You and everyone else to the left of Atilla the Hun. And people get shitty with me when I say the Republicans want to roll back progress.
SCOTUS leak suggests Roe v. Wade to be overturned
- Thread starter Agema
- Start date
Recommended Videos
This kind of feels like the Dred Scott case.
Up to and including the writing of summary verdict. Foolishly thinking that this is going to end the debate once and for all. America feels like a powder keg at this point and this could be the match.
The funny thing is if they just didn't bother with this they would probably have won the midterms but now every Democrat is probably going to vote now. I really hope this blows up in the Republicans face
Up to and including the writing of summary verdict. Foolishly thinking that this is going to end the debate once and for all. America feels like a powder keg at this point and this could be the match.
The funny thing is if they just didn't bother with this they would probably have won the midterms but now every Democrat is probably going to vote now. I really hope this blows up in the Republicans face
So you got a supreme court of which several conservative judges occupy stolen seats, three of which have been installed by a barely legitimate(at best) and historically unpopular president pushing legislation down America's throat that only a small minority actually wants.
The United States seems to have completely lost its ability to function. A functioning nation wouldn't be in this situation.
The United States seems to have completely lost its ability to function. A functioning nation wouldn't be in this situation.
Minorities do have more opportunities in red states, that's a fact. You have nothing to argue besides "lol" says it all.Lol.
Supreme Court leak overturning abortion rights has Democrats concerned that same-sex marriage and civil rights could be next
In the leaked opinion overturning abortion rights, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito calls out the decision that legalized same-sex marriage.www.businessinsider.com
Part of the leaked opinion explicitly criticises Obergefell v. Hodges (the ruling that legalised gay marriage) and Lawrence v. Texas (the ruling that legalised gay sex) on the basis that those rights aren't "deeply rooted in history".
In short: it's quite obvious that constitutional strength isn't their main concern.
Your source or you didn't read what Judge Alito actually said. He said, "Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion." The gay marriage application of law is extremely solid cuz, you know, it's actually in the constitution.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg said it, which is why I'm using it. I believe she knows more about law than any person here. And her critique of it makes perfect sense to me. Waiting for someone here to make some ACTUAL ARGUMENT why Roe v Wade is good law but there's nothing but bitching based on emotions going on in here.
Nancy Pelosi Is Trying to Save an Anti-Choice Democrat as Roe v. Wade Falls
South Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar is one of the last remaining anti-choice Democrats in the House.
www.vice.com
Ah yes, priorities. FBI raided this guy's home over some illicit deal with Azerbaijan, is the only house democrat voting against codifying abortion protection into law, and Pelosi is protecting him in a primary, of course. Not just her, Jim Clyburn is helping this slimeball too.
Anyone for whom this comes as a surprise must still be deciding what to have for breakfast yesterday. This is exactly what Mitch McConnell was setting up for when he denied a hearing for Merrick Garland but let Trump have Neil Gorsuch, Brett Cavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. And this is just stage one- if Republicans gain control of the government, expect some sweeping new laws, probably going as far as not only banning gay marriage, but once again criminalizing homosexuality. Given half a chance, they'll bring about the white-supremacy-flavored "Christian" theocracy their rabid base wants.
This is why we need to keep Republicans from holding any position of power anywhere in this country for one hundred years.
This is why we need to keep Republicans from holding any position of power anywhere in this country for one hundred years.
How does the supreme court "leak"? Isn't it supposed to be a tiny group of people handling this information? Or is it a fake leak intended to have them come against this?
Either way, democrats should have passed a federal law legalizing abortion but they wanted the threat of a conservative supreme court taking it away as a tool for extorting votes out of women, so here we are.
Either way, democrats should have passed a federal law legalizing abortion but they wanted the threat of a conservative supreme court taking it away as a tool for extorting votes out of women, so here we are.
The DoJ is investigating the leak as we speak, so it seems to be legitimate. As for how it happened...not sure. That's what the investigation is for.
Dude, you didn't provide anything to support what you said in the first place.
I have read what he said. Part of the justification is that "liberty", as written in the Fourteenth Amendment, should not be understood to protect rights that those who wrote the constitution did not have in mind. That justification applies equally to same-sex marriage and gay sex.
(sigh) You really are tiresome, you know that? Look, I'll spell it out for you.
Alito's opinion is based on a Constitutional "originalist" argument that if a civil right is not already listed in the Constitution, then it is not a civil right and is thus not protected from being abridged by the law. Roe is based on the right to privacy. Alito's argument is that there is no right to privacy constitutionally because it's never listed by name. If that becomes precedent, think of what else is potentially on the chopping block. Lawrence v Texas (struck down sodomy laws), Griswold v Connecticut (access to birth control), Loving v Virginia (interracial marriage), Obergefell v Hodges (gay marriage), Stanley v Georgia (porn), the list just goes on and on, all based on the precedent that we have a right to privacy. This is not a one-off. This has ripple effects. This is what I mean when I say that the Republicans want to roll back progress.
Roe v Wade didn't go far enough, but that doesn't mean that Alito's "originalist" argument holds water. He's not overturning it on the grounds it needs to be stronger in its protection of private citizens (pregnant people specifically), but on the grounds that there is no right to privacy like doctor/patient confidentiality.
The question now is: Do you think Alito is correct and that there is no right to privacy?
Yeah Republicans were happy to hitch their wagon to this issue with Christian zealots for decades because they didn't actually think it'd work. They didn't know the zealots were serious. Good luck going forward Republicans, you just lost a huge wedge issue and lost the woman vote for a generation.
Well, not quite; a minority of them voted for it, and a plurality voted against it. And these things have a tendency to apply to people who didn't vote for them, too.
Damn man, that citation looks really convincing.
Half these fuckers said Roe was settled law. Why the fuck are we believing half-assed lies now?
It's a bad law that does good things. Make an argument for why getting rid of it is actually good instead of hiding behind an opinion of someone who thinks the ruling didn't go far enough.
50$ says its the insane wife.
Woman tend to be more religious than man, this won't lose them the woman vote at all.