Anonymous
09/09/2022 16:26
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.
What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.
Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.
Anti-choice folks are asking SCOTUS to hear a case about fetal personhood. If the court grants cert and if there are 5 votes for fetal personhood, a federal law allowing abortion would be unconstitutional. We need to expand the court and the ERA should be recognized as duly ratified to avoid this shitshow.
https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/anti-abortion-activists-and-2-unborn-children-file-novel-petition-with-supreme-court-seeking-to-clarify-whether-fetuses-have-standing-to-sue-in-u-s-courts/
Then we should be able to claim every egg and sperm as a dependent.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 16:25
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.
Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.
Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.
That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.
But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.
No it was repelled because Republicans view pregnant women’s bodies as chattel. We see you.
Arguably it's Dems who view women’s (and men's) bodies as chattel, to be sacrificed at will.
Bye folks, I see we're getting nowhere.
Ok, Jan.
Anonymous
Anonymous
09/09/2022 15:11
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Putting five conservative Catholics on SCOTUS was an extremely bad idea. They are forcing their minority religious views onto the rest of us. Religious freedom only for conservative Christians but no one else. If they recognize "fetal personhood" then we have moved into full-on Christo-fascist territory and expanding the Court is the only option.
Didn't our Founding Fathers demand a separation of church and state because they had seen what the papists did to Europe?
Anonymous
09/09/2022 15:00
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.
Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.
Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.
That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.
But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.
No, you have it wrong. Legislation has nothing to do with it. First, comes the Constitution. That give us some rights. Sometimes various parties' Constitutional rights come into conflict, or a law is passed that violates someone's Consitutional rights, and the Court is left to sort it out. That's what Roe did. The Court was called upon to answer whose Constitutional rights prevail when they are in conflict. To do so, it had to first determine whether, and, if so, when, those Constitutional rights were in conflict. That is not a matter for legislation; it is a matter of Constitutional interpretation as to whether one or the other or both have rights regarding their physical bodies. It is not for the legislative body to decide whether or when someone has Constitutional rights.
By saying states can pass any abortion law they want, the Court is saying women do not have Constitutional rights to bodily autonomy. Otherwise, the ruling would mean that the Court thinks it is fine for states to strip women of Constitutional rights, which is clearly wrong.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 14:16
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.
What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.
Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.
Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.
Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.
You are gaslighting. Mississippi legislated to reduce access from the Roe/Casey viability standard to 15 weeks because they couldn’t ban it with Roe/Casey as the caselaw. 15 weeks is not their position. That law was just to get the question to SCOTUS.
It actually would be easier for the 5 SC Justices to overturn a federal law than it was to overturn Roe. With Roe they had to overturn a 50-year precedent. With a new law they don’t have that burden. They just say Congress doesn’t have the authority in the Constitution.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 13:49
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.
What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.
Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.
Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.
Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.
What it will do is give moderates and excuse to wash their hands of the sin of stripping women of their human rights. We will never get our rights back.
What a bunch of nonsense.
Everyone, abortion is a very difficult topic for obvious reasons and that's why EVERY COUNTRY HAS PASSED A LAW REGULATING IT.
The "my body my choice" is not a human right, it's an ignorant mantra that some people believe as religious dogma.
Or, what choice does the fetus have? Because there's a body there, right?
Thank you for proving my point. Women have no rights to their bodies and you’d like to keep it that way.
This has always been the case among misogynists. Women are nothing to them. Their lives, their experiences - none of it matters. Actually nothing matters except for embryonic and fetal life. Why? Because it’s cheap and requires nothing of the people who claim to support life.
That coward forced birther has turned tail and run as they haven’t found anyone willing to tolerate their horse puckey here, but on the chance they’re lurking, they should read this: ““The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus, but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.” - Pastor Dave Barnhart
We see you, forced birthers. We’ve heard your tawdry little excuses for why enslaving women is a good thing in your shriveled little hearts. No one’s buying what you’re selling anymore.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:27
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Putting five conservative Catholics on SCOTUS was an extremely bad idea. They are forcing their minority religious views onto the rest of us. Religious freedom only for conservative Christians but no one else. If they recognize "fetal personhood" then we have moved into full-on Christo-fascist territory and expanding the Court is the only option.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:18
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.
What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.
Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.
