The force of the Supreme Court's right turn has shaken the country - CNNPolitics

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  jbb  •  one month ago  •  251 comments

By:   Joan Biskupic (CNN)

The force of the Supreme Court's right turn has shaken the country - CNNPolitics
The Supreme Court reached into every corner of American life, reordering intimate family choices, breaching the separation of church and state, and diminishing the steps government can take to prevent gun violence or protect the environment.

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



By Joan Biskupic, CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer Updated 9:33 AM EDT, Fri July 01, 2022

(CNN) The Supreme Court reached into every corner of American life, reordering intimate family choices, breaching the separation of church and state, and diminishing the steps government can take to prevent gun violence or protect the environment.

The upheaval of the past several weeks, especially as the court outright ended a half-century of women's privacy rights, is unmatched in modern times. The speed and sweep by which the right-wing majority acted reflects, as one liberal dissenter wrote, a "restless and newly constituted Court."

And it is not finished.

The conservative supermajority -- anchored by three relatively young appointees of former President Donald Trump -- is positioned to continue its impact with disputes next session over the Voting Rights Act, affirmative action and religious objections to LGBTQ protections.

Yet it will be the epic 2021-22 session that stands out over time. The case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, reversing Roe v. Wade, will likely be remembered as one of the most far-reaching rulings in Supreme Court history. The 5-4 decision marked the first-ever complete reversal of a constitutional right.

The justices also enlarged the Second Amendment, favoring gun owners, and redefined the balance between the First Amendment's prohibition against government "establishment of religion" and its "free exercise." That will allow more prayer in public settings and require more government money for religious education.

The new landscape was made possible because of the three Trump appointees -- Neil Gorsuch, age 54, Brett Kavanaugh, 57, and Amy Coney Barrett, 50. They separated themselves from prior Republican-named justices who had adhered to precedent and "the promise of constancy," as Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Souter called it in the 1992 case of Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe.

The drive to the right was not wholly unexpected, even though its force has shaken the country.

When liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died in September 2020 and Trump quickly replaced her with Barrett, the new six-justice right-wing bloc appeared positioned to roll back decades of individual rights and government power.

It was just a question of how quickly it would happen and whether the conservative but incrementalist Chief Justice John Roberts would be able to slow the juggernaut.

Twenty months later, it is plain the majority was in a rush. The right wing did not need Roberts' vote for a majority, and on many conservative agenda items, such as religion, race and regulatory power, he was fully with them. (Roberts wrote alone in Dobbs -- with a middle ground that dissatisfied both sides).

Aggressive conservatives


In the most momentous cases, including abortion rights, the justices aggressively decided more than the case demanded. When the justices agreed to take up a Mississippi law that banned abortions at 15 weeks of pregnancy, it said it would decide only whether that ban was unconstitutional based on Roe and Casey protections for a woman's abortion choice before fetal viability, at about 23 weeks.

Kavanaugh, who succeeded Kennedy in 2018, signed on to the Dobbs opinion denigrating Casey's reasoning and likening Roe to the 1896 Plessy v. Ferguson, which upheld racial segregation, even as he professed "deep and unyielding respect" for O'Connor, Kennedy and Souter.

How the Supreme Court is dismantling the separation of church and state

The Dobbs opinion suggested a new era of abortion debate beyond the domain of the justices.

"After today's decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans," Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a concurring statement as he joined the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, which was also signed by the other Trump appointees and Justice Clarence Thomas. "That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress."

It is likely, however, with states responding to the Dobbs decision with new anti-abortion laws, that related controversies will soon return to the high court.

The justices reached out in the Environmental Protection Agency case, too, as the Obama-era Clean Power Plan had been repealed and no Biden administration plan was yet in place. Thursday's decision will limit the Biden effort to control emissions in coal and other industries to counteract climate change.

More broadly, the ruling will affect Washington's ability to protect the country's public health and safety.

Writing for the majority, Roberts allowed that limiting carbon dioxide emissions and forcing a transition from the use of coal to generate electricity may be a "sensible" way to address the climate change crisis. "But it is not plausible that Congress gave EPA the authority to adopt on its own such a regulatory scheme in" prior statute, he said.

Contending that the court itself was asserting inordinate control on climate policy, dissenting Justice Elena Kagan said, "I cannot think of many things more frightening."

Clarence Thomas' Second Amendment ruling shows power of conservative supermajority

Earlier this year, the six-justice conservative wing rejected the Biden administration's effort to stop the spread of Covid-19 with a vaccination rule. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration had directed employers with 100 or more workers to require vaccines or weekly Covid-19 testing.

The court ruled in January that OSHA had exceeded its statutory role in workplace safety. "Although COVID-19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most," the justices said in their unsigned opinion.

The same six justices favored conservative Christians in Maine and ruled that if a state subsidizes private education, it must include religious institutions. They also sided with a Washington state high school football coach who prayed at midfield after games, and in doing so jettisoned a legal approach that warned against government "endorsement" of religion.

As the majority emphasized respect for religious expression in the case of Kennedy v. Bremerton School, dissenters said the decision disserved schools and students, along with the country's "longstanding commitment to the separation of church and state."

Liberal wing can do little but dissent


New Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, the nation's first African American woman on the bench in the court's 233-year history, succeeded retiring Stephen Breyer on Thursday and will be in place for the new session.

At age 51, compared with the 83-year-old Breyer, Jackson will bring a new shot of youth along with her historic status. The 6-3 conservative-liberal balance, however, will not change.

The wing that Jackson joins is likely to remain on the losing side, particularly in the highly charged voting-rights and culture-war controversies on the agenda for the 2022-23 session, which begins in October.

Exclusive: Supreme Court leak investigation heats up as clerks are asked for phone records in unprecedented move

When the three liberals, including Breyer, dissented in the Dobbs abortion case, they recalled a lament of Breyer's from 2007 as he dissented from a decision striking down school reintegration plans: "It is not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much."

