Roe vs Wade vs SCOTUS legitimacy

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 09:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not trying to avoid anything. You seem to be though. Oh and maybe read my comment about an hour ago.

Only thing I am avoiding is thread derailment.

(05-03-2022, 09:28 PM)michaelsean Wrote: And no you missed the obvious question. Just apply the same logic to choice as you do to life.

Oh, I know there can be criticisms thrown at the labeling of pro-choice, but I don't really have a better term for it. Since most people in the pro-choice movement would like to see a reduction in the number of abortions performed, pro-abortion doesn't fit. I don't really know what to call it.

[*Nately120*]

I'm more bemused at a political party acting in the interests of 20% of people, yet gearing up to clean house in the midterms. It doesn't add up, but man, you have to hand it to republicans...I feel like they could get their way even if 90% of voters were against them. They get shit done.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 09:11 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: I have never seen a I vote pro choice bumper sticker. I’ve only ever seen people worried about controlling someone else’s body rocking the I vote pro life bumper stickers.

What state do you live in?  I see pro-choice stickers on cars or messages on plate holders on the regular.

(05-03-2022, 09:17 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Omg omg omg this is so bad, democrats want to make sure people know the truth.

Meanwhile in reality…

Conservative stolen Supreme Court majority is working to take away rights.

This "stolen majority" argument is getting tired as well as it's not based in fact.  At most you can argue that they "stole" one seat.  Without that seat they still hold a majority.  A hyperbolic argument is rarely a good one.

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 09:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You can think that, but you'd be hard pressed to make the argument.  Abortion being considered a right under the 14th is, as I've said in the past, a tenuous link.  While I don't disagree with the concept it's not easily argued and it definitely isn't a neat fit.  Contrast that with the right for two adults to marry the human being of their choice.  Marriage is a civil institution with numerous civil benefits.  Denying that to one group of people while allowing it for another is unconstitutional in a very black and white sense based on the concept of equal protection under the law.  You, and others, can view the rights as equally important or strong, but the pro arguments for both being a right do not carry equal weight, and it's not even close.  

In what way is it not close? The right to liberty is one of the bedrocks of our system and criminalizing abortion is the government denying that right to a person capable of giving birth. It denies them their liberty without any test regarding public safety or any due process. The 14th Amendment then requires states to protect the rights of all of their citizens in the same way the federal government is required to do. What this means is that under the 14th, no state should be allowed to deny an individual of their liberties without due process. Criminalization of abortion absolutely does that. That's very black and white.

[*michaelsean*]

It is my opinion that with some exceptions, Democrat politicians love this and Republican politicians hate it. Re-election and money to get re-elected is what they want. The Republicans lose something they are going to fix some day. Democrats can now say they are going to legislate it, but they need seats and money. In 2024 they need to elect a President to appoint justices.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-03-2022, 09:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Crooked republican leadership gaming the system and denying a dually elected president the ability to fill a supreme court vacancy. Then forcing through unqualified candidates picked by a man who needed the help of russian propaganda to win an election that saw him lose the popular vote. Meaning the majority of Americans did not want him. And here we are with a minority rule supreme court forcing their religious beliefs on us.

RIP Harry Reid

[*michaelsean*]

(05-03-2022, 09:34 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm more bemused at a political party acting in the interests of 20% of people, yet gearing up to clean house in the midterms. It doesn't add up, but man, you have to hand it to republicans...I feel like they could get their way even if 90% of voters were against them. They get shit done.

Well the SC shouldn’t be deciding based on popular opinion.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-03-2022, 09:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: What state do you live in?  I see pro-choice stickers on cars or messages on plate holders on the regular.


This "stolen majority" argument is getting tired as well as it's not based in fact.  At most you can argue that they "stole" one seat.  Without that seat they still hold a majority.  A hyperbolic argument is rarely a good one.

Cincinnati

Two. The same argument they used to block Obama's nominee went out the window when they forced through the least qualified supreme court nominee since Clarence Thomas in a fraction of the time that was their reason for denying Obama because there wasn't enough time.

[*Nately120*]

(05-03-2022, 09:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the SC shouldn’t be deciding based on popular opinion.

Well, they're deciding based upon who is in office when X amount of them die, I guess.  It's an interesting system for sure.

[Mike M (the other one)]

The topics around here rarely change.

Why isn't there a middle ground?

I'm against abortion, but also willing to concede the first 3 months, after that, it should be illegal Unless there is complications involving death of mother or child or both.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-03-2022, 09:38 PM)StoneTheCrow Wrote: RIP Harry Reid

The country would be better off if Mitch left with him

[*michaelsean*]

(05-03-2022, 09:27 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Crooked republican leadership gaming the system and denying a dually elected president the ability to fill a supreme court vacancy. Then forcing through unqualified candidates picked by a man who needed the help of russian propaganda to win an election that saw him lose the popular vote. Meaning the majority of Americans did not want him. And here we are with a minority rule supreme court forcing their religious beliefs on us.

