User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » AppleOutsider »

Roe Vs. Wade Rehash (update: RvW officially dead as of 2022-06-24)


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
Roe Vs. Wade Rehash (update: RvW officially dead as of 2022-06-24)
Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next Thread Tools
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2022-05-02, 21:59

Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

My heart absolutely breaks to read this. Sure, it's "only" a draft, but it's a damning one.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-03, 02:08

If anyone believes they will stop at limiting the rights of half of the US population and not target historically marginalised groups, you must be having a laugh. Think overturning restrictions against discrimination laws, gay marriage, inter racial marriage, any form of female birth control, so called sodomy acts (which never seemed to be enforced by heterosexual couples doing the same thing), etc. The very notion of a people separate from a state is about to be destroyed... And yes, every single one of these are targets of right-wing social warriors...
  quote
drewprops
Space Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Atlanta
 
2022-05-03, 04:14

Geez.

Time to go read up on this.

I predict that this topic gets its own thread.
...
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 07:41

I do agree that the Roe v Wade discussion should be its own thread.

Personally I'm happy but I'm a Pro-life kinda guy. I'm interested in reading the opinion too, but at 98 pages I'm not ready to pause and see why the justices feel the way. Based on what I have heard though, as our laws are written, it shouldn't have been passed in the beginning. This means the justices are doing their job and people need to have the laws changed if they want a federal mandate.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory.
 
2022-05-03, 08:00

Restrict education and rev up those baby factories – the machine can't grind without new meat.

And everything Bobsky said. This is ultimately about privacy, and it's galling that Justice Asterisk, Justice Rapey McBeerface and Justice Handmaid's Tale are even on the bench. Alito and Thomas are just plain shitty people, no getting around that.

This minority rule fascist shit has to go.

So it goes.
  quote
Matsu
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 08:09

Congress needs to grow the bench to 13, there is precedent for it.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2022-05-03, 08:31

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
If anyone believes they will stop at limiting the rights of half of the US population and not target historically marginalised groups, you must be having a laugh. Think overturning restrictions against discrimination laws, gay marriage, inter racial marriage, any form of female birth control, so called sodomy acts (which never seemed to be enforced by heterosexual couples doing the same thing), etc. The very notion of a people separate from a state is about to be destroyed... And yes, every single one of these are targets of right-wing social warriors...
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the women and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a woman.

Then they came for the LGBTQs, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not LGBTQ.


The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 09:16

Here is the specific link to the leaked draft opinion.
I've downloaded a copy of it myself so I can read it later. I'm actually very interested in the logic behind the general logic behind overturning the RvW ruling.
Quote:
The Court did not explain the basis for this line, and even abortion supporters have found it hard to defend Roe's reasoning. One prominent constitutional scholar wrote that he “would vote for a statute very much like the one the Court end(ed) up drafting” if he were “a legislator,” but his assessment of Roe was memorable and brutal: Roe was “not constitutional law” at all and gave almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
This is very early in the opinion and basically sets the groundwork for the opinion I've gathered so far. So the Supreme Court's original ruling was not based on law. So from this short summary, if We The People want federal involvement we should have laws passed to make it a federal issue.

The over turning of RvW won't make abortions illegal, just allow the state to enact their own laws. Personally I'm all for that. State level laws are better than federal laws. We don't need the United State of America, we are States and independent for a reason.

Edit: another juicy bit here (emphasis mine):
Quote:
Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division. It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. “The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.” Casey, 505 U.S. at 979 (Sealia, J, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part).

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.

Last edited by turtle : 2022-05-03 at 09:45.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 09:41

Side note: court packing is not the proper solution, enacting laws in favor of your views is. The court will side with the law as it is written. That is their job, not to write the laws.
Quote:
... The nine Supreme Court justices remain the final arbiters of the law, charged with ensuring the American people receive the promise of equal justice under the law. The court acts as the protector and interpreter of the Constitution.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.

Last edited by turtle : 2022-05-03 at 09:58.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory.
 
2022-05-03, 10:10

But Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Coney Barrett all assured during their confirmation hearings that Roe v. Wade was settled law. Did they all lie?
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 10:32

No, it was settled at this time of their confirmations, was it not?