"So few" are now -- as a supermajority -- more aptly "so many."

The swift pace of such great change has been staggering. Dissenters tried, in vain, to hold on to precedent that went back half a century in the abortion rights and religious liberties controversies.

In the EPA case, they clung to a recent precedent, a 2007 case in which the high court recognized the EPA's authority to regulate carbon dioxide and to address environmental crises.

"But that Court," wrote Kagan, "was not this Court."

Correction: An earlier version of this story misattributed a quote in the Dobbs concurring opinion. It was written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

View on CNN Outbrain


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
[]
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1  seeder  JBB    one month ago

The Supremd Court is radical, a danger to democracy! 

original

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago
The current court is radical, a danger to democracy!

Are you less free now than you were 2 years ago?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    one month ago

Every American is less free than they were a week ago because of the increasingly radical decisions coming out of your Supreme Court!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    one month ago
Every American is less free than they were a week ago because of the increasingly radical decisions coming out of your Supreme Court!

Gee, I have the same exact freedom I had last year.

What are you not free to do today that you were last year?

SCOTUS isn't mine, it belongs to the country.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.3  Snuffy  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    one month ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.3    one month ago

Are YOU Less free than you were last year?

I don't get where some of this wild stuff comes from!

Do liberals have a factory somewhere pumping this shit out?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @1.1.1    one month ago

What freedoms were taken away?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.4    one month ago

Not me, if anything I'm more free as I recently retired.  But yeah, this constant bleating fear about how SCOTUS is taking away people's freedom.  Not much angst coming from the left due to the 'Remain in Mexico' ruling, but then it's pretty much agreed that once again the ruling followed the law.  But a lot of angst about a couple other rulings that ruled against some liberal desires.   As for that factory,  you could be right.  They do all seem to be in lock-step on the talking points.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.1.7  Hallux  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.6    one month ago
I recently retired

Welcome to everyday is Tuesday!

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.1.8  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago

As of Today it is a crime to abort in Texas.

Texans lost their right to safe terminations!

 
 
 
Snuffy
Masters Guide
1.1.9  Snuffy  replied to  Hallux @1.1.7    one month ago
Welcome to everyday is Tuesday!

mmmmmm,   Taco Tuesday is now EVERYDAY!!!!    Woo Hoo!!!!!!

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.1.10  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1.1.8    one month ago

How could they lose a right they never really had?  If you think otherwise please show me where in the Constitution it says that Texans or anyone else for that matter has a right to an abortion. Be specific. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.11  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @1.1.8    one month ago

I see you would rather tell me what a friend of a friend told you instead of looking up the actual legislation.

Texans lost their right to safe terminations!

Is it a right or a medical procedure?  I can't find anywhere that shows it's a "right" but can find hundreds of sources showing it as a medical procedure.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.12  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.11    one month ago

Are you positing that Texas didn't pass legislation that states that women cannot assert the 'right to an abortion'? 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.13  Texan1211  replied to  Dulay @1.1.12    one month ago
women cannot assert the 'right to an abortion'? 

There is no right to an abortion.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.1.14  CB   replied to  Snuffy @1.1.6    one month ago

Snuffy how dare you level a charge like that at us. It has been conservatives who cried and pouted (in public and in private chambers) about how SCOTUS was liberally giving away the country as unelected officials who would not allow conservatives to hold back waves of progress for those people intentionally and unintentionally left out of the constitution. How hypocritical to turn and give the conservative head court your 'blessing' to go back on their word-because conservatives do not permit it to be their bond.

Why play these games with the lives of people you have known (of) all your life in this country. There is no fair measure of law or reason that hints you should be happily obliged to make your fellow citizens who are designed by nature to not experience this world in the same manner as yourself! It's a dynamic, diverse, world for a reason. Same for this nation. This nation INVITED or COMPELLED these people surrounding you on every side here and continues to do so now with the wars breaking out across the planet.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.15  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.12    one month ago

Like I said I can't find anywhere that shows it's a "right" but can find hundreds of sources showing it as a medical procedure. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.15    one month ago
Like I said I can't find anywhere that shows it's a "right" but can find hundreds of sources showing it as a medical procedure. 

Yet it's cited as such in the 'actual legislation' you linked states 'assert the rights of women seeking an abortion' 4 times. 

Willful ignorance? 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.16    one month ago
Willful ignorance? 

On your part.  I'm still waiting for anybody to so show where it was a right.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.18  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.17    one month ago
On your part. 

Nope.

I'm still waiting for anybody to so show where it was a right.  

Why are you trying to deny that YOUR OWN LINK does just that Jeremy? 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.19  Tessylo  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.3    one month ago
jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif Typical response from someone who has not or will not lose their rights over their own reproduction.  Their own body.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.20  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.16    one month ago
"Like I said I can't find anywhere that shows it's a "right" but can find hundreds of sources showing it as a medical procedure."

Which is no one's fucking business along with abortion.  So women don't have rights to this medical procedure?

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.21  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Dulay @1.1.18    one month ago

My link doesn't do that.  Maybe if you tried reading and comprehending it you would know abortion:

  1. Isn't a right but a medical procedure
  2. The right to privacy is STILL protected.
  3. Isn't illegal under certain circumstances (you seem to willfully ignore that part) 
 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.1.22  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.1.18    one month ago
"On your part."
"Nope."
"I'm still waiting for anybody to so show where it was a right." 
"Why are you trying to deny that YOUR OWN LINK does just that Jeremy?" 

"It's like they don't read their own links.

Yet some posters go on and on about others not reading links.  jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif Or doing the research

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.21    one month ago
My link doesn't do that. 

Actually, it does Jeremy. 

Maybe if you tried reading and comprehending it you would know abortion:

Maybe if YOU tried keeping up with the RW extremists in Texas, you would know that they passed a trigger law which makes abortion a civil AND criminal offense 30 days after Roe is overturned. The ONLY exception is for the life of the pregnant woman. Texas will have to work out whether in ADDITION to felony prosecutions, unrelated people can still sue doctors under the bill you linked. 

