Page 309 of 490

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:08 pm
by Elwher
Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.


Every other medical procedure, from tattoo parlors to cancer treatments, is already regulated on a state level. Why should abortion, just another medical procedure, be regulated on a federal one?

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:16 pm
by Elwher
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Arlenton wrote:
Did the law book not exist prior to 1973?

The SCOTUS has overruled itself plenty of times throughout history.


Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.


Perhaps not over half, but Obergefell v. Hodges overturning Baker v. Nelson might qualify as might West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which overturned Lochner v. New York and Adkins v. Children's Hospital, allowing minimum wage and weekly hours legislation to proceed.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:21 pm
by New haven america
Elwher wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.


Every other medical procedure, from tattoo parlors to cancer treatments, is already regulated on a state level. Why should abortion, just another medical procedure, be regulated on a federal one?

lol, no.

Most medical procedures are regulated by the Feds, good try though, you might've gotten someone who didn't know about that.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:25 pm
by Fauzjhia
San Lumen wrote:
Big Bad Blue wrote:Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.


This is proof the backlash from overturning Roe would be huge. I already vote blue no matter who. I have not voted for a single Republican since 2012.


no, its not proof. its a poll. and poll can change overtime. Not to mention judges are not elected.
I will see proof when republicans will start losing their seats in the state chambers, and in congress, that would be strong proof. polls does not equate vote intentions.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:28 pm
by New haven america
Big Bad Blue wrote:Fox News poll: 65% support Roe

Going past the top lines, the Fox News poll indicated that for the first time, over half of Republicans (53%) joined majorities of Democrats (77%) and Independents (64%) in saying Roe should remain the law of the land.

Seven in 10 White Catholics (72%) and nearly half of White evangelical Christians (49%) also thought the decision should stand.


Ask yourselves how the nation has gotten to the point where a right supported by essentially majorities among every demographic group is in mortal danger. Then vote blue, no matter who.

That's mostly because if it was re-banned then Republicans would be fucked for at least the next decade, and they know that.

Also, certain Reps with less... matrimonially virtuous sex lives might have to experience the joys of multiple child support payments and lawsuits every month.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:30 pm
by New haven america
Fauzjhia wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
This is proof the backlash from overturning Roe would be huge. I already vote blue no matter who. I have not voted for a single Republican since 2012.


no, its not proof. its a poll. and poll can change overtime. Not to mention judges are not elected.
I will see proof when republicans will start losing their seats in the state chambers, and in congress, that would be strong proof. polls does not equate vote intentions.

Fox is actually ironically one of the best polling stations around.

So much so that Fox News hosts are shocked that the majority of Americans support things they hate. Like that time ~70% of Fox News viewers supported UHC and they had to scramble to explain why that was actually a bad thing.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:36 pm
by Fauzjhia
New haven america wrote:
Fauzjhia wrote:
no, its not proof. its a poll. and poll can change overtime. Not to mention judges are not elected.
I will see proof when republicans will start losing their seats in the state chambers, and in congress, that would be strong proof. polls does not equate vote intentions.

Fox is actually ironically one of the best polling stations around.

So much so that Fox News hosts are shocked that the majority of Americans support things they hate. Like that time ~70% of Fox News viewers supported UHC and they had to scramble to explain why that was actually a bad thing.


Polls do not have voice, they do not vote, they have no influence. Sorry to be pessimist
the only correct is a STRONG vote blue in the next election, but that might be nipped by gerrymandering and false allegations of cheating...

the only correct backlash is a strong movement to retake the supreme court and get politics out of justice. That would be real backlash.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2021 10:56 pm
by The Alma Mater
Spirit of Hope wrote:I do love the argument that if SCOTUS decides to reverse themselves on Roe V Wade that Texas can get ride of its horrible enslaving law and replace it with a regular enslaving law. Like good, we don't have the rule of law destroying monstrosity that is the current law, but we are still violating women's rights like crazy.

The idea that it should be a states rights thing is stupid. States don't get the right to violate peoples lives in the name of religion.


Speaking of Texas, have they made any effort to "get rid of all rape" as the dear governor promised as part of his justification for the vigilante law ?

Any effort at all?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 4:48 am
by Spirit of Hope
Elwher wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.


Perhaps not over half, but Obergefell v. Hodges overturning Baker v. Nelson might qualify as might West Coast Hotel v. Parrish, which overturned Lochner v. New York and Adkins v. Children's Hospital, allowing minimum wage and weekly hours legislation to proceed.

Obergefell was a SCOTUS decision, Baker was a state court one. The difference was if gay marriage was a federal issue, which it had become because some states were allowing it and others were not. This was not the case in Baker.

Coast Hotel is a better example, but happened a decade after the initial decision and not 40+.

Arlenton wrote:
Spirit of Hope wrote:
Very rarely on such a major issue. About the only time I can think of off the top of my head is separate but equal, but well part of the reason for reversing that was the evidence that separate wasn't being done equally and inherently couldn't be equal.

Please if you have evidence of a major reversal from SCOTUS that fundamentally changes a major right for over half the population please show me.

Caetano v. Massachusetts of 2016 overruled a 1939 ruling, United States v. Miller, that said certain firearms, in this case I think it was some form of shotgun, aren't protected under the 2nd Amendment. Caetano v. Massachusetts extended the 2nd Amendment to "all forms of bearable arms", overruling the 1939 ruling on an issue that changed a major right for the entire population.


It narrowly expanded an already existing right. Not a great comparison.

Also Miller was a shit decision since the Plantif didn't make a legal argument since he nor his lawyer were present for the case.

