2022 SCOTUS rulings

[SuperHornet]

There never was a fundamental right to murder. Roe was all about the Left's penchant for legislating from the bench. For all their whining about "democracy," when those crazies don't get their way, they throw a hissy fit and legislate from the bench. They were called out on it, and now they're freaking out.

You know who was almost murdered in this fashion? Steph Curry. His mom recently shared her story about being raped and knocked up at age 11, and scheduling an appointment at that murder factory called Planned Parenthood (where it's been documented that they don't do any real planning, and they kick you out if you're not there for an abortion), and changing her mind. The sports world would be a whole lot different, right? Murder isn't a right, and it warps the mind. There are documented cases of women who have to go to counseling over the guilt of murdering their babies. It doesn't have to be that way. They whine and cry about rape, incest, and ectopic pregnancies, but then immediately morph that into a "right" to use whenever they want for any reason, and they irrationally claim the right to speak for all women in that regard. Their narrative is that the only people objecting to this murder are men, but not only is that not true, there are men trying to force it in, like that idiot Gavin Newsom. I'm sick of it.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/nba-ste ... orted-him/

[Winterborn]

If you would have read the whole opinion, you might have noticed that they answered your question for you.

The other 5 already didn't go with Thomas - even the quote Skelly provides is from Thomas's concurring opinion - no one else signed on to his opinion. And Thomas has been on this idea for pretty much the entire time he's been on the bench and no one, from Scalia to Gorsuch to Alito, has ever signed on to this idea. Now, if we clone Clarence Thomas and replace the rest of the bench with his clones, then I'd worry about things other than abortion. But let's be honest, Thomas will be gone in about a decade or so, and those other non-abortion rulings will still be there.

Exactly. While I agree with Thomas on a great many things, this is one topic I do not. If such a case came up, I highly doubt the SC would take it and the lower courts are going to agree with what has been done in the past on those topics.

[Skjellyfetti]

You know who was almost murdered in this fashion? Steph Curry. His mom recently shared her story about being raped and knocked up at age 11, and scheduling an appointment at that murder factory called Planned Parenthood (where it's been documented that they don't do any real planning, and they kick you out if you're not there for an abortion), and changing her mind.

that makes no sense.

steph curry looks just like his dad. his mom is 22 years older than him... not 11. is she claiming dell raped her?

maybe she considered aborting him. not sure that means that her reasoning should apply for everyone else.

[Skjellyfetti]

The other 5 already didn't go with Thomas - even the quote Skelly provides is from Thomas's concurring opinion - no one else signed on to his opinion. And Thomas has been on this idea for pretty much the entire time he's been on the bench and no one, from Scalia to Gorsuch to Alito, has ever signed on to this idea. Now, if we clone Clarence Thomas and replace the rest of the bench with his clones, then I'd worry about things other than abortion. But let's be honest, Thomas will be gone in about a decade or so, and those other non-abortion rulings will still be there.

Exactly. While I agree with Thomas on a great many things, this is one topic I do not. If such a case came up, I highly doubt the SC would take it and the lower courts are going to agree with what has been done in the past on those topics.

perhaps y'all are right. but, that is what was said about Roe... so...

[Winterborn]

Exactly. While I agree with Thomas on a great many things, this is one topic I do not. If such a case came up, I highly doubt the SC would take it and the lower courts are going to agree with what has been done in the past on those topics.

perhaps y'all are right. but, that is what was said about Roe... so...

Roe was on shaky ground from the start, as the justices at the time pretty much made up reasons to come to the ruling they did (i.e. that they wanted it nationally and worked back from there).

The other items that Thomas mentions are rooted in the 14th Amendment and traditional legal cases. I am a bit puzzled by Thomas's wording in his opinion and would be interested in him explaining his justification for singling out those other claims (he probably never will and it will always be a mystery). Because to me (armchair legal scholar) they are different than the abortion topic and I do not see how one would invalidate them without resorting to the same shenanigans that made up the Roe decision.

If Ivy or Joe was around they could probably shed some light on the topic.

[BDKJMU]

Racist White Progressives Love the ‘N-Word’ When It’s Being Used Against Clarence Thomas
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2022/06/25/r ... as-n584109

[BDKJMU]

INSURRECTION in Arizona.

Arrest them, charge them with insurrection and sedition, and 1.5 yrs of pre trial lock up with no bail. Did I get that right?