Oh and BTFW, your link doesn't mention a 'medical procedure'. It DOES however cite 'the rights of women seeking an abortion' MULTIPLE times. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
1.1.24  Ronin2  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.11    one month ago

I read the law- it states a detectable heartbeat.

I look it up online and it is between 6.5 and 7 weeks. So I guess abortion is still legal before then. Though the law mentions 4 weeks.

Also, I didn't see any mention of contraceptives like the Morning After Pill mentioned in the law; so if women are worried about getting pregnant they should stock up on it. (There is always abstinence; but the only really proven form of birth control died a long time ago.)

The law does state abortion is legal if the mother's life is in danger.

that prohibit and criminalize abortion unless the mother ’s
life is in danger.

I believe it may have a clause in it about terminating the fetus if it is not viable. Someone with better legalize knowledge; might be able to verify.

(3)AATexas has compelling interests from the outset of
a woman ’s pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the
life of the unborn child; and
(4)AAto make an informed choice about whether to
continue her pregnancy, the pregnant woman has a compelling
interest in knowing the likelihood of her unborn child surviving to
full-term birth based on the presence of cardiac activity.

Personally I am against abortion except to save the life of the mother; or the fetus is not viable (Something that will cause it to be still born; or severely physically deformed.) I would never force my views on anyone else. 

Maybe better education about the different forms of birth control would help lessen the US growing reliance on abortions as a form of birth control? 

As it is; we are second to China in total number of abortions performed- but we are still beating the Russians. Not exactly where a developed country should want to be on the list.

 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

291837284_5847711358573820_7935803192425604530_n.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=-ziYYURUf7sAX-dn3AU&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9euwe9Ud21sV_3WXJZq_6x4-p1zTDrYb4AvNnFVdmmwg&oe=62C3B10F

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  Tessylo @1.2    one month ago

If our Founders had listened to Abigail Adams back then regarding equal rights for all men, and all women, a hella lot of our problems later on could have been averted...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.2.1    one month ago

Today she would be mocked as a sky fairy believer and a conservative.  

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.2    one month ago

The way you mock Tessy for her beliefs now?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.2.4  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.2    one month ago

Abigail Adams wanted slavery abolished and for all Americans, including women, to have the right to vote. Who would ridicule that now?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.2.4    one month ago

Many on these pages would ridicule her religious beliefs and she wrote “regard us [women] then as beings placed by Providence under your [men] protection…”

I think Abigail Adams was a great person, well read, thoughtful and an engaging full partner to her husband and probably a wonderful mother to her children.  I enjoyed David McCullough depictions of her in several of his books.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.2.3    one month ago

I've told him I will no longer engage with him yet he continues to taunt

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1.2.4    one month ago

Him.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.8  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.2.3    one month ago

Beliefs?  Do you mean that everyone that disagrees with her is guilty of “projection, deflection and denial”.  That’s her first belief.  [deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.2.9  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1.2.3    one month ago

I have never seen Drinker of the Wry call Tessy 

sky fairy believer and a conservative.  

Could you please cite some examples. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.10  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.9    one month ago

He was talking about Dolly Madison.

Get a clue.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.2.11  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.10    one month ago

Not in 1.2.3 he wasn't. 

I tell you to get a clue but I know that will never happen so I won't waste any time.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.12  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.11    one month ago

That was jbb commenting in 1.2.3.

What the fuck are you talking about?????????????????????????

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.2.13  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.12    one month ago

And do read what JBB said in 1.2.3  [removed]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.14  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.2.13    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.2.15  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.2.14    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.2.16  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.5    one month ago
Many on these pages would ridicule her religious beliefs and she wrote “regard us [women] then as beings placed by Providence under your [men] protection…”

I'll never understand why some think that truncating quotes in a failed attempt to bolster a posit works for them. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.2.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @1.2.16    one month ago

Huh?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.2.18  Tessylo  replied to  Dulay @1.2.16    one month ago
"Many on these pages would ridicule her religious beliefs and she wrote “regard us [women] then as beings placed by Providence under your [men] protection…”

"I'll never understand why some think that truncating quotes in a failed attempt to bolster a posit works for them." 

That's all some have on top of deflection, projection, denial, and outright lies.  

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
1.2.19  MonsterMash  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.2.2    4 weeks ago
Today she would be mocked as a sky fairy believer and a conservative

And a bigoted racist white supremist Bible thumper.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

NOTE HOW IT IS THE MEN ASKING WHAT FREEDOMS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.3.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

Note I'm not petty enough to make it about gender.  It's an all inclusive statement.  

Also note that others have ask the same question and nobody has been able to answer.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.2  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.1    one month ago
nobody has been able to answer.

Amazing, huh?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.1    one month ago

Don't play dumb! For the first time in history the US Supreme Court took away a right that American women earned fifty years ago...

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.4  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.3.3    one month ago

Earned?

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.3.5  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.4    one month ago

Victories are earned by fighting hard for them. I do not see why you are questioning the usage.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Hallux @1.3.5    one month ago

So the decision wasn’t based on the law but on how hard woman worked?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.3.3    one month ago

How did they earn it JBB?

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.8  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.7    one month ago

The fight for women's rights began before the Constitution was signed without guarantees for American women to have equal rights...

Including the rights to their bodily autonomy.

Look it up. The book is, um, American History!

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.9  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.3.8    one month ago

I see that you didn't answer the question.  Women's rights aren't exclusively American, you nationalist.  Women during the Bronze Age in Mesopotamia could buy, own, sell, and inherit property and engage in commerce. Woman in ancient Egypt had equal rights under the law,  Check out Indian woman in the late Bronze Age, or Greek woman or Roman law or...

Look it up. The book is, um, World History!

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
1.3.10  mocowgirl  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.7    one month ago
How did they earn it JBB?

