The Right religious conservatives and who knows who else have today overturned the constitutional right to abortion in the US.
Will this now embolden anti abortionists in this country to fight back?
The US is a cold place for women now.
Some judges keep faith with the original interpretation, some that it is a living document .
Who knows what is the best way, such is human nature.
is it an incorrect reading (or interpretation) of the constitution that has people downright mad?
must be a good thing so in that its back to democracy of the states? much ado about nothing as it seems.
remember the SC is only there to ensure the constitution is adhered to....
i was typing the above and then i remembered the 5th amendment (right to due process). what's the story there given guantanamo bay?
How can there be a case before them when they aren't even on the bench at the time? What a stupid take to justify this.
Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Alito and Barrett all lied, under oath, as judges. The fact you don't think that matters shows that you don't actually give a sh*te about the law. F*ck the law as long as women can have their rights to medical care ripped up in front of their eyes.
Haha
That's enough Kurt Russell movies for one night
I wouldn't be so sure of that.
More likely left-wing militias will have state-of-the-art arms and training provided by domestic intelligence agencies including, but not limited to, the CIA.
Was there a case before them when asked at the hearing no. They were asked there opinion at that time and gave it.
Some of those hearings were years ago, what relevance bar a curiosity factor do they have to a Supreme court ruling after months of deliberation this year??
Pointing out that a judge lied under oath is not a weak argument.
There’s a common theme among those trying to defend this whenever a point they can’t dispute is thrown at them.
’weak’
’childish’
’disingenuous’
’triggered’
All been said to try and dismiss a legitimate point. Wonder why that is.
That's a fairly weak argument.
Judges are allowed give serious matters full consideration.
If that's the line opponents of this are reduced to..
Which disagreed with their own words they stated under oath...
No, the Judges basically said it should never have been a supreme court issue,that it was a decision for the electorate as expressed through State legislatures not a small group of Judges.
It wasn't about abortion as such but whether it was an issue for the Court to decide in line with the constitution there. They said no, that decision resides with the people alone.
with all this being talked about...can anyone say how the rvw conclusion was reached 50 years ago?
i guess it should be fairly straight forward given the reaction to its overturning.
i'm genuinely confused here. this is hardly judges of a different political leaning, disregarding the thing they are sworn to uphold?
I suspect also it was a matter of "don't rock the boat". At the time that they were getting elected, abortion was nationwide. There was nothing to advocate for, except that anouncing "I'm going to double down on abortion protections", and all that would do is attract attention to something which would be more likely to cause more harm to a re-election campaign than good. It wouldn't make more people eligible for abortion, there was little 'demand' for it from the voters compared to other issues.
You will remember in Ireland for years that the lawyers were telling the government that the statutory rape laws were unConstitutional? Perhaps, but the laws were in place at the time, and no politician was going to rock the boat by saying "We're going to change the statutory rape laws to allow exceptions in some cases", it would be political self-injury. The politicians were happy to leave it alone until 2006 when it blew up in the government's face.
It seems astonishing that a country like the US is now reduced to having frenzied arguments and debates about the rights and wrongs of abortion, arguments that were being held 50 years ago - sometimes involving the grandparents of those arguing now.
The equivalent in Ireland would be the nation in 2022 gripped by furious and divisive arguments about whether divorce or contraception are a good idea and whether they should be legal or not.
The idea that there would be a civil war over this is far fetched. There wasn't much reaction this weekend in America.
There probably some collective of Anarchists that might kill some Pro Life campaigner. Burn down some churches, synagogues and centres but they were always looking for a cause anyway and will always be on the political margins.
So no civil war but there could be a few nasty incidents.
People still not able to accept that America is a kip.
Civil war?
Sure the Republicans have all the guns and training
Morse likey to be from a rural area as opposed to cities so would make more useful soldiers.
Ie
Man who hunts deer at the weekends and builds structures VS man who cuts hair and lives with a cat.
I don't think this will lead to a civil war for the record. However it has fundamentally damaged their democracy at this stage. And they have experienced many of these in recent years. And these accruing issues will eventually lead to something radical.
I asked upthread if anyone here was prepared to fight and die for gay marriage and got zero responses.
I think predictions of civil wars are overblown. Where is the strong motivation to fight and kill going to come from? I don't think banning abortions in South Carolina and limiting them in Texas will do it. These places have always been like by-words for a kind of Christian conservatism.
