Biden calls abortion decision a ‘sad day,’ urges to elect pro-abortion rights officials

a reply to: Xtrozero

Okay. You're right. SCOTUS did rule that states could outlaw sexual acts.

What they didn't do it take a constitutional right away from The People, that they previously had retained. Which is my point.

And, that marriage is a constitutional right, that is not enumerated in the Constitution.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What they didn't do it take a constitutional right away from The People, that they previously had retained. Which is my point.

A decision from the SC should not be morally based and should be only used within the context of the Constitution, that is a big part of their checks and balances to prevent them from just throwing laws around as they might personally see fit. A bad decision is when they rule outside of the Constitution and it has a huge ramification because then they are saying it is Constitutional, when it actually is not.

From the get go Roe was seen as a bad decision not based on the Constitution. It was a quick Band-Aid for a wound that should of been fixed, could of been fixed many times in the past 50 years, with the 90s as a primary time it could have been done. Today's SC pulled off the Band-Aid and are basically saying fix it correctly.

Your so called Constitutional right taken away was fake, sorry to say.

a reply to: Xtrozero

From the get go Roe was seen as a bad decision not based on the Constitution.

The Supreme Court Justices that ruled on Roe V Wade thought it was.
The Supreme Court Justices that ruled on Planned Parenthood v. Casey thought it was.

In fact, Supreme Court Justices reaffirmed a woman's constitutional right to an abortion 20 times.

Since Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court has handed down more than 20 decisions involving abortion, all of which upheld a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion during the first trimester.

nypost.com...

Last week, 5 justices disagreed with all those other justices, in all those cases.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

Last week, 5 justices disagreed with all those other justices, in all those cases.

I know you don't like it... Doesn't change the facts it is not in the Constitution. If you want to argue it is then anything is based on the same premise.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The Dred Scott decision on slavery was overruled. Scotus said Scott was still a slave, even after going to a free slave state. It was argued that being a slave did not remove the right of the person under federal law. They held people of African descent were not citizens of any state. That ruling violated article III of the Constitution. Scotus later overruled that decision with the adoption of the 14th amendment and the subsequent Supreme Court case. Scotus ruling on the 14th amendment, to apply it to all states, instead of just southern states, overrode their first ruling in the Dred Scott case. Any person who was a slave were now US citizens (it also applied to Native Americans).

Plessy v. Ferguson - Scotus first ruled separate but equal was ok. Then then overrode that decision by saying separate but equal was not ok.

The 4th amendment - consent, plain view, open fields doctrine, border search, search incident to arrest, The listed examples are all situations where a warrant is NOT needed.

The 5th amendment - self incrimination. Scotus held that is absolute. However they later refined it to where the absolute ONLY applies to criminal trials. A person can claim the 5th amendment in a civil trial however the judge can order the person to answer the question. If they refuse then the jury is instructed that they can infer guilt by the refusal to answer.


In Miranda v. Arizona the supreme court ruled a person has to be made aware of their constitutional rights - Miranda warnings. There is a case where If scotus rules the way I think, those Miranda warnings will NOT be required to be read to a person under arrest.

List of Supreme Court rulings that wqere later overruled by the Supreme Court

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
You can't rewrite history. Last week abortion was a constitutional right, and had been for 5 decades, this week it's not.

I am not rewriting history. Scotus never said abortion was protected and defined as healthcare - that was a Democrat lie. As I said before scotus was lied to back in the 70's regarding the facts around Roe v. Wade. Because of that the ruling should have never occurred. The current Scotus corrected the mistake Scotus made back in the 1970's.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Honestly never thought about it, don't recall anyone saying there was a constitutional right to it, just remember some legal cases typically around same sex marriage that for the most part seem settled.

Look what I am about to say will probably piss you off, but it's not meant that way, hope you can see it.

There are a lot of guys out there like me, who agree with the decision to overturn it but disagree with the idea of a total ban and would happily stand with pro-choice advocates against a total ban, since things like rape, incest, health of the mother etc are legit reasons to many.

