ads are all but written. I really do think we will see a violent swing back into a competitive midterm.

[basballguy]

(06-24-2022, 09:44 PM)Au165 Wrote: Thomas bringing up Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell is the rallying cry to mobilize the midterm. Undoubtedly certain states will use that dog whistle to start on laws to potentially overturn those cases as he has given them an opening. Interesting though that he didn’t bring up Loving, almost like since that one effected his rights he didn’t want to reconsider it.

Thomas did them no favors with his separate opinion. He basically said the quiet part out loud that people have claimed could happen if one right was taken, that they wouldn’t stop there and would keep pushing. Many conservatives claimed those who said such things were being dramatic but now that the statement is out there the political ads are all but written. I really do think we will see a violent swing back into a competitive midterm.

You really thing something that impacts less than 1% of the population is going to outweigh inflation, supply chain issues, Ukraine, crashing 401ks and increasing debt?

You really think people are going to vote with their Facebook profile and not the issues that ACTUALLY impact their lives?

You are going to be severely disappointed

LATE EDIT: I didn't have full context of Thomas's comments so I should've waited before i said this.