Roe v Wade struck down

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning abortion is tie result of decades of methodical planning by conservatives. The Supreme Court is solidly conservative and will remain so for a generation. Win or lose at the ballot, conservative court will force conservative policies on the nation, just as the formerly liberal court did in the second half of the 1900s. Democrats politicized the court and now conservatives are beating them at their own game. There is nothing democrats can do about it, except adjust to their new reality. These are the facts.

When did democrats politicize the court?

Dem states should ignore the court, just like red states have continuously done. If that specific gun regulation in NY is not permitted, try another version and let it work it’s way to the courts. Then write a slightly different one, and so on.

Substantive due process, roe v wade, interpreting the commerce clause to allow the massive growth of the administrative state, etc. These are all areas where the court gave up on any sort of actual legal analysis and just started issuing political sections with no legitimate justification. Conservatives have been developing originalism as a principled alternative. Liberal justices have no theory of interpretation, just a naked results oriented approach. And now they no longer have the votes.

Originalism is the greatest farce I’ve ever seen. There is nothing principled or even historically accurate about it. The framers would have never tolerated the state interfering with their most precious property (that is - their wives and kids) in the way Texas et al have done. If you have no right to keep the state out of the body of your wife, who cares about your house or your papers? Especially when it’s the PAPISTS they fled from in Europe that are doing it?! (England’s bloody religious battles would have been living memory for them). Nope nope nope.

Why was abortion illegal at the time then?

It wasn’t illegal. You have been subjected to disinformation. Laws against abortion in the United States did not get imposed until the mid-19th century.

Your head is going to explode when you learn when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted

Hardly. The pp was asking why abortion was illegal when the constitution was drafted.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning abortion is tie result of decades of methodical planning by conservatives. The Supreme Court is solidly conservative and will remain so for a generation. Win or lose at the ballot, conservative court will force conservative policies on the nation, just as the formerly liberal court did in the second half of the 1900s. Democrats politicized the court and now conservatives are beating them at their own game. There is nothing democrats can do about it, except adjust to their new reality. These are the facts.

When did democrats politicize the court?

Dem states should ignore the court, just like red states have continuously done. If that specific gun regulation in NY is not permitted, try another version and let it work it’s way to the courts. Then write a slightly different one, and so on.

Substantive due process, roe v wade, interpreting the commerce clause to allow the massive growth of the administrative state, etc. These are all areas where the court gave up on any sort of actual legal analysis and just started issuing political sections with no legitimate justification. Conservatives have been developing originalism as a principled alternative. Liberal justices have no theory of interpretation, just a naked results oriented approach. And now they no longer have the votes.

Originalism is the greatest farce I’ve ever seen. There is nothing principled or even historically accurate about it. The framers would have never tolerated the state interfering with their most precious property (that is - their wives and kids) in the way Texas et al have done. If you have no right to keep the state out of the body of your wife, who cares about your house or your papers? Especially when it’s the PAPISTS they fled from in Europe that are doing it?! (England’s bloody religious battles would have been living memory for them). Nope nope nope.

Why was abortion illegal at the time then?

It wasn’t illegal. You have been subjected to disinformation. Laws against abortion in the United States did not get imposed until the mid-19th century.

Your head is going to explode when you learn when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted

Hardly. The pp was asking why abortion was illegal when the constitution was drafted.

That’s part of the Constitution. In fact, it’s the relevant part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought the left was against slut shaming? But somehow it becomes okay and viral worthy to out a then underage teenager’s sex life and abortion.

No one said she was a slut. She’s a filthy hypocrite. Much worse.

To be fair, Ivanka's abortion would still be legal in states with an incest exception.

Yes, Trump is gross about his daughter, but incest is never a joke. It is a horrifying form of abuse that ruins a person’s entire life.

— daughter of an incest survivor

Not really a joke, and please let people make dark jokes. You don’t know what issues some women are dealing with around the GOP enslaving them and gallows humor helps some people. I am very sorry for what was done to your parent; my parent experienced that too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have a vagina or a medical degree your vote shouldn’t count for womens health issues. Further, womens health issues shouldn’t be up for a vote at all. Period.

If you don’t have a penis you cannot judge the actions of a man. Word.

No, because I don’t have male anatomy I can’t judge someone who develops prostate cancer for how he chooses to manage it. It’s a situation that will never apply to me and I don’t know any of the scientific or personal/emotional context, so why would I think MY opinion mattered? If my husband, Heaven forbid, ever gets prostate cancer, the choice of how to treat it will be his choice because it’s his body and he gets to decide what happens to it.

You dare equate pregnancy’s to prostate cancer? Rot in hell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have a vagina or a medical degree your vote shouldn’t count for womens health issues. Further, womens health issues shouldn’t be up for a vote at all. Period.

If you don’t have a penis you cannot judge the actions of a man. Word.

No, because I don’t have male anatomy I can’t judge someone who develops prostate cancer for how he chooses to manage it. It’s a situation that will never apply to me and I don’t know any of the scientific or personal/emotional context, so why would I think MY opinion mattered? If my husband, Heaven forbid, ever gets prostate cancer, the choice of how to treat it will be his choice because it’s his body and he gets to decide what happens to it.

You dare equate pregnancy’s to prostate cancer? Rot in hell.

Keep your Cristofacist notions of heaven and hell in that empty hole where a frontal lobe would typically go.

[Anonymous]

Good. Arrests have been made. Now, follow up with prosecution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning abortion is tie result of decades of methodical planning by conservatives. The Supreme Court is solidly conservative and will remain so for a generation. Win or lose at the ballot, conservative court will force conservative policies on the nation, just as the formerly liberal court did in the second half of the 1900s. Democrats politicized the court and now conservatives are beating them at their own game. There is nothing democrats can do about it, except adjust to their new reality. These are the facts.