BUT since the decision we have been told repeatedly to shut up and stand there you don't get an opinion, yea some will shut up and stand there like a beta most will eventually roll their eyes and say F it, don't want my help have fun losing as your numbers dwindle.

Lot of pro-choice people are pushing away people that would be willing to help, that is not going to make the fight easier.

I still hope your day gets better!

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Where is the amendment for marriage?

That would be the 10th amendment since the States are responsible for marriage. The only Federal issue falls under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. It lays out (per Congress) that certain decisions in one state MUST be accepted by the other states. Marriage, driver's license, insurance, court proceedings, court rulings, etc...

a reply to: Xcathdra

The Dred Scott decision on slavery was overruled.

Not by SCOTUS.

Plessy v. Ferguson - Scotus first ruled separate but equal was ok. Then then overrode that decision by saying separate but equal was not ok.

That was a broadening of constitutional rights, not a revocation.
Maybe, people thought they had a constitutional right to refuse entry of people of color to a public business, but the right was conferred upon the states through their right to legislate, not on the people themselves.

The 4th amendment - consent, plain view, open fields doctrine, border search, search incident to arrest, The listed examples are all situations where a warrant is NOT needed.

The 4th Amendment doesn't require a warrant, it requires that warrants that are issued be based on probable cause. The definition of probable cause has evolved. SCOTUS didn't take away the 4th Amendment from the people.

The 5th amendment - self incrimination. Scotus held that is absolute. However they later refined it to where the absolute ONLY applies to criminal trials. A person can claim the 5th amendment in a civil trial however the judge can order the person to answer the question. If they refuse then the jury is instructed that they can infer guilt by the refusal to answer.

Sorry, not seeing that as a revocation of a right. The 5th Amendment is pretty clear on that.

In Miranda v. Arizona the supreme court ruled a person has to be made aware of their constitutional rights - Miranda warnings. There is a case where If scotus rules the way I think, those Miranda warnings will NOT be required to be read to a person under arrest.

Maybe. But this case has more to do with police conduct than constitutional rights. The People still retain their rights, they may lose the expectation of an obligatory duty of the police to be informed of those rights.

SCOTUS has never taken away a right it declared a constitution right, that it had reaffirmed it over and over from The People who had previous retained that constitutional right.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Where is the amendment for marriage?

That would be the 10th amendment since the States are responsible for marriage. The only Federal issue falls under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. It lays out (per Congress) that certain decisions in one state MUST be accepted by the other states. Marriage, driver's license, insurance, court proceedings, court rulings, etc...

Licensing is a responsibility of the states. But the right to marry is a constitutional right. States can't deny people the right to marry unless that marriage violates state age requirements of consent, bigamy or polygamy laws.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

You asked the question and I gave you the answer. If you cant understand that then the problem is yours.

a reply to: Irishhaf

There are a lot of guys out there like me, who agree with the decision to overturn it but disagree with the idea of a total ban and would happily stand with pro-choice advocates against a total ban, since things like rape, incest, health of the mother etc are legit reasons to many.

I accept the ruling. I don't accept the ruling means that women never had a constitutional right, so they aren't losing a constitutional right.

I don't agree with the ruling. I find it filled with intellectual dishonesty, gaslighting, religious nonsense, out of context cherry picked quotes that don't reflect the author's intent, false grounds for the determination of a constitutional right, distain, disrespect and dismissal of previous justices and women, and is incredibly out of touch and insensitive to the people most effected.

I have no doubt that this ruling will be easily overturned by the next progressive court.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: Sookiechacha

You asked the question and I gave you the answer. If you cant understand that then the problem is yours.

What you don't understand is that I disagree with you. You haven't shown me anything that proves SCOTUS didn't take a constitutional right away, or that this isn't the first time they have done so, in this kind of case.

While some of your points can be construed to look like they do, if you squint really hard, they ultimately fail.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Where is the amendment for marriage?