You don’t think there are any pro life atheists or agnostics? I’ve been pro life my whole life although I now acknowledge is should remain legal now, and I don’t base my opinion in religion at all. I don’t believe there is such a thing as sin. There is no hell. Murderers and saints end up in the same place. Life is not a test. I say all this just to explain that religion has no basis in my decision.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-03-2022, 09:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The country would be better off if Mitch left with him

Can’t argue that. I’m of the opinion that if you make it yo the top you are most likely a back stabbing dirtbag.

[NATI BENGALS]

(05-03-2022, 09:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: You don’t think there are any pro life atheists or agnostics? I’ve been pro life my whole life although I now acknowledge is should remain legal now, and I don’t base my opinion in religion at all. I don’t believe there is such a thing as sin. There is no hell. Murderers and saints end up in the same place. Life is not a test. I say all this just to explain that religion has no basis in my decision.

Sure there are usually exceptions to all the rules. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 09:37 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: In what way is it not close? The right to liberty is one of the bedrocks of our system and criminalizing abortion is the government denying that right to a person capable of giving birth. It denies them their liberty without any test regarding public safety or any due process. The 14th Amendment then requires states to protect the rights of all of their citizens in the same way the federal government is required to do. What this means is that under the 14th, no state should be allowed to deny an individual of their liberties without due process. Criminalization of abortion absolutely does that. That's very black and white.

If I were playing Devil's advocate, which I pretty much am in this thread, I'd argue that you're starting from a false assumption.  That being that abortion is an inherent right.  It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is birth control.  Couching it as a right or a given liberty is starting from a flawed assumption as it's clearly not delineated anywhere.  Now, the Roe argument that it falls under the 14th has some merit, but as I said, it's hardly a perfect fit, and it's nowhere near as clear as a right given to some people, e.g. marriage, which is being denied to others.  Now, I would assume your counter argument is that some states will restrict and some will not, hence creating what I just stated, a right for some but not others.  The problem with that is that "settled law", and we need look no further than the 2A to find this, is that states are permitted to restrict rights within certain limits.  Eliminating Roe would punt it back to the states and set up a whole new round of legal wrangling on the limits of said restrictions.

But at the end of the day framing abortion as a right under the 14th was a stretch, and it should have given Congress enough time to actually pass a law codifying abortion into federal law.  Except they didn't.  They sat on their hands and relied on one judicial ruling to shore up their entire position.  This is not only a poor strategy it's a lazy one.

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 09:39 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Well the SC shouldn’t be deciding based on popular opinion.

Would be better than personal politics like it is now.

[StoneTheCrow]

(05-03-2022, 09:45 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: The country would be better off if Mitch left with him

Probably. You can’t say McConnell didn’t warn him though. Here we are. All legal, nothing was stolen.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-03-2022, 09:43 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Cincinnati

So you live in a leaning red state and I live in the deepest blue one in the union.  Hence the difference.

Quote:Two. The same argument they used to block Obama's nominee went out the window when they forced through the least qualified supreme court nominee since Clarence Thomas in a fraction of the time that was their reason for denying Obama because there wasn't enough time.

No, sorry, it doesn't work that way.  For you to be outraged about McConnell denying Garland his seat you have to disagree with his argument for doing so.  If you do, which you do, then you have to, merely by dint of logical consistency, have to agree that appointing Barrett when RBG died was the correct and proper way to do things.  You can't have it both ways.  You can't say he was wrong one time and wrong the other, they are mutually exclusive options.  Well, I should say you absolutely can, as long as you don't mind being a complete hypocrite, just like Mitch.  Hence, based solely on logic, the accusation of a "stolen seat" can only encompass one position, not two.

[*michaelsean*]

(05-03-2022, 09:52 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Would be better than personal politics like it is now.

I don’t like either. But I’m not going to complain if they don’t base decisions on popular opinion whether it be this or any other case. I’m sure he wasn’t always consistent but I liked Scalia’s approach in general.

[Belsnickel]

(05-03-2022, 09:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If I were playing Devil's advocate, which I pretty much am in this thread, I'd argue that you're starting from a false assumption.  That being that abortion is an inherent right.  It's not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution, nor is birth control.  Couching it as a right or a given liberty is starting from a flawed assumption as it's clearly not delineated anywhere.  Now, the Roe argument that it falls under the 14th has some merit, but as I said, it's hardly a perfect fit, and it's nowhere near as clear as a right given to some people, e.g. marriage, which is being denied to others.  Now, I would assume your counter argument is that some states will restrict and some will not, hence creating what I just stated, a right for some but not others.  The problem with that is that "settled law", and we need look no further than the 2A to find this, is that states are permitted to restrict rights within certain limits.  Eliminating Roe would punt it back to the states and set up a whole new round of legal wrangling on the limits of said restrictions.

But at the end of the day framing abortion as a right under the 14th was a stretch, and it should have given Congress enough time to actually pass a law codifying abortion into federal law.  Except they didn't.  They sat on their hands and relied on one judicial ruling to shore up their entire position.  This is not only a poor strategy it's a lazy one.

I am not arguing that abortion itself is a right. I am arguing that criminalizing abortion restricts someone's liberties. You know, that whole "life, liberty, property" that is mentioned in the Fifth Amendment that one shall not be deprived of without due process (should have mentioned the amendment earlier, forgot I hadn't).