US Supreme Court strikes down Roe V. Wade

[Aristides]

21 minutes ago, West said:

For drug use.. We've been over this already. 

You folks really need to stop lying and actually educate yourself. It's disgusting the character assassination the pro baby killing side is participating in right now

So she got a manslaughter conviction for drug use?

Quote

Addiction is a treatable, chronic medical disease involving complex interactions among brain circuits, genetics, the environment, and an individual’s life experiences. People with addiction use substances or engage in behaviors that become compulsive and often continue despite harmful consequences. 

So, is addiction a medical issue or a crime in your world?

Funny but there aren't any affluent white women who seem to be charged with having miscarriages due to substance abuse. I guess none of them do drugs or drink.

 

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

All Americans are supposed to have the same rights. Obviously this supreme court doesn't think so.

Some are looked after federally, some by the state. That's the way they set it up. If you don't like it that's your problem.

[Aristides]

28 minutes ago, Infidel Dog said:

Some are looked after federally, some by the state. That's the way they set it up. If you don't like it that's your problem.

Rights are rights. They had a civil war over the right to enslave people.

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

No you’re just making that up

when even RBG shits on Roe v Wade

that's an extremely activist ruling

to point where it turns off one of the most activist judges in the courts history

she even said so herself

[Yzermandius19]

7 hours ago, Aristides said:

It means American women are at the mercy of state governments dominated by the religious right. The supreme court abandoned its responsibility to protect the rights of all its citizens.

there it is Infidel Dog

the SCOTUS should listen to the people

but state governments that do thid in states that won't vote the way I want to shouldn't listen to the people

democracy only applies when it achieves the result they want

call them out for hypocrisy before they do it, and they still can't help themselves

Edited July 5, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Yzermandius19]

6 hours ago, BeaverFever said:

So then why not return gun rights to the states too then if they’re so much better at deciding what’s best?

the 2nd amendment

[Aristides]

Just now, Yzermandius19 said:

there it is Infidel Dog

the SCOTUS should listen to the people

but state governments that do thid in states that won't vote the way I want to shouldn't listen to the people

democracy only applies when it achieves the result they want

In your world, rights only apply to those strong enough to take them. 

What good is a national supreme court if the rights it is supposed to protect don't apply to everyone. Might as well get rid of it.

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

In your world, rights only apply to those strong enough to take them. 

What good is a national supreme court if the rights it is supposed to protect don't apply to everyone. Might as well get rid of it.

abortion is not a right they are supposed to protect

that is a states issue

if you want to change that

then pass a constitutional amendment

Edited July 5, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

abortion is not a right they are supposed to protect

that is a states issue

if you want to change that

then pass a constitutional amendment

Show me in the Constitution where it says a foetus is a person.

Show me in the Constitution where it says a foetus has rights. 

[Yzermandius19]

Just now, Aristides said:

Show me in the Constitution where it says a foetus is a person.

Show me in the Constitution where it says a foetus has rights. 

show me where in the constitution it says there is a right to abortion

none of that is in the constitution

hence it being a states issue

[Aristides]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

show me where in the constitution it says there is a right to abortion

none of that is in the constitution

hence it being a states issue

But you keep going on about how a foetus is a person and has rights.

[Yzermandius19]

23 minutes ago, Aristides said:

But you keep going on about how a foetus is a person and has rights.

because they are

it just isn't in the constitution

and it's up to the states to decide that

as a result

you may not care about the constitution when it gets in the way of what you want

but I do

I'm willing to play by the rules

you're not

I would oppose an activist ruling that sides with me by ignoring the constitution and reading in a right that isn't in there

if they want that right added, that's what a constitutional amendment is for

until an amendment is passed, one way or the other, it's a states issue

and the SCOTUS should do it's job and stay out of it

Edited July 5, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[Aristides]

I don't care about the US constitution. You are digging your own grave.

[Yzermandius19]

14 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I don't care about the US constitution

I know you don't

but the Constitution trumps your opinion

if you don't like that, too f*cking bad

you only invoke the constitution when you agree with it

pretending abortion rights are in the constitution

as if you care about the constitution

was an obvious charade from someone arguing in bad faith

about time you finally copped to it

Edited July 5, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[West]

24 minutes ago, Aristides said:

I don't care about the US constitution. You are digging your own grave.