By dying was one way.  And we are on the brink of returning to those days except in today's world it will be minority women who are the ones who will make up the largest percentage of the deaths caused by pregnancy or illegal abortion (not that any deaths caused by denying access to abortion are acceptable to those of us who are not religious zealots or misogynists).

The Three Biggest Implications For Black Women From Roe V. Wade’s Fall (forbes.com)

Black women received 38% of reported abortions in 2019, the largest proportion of any racial group,  according to the latest data  from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Black women are three times more likely to die from pregnancy-related complications in the United States,   according to the CDC.   This is especially true in some of the 13 states with “trigger” laws that immediately implemented abortion legislation after the decision: Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.

In Missouri, for instance, the Department of Health and Senior Services reported that Black mothers experienced a pregnancy-related mortality ratio of 87.6 per 100,000 live births, compared to a rate of 21.9 white women. In Mississippi, that same ratio for Black women was 51.9 deaths per 100,000 live births, nearly three times the white ratio of 18.9, according to that state’s department of health.

One 2021 study suggests that abortion restrictions  could increase the amount of pregnancy related deaths , particularly among Black women. Amanda Jean Stevenson, a sociologist and professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, found that the estimated number of annual pregnancy-related deaths will increase by 7% for all groups in the first year after a hypothetical ban on abortions, including a 4% increase in death for white women and a 12% increase for Black women. Following that first year, the study said, Black women are estimated to have 33% more annual maternal deaths compared to pre-ban period, the highest among all groups.

One of first attempts to examine the educational and economic effects of abortion legalization, including by race, came in a  1996 working paper  by researchers Joshua Angrist and William Evans. Among their findings: at least a 22 percentage point increase in the likelihood that Black teenage women would graduate high school and at least a 23 percentage point increase in their probability of attending college.

Women who have children earn about 21% less than those who don't have children in the long run,  a 2019 study found , which is similar to the long-run earnings gap between women and men who become parents.

If states get aggressive in prosecuting women who get abortions, the crackdown may fall heaviest on the group most likely to seek abortions–Black women. In Mississippi, for instance, Black people account for about 37% of the state’s population, but Black women account for 73% of abortions, according to an analysis  by the Kaiser Family Foundation . In at least 11 other states, including Tennessee and Texas, Black women account for the plurality of abortions.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.11  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.9    one month ago

Ask your wife if she earned her human rights.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.12  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.9    one month ago

Like I told someone else recently, you wanna live in the Bronze Age out of nostalgic affinity? Invent a fricking time machine and go. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.13  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

Try shaking your keyboard upside down to dislodge those pesky crumbs causing your caps lock key to stick.   

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.14  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.12    one month ago

Thanks for sharing, John.  What else have you told someone recently?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.15  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.3.11    one month ago

Aren't human rights what your born with?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
1.3.16  JohnRussell  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.14    one month ago

"Get lost" comes to mind. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.17  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @1.3.10    one month ago

Dying doesn't earn the dead anything.  None of these facts have anything to do with the law or my original question.  I personally are in favor of the rights to an abortion with some restrictions.  I was aligned with Justice Robert's think in the case, but our SCOTUS system follows a majority rules.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.18  seeder  JBB  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.15    one month ago

Abigail Adams died before women could vote!

Was she born unequal or her rights denied her?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.19  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.16    one month ago

That would be hard for me to do, I'm an excellent at Orientering.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.20  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JBB @1.3.18    one month ago

Which rights?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.21  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.1    one month ago

FUCK OFF

Your constant projection, deflection and denial are fucking tiresome.

Time to put your ignorance and hate on ignore.

I'm sick of you and your friends

I repeat I noted certain 'men' are the only ones asking what rights are being denied and then back pedal when confronted with their ignorance

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.22  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.21    one month ago

Your constant copy n’paste of “projection, deflection and denial” are fucking tiresome.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.23  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @1.3.16    one month ago

Someone needs to shove their keyboard where the sun don't shine

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.21    one month ago
I repeat I noted certain 'men' are the only ones asking what rights are being denied and then back pedal when confronted with their ignorance

I see that my suggestion worked, good deal.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.25  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3    one month ago

And have you noticed that no one, man or woman, has given an answer to that question?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.26  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @1.3.3    one month ago

"Rights" given by man can be taken away by man. ( That is not man as in male but man as a species to include male and female humans). Obviously if the "right" to an abortion was given 50 years ago, it is certainly not a God given right and therefore subject to the will of man. The left would take away Gid given rights which they have no right or authority to do. 

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
1.3.27  Hallux  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.15    one month ago
Aren't human rights what your born with?

That's the yarn.

 
 
 
dennis smith
PhD Silent
1.3.28  dennis smith  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.23    one month ago

Would that be you?

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.3.29  Revillug  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.1    one month ago
Note I'm not petty enough to make it about gender.

That's mighty white of you to not make the abortion issue about gender.

Next you will be telling us that you no longer see gender having gained the ability to not see race years ago.

nobody has been able to answer

I'll take a crack at it.

A women's freedom to terminate pregnancy in states that have banned abortion has been taken away.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.3.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JBB @1.3.3    one month ago

Thanks for the non-answer.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.3.31  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.21    one month ago
Time to put your ignorance and hate on ignore.

Oh, no what will I eve do without your trolling mindlessness all over my feeds!!!!!!!

I'm sick of you and your friends

Easy resolution to that - keep scrolling.  Not every comment requires your mindless remarks.

I repeat I noted certain 'men' are the only ones asking what rights are being denied and then back pedal when confronted with their ignorance

Yet you cannot answer that question.  

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.3.32  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Revillug @1.3.29    one month ago
That's mighty white of you to not make the abortion issue about gender

Ahhhh, so it's about race now.  

Next you will be telling us that you no longer see gender having gained the ability to not see race years ago.

Nope.  The mental deficient (woke) did that when they invented all the other genders.

