1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. We've had very few donations over the year. I'm going to be short soon as some personal things are keeping me from putting up the money. If you have something small to contribute it's greatly appreciated. Please put your screen name as well so that I can give you credit. Click here: Donations
    Dismiss Notice
  1. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect Donor

    Location:
    At work..
    Ok, maybe I'm an idiot.
    I'm not trying to argue wither its right or wrong or anything like that, but what I don't understand is what in the hell are they doing? and why?

    from what i understand is that they are trying to overturn RvW (which was in like the 70s i think). Did i miss something?

    Im just confused
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. genuinemommy

    genuinemommy Moderator Staff Member

    Yeah.
    There are a lot of angry women right now
     
    • Agree Agree x 4
  3. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    From a legal perspective, there has been a long standing belief among many (mostly conservative) legal scholars that Roe was wrongly decided on the issue of a "right to privacy " under the 14th Amendment and that the issue of abortion should be left to the states.

    A counter argument under legal theory and practice is that once a decision is made by the Supreme Court on a particular issue, it becomes a legal precedent and should not be overturned by future cases that come before the Supreme Court under the the principle of "stare decisis."

    Five of the current conservative justices on the Court all agreed during their confirmation hearings that Roe established a precedent that should be respected and now, according to the leaked Court opinion on a highly restrictive Mississippi abortion law, those same justices are apparently ready to act against their own statements made under oath and declare Roe to be unconstitutional.

    This would not ban abortions across the country but leave the issue entirely to the states. More than 25 states would highly restrict abortions (only to save the life of the mother or only in cases of rape). There are 12 states that would guarantee a right to an abortion with certain restrictions. The effect is that women's reproductive rights will be significantly restricted in much of the country. The public disagrees with overturning Roe by 2:1 in most polls.

    From a religious perspective, many conservative Christians believe abortion is the murder of an unborn fetus and should be banned completely across the country.

    At the very heart of the issue is the Constitution's 14th amendment guarantee of "due process" and/or "equal protection under the law" being eroded and undermined by the reversal of Roe and then states being pushed by conservative religious groups to challenge other established constitutional "rights" like gay marriage and other forms of discrimination against targeted groups of citizens.

    ***
    Angry men too!
     
    • Informative Informative x 2
  4. redux

    redux Very Tilted

    Location:
    Foggy Bottom
    On the issue of Justice Alito's leaked draft opinion, this guy who runs the SCOTUSblog provides credible and objective coverage of the Supreme Court.

    How the leak might have happened
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  5. Chris Noyb

    Chris Noyb Get in, buckle up, hang on, & don't criticize.

    Location:
    Large City, TX
    I can see a "left-winger" working for SCOTUS wanting to fire up opposition to this reversal before it even becomes a case.


    I do not like the idea of abortion intentionally used as After The Act birth control.

    I do not like the idea of men, who mostly dominate politics and the legal system, telling women they must give birth.

    Many states (Texas has one of the most restrictive abortion laws in the US) will not allow abortions resulting from rape and/or incest. That is a restriction that is absurdly wrong.

    One question I have is: Why would SCOTUS overturn Roe v Wade when it is supported by at least 60% of the general population?

    This (potential) action smells like a political move by the conservative members of SCOTUS to help the GOP in red states.
     
  6. rogue49

    rogue49 Tech Kung Fu Artist Staff Member

    Location:
    Baltimore/DC
    Actually, many are saying it was a conservative aide that released it in their irrational enthusiasm.
    And now the GOP is on the defensive about it before the election.
    Threat to Roe puts GOP on defense in 2022 battlegrounds

    It's too extreme idea that most of the public is against...so the GOP didn't want to reveal it too soon. (even if it's a "win" for them and sates the base)
    The establishment is on band-aid duty...they know they need to win beyond the extreme base.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  7. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist

    Location:
    North
    John Oliver did a really job of covering it.

     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. omega

    omega Very Tilted

    The big lie that the right keeps pushing is that this is a states rights issue. It's not, it's an individual right. Which means it's a national right. How can one group attack the rights of an individual? A group can only override the rights of an individual when it's in the common interest of society. Gay marriage? Individual. Abortion? Individual. Women and minorities and religion? Individual. Things that affect society and can be regulated are things like taxes, that pay for the common good. Vaccinations that protect the group. Public education, that benefits society as a whole. The draft, in times of defense of society. To have society limit the rights of an individual, there has to be a demonstrated pressing need. You have to wear a seat belt because it is minimally intrusive on your person and keeping you out of the hospital and functioning as a prodective member of society benefits said society.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
  9. ASU2003

    ASU2003 Very Tilted

    Location:
    Where ever I roam
    If it wasn't an actual justice that leaked it, some people think that it is more likely a conservative clerk who wanted to "lock" in the decision. Because now if anyone of the conservative justices switches sides or pushes for the language to be changed, the public (meaning anti-choice activists) will know who it was.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  10. ralphie250

    ralphie250 Fully Erect Donor

    Location:
    At work..
    WTF......
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. fflowley

    fflowley Don't just do something, stand there!

    Think hard about who you are going to vote for this fall.
    You live in a very important state. Your vote can really make a difference.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  12. redravin

    redravin Cynical Optimist

    Location:
    North
    Thomas also wants to review the cases that decided contraception, marriage equality, and ending making gay sex illegal.
    I noticed that Loving, the one that ended laws against interracial marriage wasn't on that list.
    Fuck you very much Clarence Thomas.
    In fact fuck every single justice who voted for this travesty.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1