17 posts were split to a new topic: Mr Smashy’s Trollerama from the Roe vs. Wade thread
If I ran the DNC I would put advertising in heavy rotation from now until November, saying “This is what happens when you vote Republican”. No mention of any candidate on either side, just:
- Rollback of constitution rights by radical activist judges (pictures of Kavanaugh lying to the Senate)
- No action on climate change (hurricanes and forest fires)
- No action on common-sense gun laws (mass shooting aftermath)
- Sedition and insurrection (mob attacking the Capitol)
Vote Democratic.
That is essentially Roberts’s position. However, he argues that the Supreme Court should overrule precedent in the narrowest possible way by overruling that part of Roe v Wade without completely saying there is no constitutional right to abortion whatsoever…at least to decide this particular case.
‘But they aren’t doing enough about insert pet issue here!’
Modnote: This is fairly inappropriate, please refrain from sexual comments in non-sexual threads.
nm got people confused
~Max
Wrong post, I think…
There is obviously a balance here. As the dissenters point out, what ends up looking particularly bad is when stare decisis is abandoned just because the makeup of the Court has changed and not because of some larger, broader, and more fundamental shift in our society, in the facts, or in constitutional law.
It is clear today that Roe v Wade is overturned because of a bunch of random events such as…
- RBG passing away a couple months earlier than when it would have been under a Democratic administration.
- Mitch McConnell betting on being able to deny a Democratic President a nomination after Scalia’s death.
- Comey announcing the need to re-open the Hillary Clinton investigation just before the election (and the 2nd Republican President in a generation hence eeking out a victory in the electoral college while losing the popular vote).
There’s nothing magical about the age of 18 that makes one an adult either. Sometimes an arbitrary cut-off date has to be chosen.
Is your contention with the time that was chosen, or the fact that a time was chosen at all?
Substantive Due Process is a constitutional law principle that says the 5th and 14th Amendments extend the principle of due process of law to place certain rights which are grounded in historical traditions of the US beyond government interference. These rights include(d) right to privacy, right to marriage, right to control the education of one’s children (which if Thomas struck down substantive due process some states could private schooling).
There is a chance the court could use equal protection instead of substantive due process in these cases, but that’s generally a slight bit more difficult.
Actually, polls show there is very little difference between women and men WRT attitudes about abortion. It’s not really a women’s issue in that sense.
I’m with you. I have ZERO respect for the Assholes on the bench. We really need a Pit thread about this, but I’m too lazy to start one.
I believe that’s incorrect, and the argument is not that abortion has always been illegal. I think the argument is that abortion has never been regarded as a “fundamental right”, and since it’s not explicit in the Constitution, that’s the bar it would have to meet.
Justice Thomas doesn’t see Loving v Virginia as a case about the right to marriage. He doesn’t recognize a federal right to marriage. In his dissent from Obergefell v Hodges he characterized Loving as being about the right not to be arrested (he defines “liberty” as the opposite of being detained) for cohabitating.
~Max
For all those celebrating the end of Roe v Wade, look at the broader picture. 3 of the Justices that voted to end it lied about it during their confirmation hearing. They literally committed perjury since if they didn’t they wouldn’t have gotten the job. And what they lied about, was a belief in precedence. They just showed that they don’t care about “settled cases”, their ideology overrides everything. So if you happen to share 100% of the same ideology as a rapist or handmaiden you’re good right? No.
There’s what Roe was. It’s not a case that says “you can’t have abortions”, it was settled on the grounds of “privacy”. Allowing abortions was a consequences of saying “you have a right to privacy”. Ending Roe means you have no right to privacy.
We have a rogue court that doesn’t care about what laws there are or what rights you have. It’ll force it’s own very specific, very rapey and zealot beliefs on you whether you want it or not.
Very nice. 
This is clearly false
I’ve long been tempted to write a parody of a Clarence Thomas decision overturning Loving v. Virginia but it wouldn’t pass moderation on this board, not even in the Pit, it would largely consist of Thomas going into graphic detail about how horrible and disgusting his marriage is.
You should send a report to the mods about your account being stolen from 2014 through 2019 ASAP!
Cite?