A women's freedom to terminate pregnancy in states that have banned abortion has been taken away.

So they are pissed that they elected garbage into their state government.  

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.33  Tessylo  replied to  Revillug @1.3.29    one month ago
"Note I'm not petty enough to make it about gender."  jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.34  Tessylo  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.31    one month ago

288336608_451321876998310_9020260119267116509_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=8mZtKzkSu1UAX-kjmsw&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-MSBQ65jBjwbtqtOarOMzDTQ9zZxpfZwhN3az_9emxYw&oe=62C96DE2

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.35  arkpdx  replied to  Revillug @1.3.29    one month ago

She has the right to go to another state where it is legal. 

Just think though(yes I know it's hard for a liberal to do but try anyway) an unborn human being has regained the right to life which is the ultimate right and freedom. Without the right to life all the other rights and freedoms are meaningless. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.36  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.35    one month ago

290242645_10227709351660787_9058614429497179121_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=GS1wwJBRWukAX9P1W-q&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT8YEqFE8b1jDfGuz6tfo2ScANRQ5kFdsnw4zERVO3Nt5w&oe=62C9947F

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.36    one month ago

Who has lost their right to vote?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.38  Ozzwald  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.35    one month ago
 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.39  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.37    one month ago
Who has lost their right to vote?

No one, of course, just yet more liberal fearmongering.

And lies.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.40  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.36    one month ago
The government can arrest you and jail you without Miranda rights 

The government could always arrest and jail you without Miranda. Miranda rights only involve your rights prior to being interrogated by the police and the use of that questioning. 

Execute you even if your lawyer screws up. 

Of course you lawyer screwed up. You were convicted. You were also most likely guilty too. 

Force you to have a baby 

The government did not force you to have sex with anyone. One of the consequences of having sex is that the woman may become pregnant and have a baby. Preserving that human babies God given right to life is not forcing anything on anyone. 

Use tax dollars to support religion. 

When has it done that? What specific religion did it support?

Can't protect your right to vote 

Where are you not allowed to vote. What part of the Constitution was violated ( for your information there is no enumerated right to vote nor is there anything stating the when or where one may vote. That is left up to the individual states)

Keep you safe from guns 

It doesn't keep you safe from knives or others hand, fists or feet, clubs, cars or many other possible lethal items. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.41  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.38    one month ago
Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines

They better amend the Constitution.

House Republicans eye 15-week abortion ban after Roe ruling

I know Biden is unpopular, but do you really expect the Republicans to have 60 Senators, the Presidency and the House any time soon? Of course, if the Democrats get rid of the filibuster, a 15 week abortion ban becomes mores feasible. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.42  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.38    one month ago

Antiabortion lawmakers want to block patients from crossing state lines

Good luck with enforcing that

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.43  Tessylo  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.38    one month ago

It's moronic to state that someone has the right to go to another state where it is legal - someone even posted the moronic statement that this would help the travel industry.jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.45  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.41    one month ago
They better amend the Constitution.

Or just have the current SCOTUS redefine what it means.

I know Biden is unpopular, but do you really expect the Republicans to have 60 Senators, the Presidency and the House any time soon? Of course, if the Democrats get rid of the filibuster, a 15 week abortion ban becomes mores feasible. 

They'll keep trying until they do.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.46  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.45    one month ago
ust have the current SCOTUS redefine what it means.

Glad you see the danger of those believe in a "living constitution."  

They'll keep trying until they do

Yes, political parties will keep trying to win elections. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.47  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.46    one month ago
Glad you see the danger of those believe in a "living constitution."

Apparently you do not know what it means to have a "living" document.  Look it up, then get back to me.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.48  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.47    one month ago
y you do not know what it means to have a "living" document.  

Much better than you obviously.  

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.49  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.47    one month ago

Do you really want SCOTUS manipulating a "living constitution" right now?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.50  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.48    one month ago

Obviously not.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.51  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.48    one month ago
Much better than you obviously.

Then explain what your definition is.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.52  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.49    one month ago
Do you really want SCOTUS manipulating a "living constitution" right now?

They cannot "manipulate it".  You do realize that don't you?  All they can do is interpret it in regards to how it addresses whatever case they are ruling on.  The Constitution remains the same (for the time being), they do not have the ability to change (manipulate) it.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.53  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.52    one month ago
They cannot "manipulate it".  You do realize that don't you? 

Yes, under our current system,  I thought you were advocating changing our current system to allow for a 'living constitution'.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.54  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.53    one month ago
Yes, under our current system

Our current system?  What system allowed SCOTUS to directly manipulate the Constitution?

I thought you were advocating changing our current system to allow for a 'living constitution'.

We already have a "living Constitution".  That was an elementary school class.

Are you unaware of how the American government is supposed to work?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.55  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.54    one month ago

Tell me what a ‘living constitution’ meant in your grade school class.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
PhD Principal
1.3.56  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.55    one month ago

Should be interesting...........

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.57  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.55    one month ago

One that can be amended and changed with the times. It is not 250 years ago.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.58  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.3.57    one month ago

As long as the amendment or change is ok by you 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.59  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.58    one month ago

Of course. Everything should be run by me. I am the complete authority of how these things should go down...

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.60  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @1.3.59    one month ago

You know those of you who think you know everything really bother those of us who really do. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.61  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.60    one month ago

Well, since you all believe everything is and should be static, I will take my chances.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.62  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.3.59    one month ago
 Everything should be run by me

My Uncle used to always say, "what's good for Catcher of the Wry is good for the country". 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.3.63  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @1.3.61    one month ago

The irony of @1.3.60 is amusing.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.64  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.62    one month ago

I never read the book, Catcher In The Wry. I was trying to read a quick synopsis. I guess the kid goes nuts? I am not sure.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.65  Ender  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.62    one month ago

And I didn't mean that to sound bad, just curious if your moniker is from that.

From the synopsis of the book, it was about a poem.

