Roe v Wade overturned????? Draft says so

Do you agree wt the draft majority opinion

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 20.0%

  • No

    Votes: 28 80.0%

  • Not sure

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    35
TGHusker said:
The Bold: True.  Roe V Wade was judicial activism to its fullest extent.  The current court reacted in a like wise manner.  Or did they just go back to the constitution?  In some ways we have an Orwellian thing going on here.  The court threw the whole issue back to the states and the people of the state (state legislatures and governors being the people's representatives) to decide.  The court honored the 10th amendment - rights not expressly given to the federal govt are given to the states to decide.  They did not hold that the 14th amendment was intended to address this issue. It seems that the court in 1973 took this right away from the people(each state) and by judicial overreach made a decision that was not in their constitutional wheelhouse to make.  But now we hear that this conservative court is an activist court when they turn back to the constitution to give back to the people (via the state reps) the power that was meant for the states to have.   There is an olive branch to the Pro-choice group however:  they can harness the will of the people and their representatives by working on a constitutional amendment or other federal legislation that could have similar affect if that is possible (I'm not a constitutional scholar so  :dunno  just my gut feeling that there are remedies).  Of course a future court of more liberal justices can correct what is perceived to be an error by this court.   This remedy can all start with the 2022 mid-term elections.  Let's see what happens.
Click to expand...


teachercd said:
I know you hate choice, that is fine, what other choices do you hate?
Click to expand...
Are you guys both hacking each other's account?

 
TGHusker said:
The Bold: True.  Roe V Wade was judicial activism to its fullest extent.  The current court reacted in a like wise manner.  Or did they just go back to the constitution?  In some ways we have an Orwellian thing going on here.  The court threw the whole issue back to the states and the people of the state (state legislatures and governors being the people's representatives) to decide.  The court honored the 10th amendment - rights not expressly given to the federal govt are given to the states to decide.  They did not hold that the 14th amendment was intended to address this issue. It seems that the court in 1973 took this right away from the people(each state) and by judicial overreach made a decision that was not in their constitutional wheelhouse to make.  But now we hear that this conservative court is an activist court when they turn back to the constitution to give back to the people (via the state reps) the power that was meant for the states to have.   There is an olive branch to the Pro-choice group however:  they can harness the will of the people and their representatives by working on a constitutional amendment or other federal legislation that could have similar affect if that is possible (I'm not a constitutional scholar so  :dunno  just my gut feeling that there are remedies).  Of course a future court of more liberal justices can correct what is perceived to be an error by this court.   This remedy can all start with the 2022 mid-term elections.  Let's see what happens.
Click to expand...
Yeah, ok, if the conservative majority wasn't talking out of both sides of the collective arses on back to back days, that may be an interpretation. But one day they argued States did not have the power to address gun rights, the next day States are the only place to decide abortion rights. More cognitive dissonance and in doing so, they overturned more than 150 years of established case law. The Supreme Court was established to run on precedent. Established law informing New law and unusual legal circumstances. You want a group that will just do what they feel because they feel it, go to your local city council meeting. The Supreme Court is supposed to be the stabile that maintains the turbulence of congress and the presidency that is why they are lifetime appointments. Overturning 150 years of precedence should not happen like this. 

 
Danny Bateman said:
Simple sequence of events:

1. Conservatives on court lied to Senate and entire country stating Roe was settled law and thus safe to get confirmed.

2. They summarily overturn it with no accountability.

3. Thomas explicitly states we should revisit the cases guaranteeing a right to gay marriage and contraception and outlawing sodomy laws.

In no way, shape or form is any of the concern melodramatic. People are correctly concerned about the rights these clowns have out and out told us they want to go after next.
Click to expand...




And this isn’t how the justices are supposed to behave. If Thomas wants those things looked at he should look at interracial marriage as well. Or maybe look inwardly and realize his logic is s#!t. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
B.B. Hemingway said:
Lol.

I’m a business owner who is very active in multiple community and school leadership boards, so yeah, I get out plenty. Sounds like I hang around the good kind of people. Maybe you should assess who you surround yourself with.

So the answer to this (alleged) rampant issue of child hating mothers is to…. kill them before they ever have a chance? Right…. And I’d only be naive if I believed so many mothers had confided in you that they wish their children had been aborted.
Click to expand...
Nice personal dig there. Keep it classy.

I live in the real world. I know there are drunks, druggies, and broken homes. I don't have to associate with those people to know it's reality. I never said abortion was a solution, simply that your premise that every mom loves their child isn't true.

 
Anyone with integrity interviewing for a lifetime appointment would have said, "Yes I believe Roe vs Wade should be overturned and if it comes before the court I'll vote for just that".  Because that was the Trump appointed justice's intention all along.  The damage to our institutions by the Trumpists is appalling.

 
Notre Dame Joe said:
If Christopher Hitchens hadn't drank himself to death and was alive today he would say, that which was created by judicial activism can be abolished by judicial activism.  And please let me out of this coffin
Click to expand...


That's pretty funny, Joe.  Honestly. 

The first time I read it I thought you meant it as a rallying cry:  a new wave of judicial activism could overturn this grotesque Alito/Thomas over-reach. But you were probably coming at it from the other direction. 

Let's start by making Puerto Rico a state and having Biden appoint a tenth and eleventh Supreme Court justice. Fair enough?

 
Remember when we were told it was "hyperbole" to suggest that abortion laws would not be put into place without exceptions such as rape and incest?   :blink:


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top