Also if SCOTUS overturns Roe by deciding that the right to privacy doesn't exist it threatens for more than abortion rights, but also allow states to ban contraceptives and sodomy.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 7:40 am
by Ifreann
Apparently Obama promised to pass a law enshrining a right to abortion in his first 100 days in office and then just...didn't. Thanks, Obama.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:43 am
by Limonovshchina
Fauzjhia wrote:
New haven america wrote:Fox is actually ironically one of the best polling stations around.

So much so that Fox News hosts are shocked that the majority of Americans support things they hate. Like that time ~70% of Fox News viewers supported UHC and they had to scramble to explain why that was actually a bad thing.


Polls do not have voice, they do not vote, they have no influence. Sorry to be pessimist
the only correct is a STRONG vote blue in the next election, but that might be nipped by gerrymandering and false allegations of cheating...

the only correct backlash is a strong movement to retake the supreme court and get politics out of justice. That would be real backlash.

Would rather have a second American revolution and make a completely new United States with a new constitution, economic and political system and culture.

You know, like a communist would. Voting blue has resulted in pretty much nothing substantial at any point for even progressive Americans, who the blues will and have blocked at any opportunity from taking the country 'too left'. They're not stopping 'the reds' from taking the country further to the right, however. But thoughts and prayers.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:51 am
by Page
If Roe is overturned, LA 92 and George Floyd will look like a block party compared to the riots that will happen.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:54 am
by San Lumen
Page wrote:If Roe is overturned, LA 92 and George Floyd will look like a block party compared to the riots that will happen.


Not to mention the electoral backlash.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:57 am
by Austria-Bohemia-Hungary
San Lumen wrote:
Page wrote:If Roe is overturned, LA 92 and George Floyd will look like a block party compared to the riots that will happen.


Not to mention the electoral backlash.

your fantasies are not very interesting, and this is a fantasy because
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Then Republicans can enjoy a blue wave that would rival that of 1894.

Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality abortion is illegal again?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 9:58 am
by San Lumen
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
Not to mention the electoral backlash.

your fantasies are not very interesting, and this is a fantasy because
Austria-Bohemia-Hungary wrote:Do you think some Trumpista is suddenly going to vote dem once homosexuality abortion is illegal again?


Maybe not in some places but when something is overwhelming supported by the populous and you have court totally out of step with public opinion your going to face backlash.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:01 am
by Ifreann
Why would people elect Democrats to protect abortion rights when the Democratic Party doesn't want to protect abortion rights?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:02 am
by San Lumen
Ifreann wrote:Why would people elect Democrats to protect abortion rights when the Democratic Party doesn't want to protect abortion rights?


https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/12/02/ ... -roe-wade/

Colorado Democrats Aim To Uphold Colorado Reproductive Rights Regardless Of Supreme Court Outcome

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:06 am
by Ifreann
San Lumen wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Why would people elect Democrats to protect abortion rights when the Democratic Party doesn't want to protect abortion rights?


https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/12/02/ ... -roe-wade/

Colorado Democrats Aim To Uphold Colorado Reproductive Rights Regardless Of Supreme Court Outcome

On what date did Barack Obama sign the Freedom Of Choice Act into law?

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:18 am
by The Blaatschapen
Ifreann wrote:Why would people elect Democrats to protect abortion rights when the Democratic Party doesn't want to protect abortion rights?


Because the viable alternative is even less likely to protect abortion rights :(

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:30 am
by Limonovshchina
The Blaatschapen wrote:
Ifreann wrote:Why would people elect Democrats to protect abortion rights when the Democratic Party doesn't want to protect abortion rights?


Because the viable alternative is even less likely to protect abortion rights :(

Then I guess abortion rights will never be protected. But don't worry, there's always the option of rebellion and it is right to rebel against reactionary forces.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:42 am
by Ifreann
Ifreann wrote:
San Lumen wrote:
https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/12/02/ ... -roe-wade/

Colorado Democrats Aim To Uphold Colorado Reproductive Rights Regardless Of Supreme Court Outcome

On what date did Barack Obama sign the Freedom Of Choice Act into law?

That's right, he didn't. He said in 2007 that it would be the first thing he did if elected. Then he was elected and didn't. In 2009 he said it wasn't a priority.

The Democratic Party doesn't support the right to abortion. They want to be a big tent party when it comes to abortion.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:46 am
by Hankiana
Fauzjhia wrote:
New haven america wrote:Fox is actually ironically one of the best polling stations around.

So much so that Fox News hosts are shocked that the majority of Americans support things they hate. Like that time ~70% of Fox News viewers supported UHC and they had to scramble to explain why that was actually a bad thing.


Polls do not have voice, they do not vote, they have no influence. Sorry to be pessimist
the only correct is a STRONG vote blue in the next election, but that might be nipped by gerrymandering and false allegations of cheating...

the only correct backlash is a strong movement to retake the supreme court and get politics out of justice. That would be real backlash.

Sounds like someone isn't playing with a full deck... Like many, many others in this thread.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:48 am
by Vassenor
So if women are to be required to give birth in the US are they still going to be charged six figure sums for the birth?

Especially if they want to hold their new child after delivery.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 10:59 am
by Ifreann
Vassenor wrote:So if women are to be required to give birth in the US are they still going to be charged six figure sums for the birth?

Especially if they want to hold their new child after delivery.

Knowing America, probably.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 02, 2021 11:20 am
by Farnhamia
Hankiana wrote:
Fauzjhia wrote:
Polls do not have voice, they do not vote, they have no influence. Sorry to be pessimist
the only correct is a STRONG vote blue in the next election, but that might be nipped by gerrymandering and false allegations of cheating...

the only correct backlash is a strong movement to retake the supreme court and get politics out of justice. That would be real backlash.

Sounds like someone isn't playing with a full deck... Like many, many others in this thread.

*** Warned for trolling ***