Lets look at it. Confirmation for recent justices (per Wikipedia):
Code:
2017 Neil Gorsuch 20[42] 2018 Brett Kavanaugh 32+[A][43] 2020 Amy Coney Barrett 20[44]
Dobbs v Jackson timeline:
Quote:
The following timeline details key events in this case:

December 1, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
May 17, 2021: The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
June 15, 2020: Mississippi Department of Health state health officer Thomas Dobbs, in his official capacity, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
December 13, 2019: The United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi's ruling.
Doesn't look like either lied. Were they to ignore a valid case brought before them because it was a hot button?

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
709
¡Damned!
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Purgatory.
 
2022-05-03, 10:39

Oh, phew. I was afraid they may have misrepresented themselves in front of Congress and the American people. Carry on.
  quote
kscherer
The Ban Hammer
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Boyzeee
 
2022-05-03, 10:42

This is going to be a hot topic, so it now has its own thread.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 11:32

The conservative justices have been gunning for this from the freaking start since 2016.

They took up two identical laws in hope something would change in their favor. They took up the TX law in 2017 was it, struck down. LA passes the exact same law, let's try again in 2018. Nope still struck down. Ok 2021, Roberts is not a factor since we got Barrett rammed through, sweet Roe finally killed. Oh and states can now setup and pass laws that are structured in a way that can't be challenged through the courts since the enforcement mechanism are civilians.

They lied during their confirmation hearing because how many god damn abortion cases did they need to hear in a span of 4 years that aimed at the same goal.

But nothing will be done. Congress won't hold them accountable. Collins will just issue stern words, but take no action.

The system is broken and everyone is fine with it because their goals are met.

Also I believe I saw in this draft that Alito compared this to Brown vs Edu how it overturned Plessy because it brought much harm to African Americans. Saying Roe brought harm to African Americans because a great number of abortions are from the African American community. WTF kind of fucking reasoning is that? THEY FREAKING CHOSE TO GET ABORTIONS! This wasn't a government system meant to control the population of blacks and forced them to get abortions.

giggity
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 11:40

Again, emphasis mine.
Quote:
As the Court cautioned in Glucksberg, “[w]e must... exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” 521 U. S., at 720 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
This is a fascinating read! Please tell me you are all reading this and not just letting a blogger/journalist/anyoneelsereally feed you what it says or means.
Quote:
In sum, although common law authorities differed on the severity of punishment for abortions committed at different points in pregnancy, none endorsed the practice. Moreover, we are aware of no common law case or authority, and the parties have not pointed to any, that remotely suggests a positive right to procure an abortion at any stage of pregnancy.
Quote:
Court's own count, statutes in all but four States and the District of Columbia prohibited abortion “however and whenever performed, unless done to save or preserve the life of the mother” 410 U.S, at 139.5

‘This overwhelming consensus endured until the day Roe was decided. At that time, also by the Roe Court's own count, a substantial majority—30 States—still prohibited abortion at all stages except to save the life of the mother. See Roe, 410 U. S,, at 118 & n. 2 (listing States). And though Roe discerned a “trend toward liberalization” in about “one-third of the States,” those States still criminalized some abortions and regulated them more stringently than Roe would allow. See Roe, 410 U.S. at 110 & n.37; Tribe 2. In short, the “Court's opinion in Roe itself convincingly refutes the notion that the abortion Liberty is deeply rooted in the history or tradition of our people.” Thornburgh, 476 U. S., at 793 (White, J., dissenting).

The inescapable conclusion is that a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the Nation's history and traditions. On the contrary, an unbroken tradition of prohibiting abortion on pain of criminal punishment persisted from the earliest days of the common law until 1973. The Court in Roe could have said of abortion exactly what Glucksberg said of assisted suicide: “Attitudes toward [abortion] have changed since Bracton, but our laws have consistently condemned, and continue to prohibit, [that practice].” Glucksberg, 521 U.S, at 719.
Quote:
Instead of seriously pressing the argument that the abortion right itself has deep roots, supporters of Roe and Casey contend that the abortion right is an integral part of a broader entrenched right. Roe termed this a right to privacy, 410 U. S,, at 164, and Casey described it as the freedom to make “intimate and personal choices” that are “contral to personal dignity and autonomy,” 505 U.S, at 851. Casey elaborated: “At the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.” Id., at 851.