Pro-Abortion Rioters in Arizona Damage State-Senate Building as Lawmakers Vote

Police in Arizona used tear gas to disperse a crowd of rioters who gathered outside the Capitol in downtown Phoenix on Friday to protest the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Arizona state senators were in the middle of voting on a series of bills when protesters “threatened to break the AZ Senate entryway glass,” state Senator Wendy Rogers, a Republican, tweeted.

Rioters damaged multiple state Senate doors and memorials in Wesley Bolin Plaza, Arizona Department of Public Safety spokesman Bart Graves told KTAR News. One person was arrested.

“While working inside we were interrupted by the sound of bangs and smell of tear gas,” Representative Sarah Liguori wrote in a tweet. “Protestors cleared from the Capitol.”

Arizona Senate Republicans called the rioting an attempted “insurrection.”

Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend, a Republican, tweeted that lawmakers were “being held hostage inside the Senate building due to members of the public trying to breach our security.”

“We smell tear gas and the children of one of the members are in the office sobbing with fear,” she added.

Some 8,000 people gathered at the protest, which started at 7 p.m., according to KTAR News. Law enforcement declared the protest an unlawful assembly roughly two hours later, according to the report.

Police in riot gear were protecting the front doors of the Senate building while senators finished their work from another room as tear gas and smoke began entered the Senate chambers…..

https://news.yahoo.com/pro-abortion-rio ... 47983.html

[JohnStOnge]

I have never liked Roe vs.Wade so that's good. I am hoping we get a real bonus from this in that it hurts the Republican Party politically. I think that we've gone along for many years where the "pro choice" majority just kind of assumed it didn't have to worry while the "pro life" minority was very energized. Now there has been a significant change that will hopefully energize anti-Republican sentiment.

Here is a discussion of the distribution of opinion from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... t-cases-2/

Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

What's really great is that there are suggestions of State by State problems for Republicans with this issue. See https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re ... /by/state/. Not all the differences are "significant" but, point estimate wise, there are 32 States where the percent of people saying they abortion should be legal in all or most cases is greater than the percent saying abortion should be illegal in all or most cases vs. 17 States where more respondents said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.

Florida is a big one. 56% of Florida respondents said abortion should be legal in most or all cases while only 39% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. That is a statistically significant difference. Obviously, Florida is a close State. It flips back and forth. Even a small effect of that distribution of public opinion could really help the Democrats.

Other notable States where more respondents said they favor abortion being legal in most or all cases are Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In New Hampshire, the "legal in most or all cases" side has a 66% to 29% edge.

While I can't see them going Democrat in the foreseeable future, the "legal in most or all cases" side even has the edge in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

This issue has now moved into the direct political realm and it is just not a good issue for Republicans. I'd be surprised if it makes a determinative difference in the 2022 mid terms with all the other stuff going on. But I don't think it is going to go away. I think it's reasonable to hope that this is a "dog catches car" moment for the Republicans.

[JohnStOnge]

Racist White Progressives Love the ‘N-Word’ When It’s Being Used Against Clarence Thomas
https://redstate.com/jeffc/2022/06/25/r ... as-n584109

There may be other videos but the one in that article doesn't make it look similar to the January 6 thing at all. I don't know if the protesters even tried to enter the Senate building. No indication that there purpose in being there was to stop the Senate from taking any action it had planned to take.

[kalm]

Gov. Inslee showing some leadership.

The governor plans to instruct the State Patrol not to cooperate with law-enforcement officials from other states who may be seeking to prosecute violations of their states’ abortion laws as people travel to Washington seeking abortions. Inslee said he would support legislation to make that a statewide policy, binding other Washington law-enforcement agencies to the same prohibition.

Inslee said he plans to work to boost health-care resources, starting with $1 million, to deal with an expected increase in people coming to the state for abortion care.

“We will make Washington a sanctuary state for the right of choice,” Inslee said.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-ne ... &fs=e&s=cl

[Skjellyfetti]

Roe was on shaky ground from the start, as the justices at the time pretty much made up reasons to come to the ruling they did (i.e. that they wanted it nationally and worked back from there).

The other items that Thomas mentions are rooted in the 14th Amendment and traditional legal cases. I am a bit puzzled by Thomas's wording in his opinion and would be interested in him explaining his justification for singling out those other claims (he probably never will and it will always be a mystery). Because to me (armchair legal scholar) they are different than the abortion topic and I do not see how one would invalidate them without resorting to the same shenanigans that made up the Roe decision.