Anti-choice folks are asking SCOTUS to hear a case about fetal personhood. If the court grants cert and if there are 5 votes for fetal personhood, a federal law allowing abortion would be unconstitutional. We need to expand the court and the ERA should be recognized as duly ratified to avoid this shitshow.
https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/anti-abortion-activists-and-2-unborn-children-file-novel-petition-with-supreme-court-seeking-to-clarify-whether-fetuses-have-standing-to-sue-in-u-s-courts/
This!!!
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:17
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.
What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.
Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.
Anti-choice folks are asking SCOTUS to hear a case about fetal personhood. If the court grants cert and if there are 5 votes for fetal personhood, a federal law allowing abortion would be unconstitutional. We need to expand the court and the ERA should be recognized as duly ratified to avoid this shitshow.
https://lawandcrime.com/abortion/anti-abortion-activists-and-2-unborn-children-file-novel-petition-with-supreme-court-seeking-to-clarify-whether-fetuses-have-standing-to-sue-in-u-s-courts/
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:14
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.
Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.
Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.
That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.
But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.
No it was repelled because Republicans view pregnant women’s bodies as chattel. We see you.
Arguably it's Dems who view women’s (and men's) bodies as chattel, to be sacrificed at will.
Bye folks, I see we're getting nowhere.
Sounds like I hit the mark! Bye forever. See ya in November.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:09
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.
Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.
Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.
That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.
But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.
No it was repelled because Republicans view pregnant women’s bodies as chattel. We see you.
Arguably it's Dems who view women’s (and men's) bodies as chattel, to be sacrificed at will.
Bye folks, I see we're getting nowhere.
Dp- do us all a favor. Just remember that our elections are compromised, just like all the republicans have said. So don’t bother to vote. Remember that, ok?
Great.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:06
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So Congress codifies Roe and red states sue and win at SCOTUS. Trust me please. This is stupid.
What is stupid is your comment. If Congress codifies Roe red states can whine and whine but Roe remains the law; SCOTUS doesn't even get a say.
Not true at all. States will argue that the federal law is invalid. And they’ll win. Because the SCOTUS is corrupt.
Sorry, what's corrupt is your understanding of how this all works. States coud argue whatever but it'd go nowhere with a federal law in place.
Federal laws are not sacred. Plenty of federal laws have been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Limiting federal authority is what originalism and the Federalist Society are all about.
Are you ignorant or a liar?
I’m guessing both.
Mississippi has an abortion ban in place. You can not get an abortion in that state. They had a trigger law on the books that went into effect as soon as the Dobbs ruling came down.
You need to exit this thread and stop opining on things you are clueless about.
Very true. Also very true that having a law in place would make it much much much harder to attack abortion, and that even many moderate Republicans would support it -- again, it was REPUBLICANS in MISSISSIPPI who passed a law allowing abortion within the first 15 weeks.
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:05
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.
Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.
Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.
That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.
But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.
You lack fundamental understanding of constitutional rights. I’ve explained as much as I can. Law passed by a legislature cannot infringe upon your rights as guaranteed—GUARANTEED—by the Constitution. Red states will seek to invalidate any federal laws enshrining abortion access. They will win because the Courts that will hear those cases are captured. And then they’ll win at SCOTUS. And most women alive will still have fewer rights than they were born with.
No, the real problem here is that you believe one too many conspiracy theories and believe you live in something like North Korea.
Nope, we live in the USA, the Constitution is alive and well ... and Congress should do its job. Again, LIKE EVERY OTHER COUNTRY.
You mean other democracies where legislatures cannot ban abortion because Women’s rights are protected?
Anonymous
09/09/2022 12:02
Subject: “We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled," Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:To the PP who just can’t keep it straight.
Roe balanced the rights of women against the interests in protecting the unborn. Dobbs stripped women of their rights so the court would not have to engage in any balancing.
Codifying Roe, doesn’t give women their rights back. It just puts their lives up for a vote. Unacceptable.
That's what I have been saying. Roe, as a law, would make much sense and be in the books forever.
But it wasn't a law. It was some Justices lesgislating from the bench, which is no proper mechanism in our system, and the reason it eventually was repelled.
No it was repelled because Republicans view pregnant women’s bodies as chattel. We see you.
Arguably it's Dems who view women’s (and men's) bodies as chattel, to be sacrificed at will.
Bye folks, I see we're getting nowhere.