The Court did not claim that this broadly framed right is absolute, and no such claim would be plausible. While individuals are certainly free to think and to say what they wish about “existence,” “meaning,” the “universe,” and “the mystery of human life,” they are not always free to act in accordance with those thoughts. License to act on the basis of such beliefs may correspond to one of the many understandings of “liberty,” but it is certainly not “ordered liberty.”
Quote:
Both sides make important policy arguments, but supporters of Roe and Casey must show that this Court has the authority to weigh those arguments and decide how abortion may be regulated in the States. They have failed to make that showing, and we thus return the power to weigh those arguments to the people and their elected representatives.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.

Last edited by turtle : 2022-05-03 at 12:19.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 12:16

Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m didn’t mean to say the justices were gunning to ban abortions. They were just gunning to overturn Roe and Casey. They have written opinion pieces about it. It was well known they thought Roe and Casey were wrongly decided.

It wasn’t until 2016 that they had any chance of actually doing it. They tried with the TX law, failed. They tried with the LA law which was an exact copy of the TX law, still failed. All due to Roberts.

Now they got their silver bullet with Barrett and tried again and will likely succeed here.

Despite Kavenaugh and Barrett’s known views on Roe and Casey, they stated they considered it settled law. They lied.

giggity
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 12:32

So you are their (Kavenaugh and Barrett) judge and know their thoughts and motives? If you read anything about the way they operate then you would know they were not lying when they felt it was settled law.

At the time of questioning it was settled law.

As I said/implied before, it doesn't mean they wouldn't hear a new case with valid arguments. The doesn't mean they lied. As far as justices go, their personal views/preferences and opinions do not matter:
Quote:
As the Court cautioned in Glucksberg, “[w]e must... exercise the utmost care whenever we are asked to break new ground in this field, lest the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause be subtly transformed into the policy preferences of the Members of this Court.” 521 U. S., at 720 (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
The big thing I'm reading in all of this (and I'm still reading, only on page 35 of 98) is that abortion isn't going to be illegal, but rather not federally legal. It will be up to the individual states to make their laws.

Why is this a bad thing? Is it because you disagree with the law therefore all states must agree with your way of thinking? The individuality of statehood is a foundation of our country. The place of laws such as this should be in the hands of individual states. On top of that, something like 90%* of the states had made abortions illegal prior to RvW going through.

* Read the opinion and do the math yourself

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 12:49

In order to overturn precedence you need to prove there was irreparable harm done. All these laws that they have heard have done is set new restrictions with no irreparable harm proven.

So despite they may think Roe and Casey was wrong, they were settled law and precedent. There was no case in overturning it. I haven’t gone through the full opinion myself either( I haven’t gotten my views on blogs). But what I have read it’s them acting on their own beliefs that Roe and Casey were wrongly decided. Alito’s form of “harm” in how a great number of abortions are from the black community is complete BS. It’s filled with personal views than establishing the case of overturning precedence. That’s why Roberts voted down the last two attempts. He doesn’t agree with roe and Casey either, but none of these cases proved any level of harm that it would take to overturn Roe and Casey. Roberts is rumored to be against this case being used to overturn Roe. His questioning in this case was more along the lines of if 15 weeks is reasonable than seeking out an outright overturn of Roe. He was trying to establish a new line vs the current line of viability. But he places great standard on precedence and what it takes to overturn it.

I respect Roberts in that sense.

giggity
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 13:11

It is interesting that you mention precedent. That is starting to be addressed on page 35 where I'm reading now:
Quote:
We have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is “not an inexorable command,” Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 233 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), and it “is at its weakest when we interpret the Constitution,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U.S. 208, 235 (1997).
It has been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue “be settled than that it be settled right.” Kimble, 576 U.S, at 455 (emphasis added) (quoting Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co, 285 U.S. 393, 406 (1982) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). But when it comes to the interpretation of the Constitution—the “great charter of our liberties,” which was meant “to endure through a long lapse of ages,” Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 326 (1816) (opinion of Story, J)—we place a high value on having the matter “settled right.” In addition, when one of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake. An erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously hard to amend. See U.S. Const., art. V; Kimble, 576 U. S. at 456. Therefore, in appropriate circumstances we must be willing to reconsider and if necessary overrule constitutional decisions.
Quote:
Some of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. We mention three. In Brown. v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine, which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and other facilities. 347 U.S. 483, 488 (1954). In so doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896), along with six other Supreme Court precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule. See Brown, 347 U.S., at 491.