If the Dema were as dirty and unethical as the Reps, they can simply stack the court. Which I would be fully in support of at this point.

The Trump appointees should be impeached for demonstrably lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Time for Dems to develop a backbone and play as dirty as they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning abortion is tie result of decades of methodical planning by conservatives. The Supreme Court is solidly conservative and will remain so for a generation. Win or lose at the ballot, conservative court will force conservative policies on the nation, just as the formerly liberal court did in the second half of the 1900s. Democrats politicized the court and now conservatives are beating them at their own game. There is nothing democrats can do about it, except adjust to their new reality. These are the facts.

If the Dema were as dirty and unethical as the Reps, they can simply stack the court. Which I would be fully in support of at this point.

The Trump appointees should be impeached for demonstrably lying to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Time for Dems to develop a backbone and play as dirty as they do.

I laugh at this. Develop a backbone, play dirty? In case you have missed it, you are at war with religious fundamentalists, act accordingly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good. Arrests have been made. Now, follow up with prosecution.

Fox News? Must be a false flag, like, I dunno, every single other time a protest has turned violent.

You people really can’t help yourselves from acting violent the second someone isn’t happy with what you’ve done to the country. Just sitting by itching for a reason to bomb is to smithereens. We have fingers and toes and heartbeats too, you know. And everyone knows what you’re up to at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Banning abortion is tie result of decades of methodical planning by conservatives. The Supreme Court is solidly conservative and will remain so for a generation. Win or lose at the ballot, conservative court will force conservative policies on the nation, just as the formerly liberal court did in the second half of the 1900s. Democrats politicized the court and now conservatives are beating them at their own game. There is nothing democrats can do about it, except adjust to their new reality. These are the facts.

When did democrats politicize the court?

Dem states should ignore the court, just like red states have continuously done. If that specific gun regulation in NY is not permitted, try another version and let it work it’s way to the courts. Then write a slightly different one, and so on.

Substantive due process, roe v wade, interpreting the commerce clause to allow the massive growth of the administrative state, etc. These are all areas where the court gave up on any sort of actual legal analysis and just started issuing political sections with no legitimate justification. Conservatives have been developing originalism as a principled alternative. Liberal justices have no theory of interpretation, just a naked results oriented approach. And now they no longer have the votes.

Originalism is the greatest farce I’ve ever seen. There is nothing principled or even historically accurate about it. The framers would have never tolerated the state interfering with their most precious property (that is - their wives and kids) in the way Texas et al have done. If you have no right to keep the state out of the body of your wife, who cares about your house or your papers? Especially when it’s the PAPISTS they fled from in Europe that are doing it?! (England’s bloody religious battles would have been living memory for them). Nope nope nope.

Why was abortion illegal at the time then?

It wasn’t illegal. You have been subjected to disinformation. Laws against abortion in the United States did not get imposed until the mid-19th century.

DP. These people just won’t quit with their BS. Abortion was always legal in the common law until very recent history.

This opinion is 100% trash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you don’t have a vagina or a medical degree your vote shouldn’t count for womens health issues. Further, womens health issues shouldn’t be up for a vote at all. Period.

If you don’t have a penis you cannot judge the actions of a man. Word.

No, because I don’t have male anatomy I can’t judge someone who develops prostate cancer for how he chooses to manage it. It’s a situation that will never apply to me and I don’t know any of the scientific or personal/emotional context, so why would I think MY opinion mattered? If my husband, Heaven forbid, ever gets prostate cancer, the choice of how to treat it will be his choice because it’s his body and he gets to decide what happens to it.

You dare equate pregnancy’s to prostate cancer? Rot in hell.

You dare try to control my body? Come and make me!

[Anonymous]

Judism recognizes life at birth, not conception.

So why are Christian beliefs being given preferential treatment over my beliefs?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Judism recognizes life at birth, not conception.

So why are Christian beliefs being given preferential treatment over my beliefs?

This ruling goes against religious freedom and is thus unconstitutional.

I think there need to be criminal referrals for perjury made to DoJ for Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett because THEY ALL LIED UNDER OATH. There should be immediate impeachment hearings started against them - Clinton was impeached for less. They need to be removed from SCOTUS and any decisions that they drove the majority on should be considered illegitimate as their nominations were illegitimate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judism recognizes life at birth, not conception.

So why are Christian beliefs being given preferential treatment over my beliefs?

This ruling goes against religious freedom and is thus unconstitutional.

I think there need to be criminal referrals for perjury made to DoJ for Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett because THEY ALL LIED UNDER OATH. There should be immediate impeachment hearings started against them - Clinton was impeached for less. They need to be removed from SCOTUS and any decisions that they drove the majority on should be considered illegitimate as their nominations were illegitimate.

I agree with the broader sentiment, but "what is Constitutional" is what the SCOTUS says.

So...we have a legitimacy issue which is a constitutional crisis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Judism recognizes life at birth, not conception.

So why are Christian beliefs being given preferential treatment over my beliefs?

This ruling goes against religious freedom and is thus unconstitutional.

I think there need to be criminal referrals for perjury made to DoJ for Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett because THEY ALL LIED UNDER OATH. There should be immediate impeachment hearings started against them - Clinton was impeached for less. They need to be removed from SCOTUS and any decisions that they drove the majority on should be considered illegitimate as their nominations were illegitimate.

They should be impeached. Any employee caught lying in their application is fired from most jobs in the US. They deliberately misled the American people on this issue. This question was asked to them repeatedly and from multiple angles, this is not a matter of misunderstanding. They gave public and private assurances. They lack the ethical and moral integrity to lead the country. Also they should be disbarred on ethical grounds.