You may not, however, that's the role of a judge and why they landed where they did. Hence the thread'

 

2 hours ago, Aristides said:

So she got a manslaughter conviction for drug use?

So, is addiction a medical issue or a crime in your world?

Funny but there aren't any affluent white women who seem to be charged with having miscarriages due to substance abuse. I guess none of them do drugs or drink.

 

When your addiction causes the death of someone then you face consequences. Deal with it... you don't get a pass because you abuse your body

[Infidel Dog]

1 hour ago, Aristides said:

Rights are rights. They had a civil war over the right to enslave people.

Wasn't that over the right NOT to be enslaved.

And it's federal. As I understand it how it works comes under the purview of the 10th amendment.

"The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the people."

With slavery it seems like there were those not considering some populations to be human so they just ignored their rights under the constitution. If it's not a human life the constitution didn't apply seemed to be the thinking. That was backward thinking then so how backward is it now?

It's kind of the way some think today on the abortion issue. A baby in the womb isn't a human life. So the constitution doesn't apply. Except it is and it does.

[WestCanMan]

3 hours ago, Aristides said:

I don't care about the US constitution. You are digging your own grave.

That's why your arguments in this thread are all lacking in substance and understanding. You literally have no clue how the SC and the American legal system work.

FYI judges don't get to create laws, they get to interpret the constitution and the laws that are on the books - that's it. Roe V. Wade effectively created a law that didn't exist in the constitution or anywhere else at the federal level. It's called "ruling from the bench" and it's not legitimate. 

The SC didn't "hand the abortion issue over to the states" so much as they "came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough in the constitution or any federal laws for their predecessors to have made the ruling that they did on abortion." So they struck down the Roe V. Wade ruling, creating a vacuum of power, and state laws which were properly created through the legislative process came into full effect. 

Now we're here: when/if a fetus becomes a human, and has human rights, is for elected legislators to decide, not judges with lifetime appointments. 

The concept of "my body, my choice" makes sense before a pregnancy occurs, and probably at some early stage of pregnancy when the baby has no awareness or feelings, but again, that's a decision for elected legislators.

Even if every single American suddenly came to an agreement on abortion, they'd still need to have legislators create new laws to that effect. The SC can't just up and do it. That's democracy. 

Can you imagine if 6 young SCJs just started making rulings themselves? With no respect to the constitution, or elected officials and their duly created laws? It would be a decades-long oligarchy. 

[Aristides]

8 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

That's why your arguments in this thread are all lacking in substance and understanding. You literally have no clue how the SC and the American legal system work.

FYI judges don't get to create laws, they get to interpret the constitution and the laws that are on the books - that's it. Roe V. Wade effectively created a law that didn't exist in the constitution or anywhere else at the federal level. It's called "ruling from the bench" and it's not legitimate. 

The SC didn't "hand the abortion issue over to the states" so much as they "came to the conclusion that there wasn't enough in the constitution or any federal laws for their predecessors to have made the ruling that they did on abortion." So they struck down the Roe V. Wade ruling, creating a vacuum of power, and state laws which were properly created through the legislative process came into full effect. 

Now we're here: when/if a fetus becomes a human, and has human rights, is for elected legislators to decide, not judges with lifetime appointments. 

The concept of "my body, my choice" makes sense before a pregnancy occurs, and probably at some early stage of pregnancy when the baby has no awareness or feelings, but again, that's a decision for elected legislators.

Even if every single American suddenly came to an agreement on abortion, they'd still need to have legislators create new laws to that effect. The SC can't just up and do it. That's democracy. 

Can you imagine if 6 young SCJs just started making rulings themselves? With no respect to the constitution, or elected officials and their duly created laws? It would be a decades-long oligarchy. 

Letting state politicians continue to decide who has rights was their first mistake. Politicizing the Supreme Court and making it a lifetime appointment was their second.

All the rights women received in the 20th century were not in the Constitution. All the rights black people received since independence were not in the constitution. Nor were they granted by states.

[WestCanMan]

16 minutes ago, Aristides said:

Letting state politicians continue to decide who has rights was their first mistake.

That's democracy. 

When an issue becomes front and center, politicians have no choice but to go that way or they'll be replaced by people who do.

Judges have lifetime appointments, they don't have to change their views. It took 50 years to get a set of judges in the SC to reverse a bad decision.

