US supreme court backs a handmaid’s tale

@earl-of-trumps said
How's this one:

Clarence Thomas Signals Same-Sex Marriage and Contraception Rights at Risk After Overturning Roe v. Wade

Something to think about,



https://time.com/6191044/clarence-thomas-same-sex-marriage-contraception-abortion/

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-- Martin Niemöller, a Lutheran minister and early Nazi supporter who was later imprisoned for opposing Hitler's regime.

Right now, we're seeing men who don't care about the overturn of Roe v. Wade... because they're not women.

Control crack-downs never stop with the first group.

@averagejoe1 said
Does anyone here think that I should not have a right to carry a gun to protect me and my family ?

No one's saying that.

What I'm saying is that if you support everyone having a gun, then have a decent argument. Saying that people are coming to murder you and your family is BS. How many enemies do you have? The only argument for guns is this: I like guns, don't take away my gun. Granted, it's not a great argument, but it's really the only one you have. Just stop with the whole "protection" concept. No one is coming to murder you or your family.

Here's reality, snowflake. We've repealed amendments before. Since you felt it was all-fired important to remove a woman's right to her own body, maybe the rest of us can remove your right to "bear arms". Let the states decide. You like states' rights, right? You'll still be able to have a gun, if you move to state that allows it. Isn't that what you guys are saying about knocking down Roe v. Wade?

@averagejoe1 said
Does anyone here think that I should not have a right to carry a gun to protect me and my family ?

Yes. Me.

Besides the fact that it’s paranoid, non-effective and not proportional… I submit to all that it’s probably best your gene-pool is exterminated.

You know? Better for rational humanity and all…

@no1marauder said

EDIT: Fun Fact: When Clarence Thomas married Ginni in 1987, somewhere between 43 to 48% of Americans approved of interracial marriage. https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx

Just for fun, I suggest you count the number of times today you hear Democrats criticize this SC decision because it is NOT in line with what the majority wants as if that was a very important legal standard.

Should the SC consider what the majority wants or not? Pick one side and stick with it.

An even more fun fact, in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was decided (unanimously and correctly in my opinion), I'm pretty sure that far less than 43% of Americans favored inter-racial marriage.

@suzianne said
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

-- Martin ...[text shortened]... oe v. Wade[/i]... because they're not women.

Control crack-downs never stop with the first group.

Love that poem!
It was hanging in out classroom in the 80’s!

Actually, to be perfectly frank, until I was 40 I always agreed with the slagan: The Only Good Fascist is a Dead Fascist.

But, as I’ve grown older, I’ve come to realise we have to kill their Satan spawn as wel…

Oh, wait, no… what I mean is that I’ve come to understand that even they are a product of their environment. And unless killing them will change the actual environment, it’s not a productive path to stroll down…

@averagejoe1 said
Does anyone here think that I should not have a right to carry a gun to protect me and my family ?

Suzianne: No one's saying that.
shavixmir: Yes, Me.

Funny, both are going to accuse you of being the one who is uninformed.

@techsouth said
Just for run, I suggest you count the number of times today you hear Democrats criticize this SC decision because it is NOT in line with what the majority wants as if that was a very important legal standard.

Should the SC consider what the majority wants or not? Pick one side and stick with it.

An even more fun fact, in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was decided (un ...[text shortened]... y in my opinion), I'm pretty sure that far less than 43% of Americans favored inter-racial marriage.

The SC should judge the merits of decision making, not create or disband laws.

So, if the SC rules one way… it should be in limbo until democracy decides.
And if it was a federal law, then it’s at a federal level the decision by parliament should lie.

@techsouth said
Just for run, I suggest you count the number of times today you hear Democrats criticize this SC decision because it is NOT in line with what the majority wants as if that was a very important legal standard.

Should the SC consider what the majority wants or not? Pick one side and stick with it.

An even more fun fact, in 1967 when Loving v. Virginia was decided (un ...[text shortened]... y in my opinion), I'm pretty sure that far less than 43% of Americans favored inter-racial marriage.

I've never suggested that what the majority of the People or of State legislatures think should have any bearing on decisions regarding our Natural Rights.

How can Loving be correct under the standard used by the Court's majority today? Do you understand what that was? It wasn't that a zygote-embryo-fetus had any "rights"; Alito specifically stated:

"........ our decision is not based on any view about when a State should regard prenatal life as having rights or legally cognizable interests." II.B.3 https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/06/24/us/politics/supreme-court-dobbs-jackson-analysis-roe-wade.html

And:

"Our opinion is not based on any view about if and when prenatal life is entitled to any of the rights enjoyed after birth."

II.D.3

@shavixmir said
The SC should judge the merits of decision making, not create or disband laws.

So, if the SC rules one way… it should be in limbo until democracy decides.
And if it was a federal law, then it’s at a federal level the decision by parliament should lie.

