Dobbs

@mott-the-hoople said
show me where abortion is enumerated idiot

retained by “the people”… exactly where scotus sent this decision, to “the people”

Miss the point much?

@mott-the-hoople said
show me where abortion is enumerated idiot

retained by “the people”… exactly where scotus sent this decision, to “the people”

What grade level do you read at?

It specifically says that a right doesn't have to be "enumerated" in the Constitution to be retained by the People. And rights are not subject to approval by State legislatures; they existed before legislatures and governments which are tools to protect preexisting rights.

Right wingers seem almost tragically ignorant of the philosophy of the nation's Founders. Simple review of the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence would be a useful and timely homework assignment for them with the Fourth of July almost upon us.

@mghrn55 said
It is amusing that those who are deepest into the debate about when a fetus becomes a baby are those with less than the minimum of biological background.

If you are against abortion, you will move that line back.
And the line moves forward if you are for it.

So where each debater in this forum (where I expect there are very professionals in the field) draws that line is driven by something else.

A great point. I for one know nothing about biology. Neither do 97 % of us debaters. Good point. I assume you are saying that it is ridiculous for us to discuss when a fetus becomes a baby.
This is one of your best posts. It will help us all to just quit it., Cool.

@suzianne said
Miss the point much?

This part of the dissent is particularly rough to the conservative majority:

Casey itself made the last point in explaining why it would not overrule Roe—though some members of its majority might not have joined Roe in the first instance... “[T]he Court,” Casey explained, “could not pretend” that overruling Roe had any “justification beyond a present doctrinal disposition to come out differently from the Court of 1973.” And to overrule for that reason? Quoting Justice Stewart, Casey explained that to do so—to reverse prior law “upon a ground no firmer than a change in [the Court’s] membership”— would invite the view that “this institution is little different from the two political branches of the government.” Ibid. No view, Casey thought, could do “more lasting injury to this Court and to the system of law which it is our abiding mission to serve.” Ibid. For overruling Roe, Casey concluded, the Court would pay a “terrible price.” The Justices who wrote those words—O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter—they were judges of wisdom. They would not have won any contests for the kind of ideological purity some court watchers want Justices to deliver. But if there were awards for Justices who left this Court better than they found it? And who for that reason left this country better? And the rule of law stronger? Sign those Justices up.

We are reversing hundreds of laws throughout the country because of no other reason than a change in the court's membership. That's why their logic is so shoddy. There's no societal change that justifies a reversal of law this extreme. It's just politics.

@wildgrass said
This part of the dissent is particularly rough to the conservative majority:
[quote]Casey itself made the last point in explaining why it would not overrule Roe—though some members of its majority might not have joined Roe in the first instance... “[T]he Court,” Casey explained, “could not pretend” that overruling Roe had any “justification beyond a present doctrinal dispo ...[text shortened]... hoddy. There's no societal change that justifies a reversal of law this extreme. It's just politics.

I guess I dont get it. It is like Wildgrass is saying the judges will read the constitution and not agree on the simplicity of it. It can only be read one way, as far as I can tell. But for instance, the libs do, indeed, see the word 'welfare' in those first few lines and lick their chops about getting free stuff, totally misunderstanding what the constitution is saying. Some on this very thread think that of the constitution.
We should be sure to vet all justices by getting them to agree on the meaning of the word welfare, and everything else should fall into place.
Ahhh, I am so introspective.......

@wildgrass said
This part of the dissent is particularly rough to the conservative majority:
[quote]Casey itself made the last point in explaining why it would not overrule Roe—though some members of its majority might not have joined Roe in the first instance... “[T]he Court,” Casey explained, “could not pretend” that overruling Roe had any “justification beyond a present doctrinal dispo ...[text shortened]... hoddy. There's no societal change that justifies a reversal of law this extreme. It's just politics.

the constitution says what it says, societal change is irrelevant.

@mott-the-hoople said
the constitution says what it says, societal change is irrelevant.

Thank you! Phew. That simple statement clears out an entire section of the library of congress. Why do we even need a Supreme Court? WHere have you been the past 200 years?

