Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Arturo Bandini]

You are not good at protesting, definitely not.

We don't have guns though and luckily so.
But we burn things in the streets, do barricades and enjoy a good fight against the police and then everyone goes home and come to protest the next week !

[*michaelsean*]

(05-11-2022, 01:33 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Americans seem to talk a big game about protesting and using guns to stand up to the government, but it's just an empty talking point.  

"The 2A is there so we are free to overthrow the government!"

"We are going to do something 80% of people don't want"

"We are going to protest that."

"You're breaking the law!"


And so on.  It's all talk isn't it?  I saw a Dr. Oz ad where his Turkish, Oprah-endorsed ass is wearing flannel and shooting guns over a bunch of country music and he mentions the second amendment and standing up to the government  I guess if he were still pro-choice he'd be packing heat right now, eh?

Just a slight distinction. The guns wouldn't be to overthrow the government.  They would be used to resist a tyrannical government.  

[*Nately120*]

(05-11-2022, 02:35 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Just a slight distinction. The guns wouldn't be to overthrow the government.  They would be used to resist a tyrannical government.  

Well the word tyranny is thrown around with as much abandon as the word freedom.  Our society is completely full of it.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-10-2022, 03:59 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Normally, yes.  However, as has been pointed out, and Sled provided the specifics, there is a law against trying to intimidate or influence a judge's decision.  If you want to argue whether that's what is happening or not, that's certainly a discussion that could be had.  But claiming it's the same as protesting outside a clinic is wrong, for reasons already provided.

Protesting outside of a clinic is one thing. SCotUS ruled back in '93 (I believe) that pro-birthers can protest outside of clinic employee's houses.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-11-2022, 08:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Protesting outside of a clinic is one thing. SCotUS ruled back in '93 (I believe) that pro-birthers can protest outside of clinic employee's houses.

Fair enough, but it does nothing to change the point being made.  As already demonstrated, with links to the applicable law, it is illegal to attempt to intimidate or dissuade a judge.  Protesting directly outside their home regarding a decision that has yet to be made absolutely falls into the category.  Otherwise, why are you there at all?  

[*Nately120*]

(05-11-2022, 08:25 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: Protesting outside of a clinic is one thing. SCotUS ruled back in '93 (I believe) that pro-birthers can protest outside of clinic employee's houses.

I also recall Fox "most powerful name in news" News broadcasting a lot of info on George "Baby Killer" Tiller and then when someone shot him they pulled the "woah, we don't control anyone!" card.  Much like the SC thing, the law is the law.

Maybe Biden could earn some liberal points by promising to pardon anyone who threatens a judge?  Show up, make noise...will be wild.  You'll never take back your rights with weakness.

[BigPapaKain]

(05-11-2022, 08:35 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Fair enough, but it does nothing to change the point being made.  As already demonstrated, with links to the applicable law, it is illegal to attempt to intimidate or dissuade a judge.  Protesting directly outside their home regarding a decision that has yet to be made absolutely falls into the category.  Otherwise, why are you there at all?  

'Protections for me not for thee' is a pretty shit way to govern.

When the government that is supposed to work for the people no longer works for the people, the people tend to get upset. Maybe the Supreme Court should've considered the will of the people before deciding to piss on what many of them have considered 'settled law'.

I'm past the point of giving a shit about the laws that protect the oligarchs of this country (the cited ones from before included). They should be intimidated at this point; the nonsense they've been pulling for the last 20+ years has gotten old.

[CKwi88]

(05-12-2022, 10:26 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 'Protections for me not for thee' is a pretty shit way to govern.

When the government that is supposed to work for the people no longer works for the people, the people tend to get upset. Maybe the Supreme Court should've considered the will of the people before deciding to piss on what many of them have considered 'settled law'.

I'm past the point of giving a shit about the laws that protect the oligarchs of this country (the cited ones from before included). They should be intimidated at this point; the nonsense they've been pulling for the last 20+ years has gotten old.

I can just imagine the closed-door conversations on this one. 

"Gosh darn this constitutional right to peacefully assemble"

"How 'bout we call it "intimidation" then we can say it's illegal!"

[*michaelsean*]

(05-12-2022, 11:22 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: I can just imagine the closed-door conversations on this one. 