Roe was built on Griswold. It's pretty hard, imo, to argue that Roe was on shaky ground without arguing that Griswold was on shaky ground.

Griswold established the right to privacy. In 1956.

I agree with Thomas. If there is no right to privacy - then rulings based on it need to be reexamined (and overturned).


And Thomas addresses your question in this footnote:

[kalm]

There never was a fundamental right to murder. Roe was all about the Left's penchant for legislating from the bench. For all their whining about "democracy," when those crazies don't get their way, they throw a hissy fit and legislate from the bench. They were called out on it, and now they're freaking out.

You know who was almost murdered in this fashion? Steph Curry. His mom recently shared her story about being raped and knocked up at age 11, and scheduling an appointment at that murder factory called Planned Parenthood (where it's been documented that they don't do any real planning, and they kick you out if you're not there for an abortion), and changing her mind. The sports world would be a whole lot different, right? Murder isn't a right, and it warps the mind. There are documented cases of women who have to go to counseling over the guilt of murdering their babies. It doesn't have to be that way. They whine and cry about rape, incest, and ectopic pregnancies, but then immediately morph that into a "right" to use whenever they want for any reason, and they irrationally claim the right to speak for all women in that regard. Their narrative is that the only people objecting to this murder are men, but not only is that not true, there are men trying to force it in, like that idiot Gavin Newsom. I'm sick of it.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/nba-ste ... orted-him/

Murder factories? Whining about rape and non-viable pregnancies that could harm the mother?

Not your best look here, SH.

[JoltinJoe]

Here is a discussion of the distribution of opinion from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... t-cases-2/

Today, a 61% majority of U.S. adults say abortion should be legal in all or most cases, while 37% think abortion should be illegal in all or most cases.

What's really great is that there are suggestions of State by State problems for Republicans with this issue. See https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re ... /by/state/. Not all the differences are "significant" but, point estimate wise, there are 32 States where the percent of people saying they abortion should be legal in all or most cases is greater than the percent saying abortion should be illegal in all or most cases vs. 17 States where more respondents said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.

Florida is a big one. 56% of Florida respondents said abortion should be legal in most or all cases while only 39% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. That is a statistically significant difference. Obviously, Florida is a close State. It flips back and forth. Even a small effect of that distribution of public opinion could really help the Democrats.

Other notable States where more respondents said they favor abortion being legal in most or all cases are Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In New Hampshire, the "legal in most or all cases" side has a 66% to 29% edge.

While I can't see them going Democrat in the foreseeable future, the "legal in most or all cases" side even has the edge in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

This issue has now moved into the direct political realm and it is just not a good issue for Republicans. I'd be surprised if it makes a determinative difference in the 2022 mid terms with all the other stuff going on. But I don't think it is going to go away. I think it's reasonable to hope that this is a "dog catches car" moment for the Republicans.

This polling data is meaningless because it asks a far too generic question. Notably, there is no time reference within these questions -- which distorts the results.

It is true that a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. But a majority of Americans (57%) favors laws barring abortions after 15 weeks. And the support for abortions after viability, unless to save the life of the mother, polls at under 20 percent.

When you put the polling data all together, a majority of Americans believe that abortions after 15 weeks should be illegal in almost all cases, but legal before that point.

This is not a good issue for Democrats, because they favor extreme abortion laws disfavored by Americans. Moreover, it is a disastrous issue for them nationwide, as a clear majority of states would limit abortions at least after 15 weeks. The Democratic position makes it nearly impossible for the party ever to form a significant enough majority in the Senate.

[SeattleGriz]

There never was a fundamental right to murder. Roe was all about the Left's penchant for legislating from the bench. For all their whining about "democracy," when those crazies don't get their way, they throw a hissy fit and legislate from the bench. They were called out on it, and now they're freaking out.

You know who was almost murdered in this fashion? Steph Curry. His mom recently shared her story about being raped and knocked up at age 11, and scheduling an appointment at that murder factory called Planned Parenthood (where it's been documented that they don't do any real planning, and they kick you out if you're not there for an abortion), and changing her mind. The sports world would be a whole lot different, right? Murder isn't a right, and it warps the mind. There are documented cases of women who have to go to counseling over the guilt of murdering their babies. It doesn't have to be that way. They whine and cry about rape, incest, and ectopic pregnancies, but then immediately morph that into a "right" to use whenever they want for any reason, and they irrationally claim the right to speak for all women in that regard. Their narrative is that the only people objecting to this murder are men, but not only is that not true, there are men trying to force it in, like that idiot Gavin Newsom. I'm sick of it.

https://www.liveaction.org/news/nba-ste ... orted-him/

Murder factories? Whining about rape and non-viable pregnancies that could harm the mother?

