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

Forum Index » Political Discussion

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

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Wow it's almost like letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.

Who could have foreseen such a obvious turn of events aside from anyone with any hint of pattern recognition whatsoever.

If decide to let judges legislate from the bench, they will inevitably do so in a way that you don't agree with.[/quote]

Roe didn’t legislate any rights away. Nice try.[/quote]

Did you even read what you quoted?  Here, let me bold the relevant section for you.

[b]letting judges create laws without push back means they could also toss away those same laws.[/b]

[/quote]

Yes I did. And I don’t believe Roe created any law. It preserved the rights of women to access healthcare with limitations pursuant to the interest of the state. In my opinion, the state interest cited in Roe was BS.  But they didn’t legislate from the bench. [/quote]

There was no 'right' to abortion before the justices created it.  Yes, they were legislating from the bench.  Yes, they're doing it again right now.

You're upset because they're legislating from the bench in a way you don't agree with, but you shouldn't hide behind that emotion with lies.  [/quote]

There was no right for black kids to go to public schools with white kids before the justices created it.
There was no right for black people to marry white people before the justices created it.
There was no right for people to use birth control before the justices created it.
There was no right for parents to send their kids to private schools before the justices created it.[/quote]

Those things were always rights and government was violating them when they previously prevented them.  [/quote]

Because you said so?[/quote]

Because all people are entitled to life liberty and property (covers the last two). Additionally we have this thing called the 14th amendment which affords equal protection under the law—meaning laws inferring privileges (like public school and civil marriage) must be applied equally.[/quote]

The right to abortion was also covered under liberty, until it wasn't.  [/quote]

It still stands. [/quote]

DP: it still exists.  The draft opinion is bad law.  The existence of a right to privacy, individual rights themselves, is not a concept that can be ceded.  That is the underlying argument.  That is the 200+ years of "deeply rooted history" that cannot be forgotten.  [b]Government doesn't grant the people privileges.  The people grant government powers and retain.[/b]  We the people.[/quote]

Exactly.

But can we call a spade a spade here and look into how, when and why these unemployed/ underemployed, low earner men who no woman wants to have a baby for because they are such poor prospects.... when did these men ( concentrated mostly in the South ) start trying to impose laws on women's bodies ?

Was it when their wages collapsed or after women started getting more educated, going away to college, voting , having their own bank accounts and Birth control ?

Cause it seems to me that these efforts in these Red neck states with high concentrations of low wage earning and un-educated men are much like the laws we see in Afghanistan, Yemen and places like that where women are oppressed because the men's prospects are so so poor that , in effect, the only way to get a Wife is to have a girl's father sell you one.

To me, all attempts to oppress women stem from poor economic status and prospects for the Men in that society

Case in point: during the Crack epidemic in the USA , we saw a dramatic rise in teen births where young women (  15, 16, 17  year old girls ) were becoming pregnant by association with high earning drug dealers in their neighborhoods. In many cases, one 19 year old male had as many as 4 babies born to him in a Year... and all by the free choice of these young women . Why ? Because they saw these drug dealers as flush with cash, able to pay for a house, a car, a steady source of cash and they had social power- so the women were attracted to them and wanted to have their babies- even when it jeoperrdized their own independence and their own futures.

Now, back to these Red Necks no woman wants to have a baby for : the solution is not to try to force a woman to have your baby- the solution is to get a better education, a higher paying job, maybe lobby for 18 months paid maternity leave and Free day care for children, pay raises for YOU so maybe a woman sees you as a better prospect.

[b]No woman wants to have a loser's baby. Pass a law that compels them to have your baby and they are just gonna never even F'ck you ever again- not even a mercy F'ck[/b][/quote]

The sad thing is I don't think this will deter GOP men. Many will look the other way when men rape women because they want children. Or, the govt. will instill handmaids. It pains me to say it, but at the rate we're going - I see this as an eventuality. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics