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]It's time for a federal law protecting women's rights, not a Supreme Court decision. Roe was poorly written and poorly reasoned.

I don't mind constitutional Supreme Court justices. I'm pro-choice. I'm pro a real change that really protects women and a court decision isn't it. We need a federal law.

I say, yes, get rid of Roe v Wade and Gert something real on the books.[/quote]

Getting rid of Roe before you have a congress that will vote something like that into law is going to harm women.

And if it's just a federal law then it will change the next time a GOP congress comes in. They will repeal it. So we'll have back and forth, back and forth, just like with the money that is given and then taken away to foreign aid organizations that hand out info about or help poor women get abortions. [/quote]

While I am pro-choice, I don't believe that abortion was contemplated in the Constitution. The Roe decision does not flesh that out or make any kind of realistic argument in support. This women's right does not rest with the Supreme Court, unfortunately. We've just had justices willing to buffalo it along. I've been okay with that because I agree with the end result, I suppose. However, the Justices are not wrong with their reasoning here in this draft.

As a nation, we are stuck. I don't want a patchwork of laws throughout the country. I want women's rights to be protected and for women to have the choice uniformly. But, it does appear that the power does not rest at the federal level. It does rest at the state level.  [/quote]
It could rest at the state level, if Republicans were decent people. But they’re not and it shouldn’t. Forcing birth is in a sense compelled labor, slavery if you will. You sure you want to say that’s just “states rights”?[/quote]

I don't want it to be states rights. I want a federal law. But, as mentioned by a PP, any federal law will just get overturned. So, we're stuck because the power does not rest with the Supreme Court. So, we can not want to be a state issue but it is actually a state issue. Unless we add it as [b]an amendment to the Constitution, which I'd be in favor of but that's unlikely to happen[/b].[/quote]

Which is more unlikely?  That the Supreme Court will abandon stare decisis and delegitimize abortion, interracial marriage, gay sex, etc. or a constitutional amendment?  [/quote]

I think that interracial marriage and LGBTQI+ rights are defensible under the Supreme Court's framework in a way that Roe is not.[/quote]
You look at the GOP’s recent and long term history in regards to minority rights and you think… they’ll just let minorities have rights?  Lucy will [i]for sure[/i] hold the football this time, Charlie Brown. [/quote]

I'm not looking at the GOP for anything. [b]I'm looked that justices ability to separate their personal beliefs from their job.[/b] And, I agree that it's problematic because I think they would favor the free exercise of religion over gay rights (for example) and THAT I do find worrisome.[/quote]
The fascist fed soc justices do not. And they perjured themselves. They will literally do anything to get the results that they want, even though those “results” basically mean the end of America. I would do more than worry; I would work to end the GOP (and the GOP is synonymous with the right wing justices they paid for). [/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