Not your best look here, SH.

You've tried this line multiple times on topics you don't agree with. Is it helping or is it you moralizing?

[kalm]

Murder factories? Whining about rape and non-viable pregnancies that could harm the mother?

Not your best look here, SH.

You've tried this line multiple times on topics you don't agree with. Is it helping or is it you moralizing?

It depends on how it’s received. Regardless, in this case, it’s still very true. SH sounds like a kind person almost all of the time. He doesn’t in this case.

[kalm]

[UNI88]

Is he wrong? Wasn't it a constitutional right under Roe v Wade? Wasn't that determination thrown back to the states?

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Yes, he was wrong. A constitutional right can only be made under one of the articles or amendments, and no where in the Constitution is there a constitutional right to abortion. You don’t get constitutional rights from people in black robes in a court case, because they cannot make constitutional rights. We get our constitutional rights from the founding fathers. Ex we have a right to keep and bear arms not because of what conk judges wrote in Heller, but because of what the founding fathers wrote.

The point of my above post is that Biden’s 2006 (its not a right) and 2022 (its a right) statements are complete flip flops.

You might disagree with it but Roe v Wade interpreted the constitution to give that right. Just because it's been overturned doesn't mean it never really existed and wasn't taken away.

MAGAts criticizing flip flops is beyond funny.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Yes, he was wrong. A constitutional right can only be made under one of the articles or amendments, and no where in the Constitution is there a constitutional right to abortion. You don’t get constitutional rights from people in black robes in a court case, because they cannot make constitutional rights. We get our constitutional rights from the founding fathers. Ex we have a right to keep and bear arms not because of what conk judges wrote in Heller, but because of what the founding fathers wrote.

The point of my above post is that Biden’s 2006 (its not a right) and 2022 (its a right) statements are complete flip flops.

You might disagree with it but Roe v Wade interpreted the constitution to give that right. Just because it's been overturned doesn't mean it never really existed and wasn't taken away.

MAGAts criticizing flip flops is beyond funny.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Also…I thought our constitutional rights were self evident or something.

[BDKJMU]

You might disagree with it but Roe v Wade interpreted the constitution to give that right. Just because it's been overturned doesn't mean it never really existed and wasn't taken away.

MAGAts criticizing flip flops is beyond funny.

Sent from my Pixel 4a using Tapatalk

Also…I thought our constitutional rights were self evident or something.

If a constitutional right to abortion was self evident it would have been written into the constitution (7 articles/1st 10 Amendment) by the FF, or later added as an amendment. You wouldn’t have had justices from 50 yrs ago using totured logic from other amendments to try to invent a constitutional right to abortion.

[BDKJMU]

The donks are showing how they are the party of violence. Ever since the leaked draft there had been daily vandalism of pro life pregnancy centers around the country. Since Friday that has turned into a torrent, with numerous centers around the country vandalized with grafitti, smashed windows, and arson by donk extremists.

[JohnStOnge]

Here is a discussion of the distribution of opinion from Pew Research: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... t-cases-2/



What's really great is that there are suggestions of State by State problems for Republicans with this issue. See https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/re ... /by/state/. Not all the differences are "significant" but, point estimate wise, there are 32 States where the percent of people saying they abortion should be legal in all or most cases is greater than the percent saying abortion should be illegal in all or most cases vs. 17 States where more respondents said abortion should be illegal in most or all cases.

Florida is a big one. 56% of Florida respondents said abortion should be legal in most or all cases while only 39% said it should be illegal in most or all cases. That is a statistically significant difference. Obviously, Florida is a close State. It flips back and forth. Even a small effect of that distribution of public opinion could really help the Democrats.

Other notable States where more respondents said they favor abortion being legal in most or all cases are Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In New Hampshire, the "legal in most or all cases" side has a 66% to 29% edge.

While I can't see them going Democrat in the foreseeable future, the "legal in most or all cases" side even has the edge in Alaska, Montana, Nebraska, and Oklahoma.