It is at this time that Holden describes to his sister his fantasy of being “the catcher in the rye,” which was inspired by a song he heard a little boy singing: “If a body catch a body comin’ through the rye.” Phoebe tells him that the words are “If a body  meet  a body coming through the rye,” from a poem by  Robert Burns . (Burns’s poem,  “Comin thro’ the Rye,”    exists in several versions, but most render the lines as “Gin a body meet a body / Comin thro’ the rye.”)
 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.66  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.3.65    one month ago
And I didn't mean that to sound bad

You don't sound bad to me.

just curious if your moniker is from that.

My parents never told me.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.67  Ozzwald  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @1.3.55    one month ago
Tell me what a ‘living constitution’ meant in your grade school class.

Changeable.  As simple as that, all the added on Amendments to the Constitution show that is is a "living" document, able to grow and change.  BUT NOT by SCOTUS.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.68  arkpdx  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.67    one month ago

But you had no issue when SCOTUS added abortion to it. Are you only accepting changes you feel are ok?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.69  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.67    one month ago
  BUT NOT by SCOTUS.

So you are with Thomas and Scalia, and reject the belief that the Constitution is a living document that judges can adapt to current needs and attitudes that have
changed since the original drafting as they believe proper.  You reject the belief that the Constitution does not have one fixed meaning but rather the meaning of its clauses change over time. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.70  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ender @1.3.57    one month ago
One that can be amended and changed with the times. It is not 250 years ago.

Then you already have it as our Constitution has been Amended 27 times with the most recent in 1992.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.71  Ozzwald  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.68    one month ago
But you had no issue when SCOTUS added abortion to it.

SCOTUS ruled on the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, and included abortions in that right.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.72  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.69    one month ago
So you are with Thomas and Scalia, and reject the belief that the Constitution is a living document that judges can adapt to current needs and attitudes that havechanged since the original drafting as they believe proper.

You still haven't read what a "living document" means.  It's easy to Google you know, you just have to put a little effort in.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.73  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.72    one month ago

You still haven't read what a "living document" means.  

Lol. I just spoon fed  you the definition of the living constitution  Did you not even understand that? 

Here it is again:  "The Constitution is a living document that judges can adapt to current needs and attitudes that have
changed since the original drafting as they believe proper. The Constitution does not have one fixed meaning but rather the meaning of its clauses change over time. "

Do you believe that is true or not?  It's not a difficult question if you have any idea what you are talking about. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.74  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.71    one month ago

SCOTUS ruled on the RIGHT TO PRIVACY, and included abortions in that right.

Lol.  From the person who said this  all the added on "  "Amendments to the Constitution show that is is a "living" document, able to grow and change.  BUT NOT by SCOTUS." 

Great comedy. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.3.75  Revillug  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.3.32    one month ago
So they are pissed that they elected garbage into their state government.

Even a blind pig finds an acorn every now and then.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.76  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.73    one month ago
The Constitution is a living document that judges can adapt to current needs and attitudes that have changed since the original drafting as they believe proper.

Wrong-Answer_web-1024x682.jpg

A living document means that the document itself can be changed over time.  It has nothing to do with judges' person opinions.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.77  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.76    one month ago
A living document means that the document itself can be changed over time. 

Obviously, but we already meet that definition.  The US Constitution has had 27 ratified amendments with the most recent in 1992.  I think when most people talk about a Living Constitution, they have in mind, more frequent updates with a much less rigorous process to accomplish updates.  The most streamlined approach would have SCOTUS making those updates.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.78  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.76    one month ago

A living document means that the document itself can be changed over time

No shit. That's not the issue.

I provided you with definition of the living constitution. I can't believe you don't understand that what's people mean when they use the term. Not a good sign that needs to be explained. 

Do you believe the  "The Constitution is a living document that judges can adapt to current needs and attitudes that have changed since the original drafting as they believe proper."

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.79  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.78    one month ago
No shit. That's not the issue.

That is the "DEFINITION" which you are refusing to provide, instead giving me the wrong/incorrect definition which you posted.  Your lack of knowledge regarding one of the basic strengths of our Constitution makes any discussion with you impossible.

I provided you with definition of the living constitution.

You did NOT!!!  Your definition was entirely WRONG!!!

Do you believe the  "The Constitution is a living document that judges can adapt to current needs and attitudes that have changed since the original drafting as they believe proper."

Once again, you are making a statement that has nothing to do with a "living document". 

Judges CANNOT adapt the Constitution, PERIOD!  SCOTUS can only make statements about the existing Constitution and how it relates to the case they are looking at.  They CANNOT ADAPT or CHANGE the Constitution itself, only relay their opinions on how the existing, UNCHANGED, Constitution would apply.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.80  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.79    one month ago

nstead giving me the wrong/incorrect definition which you posted

Of course I gave you the correct one. Here are a few experts saying essentially what I did. There are multitudes more:

Professor David Strauss- University of Chicago Law School:

"A living Constitution is one that evolves, changes over time, and adapts to new circumstances, without being formally amended"

Professor G. Edward White described “living constitutionalism” as the theory that the Constitution is “an adaptive document that responds to changing social and economic
conditions through altered judicial interpretations of its central textual  provisions"

Federal District Judge Judge Peter Messitte :

"Those who promote the theory of a “Living Constitution” argue that the Constitution must be able to adapt to current needs and attitudes that have
changed since the original drafting. In other words, the Constitution does not have one fixed meaning but is a dynamic document the meaning of which can
change over time."

The  definition is as basic and uncontestable as it comes. It's day one stuff. 

Your definition was entirely WRONG!!!

Whoops! Tough look for you. 

hey  CANNOT ADAPT or CHANGE  the Constitution itself, only relay their opinions on how the existing,  UNCHANGED , Constitution would apply.

Great. Welcome to the Clarence Thomas fan club.  I'm glad we agree that Roe has no basis in the Constitution. 