"Gosh darn this constitutional right to peacefully assemble"

"How 'bout we call it "intimidation" then we can say it's illegal!"

So are you good with people protesting outside a juror's home in the middle of a trial?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2022, 10:26 AM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 'Protections for me not for thee' is a pretty shit way to govern.

Not really.  Intimidation of judges is a key component of a corrupt and unlawful society.  Simply ask anyone from Central and South America.  

Quote:When the government that is supposed to work for the people no longer works for the people, the people tend to get upset. Maybe the Supreme Court should've considered the will of the people before deciding to piss on what many of them have considered 'settled law'.

This sentence betrays a rather fundamental lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.  The SCOTUS in no way shape or form is there to represent the "will of the people".  And you should be happy about this as otherwise you wouldn't have gotten desegregated schools and same sex marriage.

Quote:I'm past the point of giving a shit about the laws that protect the oligarchs of this country (the cited ones from before included). They should be intimidated at this point; the nonsense they've been pulling for the last 20+ years has gotten old.

You may be comfortable living in a society of mob rule instead of the rule of law.  I most certainly am not.  

[BigPapaKain]

(05-12-2022, 11:45 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Not really.  Intimidation of judges is a key component of a corrupt and unlawful society.  Simply ask anyone from Central and South America.  



This sentence betrays a rather fundamental lack of understanding of the role of the Supreme Court.  The SCOTUS in no way shape or form is there to represent the "will of the people".  And you should be happy about this as otherwise you wouldn't have gotten desegregated schools and same sex marriage.


You may be comfortable living in a society of mob rule instead of the rule of law.  I most certainly am not.  

1. Peaceful protests aren't intimidation unless you're the kind of no spine judge whose afraid of people you wrongfully judge, at which point you kind of deserve it anyways.

2. Same sex and interracial marriages were the will of the people except for the minority of homophobes and racists. 

3. I want to live in a society where the minority doesn't get to dictate how the majority live. Just because you scream loudest doesn't make you right (I'm speaking of religious fundamentalists and the obscene idiots on the far side of any ideology). What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, and striking down Roe to open up women (i.e: the goose) to all kinds of frivolous lawsuits and back alley abortions is most certainly going to affect a lot more than just them.

[*Nately120*]

(05-12-2022, 12:20 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, and striking down Roe to open up women (i.e: the goose) to all kinds of frivolous lawsuits and back alley abortions is most certainly going to affect a lot more than just them.

True.  Being pregnant seems like a pretty big pain in the ass, but now you'd have to worry every time you leave the house your neighbors are going to call the police to attempt to get a reward for reporting you for maybe going to get an abortion.  Also, I keep brining up the maybe ridiculous, maybe not, possibility that a woman who miscarries is going to either have to announce to everyone that she miscarried or risk being the subject of an abortion-related witch-hunt. Hey, you don't really know me but I noticed you were pregnant and now you aren't and I don't see any baby and I've been told via facebook that you have family in a state that still allows abortion. You'd better start explaining!

Call me a defeatist, but no matter how lawful people react to the judges and this decision it seems like it's just opening the door for more unrest and legal chaos.

Then there is notion that politicians and voters call for unity and when the majority of people agree on upholding Roe they still let a few folks undo it.  Oof.  Ah well, hopefully the cure for what ails us is a population spike. 

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 12:20 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 1. Peaceful protests aren't intimidation unless you're the kind of no spine judge whose afraid of people you wrongfully judge, at which point you kind of deserve it anyways.

Ah now that is a gross oversimplification, imho.

A judge should have the right to follow his profession without fearing for his or his family's safety. Makes sense to me as a principle. And honestly, if people were protesting in front of my home because they vigorously feel I should do something differently, I'd feel very uneasy about their intentions and probably would consider it to be a personal threat as well. I don't think that makes me spineless.

Just consider this if you will, what if more conservative protesters would assemble in front of Judge Jacksons house because she wants to uphold Roe. Maybe you're pure in your convictions on this, but I guess many people that endorse protests in front of Alito's house would take quite a different stance in that instance. Because for many (and me) she's right and Alito's wrong, of course. But that's subjective criteria that should not alter the principle.