This issue has now moved into the direct political realm and it is just not a good issue for Republicans. I'd be surprised if it makes a determinative difference in the 2022 mid terms with all the other stuff going on. But I don't think it is going to go away. I think it's reasonable to hope that this is a "dog catches car" moment for the Republicans.

This polling data is meaningless because it asks a far too generic question. Notably, there is no time reference within these questions -- which distorts the results.

It is true that a majority of Americans believe that abortion should be legal in most cases. But a majority of Americans (57%) favors laws barring abortions after 15 weeks. And the support for abortions after viability, unless to save the life of the mother, polls at under 20 percent.

When you put the polling data all together, a majority of Americans believe that abortions after 15 weeks should be illegal in almost all cases, but legal before that point.

This is not a good issue for Democrats, because they favor extreme abortion laws disfavored by Americans. Moreover, it is a disastrous issue for them nationwide, as a clear majority of states would limit abortions at least after 15 weeks. The Democratic position makes it nearly impossible for the party ever to form a significant enough majority in the Senate.

Yes I know people on the "pro life" side try to convince themselves with arguments like that. Heard them many times. The bottom line is that an overwhelming majority do not favor what just happened. The Democrats do have the advantage on this issue. No doubt about it.

What is happening as we speak is that Republican legislatures are doing life beings at conception stuff. I actually agree with that as a matter of objective reality. But it's not popular. Also, the Republicans are talking about doing a national abortion ban if they get the Presidency and both houses of Congress. That's not a popular thing either.

[JohnStOnge]

Regardless of which side you're on with the specific Supreme Court decision to throw out Roe vs. Wade, it illustrates a problem with our system. People have an almost religious reverence for "the Framers" and act as though they established a perfect system. But they didn't. They established a system that provides for a tyranny of the minority.

We have a Supreme Court that is the way it is right now because a President who lost the overall vote among the People was allowed to take office and a Senate that was in the control of a Party supported by a minority of the People were in power.

You have to look at the three most recent Senate elections to get the vote for the overall body because they have 6 year terms that are staggered with votes every 2 years. When Neil Gorsuch and Brent Kavanaugh were confirmed, the votes determining the composition of the Senate were cast during the 2012, 2014, and 2016 elections. The cumulative vote for Senate candidates during those elections, by Party, was Democrats 121,091,134 and Republicans 103,223,654 (51% to 43%). When Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed, the composition was determined by votes cast during 2012, 2014, and 2016. The cumulative vote for Senate candidates was Democrats 123,327,719 and Republicans 98,783,228 (53% to 43%).

So this extremely significant Supreme Court decision is the result of a President who lost among the People overall nominating three justices and having a Senate controlled by a Party supported by a minority of voters confirm them.

It's time we realize that there are serious flaws with the system the founders established. Protecting the minority from a tyranny of the majority is fine. But the minority should not be ruling.

[kalm]

Also…I thought our constitutional rights were self evident or something.

If a constitutional right to abortion was self evident it would have been written into the constitution (7 articles/1st 10 Amendment) by the FF, or later added as an amendment. You wouldn’t have had justices from 50 yrs ago using totured logic from other amendments to try to invent a constitutional right to abortion.

So we don’t get our constitutional rights from our founders?

[JohnStOnge]

BTW, on the issue of a right to abortion not being enumerated in the Constitution. The 9th Amendment does say:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

So the fact that a right is not specifically enumerated does not necessarily mean it's not a right. Rights are not limited to those specifically described.

The reason I am on the pro life side is that the only objective criterion for the transition between non-existence and existence for a member of our species is conception. So I'm looking at the right to life. A member of our species has a right to continue their life.

If it weren't for that, to me, there would be ZERO doubt about a woman having the right to have control over her own body whether it is explicitly enumerated in the Constitution or not. I'm looking at it as a situation in which the right to live on the part of one individual outweighs the right of another individual to control their own body.

But, to me, the argument that something is not a right because it is not specifically enumerated in the Constitution is a non-starter. Not a good argument.

[BDKJMU]

If a constitutional right to abortion was self evident it would have been written into the constitution (7 articles/1st 10 Amendment) by the FF, or later added as an amendment. You wouldn’t have had justices from 50 yrs ago using totured logic from other amendments to try to invent a constitutional right to abortion.

So we don’t get our constitutional rights from our founders?

Wrong.