“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft

[Anonymous]

This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

DP. Lots of things aren't in the Constitution--like the size of the SC. Saying "it's not in the Constitution" just sounds dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

That is insane.

WTAF?

The reasoning rests on the assertion that because it was historically a crime it must never have been a right. It’s circular and insane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.

Exactly. Who is it supposed to serve, anyway, if not the people? It is supposed to provide equal justice under the law--but it no longer does that. Time to go!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.

Yup. It’s defunct.

[Anonymous]

The right being abridged by the way, isn’t just the right to abortion. It’s the right to choose healthcare procedures that reduce your chances of death, or other harm. That’s the holding. The state has that power apparently, but only in this one case, because I guess a fetus is more important than a living woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

That is insane.

WTAF?

It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

[Anonymous]

The biggest losers of this are the two political parties in our country. While I disagree with this possible ruling, it does expose that lawmakers have punted a legislative issue to the courts which is not the role of our judiciary.

Let's be real: neither the Dems or Repubs wanted to legislate on this issue because it was a brilliant wedge issue that got people riled up and willing to donate lots of money so long as there was a "struggle" to fight for.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every elected official should have to sway under oath that no woman they've ever impregnated has gotten an abortion.
And they should get mandatory 10 years in prison if they are found to have perjured themselves

1,000% this. And full media notification of their answers. I find it interesting that Alito has two children. Why only 2? It seems statistically impossible that sperm met egg only 2 times in his relationship with his wife. What birth control, that will be outlawed next, was part of this arrangement?

Most Catholics I know that are his age have at least a half dozen kids

Bullsh--. I went through Pre Cana in Arlington Diocese, one of the most conservative in the Country (per their own priests). The Deacon that gave the birth control speech, while having 10 kids of his own, openly admitted the VAST majority of Catholics use BC of some sort.

I went through Pre Cana in DC, which included a training and follow up session on natural family planning (which for several reasons, was quite entertaining actually). While I never tested it out (as I was on BC), it is possible that a conservative catholic could follow it. Ultimately, that is a private matter between Alito and his wife just as abortion should be a private decision of a woman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

This is not news. It’s how this nation was founded. The issue is whether privacy is a federally protected right, like speech, religion, assembly, etc. I believe the right to privacy is fundamental and should be protected from whatever a state decides to do to it. I’m disgusted that there are those that would see this case as an opportunity to return the issue of privacy to a potentially uneducated gullible majority instead of protecting it from political whims. The Supreme Court has the opportunity here to fix the holes in Roe’s analysis if they want to. Shameful, outrageous, disgusting.

That is insane.

WTAF?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

The GOP hasn’t exactly been quiet about their intention to kill democracy, from the white shoe riot that did it’s part to get us W in office despite losing (and four justices on this travesty kangaroo court) to this with a GOP attempt to overthrow the government (involved in which is the spouse of a justice and quite possibly the justice himself).

The GOP is trying to kill democracy and their pea brained voters - including most of the right wingers on here - support it fully. They understand this is actually a bad thing, that it’s sedition and treachery and all that, so they gaslight us at every opportunity (most notably on the voting threads; “can you show me where Republicans are doing x thing that you have shown me in dozens of threads?”). They call us hysterical - including on this very thread.

So again some steps:
1. If you’re a woman, a minority, an immigrant, LGBTQ+ and you’re a Republican voter, now is perhaps your last opportunity to realize that you aren’t a member of the GOP so much as you’re a tool for them.
2. Adopt a race or several in states that are likely to flip.
3. Identify voting rights groups (Stacey Abram’s is great but I think it’s still just Georgia? Still - Keep that seat!!) and give heavily.
4. Kill the GOP. Grey rock the Republicans in your life for whom that’s appropriate.
5. VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:States Rights is part of the Constitution, abortion isnt.

Go read the Ninth Amendment. You know, the one right before the Tenth one with the “States Rights” in it.

Correct. It’s just so obvious here. What power does the state have to criminalize abortion? Where does the constitution give the government that power?

Explain it to me because that is the question. And I don’t think there is a legitimate state interest in denying pregnant women access to medical care that, if denied, would increase their chances of harm.

They're argument is that the State has the inherent power to control everything not specifically excluded. It flips the entire principle of our democracy upside down. Under their interpretation of the Constitution power flows down instead of up. Rights are not inherent to individuals but rather courtesies given to the people by the government.

That is insane.

WTAF?

It’s in the Constitution. Per the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

.

Now read the 14th.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Every elected official should have to sway under oath that no woman they've ever impregnated has gotten an abortion.
And they should get mandatory 10 years in prison if they are found to have perjured themselves

1,000% this. And full media notification of their answers. I find it interesting that Alito has two children. Why only 2? It seems statistically impossible that sperm met egg only 2 times in his relationship with his wife. What birth control, that will be outlawed next, was part of this arrangement?

Most Catholics I know that are his age have at least a half dozen kids

Bullsh--. I went through Pre Cana in Arlington Diocese, one of the most conservative in the Country (per their own priests). The Deacon that gave the birth control speech, while having 10 kids of his own, openly admitted the VAST majority of Catholics use BC of some sort.

I went through Pre Cana in DC, which included a training and follow up session on natural family planning (which for several reasons, was quite entertaining actually). While I never tested it out (as I was on BC), it is possible that a conservative catholic could follow it. Ultimately, that is a private matter between Alito and his wife just as abortion should be a private decision of a woman.

Nahhh. If Sammy doesn’t think women should have bodily autonomy and privacy, why does he think he’s exempt? I think we’re entitled to know everything about that scrumping little weasel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This really basically invalidates and makes us no longer need the supreme Court.

No, we need a functioning Supreme Court. Currently we have a religious tribunal.

[Anonymous]

When women are forced to carry pregnancies they often die. So please tel me why criminalizing abortion doesn’t violate any fundamental rights again?