And those protesting literally have a whole country to do so. It's not about forbidding peaceful protests, it just draws a line at judge's private homes; for this, imho understandably, can be seen as having an intimidating effect that is not desired in a nation of law.

[*Nately120*]

(05-12-2022, 12:56 PM)hollodero Wrote: And those protesting literally have a whole country to do so. It's not about forbidding peaceful protests, it just draws a line at judge's private homes; for this, imho understandably, can be seen as having an intimidating effect that is not desired in a nation of law.

Logical, but it's hard to see the toothpaste going back in the tube on this one.  So much of the American identity is about being a rebel, standing up for yourself, and defending yourself (defending, being rather offense-related) against tyranny (another concept that is really thrown around a lot).  There is so much political capital to be made by stoking the fires of unrest, but it's mostly been aimed at sources outside of the USA and now it has become a very "the enemy is here" domestic conflict.

Basically, when your identity and political strategy involves acrimony and "standing up for yourself when justified" you can't expect everyone to read the fine print and warning labels.

[hollodero]

(05-12-2022, 01:09 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Logical, but it's hard to see the toothpaste going back in the tube on this one.  So much of the American identity is about being a rebel, standing up for yourself, and defending yourself (defending, being rather offense-related) against tyranny (another concept that is really thrown around a lot).  There is so much political capital to be made by stoking the fires of unrest, but it's mostly been aimed at sources outside of the USA and now it has become a very "the enemy is here" domestic conflict.

Basically, when your identity and political strategy involves acrimony and "standing up for yourself when justified" you can't expect everyone to read the fine print and warning labels.

I fully agree with that analysis.
I would, however, claim that such circumstances make it all that more important to stick to sensible and meaningful principles. As much as I hate it, the more I contemplate the more I think I have to go with Sled on this one. Maybe the DoJ should do exactly that and enforce the law to the letter here. Eg. indicting the protesters in front of Alito's house as the law seems to demand. Even if the toothpaste indeed were to never go back, one should not just accept that as a given.

It turns into one of the things I love about America, even though here it happens to be something cynical. It makes me appreciate my own country that much more, where things are just so much more measured.

[Sled21]

(05-12-2022, 12:20 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 1. Peaceful protests aren't intimidation unless you're the kind of no spine judge whose afraid of people you wrongfully judge, at which point you kind of deserve it anyways.

2. Same sex and interracial marriages were the will of the people except for the minority of homophobes and racists. 

3. I want to live in a society where the minority doesn't get to dictate how the majority live. Just because you scream loudest doesn't make you right (I'm speaking of religious fundamentalists and the obscene idiots on the far side of any ideology). What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, and striking down Roe to open up women (i.e: the goose) to all kinds of frivolous lawsuits and back alley abortions is most certainly going to affect a lot more than just them.

And you do. If Roe is overturned, and the majority of people in a state vote to allow abortion by electing pro abortion legislators, then their will will prevail. Likewise, if the majority votes to not allow abortion, then the will of the majority in that state will prevail. I don't believe you want that society, you just want people to do what YOU want. 

And Janet Yellen in her little speech the other day to Tim Scott let go again the ugly truth of why the left wants all abortion allowed. For the same reason as Margaret Sanger.... to kill more African-American babies so society won't have to support them.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-12-2022, 12:20 PM)BigPapaKain Wrote: 1. Peaceful protests aren't intimidation unless you're the kind of no spine judge whose afraid of people you wrongfully judge, at which point you kind of deserve it anyways.

Hollo already covered this, but you could not be more wrong.  The protests are being done at their home for that exact reason, to intimidate.  We had this discussion in the MI protest.  The intent of any protest is to influence and intimidate others into falling in line with your position.  When it is done outside your private residence the implication is clear, we know where you live and we want you to fall in line with our position.  If you're claiming you wouldn't feel uneasy and intimidated with hundreds of people protesting outside your home I'm going to have to call 100% bullshit on that.

Quote:2. Same sex and interracial marriages were the will of the people except for the minority of homophobes and racists. 

I didn't mention inter-racial marriage.  That aside, you're going to have to show me some proof that the majority of US citizens were in favor of either same sex marriage or forced integration at the time they were enacted.  Honestly, the fact that SCOTUS had to be the ones to implement both really puts the onus on you to prove otherwise.  If they were the "will of the people" why did SCOTUS have to be the one to enact them and not Congress, the organ that is actually supposed to represent the will of the people.