In general, judges don't like to overrule other judges, but politicians love to undo what other politicians have done. Just look at the laundry list of executive orders that are done and undone at the start of every new administration. It's a given that the new administration will flip the bird to the outgoing one. 

Quote

Politicizing the Supreme Court and making it a lifetime appointment was their second.

That's actually 2 issues.

1) The supreme court is "politicized" because activist judges like to get ahead of the laws and the constitution. Roe V. Wade is a perfect example of that.

Activist judges and DAs also thwart the legal system entirely. 

That's where politicization comes in.

2) Lifetime appointments are granted so that judges' rulings aren't politically motivated. Carefully selecting judges who will do their best to interpret the constitution and the laws that are already on the books is a sacred task. Or, in the case of the Dems, appointing judges who they control is the number 1 priority.

Quote

All the rights women received in the 20th century were not in the Constitution. All the rights black people received since independence were not in the constitution. Nor were they granted by states.

You're wrong. Black people's rights were in the constitution: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". They just weren't being upheld.

It took the emancipation proclamation and the 13th amendment just to abolish slavery although it wasn't ever 'legal' according to the constitution (Americans failed to live up to the lofty standards set out in their constitution). Even then, a racist class-system prevented most blacks from truly being 'free', but the constitution itself wasn't the issue.

The struggle that Americans face politically continues to be the fact that they haven't managed to live up to the lofty standards set in their constitution. 

If you want something to become a law, convince people that it needs to be a law, make it an election issue, win the election, get a majority in congress and the senate, pass the fuckin' law. It's that simple, and it's also that hard for a reason - it takes a majority of Americans (and subsequently a majority in congress) to make laws, not a 9-person oligarchy. 

That's democracy. 

I'm 100% aware of the fact that you feel like leftists are the only people that matter, and whatever they want to be a law should instantly start being enforced by federal police forces and judges alike, that's why you're considered to be a fascist.

I actually agree with you that abortion should be legal up to a reasonable period of the baby's gestation, I just don't agree that judges should unilaterally make that choice for Americans. It requires legislation. It requires democratic process. Anything else de-legitimizes the entire system. The system is important. It's the key to democracy. Shortcuts are tyrannical in nature. 

I feel like I'm explaining all of this to a child. Man up ffs. 

[BeaverFever]

On 7/4/2022 at 11:09 PM, Yzermandius19 said:

the 2nd amendment

But you’ve stated that decisions are best left to states.

If that’s the case,  Why not have “activist judges” “invent” an interpretation that gives the power to the states just like they did with abortion?

Its only recent right wing interpretations of the second amendment that have granted such broad constitutional protections. 

[Yzermandius19]

42 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

But you’ve stated that decisions are best left to states.

If that’s the case,  Why not have “activist judges” “invent” an interpretation that gives the power to the states just like they did with abortion?

Its only recent right wing interpretations of the second amendment that have granted such broad constitutional protections. 

states shouldn't violate constitutional rights

abortion is not a constitutional right

the right to keep and bear arms is

apples and oranges

[BeaverFever]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

states shouldn't violate constitutional rights

abortion is not a constitutional right

the right to keep and bear arms is

apples and oranges

Only the right for “well-regulateed militias” to bear arms is a right…everything else is interpretive

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Only the right for “well-regulateed militias” to bear arms is a right…everything else is interpretive

wrong

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

the second amendment specifically states that it's not just a right of the militia

and infers that the militia has no right to infringe on the people's rights

as the British militia had just done to the American people

which was the impetus for the existence of the second amendment in the first place

 

Edited July 30, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[BeaverFever]

11 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

wrong

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed

the second amendment specifically states that it's not just a right of the militia

and infers that the militia has no right to infringe on the people's rights

 

Nope not wrong.
What you posted was just the 2008 conservative reimagining of the second amendment, not a fact. 

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:

Nope not wrong.
What you posted was just the 2008 conservative reimagining of the second amendment, not a fact. 

your interpretation is the re-imagining

my interpretation is the original interpretation

Roe v Wade is also a re-imagining

Dobbs v Jackson is a restoration to the original interpretation

your side is doing the re-imagining and judicial activism

the conservatives are simply adhering to the constitution

Edited July 30, 2022 by Yzermandius19