In West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 879 (1937), the Court overruled Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D. C., 261U. 8.525 (1923), which had held that a law setting minimum wages for women violated the “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause. Id., at 545. West Coast Hotel signaled the demise of an entire line of important precedents that had protected an individual liberty right against state and federal health and welfare logislation. See Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45 (1905) (holding invalid a law setting maximum working hours); Coppage v. Kansas, 236 U.S. 1 (1915) (holding invalid a law banning contracts forbidding employees to join union); Jay Burns Baking Co. v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924) (holding invalid laws fixing the weight of loaves of bread).

Finally, in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943), aftor the lapse of only three years, the Court overruled Minersuille School Dist. v. Gobilis, 310 U. S. 536 (1940), and held that public school students could ot be compelled to salute the flag in violation of their sincore belies. Barnette stands out because nothing had changed during the intervening period other than the Court's belated recognition that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.
So changing a precedent isn't unheard of, just done when there is GREAT cause to use my own terms.
Quote:
No Justice of this Court has ever argued that the Court should never overrule a constitutional decision, but overruling a precedent is a serious matter. It is not a step that should be taken lightly. Our cases have attempted to provide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in making such a decision. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U.S. _, __ (2018) (slip op., at 34-35); Ramos v. Louisiana, 500 U.S. __ (2020) (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 7-9.
Off-topic (click to toggle):
forgive the error from PDF to Text conversion. I'm trying to fix most of them as I paste them but I'm sure to miss plenty. Feel free to read the opinion yourself though.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 13:14

Like I stated, harm needs to be proven. Brown proved that separate but equal wasn’t the case. Hence why it was overturned.

Where was the harm in this case that hasn’t been argued before? Despite what they may personally feel in that Roe was wrongly decided, there is a standard to meet when it comes to overturning precedent. All I am reading so far is them crying over how Roe was wrong.

giggity
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 13:20

Off the cuff harm was RvW removed the power from the people. You want to give away your rights you can go ahead and do that, but that is not the foundation of this country. If you go on the read the opinion, it goes more into that too. Again, think state level authority in this case more so than individual authority.

Quote:
As Justice White later explained, “decisions that find in the Constitution principles or values that cannot fairly be read into that document usurp the people's authority, for such decisions represent choices that the people have never made and that they cannot disavow through corrective legislation. For this reason, it is essential that this Court maintain the power to restore authority to its proper ‘possessors by correcting constitutional decisions that, on reconsideration, are found to be mistaken.” Thornburgh, 476 U.S, at 787 (White, J., dissenting).
Quote:
The quality of the reasoning. Under our precedents, the quality of the reasoning in a prior case has an important bearing on whether it should be reconsidered. See Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S., at _ (slip op., at 38); Ramos, 590 U.S., at __ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring) (sip op., at 7-8). In part IT of this opinion, we explained why Roe was incorrectly decided, but that decision was more than just wrong. It stood on exceptionally weak grounds.

Roe found that the Constitution implicitly conferred a right to obtain an abortion, but it failed to ground its decision in text, history, or precedent. It relied on an erroneous historical narrative; it devoted great attention to and presumably relied on matters that have no bearing on the ‘meaning of the Constitution; it disregarded the fundamental difference between the precedents on which it relied and the question before the Court; it concocted an elaborate set of rules, with different restrictions for each trimester of pregnancy, but it did not explain how this veritable code could be teased out of anything in the Constitution, the history of abortion laws, prior precedent, or any other cited source; and its most important rule (that States cannot protect fetal life prior to “viability”) was never raised by any party and has never been plausibly explained. Ros reasoning quickly drew scathing scholarly criticism, even from supporters of broad access to abortion.

The Casey plurality, while reaffirming Roe’s central holding, pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning. It revised the textual basis for the abortion right, siTently abandoned Roe's erroneous historical narrative, and jettisoned the trimester framework. But it replaced that scheme with an arbitrary “undue burden” test and relied on an exceptional version of stare decisis that, as explained beTow, this Court had never before applied and has never invoked since.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.