Edit: sorry that was sarcasm. You must have missed the latest SCOTUS ruling in which the conservative majority overturned decades of legal precedent based on arguments exactly the opposite of what you just wrote. Ultrasounds, health care advancements etc. are used as examples of "societal change" that are required to make the argument that prior laws need to be changed.

@wildgrass said
Thank you! Phew. That simple statement clears out an entire section of the library of congress. Why do we even need a Supreme Court? WHere have you been the past 200 years?

Edit: sorry that was sarcasm. You must have missed the latest SCOTUS ruling in which the conservative majority overturned decades of legal precedent based on arguments exactly the opposite of what you ...[text shortened]... ples of "societal change" that are required to make the argument that prior laws need to be changed.

That is cool, Wildgrass, but you libs are at the point where y'all think societal change is causing everything to change. All we are saying is that were we to NOT apply constitution to these arguments, you libs would run away with it!!!! Starting with Mob Rule, one of your favorite concepts . Does that phrase alone not give you pause? Which is more civil.....a 51% majority, or a bit more thoughtful 60%. You see , we want to do it right. If something you are pushing through the Senate is a good new law, then there should be no problem getting more than 50% to agree. If you are with that (Nothing is left questionable for the next SCOTUS to have to wrestle with, libs all over their houses), then don't you think 60% is a good number?

@averagejoe1 said
That is cool, Wildgrass, but you libs are at the point where y'all think societal change is causing everything to change. All we are saying is that were we to NOT apply constitution to these arguments, you libs would run away with it!!!! Starting with Mob Rule, one of your favorite concepts . Does that phrase alone not give you pause? Which is more civil.....a 51% m ...[text shortened]... TUS to have to wrestle with, libs all over their houses), then don't you think 60% is a good number?

Where does it say in the Constitution that a 60% vote is required in the Senate for any and all legislation?

Answer: Nowhere.

@no1marauder said
Where does it say in the Constitution that a 60% vote is required in the Senate for any and all legislation?

Answer: Nowhere.

LMFAO…the senate sets its own rules.

three branches of govt…did you forget about that? LOL

@wildgrass said
Thank you! Phew. That simple statement clears out an entire section of the library of congress. Why do we even need a Supreme Court? WHere have you been the past 200 years?

Edit: sorry that was sarcasm. You must have missed the latest SCOTUS ruling in which the conservative majority overturned decades of legal precedent based on arguments exactly the opposite of what you ...[text shortened]... ples of "societal change" that are required to make the argument that prior laws need to be changed.

precedent is, the scotus has overturned MANY previous rulings.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions

@mott-the-hoople said
LMFAO…the senate sets its own rules.

three branches of govt…did you forget about that? LOL

Senate rules should be constrained by Constitutional provisions. Requiring a 60% majority on all legislation violates the Constitutional scheme.

Could the Senate pass a rule saying women Senators have no vote? Or black Senators have 3/5 of one?

Moscow Mitch and his pals have effectively amended the Constitution without going through the required procedures. It's time to get rid of this travesty.

@no1marauder said
Senate rules should be constrained by Constitutional provisions. Requiring a 60% majority on all legislation violates the Constitutional scheme.

Could the Senate pass a rule saying women Senators have no vote? Or black Senators have 3/5 of one?

Moscow Mitch and his pals have effectively amended the Constitution without going through the required procedures. It's time to get rid of this travesty.

you have become delirious regarding the US constitution.

The problem with you libs is you dont want to follow the constitution.

@mott-the-hoople said
precedent is, the scotus has overturned MANY previous rulings.

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/a-short-list-of-overturned-supreme-court-landmark-decisions

Yes, of course. That is obvious and not the point. Duh. In these cases, the Court generally cites a significant change in society or law that requires a re-evaluation of prior decisions. Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected officials.

The logic for overturning Casey uses extremely weak arguments about societal change requiring it. Nothings changed to justify overturning the Casey decision except the people in the robes.

@no1marauder said
Where does it say in the Constitution that a 60% vote is required in the Senate for any and all legislation?

Answer: Nowhere.

It doesn't. It doesn't say abortion, either. Totally miss your point. I am sure, however, that you get my point. Even though you are a mob/socialist kinda guy.
Factoid: 8 in 10 Democrats say US is heading in the wrong direction. Now there's a mob for you!!