The role of the Supreme Court in America is to decide if a law has a basis in constitutionality or not. If it does, it is allowed to stand. If not, it is abolished.

Of course, this does not stop partisan justices from ruling the way they personally want, but this is why congressional confirmation is such a big deal, and why local elections to decide your congressional representatives is such a big deal.

It's also why I cannot understand why Amy Coney Barrett was not rejected out of hand. It was made abundantly clear why she was picked for the SC and it sure wasn't because of her talent for spotting constitutionality. She was only picked to swat down R v W.

@no1marauder said
I've never suggested that what the majority of the People or of State legislatures think should have any bearing on decisions regarding our Natural Rights.

How can Loving be correct under the standard used by the Court's majority today? Do you understand what that was?

Then why did you bring up what public opinion was in 1987? What point were you trying to make? And, whether you're trying to use that standard or not, I promise you if you listen to Democrats today (I'm not talking about average citizens, I'm talking about elected officials, professional pundits, and generally "well educated" people), you will hear over and over how this goes against the wishes of the majority.

What "standard" was used by the Court, in their own words, that would suggest Loving v. Virginia is in jeopardy?

I'm just asking to hear your explanation, but I stand by my earlier assertion, that decision is not in the slightest risk of being overturned no matter what happens in the midterms. Take that to the bank.

If you think you've understood a "standard" used by the SC in deciding the case for today that risks Loving v. Virginia, there are at least possibilities..

1. The SC are stupid hypocrites.
2. You've misunderstood their reasoning.

How much time have you spent examining the legal case to ensure it's not (2)?

@suzianne said
The role of the Supreme Court in America is to decide if a law has a basis in constitutionality or not. If it does, it is allowed to stand. If not, it is abolished.

Of course, this does not stop partisan justices from ruling the way they personally want, but this is why congressional confirmation is such a big deal, and why local elections to decide your congressional r ...[text shortened]... asn't because of her talent for spotting constitutionality. She was only picked to swat down R v W.

Your SC is a load of crap then, isn’t it?

Your consitution is hundreds of years old and completely outdated.

Most higher courts (in normal countries) check to see if the legal procedures have been correctly followed.

@techsouth said
Then why did you bring up what public opinion was in 1987? What point were you trying to make? And, whether you're trying to use that standard or not, I promise you if you listen to Democrats today (I'm not talking about average citizens, I'm talking about elected officials, professional pundits, and generally "well educated" people), you will hear over and over how this ...[text shortened]... od their reasoning.

How much time have you spent examining the legal case to ensure it's not (2)?

Natural Rights don't change.

Public opinion does.

@shavixmir said
Your SC is a load of crap then, isn’t it?

Your consitution is hundreds of years old and completely outdated.

Most higher courts (in normal countries) check to see if the legal procedures have been correctly followed.

Yes, the Constitution is over 200 years old, but aside from the Second Amendment, I don't see where it is outdated.

It is changeable for a reason. While it is true we don't have nearly enough Amendments, the process is still there, and functional.

@techsouth said
Then why did you bring up what public opinion was in 1987? What point were you trying to make? And, whether you're trying to use that standard or not, I promise you if you listen to Democrats today (I'm not talking about average citizens, I'm talking about elected officials, professional pundits, and generally "well educated" people), you will hear over and over how this ...[text shortened]... od their reasoning.

How much time have you spent examining the legal case to ensure it's not (2)?

No, I haven't misunderstood their position and I thought I explained it in my first post. In determining whether there was a "right to abortion" (a cramped analysis in the first place), they relied on the fact A) It is isn't written in the Constitution; and B) State legislatures at the time of the 14th Amendment and afterwards made it a crime, so it wasn't considered a "right". From Kavanaugh's concurrence:

" As I see it, the dispositive point in analyzing American history and tradition for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment inquiry is that abortion was largely prohibited in most American States as of 1868 when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, and that abortion remained largely prohibited in most American States until Roe was decided in 1973." Footnote 1

But the same arguments could be made against Loving or Brown v. Board of Education for that matter; laws against interracial marriage and mandating segregation in education and other places (as well as laws limiting women's access to professions) were utterly commonplace in the late 1800s despite the Equal Protection Clause. Taking the Dobbs' argument at face value, these decisions are just as wrong as Roe.

Of course, politically reinstituting such practices would be a hard sell to say the least. But as you correctly point out, that is besides the point; majority opinion should have no bearing on the constitutionality of a law.

@suzianne said
Natural Rights don't change.

Public opinion does.

You're stating my exact opinion as if I'm the one who doesn't get it.

I'll mention again and perhaps you can explain it to me. Why do prominent Democrats keep mentioning that this goes against the will of the majority of Americans?

I see no evidence the SC decided on the merits of what the general public prefers.