I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
This sounds all diplomatic and intellectual, but when a 16 year old gets a pregnancy from incest or rape, she’s totally screwed. I don’t think going towards the dark ages deserves this kind of “both sides” talk
saying "SCOTUS didn't ban abortion" is at best useless semantic formality and at worst plain incorrect a number of state have laws that the automatically make abortion illegal as soon as Roe was overturned, those are now enacted. furthermore, the case behind this ruling was dealing with a state law the effectively outlawed abortions, despite previous precedent ruling against it. this rule is simply enabling such beha…
It’s neither a semantic formality nor incorrect. The Supreme Court returned the question to the legislative branch. That’s it. I happen to think abortion should be legal. I also think it’s pretty clear that, when one side believes abortion to be a totally unrestricted right despite never appearing in the constitution, while simultaneously arguing for severely restricting and even eliminating a specifically enumerated…
We don’t need a bunch of old people/old men having these pseudo intellectual conversations about the healthcare of 17 year old girls. There doesn’t need to be these long paragraphs. Church and state need to be separated. Pro life people literally are enacting laws based on religious beliefs.
The simple answer is if you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one. Leave the health and safety of the rest of the population up to themselves.
I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…
One member since it is a Solo opinion. Also all those other cases have a real right to privacy aspect to them because they involve acts between consenting adults. There Isaac point in pregnancy where an abortion ceases to be an act between consenting adults and instead becomes a conspiracy to kill a minor and where that point is needs to be legislated rather than conjured out of thin air by the judiciary. I say this as someone who is a big fan of abortions (they have killed so many future criminals if skewed the crime stats, which is awesome.) because I am an even bigger fan of the constitution.
I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
> my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court will show restraint towards political activism (in either direction) in general. Call it naive, but I'll wait and see. That is naive, given that we've already seen over the past several years that this has already been shown to be true. When the GOP is in power, new justices are appointed solely based on political appointment. Their qualifications as judges…
If they actually believe you're killing babies, and thinly veiling it by calling them a 'foetus', their actions make more sense.
I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
Democratically? I hope you’re kidding. This court doesn’t have the thinnest of veneers to hide behind. They have a pretty obvious agenda (e.g., Thomas’s concurring opinion) and show no deference to either precedent or the Constitution.
We’re in uncharted waters here. I can’t think of a parallel in our short history where SCOTUS has shown such complete disregard for anything but their own political and religious beliefs. I think what’s getting lost in this is that Roe doesn’t just apply to abortion but the broader right to privacy. Others have pointed out the logical implications of what the government can and will do with these powers.
Separate abortion from Roe v. Wade. The big challenge has been that Roe v. Wade was horribly decided. Even RBG thought so. Roe v wade gave the Supreme Court the right to make law without reference to any text in the constitution. Casey tried to change the justification but it still was a disaster. Sadly it is far from the only time the Supreme Court has made things up out of whole cloth that has had massive societal…
Yes. In fact, this ruling might well lead to an end of Republican majorities in red States, and to multi-decadal Democrat rule. Certainly that is likely if: a) public opinion is strongly in favor of some legal abortion, and b) Republicans ignore that and move to ban all abortions. In 1992 Republicans ran on abortion and lost badly. In 1994 they ran on everything-but-abortion and won big. So there is precedent for the…
It’s the exact opposite. With this ruling, long-time red states will never have to flipping due to low voter turnout.
Biggest thing to me is the message this sends - that there is no settled law really - I think the notion that nothing is legally set in stone and change is only a relatively easy matter of installing supreme court justices siding with your beliefs - that's gotta have some chilling consequences down the line for the country as a whole. Greater progress requires building upon smaller progress, a settled foundation. If…
The same could be said of RvW - inventing new laws was simply the case of installing new justices - the constitution has existed much longer than RvW, so removing it isn't as much a problem for "settled law" than creating it in the first place.
And I think the point here was that RvW was not on strong settled foundations.
I'll be the begrudging devils advocate for a decision that is sure to have devastating consequences for poor women in red states. It is good for unelected bodies like the Supreme Court to allow such dividing issues be figured out democratically. The US house has bled power to the other 3 institutions and of them, the judiciary is the least democratic. Ofc, my support for this change assumes that this Supreme Court wi…
Where you see delegating to the states, I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority- and it will not stop here. Other things the Supreme Court has blocked state law using the same logic as roe v Wade (due process of the 14th amendment[0]) on are blocking contraception bans (grisewald), overturning anti-sodomy laws (lawrence), and giving equal protection to gay…
> I see a minority (less than 30% of Americans agree with this) enforcing social views on the majority
Can you clarify what social view is being enforced on the majority?
When I was a child in the Catholic Church (70s and 80s) there was NEVER any political discussion that entered into the service (“..render unto caesar what is caesar’s..” or ‘separation of church and state’. Or, more probable, perhaps it was felt that it simply was not the forum for present-day politics. I don’t know). Since lapsed, A few years ago I was encouraged by a priest, as he enjoyed his fourth old fashioned,…
IMHO this is profoundly tragic, and bad, and Jesus would not be proud of that. The church should be helping people to be caring for one another, and looking after the downtrodden and vulnerable. Protecting the rights of unborn children should not involve being nasty to other people, it should involve making clear arguments and being willing to provide decent support for people with unplanned pregnancies. It feels to me like the church, particulary in USA, got hijacked by a bunch of people who don't have any real faith but just use it for their political agenda. Pope Francis wouldn't agree with their stance I'm sure, but then he believes in devolving power away from Rome which, while that is for good reason, allows things like this to go unchecked. Whole lot of complex issues.....