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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You’re living in the GOP created theocracy. Women have no fundamentally rights because five people on the Supreme Court are so stupid that they literally believe women were created by God from Adam’s rib. There’s a literal handmaiden on the court who said that pregnancy and childbirth weren’t that difficult.

Well yes but I’d like one person her supports this travesty of a legal opinion to explain to me how the “fascist five” so casually explained fundamental rights away to avoid having to apply strict scrutiny.

Three of the justices are totally and completely illegitimate, that’s how. The GOP just does what it wants, and no I don’t know why. I guess Democrats are just fundamentally decent people who believe in the rule of law and won’t take the motherkillers down, but here we are.

Sorry I don’t mean “how” literally. I mean I would like someone to explain the logic to me because in my reading of the opinion I’m not finding any.

They don’t need any. Now do you get it? When people have been warning that the GOP wants a religious dictatorship or a theocracy or a fascist dictatorship, did you not understand that they meant it? There doesn’t have to be any logic. For the GOP there is no rule of law anymore. Anything goes; they clearly don’t have to have any reason for anything.

No I understand, but do you understand that I am asking people who think differently to engage their brains on this? It’s not a sound legal opinion. I would like someone who supports it to explain why they do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You’re living in the GOP created theocracy. Women have no fundamentally rights because five people on the Supreme Court are so stupid that they literally believe women were created by God from Adam’s rib. There’s a literal handmaiden on the court who said that pregnancy and childbirth weren’t that difficult.

Well yes but I’d like one person her supports this travesty of a legal opinion to explain to me how the “fascist five” so casually explained fundamental rights away to avoid having to apply strict scrutiny.

Three of the justices are totally and completely illegitimate, that’s how. The GOP just does what it wants, and no I don’t know why. I guess Democrats are just fundamentally decent people who believe in the rule of law and won’t take the motherkillers down, but here we are.

Sorry I don’t mean “how” literally. I mean I would like someone to explain the logic to me because in my reading of the opinion I’m not finding any.

They don’t need any. Now do you get it? When people have been warning that the GOP wants a religious dictatorship or a theocracy or a fascist dictatorship, did you not understand that they meant it? There doesn’t have to be any logic. For the GOP there is no rule of law anymore. Anything goes; they clearly don’t have to have any reason for anything.

No I understand, but do you understand that I am asking people who think differently to engage their brains on this? It’s not a sound legal opinion. I would like someone who supports it to explain why they do.

Do you think Republican judges are capable of writing sound legal opinion specially Alito, Thomas and ACB?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You’re living in the GOP created theocracy. Women have no fundamentally rights because five people on the Supreme Court are so stupid that they literally believe women were created by God from Adam’s rib. There’s a literal handmaiden on the court who said that pregnancy and childbirth weren’t that difficult.

Well yes but I’d like one person her supports this travesty of a legal opinion to explain to me how the “fascist five” so casually explained fundamental rights away to avoid having to apply strict scrutiny.

Three of the justices are totally and completely illegitimate, that’s how. The GOP just does what it wants, and no I don’t know why. I guess Democrats are just fundamentally decent people who believe in the rule of law and won’t take the motherkillers down, but here we are.

Sorry I don’t mean “how” literally. I mean I would like someone to explain the logic to me because in my reading of the opinion I’m not finding any.

They don’t need any. Now do you get it? When people have been warning that the GOP wants a religious dictatorship or a theocracy or a fascist dictatorship, did you not understand that they meant it? There doesn’t have to be any logic. For the GOP there is no rule of law anymore. Anything goes; they clearly don’t have to have any reason for anything.

No I understand, but do you understand that I am asking people who think differently to engage their brains on this? It’s not a sound legal opinion. I would like someone who supports it to explain why they do.

Do you think Republican judges are capable of writing sound legal opinion specially Alito, Thomas and ACB?

Sure, well maybe not those three, but yeah.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

You’re living in the GOP created theocracy. Women have no fundamentally rights because five people on the Supreme Court are so stupid that they literally believe women were created by God from Adam’s rib. There’s a literal handmaiden on the court who said that pregnancy and childbirth weren’t that difficult.

Well yes but I’d like one person her supports this travesty of a legal opinion to explain to me how the “fascist five” so casually explained fundamental rights away to avoid having to apply strict scrutiny.

Three of the justices are totally and completely illegitimate, that’s how. The GOP just does what it wants, and no I don’t know why. I guess Democrats are just fundamentally decent people who believe in the rule of law and won’t take the motherkillers down, but here we are.

Sorry I don’t mean “how” literally. I mean I would like someone to explain the logic to me because in my reading of the opinion I’m not finding any.

They don’t need any. Now do you get it? When people have been warning that the GOP wants a religious dictatorship or a theocracy or a fascist dictatorship, did you not understand that they meant it? There doesn’t have to be any logic. For the GOP there is no rule of law anymore. Anything goes; they clearly don’t have to have any reason for anything.

No I understand, but do you understand that I am asking people who think differently to engage their brains on this? It’s not a sound legal opinion. I would like someone who supports it to explain why they do.

Lol. Good luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue.

Ahem. The states OR the people. Read the entire 10th Amendment. And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People. Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".

[Anonymous]

So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

[Anonymous]

Anyway question stands… can someone please restate the logic behind the conclusion that there are no fundamental rights at stake in this case?

I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

Obviously I meant desegregation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

So what do we do to prepare if we are in an interracial marriage and have interracial kids? Are we no longer considered married? Our marriage benefits no longer apply?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue.

Ahem. The states OR the people. Read the entire 10th Amendment. And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People. Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".

Listen I agree with you. It’s a big effing deal. But if/when SCOTUS interprets the constitution as having never given that right, what can be done short of a federal law getting passed that guarantees this right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

So what do we do to prepare if we are in an interracial marriage and have interracial kids? Are we no longer considered married? Our marriage benefits no longer apply?

Probably? Not there yet. States would have to institute laws rolling these things back first.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

So what do we do to prepare if we are in an interracial marriage and have interracial kids? Are we no longer considered married? Our marriage benefits no longer apply?

and who can inter-racial kids marry? I think we can look to Louisiana history for that. At one time, you were Black if you were 1/8th black. So interracial kids could only marry black or interracial people. THis is so sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m aware of the 14th thanks. I was responding to PPs who didn’t understand that the constitution gives powers not specifically excluded to the states. Subject to the other provisions of the constitution of course, and therein lies the issue.

Ahem. The states OR the people. Read the entire 10th Amendment. And while you're at it, read the 9th Amendment as well.

Subject to final interpretation by SCOTUS like it or not. (FWIW, I personally am very upset about this but don’t agree with the PPs who think the SC should be abolished.)

The fact remains that the 10th Amendment says the States or the People. Taking away a right, taking it from the people and giving it to the states is a massive aggrandizement of government power completely at odds with our "deeply rooted history".

Listen I agree with you. It’s a big effing deal. But if/when SCOTUS interprets the constitution as having never given that right, what can be done short of a federal law getting passed that guarantees this right?

Sure, but what makes you think the court wouldn’t invalidate or weaken that law? Haven’t we seen this story before with voting rights statutes and other civil rights statutes?

-DP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are basically saying down goes Roe and to follow will be:

Brown v The Board of Education
Loving v Virginia
Obergefell v. Hodges

These will all be overturned at the federal level and be left up to the States. That is my take on things.

Agreed. Segregation, interracial marriage and gay marriage are all toast if this opinion issues.

So what do we do to prepare if we are in an interracial marriage and have interracial kids? Are we no longer considered married? Our marriage benefits no longer apply?

Stay away from republicans. They will turn you in to the state.