Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I find it extremely ironic that the left - which for years, starting with Donald Trump announcing his candidacy for the presidency back in 2015 - has been screaming that the right poses dangers to democracy.
From The Washington Post, that propagandist rag which put up the phrase "Democracy Dies In Darkness" during the Trump administration, to miscreant youths marching after the 2020 election burning, shouting, screaming, and destroying while chanting "not my president!" with the most shrill voices, to those who demanded the abolition of the Electoral College to those who wanted SCOTUS packed....
... they now demand that Roe v. Wade not be overturned.
These people have said not a single word about how unethical, dangerous, illegal, and criminal it was for the leak to happen, yet out of their numbers appear calls to demonstrate at the homes of the six conservative Justices (3 in MD and 3 in VA) while the addresses were posted online.
But an overturning as per Justice Alito's draft would simply send the issue back to the state level, where it was until 1973 and where it must be as per the Constitution.
And yet conservatives, Republicans, etc are the real threat to democracy?
And yet the senile one says MAGA is dangerous?
Leftist posters on C-D, if you're one of these, please think before calling us conservatives enemies of democracy.
The bolded is your opinion. There is no "must be" about it. And "simply" doesn't begin to address the problems that we know will occur if abortion laws are left to the states.
The rest of your post seems to be a jumble of a bunch of things you don't like about Democrats. Irrelevant to this discussion. /shrug
Because owning a gun, or having to register it or not is not the same as being forced to give birth against one's will. That is a poor analogy.
I don't know the ideas the poster whom you quoted here holds, but if I understood his post's message, he is saying that SCOTUS is going to issue decisions both on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen which uphold the Constitution.
In the former, the correct ruling would be for Roe v. Wade to be overturned on grounds there is no constitutional backing for a federal mandate on abortion and instead, the issue will simply be sent back to the state level, where it was until 1973.
Many people on both sides of the political isle think that an overturning of Roe v. Wade would banish abortions in all 50 states - that isn't true. NY and CA for example would keep i tlegal.
In the same way, the latter would be ruled in favor of the plaintiff as SCOTUS would agree that the laws on the books in NY which mandate that a valid reason be present for the issuance of a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional as it is vague and difficult to define and thus, essentially impossible for an applicant to qualify for. This is also a problem in neighboring NJ, where concealed carry permits are known to be all but impossible to get unless one is politically connected.
Activist jurisprudence, sometimes called "lawfare," has long interjected political agendas into law. The Supreme Court of the United States has not been exempt. The left needs to face that now that the right has learned the game and will play it, that the left won't always get what it wants....
The bolded is your opinion. There is no "must be" about it. And "simply" doesn't begin to address the problems that we know will occur if abortion laws are left to the states.
The rest of your post seems to be a jumble of a bunch of things you don't like about Democrats. Irrelevant to this discussion. /shrug
On the contrary, it is FACT - the state level is where abortions laws were until Roe v. Wade.
It's not what I don't like, it's what a lot of very shrill people on the left do, and it's not irrelevant. Doxxing the home addresses of the conservative Justices was done to intimidate them.
Thuggery at its finest, just like the threats given to jurors in trials such as that of Derek Chauvin and of the McMichaels.
Owning a gun is a Constitutional Right. Having an abortion is not. Since states can vary in how they regulate 2nd Amendment Rights, they can most certainly vary in how they regulate abortion.
The truth hurts... If you all didn't want abortion to be regulated by states as they see fit, you never should have stood by and let states vary in how they regulate an actual Constitutional Right.
The precedent has been LONG established that states can regulate any real or perceived right as they see fit.
That precedent regarding states’ rights was rendered moot by the American Civil War when the Slaver states perceived it was their right to own people as property.
That precedent regarding states’ rights was rendered moot by the American Civil War when the Slaver states perceived it was their right to own people as property.
I don't know the ideas the poster whom you quoted here holds, but if I understood his post's message, he is saying that SCOTUS is going to issue decisions both on Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization and on New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen which uphold the Constitution.
In the former, the correct ruling would be for Roe v. Wade to be overturned on grounds there is no constitutional backing for a federal mandate on abortion and instead, the issue will simply be sent back to the state level, where it was until 1973.
Many people on both sides of the political isle think that an overturning of Roe v. Wade would banish abortions in all 50 states - that isn't true. NY and CA for example would keep i tlegal.
In the same way, the latter would be ruled in favor of the plaintiff as SCOTUS would agree that the laws on the books in NY which mandate that a valid reason be present for the issuance of a concealed carry permit is unconstitutional as it is vague and difficult to define and thus, essentially impossible for an applicant to qualify for. This is also a problem in neighboring NJ, where concealed carry permits are known to be all but impossible to get unless one is politically connected.
Activist jurisprudence, sometimes called "lawfare," has long interjected political agendas into law. The Supreme Court of the United States has not been exempt. The left needs to face that now that the right has learned the game and will play it, that the left won't always get what it wants....
.... thankfully.
No. That poster is not so esoteric regarding the gun argument.
If you think it is fair for women to be forced to travel halfway across the country to get medical care, you are not facing the facts of real life. I suggest you read more of this thread. Many of the issues you raised have been discussed already with good arguments from both sides. You might find it interesting.
Another thing to consider. Basing law on esoteric legal arguments can cause major consequences for people in real life. Laws and court decisions have to balance the legal with the affected people.
Last edited by ansible90; 05-07-2022 at 09:34 AM..
Nope, fact, and you know because I have given you links before. Not from some opinion sites, but from medical, academic and science sites.
None of your links claim that the fetus is a parasite. In order for it to be a parasite it would have to be different species. I don’t think you understand what you’re reading.
The state laws banning abortion haven't been allowed to take effect yet because Roe V Wade hasn't been officially repealed.
You're splitting hairs, and using wordplay to get around the truth that States do actually have laws banning abortion that will be enforceable immediately when Roe V Wade is repealed.
They're state laws, already on the books.
Wordplay is what libertaryans do. Please see the following:
”In the libertarian society, then, the mother would have the absolute right to her own body and therefore to perform an abortion; and would have the trustee-ownership of her children, an ownership limited only by the illegality of aggressing against their persons and by their absolute right to run away or to leave home at any time. Parents would be able to sell their trustee-rights in children to anyone who wished to buy them at any mutually agreed price.”
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