That would be the 10th amendment since the States are responsible for marriage. The only Federal issue falls under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution. It lays out (per Congress) that certain decisions in one state MUST be accepted by the other states. Marriage, driver's license, insurance, court proceedings, court rulings, etc...

Licensing is a responsibility of the states. But the right to marry is a constitutional right. States can't deny people the right to marry unless that marriage violates state age requirements of consent, bigamy or polygamy laws.

That is 10+ years old and so gay marriage could occur. Prior to that judicial overreach re: marriage was, and still is, a state issue. The Constitution doesnt say anything about marriage, just as it does say anything about abortion. All the ruling did was make it legal for same sex marriage.

So are you ever going to accept the fact Scotus ruled abortion is a state issue or are you just going to lash out at everything just so you can argue?

a reply to: Sookiechacha

I have. The rulings in question dealt with constitutional rights and scotus denying those rights in their first ruling. Decades later they overruled those initial rulings. You ignore the fact that the examples dealt with the Constitution and at the time of those rulings Scotus was "upholding" the Constitution, regardless of how we might feel about those rulings.

You asked the question, I answered it with specifics, an now you want to move the goal post just so you can argue.

a reply to: Xcathdra

You asked the question, I answered it with specifics, an now you want to move the goal post just so you can argue.

NO. I disagree that your post answered the question. I explained point by point why.

You don't accept that, that's fine. I don't accept your points or logic either.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Prior to that judicial overreach re: marriage was, and still is, a state issue. The Constitution doesnt say anything about marriage, just as it does say anything about abortion. All the ruling did was make it legal for same sex marriage.

The Court said that marraige is a constitutional right.

Supreme Court Rules Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right

Same-sex marriage is a fundamental constitutional right guaranteed under the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today

The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men ...
To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

www.thoughtco.com...

So are you ever going to accept the fact Scotus ruled abortion is a state issue or are you just going to lash out at everything just so you can argue?

What we are arguing about is your gaslighting assertion that SCOTUS didn't take away a constitutional right when they turned the issue over to the states.

We are arguing about SCOTUS setting an unprecedented precedent in taking away women's constitutional reproductive rights.

Hi all,if this comment is not in the right forum reinstall please.Abortion if made legal is a fine way to eliminate your species!My tenure on this planet is coming to an end after 1.5 million years and I must say"your species is the most gullible to ever have inhabited this planet,good luck!"Inod out................

originally posted by: Irishhaf

There are a lot of guys out there like me, who agree with the decision to overturn it but disagree with the idea of a total ban and would happily stand with pro-choice advocates against a total ban, since things like rape, incest, health of the mother etc are legit reasons to many.

The left is acting like the end of the world. Liberals talking about building abortion clinic on federal land with tax dollars, but hey that baby formula don't worry about that. So if we look at a scenario of a girl in Texas that wants an abortion she calls up a clinic in NM and sets up an appointment, and she does a short road trip with a friend, maybe a once in her lifetime event. Now compare that to what is in her face daily in trying to buy gas, food, job etc etc... Makes one think about how far down the list of things you need to think about is this ruling.

originally posted by: Sookiechacha

What we are arguing about is your gaslighting assertion that SCOTUS didn't take away a constitutional right when they turned the issue over to the states.

We are arguing about SCOTUS setting an unprecedented precedent in taking away women's constitutional reproductive rights.

I think the gas lighting is on you. First there will be no less abortions this year compared to last. Second, we talked about this a good number of times with prior bad decisions that were not based on the constitution even though the SC ruled it was at the time. This is nothing new either...

They didn't change anything as you can have an abortion tomorrow if you like, or 10, they just said Roe was not constitutional and so it never should have been ruled on. Neither is the ruling of same sex marriage, or even interracial marriages, or any marriages. This has nothing to do with whether any of it is right or wrong, it has to do with whether it is Constitutional or not.

I'll even agree with you that they took a Constitutional right away that they made, but I will also say they had no authority in making it in the first place.