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.81  Ozzwald  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.80    one month ago
Great. Welcome to the Clarence Thomas fan club.  I'm glad we agree that Roe has no basis in the Constitution.

We agree on nothing.  The Constitution does not speak DIRECTLY for or against abortion.  It speaks to privacy and restricts the government's ability to put their laws into your bedroom or doctor's office.

Since you mentioned, please show where the Constitution speaks against abortion.

Your "definitions" do not make sense since they would be the same for a NON-living document as well.  Where the document cannot ever be changed, but its interpretation can.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.3.82  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.81    one month ago
The Constitution does not speak DIRECTLY for or against abortion.  It speaks to privacy and restricts the government's ability to put their laws into your bedroom or doctor's office.

The Constitution does not speak DIRECTY to privacy.  The right to privacy has been interpreted from the Bill of Rights:

1. Amendment - Privacy of thought or belief

3. Amendment -  Privacy of home, specifically against compelled housing of soldiers

4. Amendment - Privacy against unreasonable searches

5. Amendment - Privacy against self-incrimination and personal information

9. Amendment - SCOTUS has more recently broadened the right to privacy given that the 9ths "enumeration of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people."

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.83  Ender  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.81    one month ago

We just had a judge do that down here. Let a trigger law go in to play. The judges stated reason? Abortion is not mentioned in the MS constitution....

Dumbass

We have some people that think the 9th amendment is only to delegate everything to individual states.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.84  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.81    one month ago
g.  The Constitution does not speak DIRECTLY for or against abortion

So said Clarence Thomas.

 speaks to privacy and restricts the government's ability to put their laws into your bedroom or doctor's office.

Where does it say that?

lease show where the Constitution speaks against abortion.

Where did I ever claim it did?

our "definitions" do not make sense 

Lol. Inform the legal community that you and not Judges, legal professors etc are all wrong, and the guy who thinks the argument is "that the Constitution doesn't  speak against abortion" is some sort of winning argument on this subject. 

Look. It's obvious you have no idea what you are talking about and are just throwing shit against the wall. Out of one side of your mouth you are claiming the Constitution has a fixed meaning  and out of the other side of your mouth defending the Roe decision, the most famous example of Justices creating a Constitutional right with no textual basis. It's comedy. 

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.3.85  Ender  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.84    one month ago
and the guy who thinks the argument is "that the Constitution doesn't  speak against abortion" is some sort of winning argument on this subject

This from people that think abortion should be illegal because it doesn't specifically mention it...

Weird that you cannot see the hypocrisy there...

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.3.86  Ozzwald  replied to  Ender @1.3.85    one month ago
This from people that think abortion should be illegal because it doesn't specifically mention it...

Good thing it included all those paragraphs about assault weapons, wire tapping, and video surveillance.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.87  Sean Treacy  replied to  Ender @1.3.85    one month ago
is from people that think abortion should be illegal because it doesn't specifically mention it...

I've never heard a single person make that argument. 

eird that you cannot see the hypocrisy there..'

When someone makes that argument, then that would be valid. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.88  arkpdx  replied to  Ozzwald @1.3.86    one month ago

Assault weapons are included in the category of arms and does not need to listed separately. 

Wire taps need to have warrant to be used there fore the do not need separate mention either 

And since there can be no expectation of privacy in public areas and private spaces can be surveilled to the property owners delight, video surveillance does not need mention. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.89  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.88    one month ago
Assault weapons are included in the category of arms and does not need to listed separately. 

Specific forms of weapons can be regulated. Scalia made that clear. 

Wire taps need to have warrant to be used there fore the do not need separate mention either 
And since there can be no expectation of privacy in public areas and private spaces can be surveilled to the property owners delight, video surveillance does not need mention. 

For how long will a warrant be needed for a wiretap?

Since they stated there is no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution, the warrants will go by the wayside for wiretapping and video surveillance can be conducted by anyone, anywhere. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
1.3.90  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dulay @1.3.89    one month ago

For how long will a warrant be needed for a wiretap?

As long as we have a 4th Amendment.

ince they stated there is no right to privacy enumerated in the Constitution, the warrants will go by the wayside for wiretapping and video surveillance can be conducted by anyone, anywher

Nonsense.  The Court held there i a warrant is required to engage in wiretap in the same case it said there is no general right to privacy. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.91  Tessylo  replied to  Ender @1.3.59    one month ago
"Of course. Everything should be run by me. I am the complete authority of how these things should go down..."

And me. . .

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.92  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.60    one month ago
"You know those of you who think you know everything really bother those of us who really do."jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

As opposed to those who know they know everything jrSmiley_80_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.93  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @1.3.63    one month ago
"The irony of @1.3.60 is amusing."

It's freaking hilarious!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.94  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.84    one month ago

Don't give a fuck with TT (Token Thomas) thinks/says.  

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.95  Dulay  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.90    one month ago
As long as we have a 4th Amendment.

No one can be 'secure in their person' when being denied 'bodily autonomy'. 

Wiretaps do not garner information from 'houses, papers, and effects'. 

Secondly, it's a fact that the government searches and seizes electronic communication without a warrant on a daily basis. 

Nonsense.  The Court held there i a warrant is required to engage in wiretap in the same case it said there is no general right to privacy. 

Link?

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.96  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @1.3.84    one month ago

291923145_10227714539950491_3946930137622712459_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=57ziKAe902kAX_rWknI&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_D5c1DjV-cPviCLYK2V_C4Bacez8xpPbiEy0-qIT3OVQ&oe=62CBB2B5

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.97  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.94    one month ago

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.98  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @1.3.95    one month ago
it's a fact that the government searches and seizes electronic communication without a warrant on a daily basis. 