Last edited by turtle : 2022-05-03 at 13:38.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 13:34

“Off the cuff” is not proven harm. Needs to be proven than your view that this is a state level issue that people should be able to vote on.

What you keep on posting is their belief that Roe was wrongly decided. But since it and Casey has set precedence, there is a high standard on what it will take to overturn. I’ve read so far nothing that establishes what it takes to overturn precedence. Each case in 2017 and 2018 further should have cemented Roe and Casey raising the bar further for this case the standard needed to overturn.

giggity
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 14:02

Eh... read the draft opinion.

Clearly I'm not going to change your mind and I'm ok with that. I'm still reading this thing (while doing my day job) so it is taking a while.

Everything I've read so far though, stands by the law as I understand it. That is a guy who's gone to traffic court a handful of times (as the defendant), observed court twice and almost made the jury once. Clearly I'm a legal expert.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-03, 14:23

States don’t have rights… the bill of rights devolves regulation of individual rights to states when they aren’t protected, but again states don’t have rights. State governments cannot impede on the rights of individuals — we’ve defined what rights these are through a long, labourious and contentious arc. These have included privacy of person. This ruling erases that concept.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 14:33

BTW, In doing a quick search on the concept that harm must have been proven before something can be overruled is not in your favor specifically. See R45319.
Quote:
Although the Supreme Court has shown less reluctance to overrule its decisions on constitutional questions than its decisions on statutory questions, the Court has nevertheless stated that there must be some special justification—or, at least “strong grounds”—that goes beyond disagreeing with a prior decision’s reasoning to overrule constitutional precedent. Consequently, when deciding whether to overrule a precedent interpreting the Constitution, the Court has historically considered several “prudential and pragmatic” factors that seek to foster the rule of law while balancing the costs and benefits to society of reaffirming or overruling a prior holding:

Quality of Reasoning. When determining whether to reaffirm or overrule a prior decision, the Supreme Court may consider the quality of the decision’s reasoning.
Workability. Another factor that the Supreme Court may consider when determining whether to overrule a precedent is whether the precedent’s rules or standards are too difficult for lower federal courts or other interpreters to apply and are thus “unworkable.”
Inconsistency with Related Decisions. A third factor the Supreme Court may consider is whether the precedent departs from the Court’s other decisions on similar constitutional questions, either because the precedent’s reasoning has been eroded by later decisions or because the precedent is a recent outlier when compared to other decisions.
Changed Understanding of Relevant Facts. The Supreme Court has also indicated that changes in how the Justices and society understand a decision’s underlying facts may undermine a precedent’s authoritativeness, leading the Court to overrule it.
Reliance. Finally, the Supreme Court may consider whether it should retain a precedent, even if flawed, because overruling the decision would injure individuals, companies, or organizations; society as a whole; or legislative, executive, or judicial branch officers, who had relied on the decision.
So many of those have been met in the draft opinion where I am right now, page 48.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 14:54

Interesting:
Quote:
Our decision returns the issue of abortion to those legislative bodies, and it allows women on both sides of the abortion issue to seek to affect the legislative process by influencing public opinion, lobbying legislators, voting, and running for office. Women are not without electoral or political power. It is noteworthy that the percentage of women who register to vote and cast ballots is consistently higher than the percentage of men who do so. In the last election in November 2020, women, who make up around 51.5% of the population of Mississippi, constituted 55.5% of the voters who cast ballots.
Quote:
This analysis starts out on the right foot but ultimately veers off course. The Casey plurality was certainly right that it is important for the public to perceive that our decisions are based on principle, and we should make every effort to achieve that objective by issuing opinions that carefully show how a proper understanding of the law leads to the results we reach. But we cannot exceed the scope of our authority under the Constitution, and we cannot allow our decisions to be affected by any extraneous influences such as concern about the publics reaction to our work. Cf. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. 8. 397 (1989); Brown v. Boardof Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). That is true both when we initially decide a constitutional issue and when we consider whether to overrule a prior decision. As Chief Justice Rehnquist explained, “The Judicial Branch derives its legitimacy, not from following public opinion, but from deciding by its best lights whether legislative enactments of the popular branches of Government comport with the Constitution. The doctrine of stare decisis is an adjunct of this duty and should be no more subject to the vagaries of public opinion than is the basic judicial task” Casey, 505 U. S., at963 (Rehnquist, C. J.) In suggesting otherwise, the Casey plurality went beyond this Court's role in our constitutional system.
  quote
Dr. Bobsky
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: UK's most densely packed city. It's not London...
 
