Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade

Alito used a 16th century primitive to scrape together an excuse to just go full partisan with his new proper nutter buddies. I expect when he was appointed he thought things would move on but no...

Roe was decided within a year of my birth. In all these years America has slid SO AS TO STAY IN THE SAME PLACE AS 1973, now featuring the 16th century which nobody had the balls to mention back then.

I'm having a nice cider and three cheese and pickle sandwich with my lunch coz I'm feeling triggered.

Picture of boy grabbing at a crow while all the crows he has in his bag tumble out.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20220420_164905.jpg
    IMG_20220420_164905.jpg
    3.4 MB · Views: 10
William Saletan: “Morally, this reticence seems bizarre. For half a century, Republicans have campaigned on promises to expunge Roe. They said millions of unborn lives were at stake. Now victory is at hand, but McConnell won’t talk about it. Why not?”

“The answer is simple: He knows this issue is bad for his party. Roe infuriated pro-life Americans and made pro-choice Americans complacent. Republican candidates could use the issue to rile up their base without risking an electoral backlash. But if Roe goes down, Americans who want to keep abortion legal will have to vote that way. And those Americans are a political majority.”

First Read: How do we know that the early political read from Roe v. Wade’s likely demise looks dangerous for the GOP? Because while conservative activists have been over-the-moon happy about Justice Samuel Alito’s draft opinion overturning Roe, elected Republicans and GOP candidates have been much more cautious. Even a bit nervous.”
 
El OchoCinco said:
Kamala may be stretching it a bit because the right to privacy is guaranteed by the Constitution, the right to an abortion is not according to the Dobbs decision as written. That is all they tried to say. Abortion, according to DOBBS is a competing decision between the woman and the State on the decision on the fetus and therefore a legislature should be addressing it. The Court concedes that there is also nothing in the constitution that prohibits abortion.

One key issue is both the ROE and DOBBS courts recognize the interests of the State due to existence at some point of a fetus or baby depending your belief or science, which is a 3rd party. All other rights to privacy involve the person or people together and their decisions free from government intervention as long as no accepted laws are broken.

Therefore to say that this court will go after gay marriage or similar rights is a big stretch bordering on hyperbole and could backfire for the Dems. The DOBBS decision says:

None of the other decisions cited by Roe and Casey involved the critical moral question posed by abortion. They are therefore inapposite.

Other decisions refer to rights to privacy in marriage for example or who to marry. The Dobbs author says:

‘These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one's “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851.

The Court is implicity recognizing the right to autonomy in decisions of marriage, procreation, child rearing etc... These simple sentences are basically upholding the precedent that this decision specifically addresses abortion and will do nothing to undo decades of precedent on establishing the right to privacy.

Therefore the Dems need to realize that claiming DOBBS will be precedent to undo gay marriages or other rights is just not true.
More...
I have to complement you.
Its clear you are one of the few that has read the opinion and able to extrude the logic behind it
Great posts
 
Mercor said:
I have to complement you.
Its clear you are one of the few that has read the opinion and able to extrude the logic behind it
Great posts
More...


When one puts down your bias you see the posts not the person haha :)

THanks!
 
Mercor said:
I have to complement you.
Its clear you are one of the few that has read the opinion and able to extrude the logic behind it
Great posts
More...

The only people in history I can think of who ask for the man to be seperated from the words he speaks are Catholic bishops etc. One could say we have a tradition of not killing the messenger but Alito is the both king and messenger.

Its simply not an adhom to consider the motives of the source. This is a fallacy the US right has really locked on to.

I hope airplanes will be struck down as these are also not in the majority of the American tradition counting from the 16th century.
 
Last edited:
Bugenhagen said:
The only people in history I can think of who ask for the man to be seperated from the words he speaks are Catholic bishops etc. One could say we have a tradition of not killing the messager but Alito is the both king and messenger.

Its simply not an adhom to consider the motives of the source. This is a fallacy the US right has really locked on to.

I hope airplanes will be struck down as these are also not in the majority of the American tradition counting from the 16th century.
More...


I am sure GOP is praising Alito's decision without even reading it. It is not a great piece of judicial writing either as it pulls in some colonial bullshit to make a point and when he starts to get into some Consitutional discussions he just jumps to a summary conclusion... kind of like he knew the decision already and is just trying to backfill some support. Dobbs is not well written in parts just like Roe had some weaknesses.

Alito does some hoop jumping to get to his decision which is easy to recognize when the decision was already made before arguments and you just need to write some backstory to justify it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top