Quote:3. I want to live in a society where the minority doesn't get to dictate how the majority live. Just because you scream loudest doesn't make you right (I'm speaking of religious fundamentalists and the obscene idiots on the far side of any ideology). What's good for the goose is good for the gander as they say, and striking down Roe to open up women (i.e: the goose) to all kinds of frivolous lawsuits and back alley abortions is most certainly going to affect a lot more than just them.

I don't disagree with your position on Roe in so far as it certainly will put women in red states in a difficult position.  But there has always been a balancing act between majority will and minority rights.  Pure majority rule is a recipe for some very ugly outcomes.  I'll conclude by stating that your ire should really be directed at the Dems, who failed to codify Roe style protections into federal law despite having the majority and the presidency on several occasions since the decision was made.  When you let SCOTUS write legislation for you then be prepared for SCOTUS to undo said "legislation" in the future.

[Sled21]

(05-12-2022, 01:24 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Hollo already covered this, but you could not be more wrong.  The protests are being done at their home for that exact reason, to intimidate.  We had this discussion in the MI protest.  The intent of any protest is to influence and intimidate others into falling in line with your position.  When it is done outside your private residence the implication is clear, we know where you live and we want you to fall in line with our position.  If you're claiming you wouldn't feel uneasy and intimidated with hundreds of people protesting outside your home I'm going to have to call 100% bullshit on that.



I didn't mention inter-racial marriage.  That aside, you're going to have to show me some proof that the majority of US citizens were in favor of either same sex marriage or forced integration at the time they were enacted.  Honestly, the fact that SCOTUS had to be the ones to implement both really puts the onus on you to prove otherwise.  If they were the "will of the people" why did SCOTUS have to be the one to enact them and not Congress, the organ that is actually supposed to represent the will of the people.


I don't disagree with your position on Roe in so far as it certainly will put women in red states in a difficult position.  But there has always been a balancing act between majority will and minority rights.  Pure majority rule is a recipe for some very ugly outcomes.  I'll conclude by stating that your ire should really be directed at the Dems, who failed to codify Roe style protections into federal law despite having the majority and the presidency on several occasions since the decision was made.  When you let SCOTUS write legislation for you then be prepared for SCOTUS to undo said "legislation" in the future.

They also just tried to pass a bill that instead of being a reasonable bill allowed abortion by choice up until childbirth, and mandated tax payer funded abortions. 

[*Nately120*]

(05-12-2022, 01:24 PM)Sled21 Wrote: And you do. If Roe is overturned, and the majority of people in a state vote to allow abortion by electing pro abortion legislators, then their will will prevail. Likewise, if the majority votes to not allow abortion, then the will of the majority in that state will prevail. I don't believe you want that society, you just want people to do what YOU want. 

I think you are overestimating the power of voting.  Keep in mind, this is being overturned in a time where 60-80% of voters don't want it overturned, democrats control the WH, the senate, and the house, and the republican president who appointed 3 SC justices who are instrumental in getting this done lost the popular vote by nearly 3 million votes.

Add in that every republican in the senate (and Manchin) voted to block the abortion rights bill despite not all republican voters wanting that, and well...ehh the power of voting seems pretty unreliable.

I don't think people should break the law and riot or burn this country down, but I'm also willing to admit that the legal and peaceful avenues seem to be stifled, as well.  We may just be outta luck and have to lie in the bed we made. 

[Belsnickel]

(05-12-2022, 01:29 PM)Sled21 Wrote: They also just tried to pass a bill that instead of being a reasonable bill allowed abortion by choice up until childbirth, and mandated tax payer funded abortions. 

That's just patently false. Whoever made that claim is lying.

Edit: In case anyone is curious, here is the actual bill: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/4132/text

What it actually does is say that healthcare providers have the right to conduct abortion services without unnecessary burdens placed on them and for any reason up until fetal viability (i.e. roughly 24 weeks), and that a prohibition cannot be made for abortions after that point where the provider determines that the life or health of the pregnant individual is at risk. There is also nothing about funding.