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 honestly believe, like somebody was telling me earlier, that the push to overturn this was because millennials are not having babies and the elite had to do something about this. !
Agree. The USSC does what it does because of political pressure.
The fact that congress did nothing to pass laws on this, ever, said they wanted the ability to over turn it.
Location: 23.7 million to 162 million miles North of Venus
23,597 posts, read 12,543,921 times
Reputation: 10477
Quote:
Originally Posted by ClaraC
Yep. And in one sentence, he has armed the left with passion.
As the Director of Planned Parenthood said this morning, they're going to make sure EVERY SINGLE PERSON running for office, no matter the position, is going to eat this decision for breakfast.
Prepared to fight like hell in all 50 states.
Ironic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steamhammer
What time is ‘the summer of love “ on tonight ?
Seems the burn loot murder crowd is being summoned as we speak.
The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,”. Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
As you see, Thomas flatly stated that, despite others bringing up cases about contraception, gay marriage etc., the USSC will NOT extend this case to them.
How do you get from this, your bunkum about "Clarence Thomas is telling the Supreme Court to go after birth control and gay marriage."?
As I said earlier, the Leftist maxim of "If you can't reply or discuss honestly, lie and exaggerate instead" is getting a major workout today.
Thanks for providing another example.
On page 119 of the opinion, see Thomas' concurring opinion where he goes further, stating:
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
Leaving decisions up to the states isn't "restricting the rights of Americans". Regulating everything at the federal level is restricting the rights of the states however.
Exactly. Hey, you went to school and listened! I talked with our Attorney General who stated that the federal government was attempting to take the states rights. Gee, with Braindead Biden in office, and people supposedly voting for him, imagine..........
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireinPA
no, matt ford said that. Im waiting for what thomas actually said to be published given that rolling stone mag (a magzine about rock and roll) does not often quote people when saying what they actually said.
Well, even Yahoo has it! He was not talking about restricting anything but returning state's rights that the federal government had seized.
"In a concurring opinion, Justice Thomas said the court should reconsider rulings involving contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage."
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote."
He, of course, was talking about the process for which those cases were decided.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scorpio516
With one sentence, Thomas threw the entire US legal system into disarray.
Precedence doesn't matter anymore.
What matters is that the federal government has certain rights, and the states have certain rights. Didn't you learn this in school? American government was a required course in Michigan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty
Christian conservatives like Justice Thomas believe that their personal & religious beliefs should become the law of the land for all people.
It's that simple, unfortunately.
Again, didn't you have a class on American government in high school? Federal rights vs states rights? This has to do with the process that was used in those cases, and whether it was a "federal" issue or a "states" issue. This is really basic stuff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nodpete
You are 100% correct, but I'm afraid the liberal lemmings have been told how to react. They don't let the truth get in the way.
I really think these must be kids that are posting, as who isn't aware of states rights and federal rights when it comes to laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
Okay, so help me understand because I really really don't understand what the GOP goals are here. They want to allow states to make contraception illegal? So the South will likely be first and they will say no contraception is legal in these states, thus making every sexual act between fertile women and men potentially result in the birth of a child. If these women and men are going to start procreating like bunnies in these states, are the states going to help pay for that? Or is that the goal, to keep women home and pregnant? What is it that the GOP wants now that they own the Supreme Court for the next forty years?
You just don't get it! I would suggest educating yourself on federal rights and states rights when it comes to making laws. Also, there are certain rights that we have. Birth control is not going to be outlawed, but I suspect some of the issue there is requiring pharmacists to fill prescriptions for "the morning after pill", otherwise known as "the abortion pill" as there was a lot of controversy over that decision.
All that he has suggested is that the cases should be reviewed as to whether it was the right of the federal government to make the decision or if it, per the Constitution, was the right of the state to make the decision.