2022-05-03, 14:58

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Bobsky View Post
States don’t have rights… the bill of rights devolves regulation of individual rights to states when they aren’t protected, but again states don’t have rights. State governments cannot impede on the rights of individuals — we’ve defined what rights these are through a long, labourious and contentious arc. These have included privacy of person. This ruling erases that concept.
More to the point here: the notion of rights is a product of the comparison between the natural state, where everyone is free to do anything they desire, and the civilised state where such activities are extensively regulated — rights granting us closer to the natural state, rather than the opposite.

There’s no right to regulate another persons behaviour.
That is an act of civilisation against the natural state. It is repressive of that state, and there are consequences for that repression.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 15:09

This is part pro-choice people are most displeased with:
Quote:
We do not pretend to know how our political system or society will respond to today’s decision overruling Roe and Casey. And even if we could foresee what will happen, we would have no authority to let that knowledge influence our decision. We can only do our job, which is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly. We therefore hold that the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Roe and Casey must be overruled, and the authority to regulate abortion must be returned to the people and their elected representatives.
In reality they should be rejoicing, because it is the court being unwilling to overstep their role and be the legislative branch. This is the court allowing states to determine their laws based on their voters. This is the court handing power back to the people that it never should have taken.

Reading the opinion so far it is clear the original RvW decision was a bad one and shouldn't have been made. To then affirm it with Casey was a continued overstep given the already faulty groundwork it used.

Heck, I've still got another 30+ pages to read... never mind if I dig into the footnotes.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
turtle
Lord of the Rant.
Formerly turtle2472
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Upstate South Carolina
 
2022-05-03, 15:17

Quote:
We end this opinion where we began. Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return that authority to the people and their elected representatives. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
So if this passes as is (with tweaks to the Final Opinion) the states will have the power they should. This is a win for the Constitution and the states. I'm very pleased after reading that opinion. Truly.

Yeah, I think abortions are killing humans and is wrong. More than that though, we have more freedom as people and voters now. You can all go out there and vote however you want! Persuade the masses to your way of thinking and you just might get your way! The federal government shouldn't be involved with our lives.

Louis L'Amour, “To make democracy work, we must be a notion of participants, not simply observers. One who does not vote has no right to complain.”
MineCraft? mc.applenova.com | Visit us! | Maybe someday I'll proof read, until then deal with it.
  quote
Quagmire
meh
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2022-05-03, 15:56

Quote:
Originally Posted by turtle View Post

Yeah, I think abortions are killing humans and is wrong. More than that though, we have more freedom as people and voters now. You can all go out there and vote however you want! Persuade the masses to your way of thinking and you just might get your way! The federal government shouldn't be involved with our lives.
Freedom for you to impose your view on it maybe( especially if based on religion). How about those that disagree ( and again if religious view, don't share your religious beliefs)? Too bad suck it up and take the harm?

The difference is I am not here to change your view. You view abortion as wrong and murder? Fine that is your view and don't get an abortion. I do not view it as murder. I do not view it as birth control either. Abortion should be the last resort and the limit of viability ( unless of course it threatens the life of the mother) on it right now are more than reasonable. This issue is not something to put up on a vote for. Why? Because when life begins is matter of opinion and view, not fact. The choice of how you view abortion should be left to the individual, not the state. I do not see life beginning at conception. It's fine if you disagree with me. It's wrong for you to impose your view on me. I see this as we are losing our freedom here. The loss of individual choice.

giggity
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 5 [1] 2 3 4 5  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2022 MacBook Air Capella Apple Products 48 2022-08-10 20:26
2022 MacBook Pro Capella Apple Products 27 2022-06-16 18:24
Wwdc 2022 Frank777 Speculation and Rumors 43 2022-06-07 08:47
Michael Jackson rushed to hospital in cardiac arrest (update: dead at age 50) PKIDelirium AppleOutsider 330 2009-08-31 17:01
Missing CNET Reporter (update: found dead) drewprops AppleOutsider 61 2006-12-10 17:29


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 19:25.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2022, AppleNova