Ah sure, you can't be starting a civil war about everything. Nobody had even heard of the abolition of slavery a few years back or the right for women to vote. Cause these kinds of things could have been said at any point in history. At the point when a society attempts to regress civil rights, there's something pretty awful happening.
Also the reality is, abortions will continue to happen. It's just gonna make it more difficult for certain people to get them.
I would say that if you a woman in the states that will now have less rights than they did before you would be p!ssed off. Who likes losing rights, especially ones they had for 50 years? I guess the reference to the Taliban is because they so happen to share a lot of similar views with the American brand of religious fanatacism, evangelicals. It is also a mess as the supreme court has shown it can be politically compromised and in a few decades perhaps the democrats will fill it and change this ruling. The law should be the law no matter what the political or religious persuasion of the supreme justice is.
And the liberals are still whining. What this conservative majority supreme court have done is took the hot potato that is abortion and flung it back onto the desks of state capitols to deal with. I'd hate to see the froth at the mouth if they started working through abortion legal cases that came their way and eroded the original Roe-V-Wade which would effect all states. Liberals are never happy, eh? Your reference to democrats filling the SC is quite telling as it pertains to you wanting your ethical grievances resolved by a court to over-rule states that don't want that overreach.
You can't fight a civil war every time one of these issues comes up. Especially gay marriage which even didn't exist a few years ago and almost no one had heard of it, why is that fundamental to civillised life? Essentially its like multiple countries in one country. There has to be some flex or maybe they would be better off splitting up into different countries (though worse off in no longer having one 50-state economic powershouse)
And not that I agree with it obviously - but they turn a blind eye to slavery in Saudi Arabia, Dubai and similar places which are US client states of a kind. Its hidden but not hidden very well.
This doesnt make sense- no one is forcing irreligious practices on religious people- a religious person can be against homosexuality if they see fit but why should they prevent the state from allowing state marriages between gay people, they are not forcing churchs to marry them. There should be a limited level of rights that everyone in the united states should have or else you could return to the abomination of interracial marriages being illegal, gay rights being revoked based on religious grounds etc. These rights should be in law but again they can be blocked by religious senators. Its a broken system if people in some states have less rights than others, sure you could say that once lead to a civil war there.
Like I said in my belated edit, it tends to be best to assume they are in the whole being talked about. Threads go off topic quickly in the ones I have seen stating this effects people (didn't even specify trans men, just people) as people got real offended in spite of the fact that no matter your opinion on trans people, women are in fact people.
The fact remains that there are people legally recognised as men with the capacity to get pregnant.
Whether you like it or not, they are affected by this too.
That's a pretty boring radicalization if he's turning himself in.... If anything, it's a man with mental health issues who offered self up to authorities cause he viewed self to be a public danger. He never harmed anyone.
You are kicking a dead horse here
This thread is about abortion, it affects women who can get pregnant. Everybody including you understands this perfectly. If you think men can get pregnant too there are other threads to disucss
Most of the early colonies and then states were self-contained theocracies with state-sponsored churches and 'the separation of church and state' at that time meant that there wouldn't be an Established church lording it over the others.* Like in Ireland where Prebyterians and Catholics had to pay tithes to the Anglican Church and Catholics had to hold masses in secret.
Allowing each state to make its own laws re: abortion is like a return to that. There are enough atheists in the USA that they can essentially maintain several atheist states like California, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont etc. Anyone who is uncomfortable with Evangelicism or Mormonism can pack their things and go and live in one of these states.
So there is still religious freedom and plenty of freedom from religion if that's what you're having yourself. What there isn't (or shouldn't be) is an a-theocracy which makes a-religious customs, beliefs and practices mandatory for all 50 states regardless of whether local majorities in these states want that or not.
*This phrase, which has no legal standing whatsoever afaik, comes from a personal letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptists in Connecticut explaining to them that the federal government couldn't and wouldn't pick favourites between different religions.
Besides which Thomas, Roberts etc. do not use religious ideology formally in their decisions. Its actually a low-key conspiracy theory to say they are crypto-Catholic subverters (though maybe they are!) since that is certainly not how their legal opinions are set out. At least I didn't see any references to Holy God or the Sacred Heart in the decision in the news stories covering this SC decision.
Riiiiiiight...... 😅
Nope, he was radicalised by Chuck Schumer.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/dbba4c22aa1d352d2cdbb076e36aea8c.svg)