Seriously, do some research and stop parroting media for best results.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RetireinPA
if what he actually wrote is what he wrote, he seems to indicate such matters are to be decided by the states and the fed has no right to regulate such. if you believe in constitution stuff etc
That is what I am getting from the articles that I have read, but I'm guessing liberal media is feeding their parrots a different line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williepaws
So true! Its amazing how many people believe they have the right to tell other people what to believe.
It is even more amazing that you don't realize how many laws there are, and the necessity for laws in a civilized society. It is not about what one believes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1
1- Your state, based on the people you elect, can protect those rights. And, by the way, expand those rights without having to worry about dealing with mean red state elected officials. You always have to option of moving to a more enlightened state, if you live in a red state.
2- Roe was bad law.
3- Why don’t we wait to see what Thomas actually said, not someone’s spin.
No one is getting rid of contraceptives. If nothing else, “evil” Republicans don’t want more brown babies, remember?
That is what we needed here, a teacher!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freak80
Correct.
States should have the right to restrict voting access. States should have the right to allow slavery. The Federal government has no right to interfere.
Yeah, they tend to be very emotional after listening to liberal media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizualizax90
Can someone please explain to me the logic of this stupidity.
Y’all complain about thugs and criminals running rampant but if you remove contraception and abortion as options you’re increasing the chances of more children born into dysfunction who will be terrorizing your neighborhoods.
Ironically this is the group that complained about cancel culture.
God is not real. Stop using your imaginary friend created by people that couldn’t even explain what electricity was to justify creating laws.
Well, maybe instead of supporting illegal aliens with billions of dollars, we spent that on our citizens and work to turn the crime around where ever it may be going on. Improve these areas with better educations, jobs, housing, and see where that goes, rather than put abortion clinics on their corners. We also need to make sure the wealthier criminals aren't allowed to produce, as they are sucking the life out of the country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williepaws
So its ok for one state to tell a woman that even in cases of rape, incest, health problems, and possible loss of life of the woman, that too bad for her, right? Dead women are worthless right?
You are talking about maybe 2% of the abortions. Well, you think dead babies are worthless, except maybe to sell off parts, so.............. The states will be reasonable when it comes to the cases you have stated. Keep in mind with rape, the person is taken to the hospital after a rape for things to be taken care of, so it is important to report rape immediately. Thousands of couples/singles wait to adopt an infant in the USA and also Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wee-Bey
I don't care whether you think these things are rights. It only matters what the Constitution says. Roe was an invented right and I'm glad this 50 yr error has been corrected. Let's do the right thing by our guiding template and get rid of everything that's been incorrectly legislated from the bench in the past. Clean house of pseudo rights and let states decide these issues with their own law. The way it was always intended.
That is the way it was meant to be. They are just correcting what was in error. I am still confused why this was not taught in school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scarabchuck
Just like abortion, the government , whether at the state level, or federal, shouldn't have a say in any of this. With abortion, the only think they should do is make sure it is safe. The rest should be on the medical community.
Then, change the Constitution. Abortion is NOT safe for a pre-born baby, and if the decision seems wrong as an afterthought, you can't bring back a dead baby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater
That's a BIG reason why the majority of the US have a negative view of the supreme court.
Maybe it will change now that they are realizing the SC has stepped on the rights of the states, the ones given in the Constitution to the states. Sadly, most here don't get that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williepaws
Ah but those "brown" babies are low on the totem pole and could be used as slaves! and yes they will get rid of at least some contraceptives since some interfere with the implantation of a fertilized egg.
When one state can kill its women by restricting abortion even if a womans life is in the balance due to a dangerous pregnancy, Roe was not bad law.
It was a bad law because making such a law was not in the place of the SC as a federal agency. Where on earth do you get these ideas? I think you'll find states will be reasonable when it comes to the life of the woman, and those cases are way less than 1% of the abortions. Do you ever actually look at the facts? That might help you understand. And, brown babies used as slaves? That is totally irrational. Good grief, you need to at least look at the Constitution and Bill of Rights and get an understanding of how our country works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arya Stark
No it isn't. By restoring this to the states it gives everyone the right to vote on it. Making it a federal right has that decision taken away by a bunch of unelected judges.
Yes!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arya Stark
But it is perfectly ok for them to tell me to get injected with an experimental substance or lose my job? Mmmkkky ok.
Different agenda. Funny though, some did die of that vs. these women who they feel will die if not given an abortion. Abortion is billions of dollars to the medical community, so they can afford to put out false/misleading info for the parrots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer
In conservative states, the great majority of people already believe in traditional sex roles. The husband is the breadwinner and head of the household. The wife is the child bearer, nurturer and homemaker.
Liberal states will continue to allow access to abortion even up to a late stage.
So, this is not going to change things all that much.
You can't be serious! I have lived in a few conservative states, and that just is not true, and hasn't been since the 1950s. "Traditional sex roles"................
Yes, liberal states don't respect life, and I suppose that accounts for the high crime rates in their dive cities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
On page 119 of the opinion, see Thomas' concurring opinion where he goes further, stating:
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
You isolated one sentence, but do you understand the logic? He believes that the SC overstepped and took the states' rights in making these decisions. Again, high school government class!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Williepaws
You really believe that some of the states care what their voters want? And it would be ok for voters in one state to say we dont support abortion even if this pregnancy is going to kill the woman? Women are worthless anyway, cause thats what some states may be saying.
No state has said that. Where on earth are you coming up with this. Way less than 1% have abortions because it threatens the life of the mother. I am woman and not worthless, but maybe being educated helps with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eyebee Teepee
States do, constitutionally, have the right to set voting laws. So long as those voting laws are deemed to not infringe on Constitutional rights.
Yes. I would others would have heard that a few times after the last presidential election.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove
That's what they said about Roe. Guess what? The GOP will go after contraception and gay marriage next. They absolutely will. Remember, the GOP supported abortion until 1976. The GOP didn't always oppose abortion but they always need to oppose something. Clarence Thomas is showing them the way, the next targets being contraception and gay marriage. He wrote it in his opinion, page 119.
No one said they were going after anything. This is so simple. The SC needs to review those cases, and he states the cases by name, to see if they had the authority under the Constitution to make those decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChicagoMeO
Can the justices do such a thing when no case has come before them? or do they have to wait for a lawsuit?
No. And, they are talking about "reviewing" the cases to see if the SC had the authority to rule on them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralParty
Yep. That's what the far-right wants, to go back to the 1950s. Back when America was Christian, heterosexual, and a patriarchal society.
Conservative leadership in red states are already doing all they can to dismantle Trans rights. Today, the far-right has successfully dealt a blow to women's rights.
And as conservative Justice Thomas has now said himself, gay marriage and contraception are next on the far-right agenda.
It's been a running joke for a few years that conservatives would like to see America become a real-life Handmaid's Tale. But sadly, their dream may slowly becoming a reality.
Nope! Trans people have the same rights, and I don't know what rights are being taken from them. Women's rights? As a woman who has children, no one is taking away a right from me. Imagine what it feels like to have what you all call "clump of cells" start moving in your abdomen at 16 weeks?
All this has to do with what I have said again and again, federal rights vs states rights in making certain decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by woxyroxme
Doing away with contraceptives because of some cultish superstitious mythology will only do more harm than good, long dong silver is only showing his crazy here.
And, no one said anything about that, but about reviewing cases that the SC made decisions on that may have fallen under states' rights.
I am really concerned about the education our students are getting in the USA! OMG!
On page 119 of the opinion, see Thomas' concurring opinion where he goes further, stating:
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
On page 119 of the opinion, see Thomas' concurring opinion where he goes further, stating:
"For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
So now Clarence Thomas is telling the Supreme Court to go after birth control and gay marriage. See page 119 of the Supreme Court opinion, second paragraph.
Waiting for the High Court to strike down affirmative action once and for all.
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.