Electronic over the air(radio, wireless phones etc.) Can b3 intercepted by anyone and you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.99  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.97    one month ago

FUCK OFF

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.100  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.97    one month ago

290759589_5853000178044938_4979747512233100914_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_s640x640&_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=5KDFa1dFdncAX_uKmYN&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_U2PFiOdtfxu1bFttYX_BMoad35-D31T_IbD_Lzn6H6A&oe=62CB717F

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.101  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.99    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
1.3.102  Tessylo  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.101    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.103  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.102    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.104  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.98    one month ago

The CBP seizes and searches laptops, ipads and cellphones of American citizens EVERY day. They can do so with ANYONE who lives within 100 MILES of the 'border'. Try to keep up. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.105  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @1.3.104    one month ago

Link?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.106  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @1.3.95    one month ago
No one can be 'secure in their person' when being denied 'bodily autonomy'. 

So are you in favor of legalizing prostitution?

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.3.107  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.106    one month ago

Prohibiting prostitution is restraint of trade, interfering with commerce and denying people a right to work and stupid

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.109  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.106    one month ago

WTF does prostitution, legal or otherwise have to do with my statement? Hint: Nothing. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
1.3.110  arkpdx  replied to  Dulay @1.3.109    one month ago

Prostitution is illegal and a prostitute at this time can be arrested for charging someone for having sexual relations with them. That means that a prostitute does not have bodily autonomy.ad she is not able to use her body how she feels she should. Now answer the question should prostitution be made legal. As a follow up question, if it was legal would you be proud of your daughter is she chose to be a prostitute. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
1.3.111  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.110    one month ago

Laws against prostitution are ineffective and seldom enforced except for street walkers who hardly exist anymore since online solicitation is easy and safer. If a son or daughter decided to be a sex worker I'd be fine as long as they were safe, the best at their specialties and enjoyed their work.

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Quiet
1.3.112  charger 383  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.110    one month ago

OK with me if they made enough money to retire early.  It should be a respected position with a strong union to protect them. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.3.113  Dulay  replied to  arkpdx @1.3.110    4 weeks ago
Prostitution is illegal and a prostitute at this time can be arrested for charging someone for having sexual relations with them. That means that a prostitute does not have bodily autonomy.ad she is not able to use her body how she feels she should.

Nope. It's the 'charging someone' thingy that is criminalized, NOT the sexual act. The proof to that is prostitution stings that arrest and prosecute both prostitutes and johns without a sexual act being performed. 

Now answer the question should prostitution be made legal.

I could not care less. It is legal and highly regulated in Nevada. 

As a follow up question, if it was legal would you be proud of your daughter is she chose to be a prostitute.

Why not? 

Oh and BTFW, there are male prostitutes too. 

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
1.3.114  Revillug  replied to  Tessylo @1.3.33    4 weeks ago

That's a quoted sentence from someone else.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.5  CB   replied to  JBB @1    one month ago

Now that is 'worthy' of going viral and being seen widespread across this country.

 
 
 
CB
Professor Principal
1.6  CB   replied to  JBB @1    4 weeks ago

This is still so FUNNY!

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

ABC had to find experts to tell them this:

"But some experts interviewed by ABC News said the court is doing what it is supposed to do -- operating detached from the pull of public opinion "

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

Next step, reinstate The Inquisition. 

OIP-C.RbH7Y_lwHfdVV5FGqt5uygHaFN?pid=ImgDet&rs=1

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
3.1  Hallux  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    one month ago

Fun times.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2  mocowgirl  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    one month ago
Next step, reinstate The Inquisition.

Probably.  All of this is the work of the same organization - the Roman Catholic Church.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.2.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  mocowgirl @3.2    one month ago

No, the RCC plus evangelical fundamentalists!

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.2.2  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.2.1    one month ago

Yeah, the RCC, not so much

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.3  mocowgirl  replied to  JBB @3.2.1    one month ago
No, the RCC plus evangelical fundamentalists!

The evangelical fundamentalists play their role, but when it comes to political and monetary power (and savvy) the RCC are in control.  Who is on the US Supreme Court?  The RCC or the evangelical fundamentalists?   

The RCC's wealth and industry in the US has grown dramatically since Bush used executive privilege to enact legislation to almost do away with the separation of church and state - called the "Faith Based Initiative".

The RCC gains enormous wealth by operating charter schools, colleges, hospitals, welfare offices, adoptive services and who know what else in the US funded at taxpayer expense.   I believe I recently read that the RCC will now be receiving tax funding for their private religious primary and secondary schools.

The only organization powerful and wealthy enough to buy the US government is the RCC.  And why not?  The RCC had their own private army at one point.  Then found out it was cheaper and more effective to just control the heads of countries in Europe and employ their armies to "spread the good word".  The Vatican waged war and even put out a hit on Elizabeth I after they lost control of the UK after the death of Mary Tudor.  

Taking away women's rights in the US is unacceptable.  What is even more unacceptable is the possibility that we allow the Vatican to have enough power in the US to control our military might.

The RCC has the largest membership of one Christian religious sect in the world.  The other sects are much divided, and the membership numbers are miniscule in comparison to the RCC.

The majority of immigrants crossing our southern border are Catholic.  The RCC is trying to bolster their membership and therefore their voting strength via immigration because their membership numbers are dwindling since even Catholics have been using birth control to limit their family size to one that they can support. 

At some point, I might google birth control availability in Mexico, the Philippines, and other countries with a large Catholic population to see how their governments are legislating women's health care.

 
 
 
mocowgirl
Professor Quiet
3.2.4  mocowgirl  replied to  JBB @3.2.1    one month ago
the RCC

Bill Maher has some insight into who is really responsible for overturning Roe v Wade.  Or do you believe he is wrong?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.5  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  mocowgirl @3.2.4    one month ago

He is wrong about Repubs putting 6 Catholics on the court.  I also agree that he’s giving the Repubs to much credit.  It was a fluke that Trump was able to put 3 justices on the bench.  His two guests made much more sense to me.

Thanks for the link, interesting.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.2.6  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.5    one month ago
It was a fluke that Trump was able to put 3 justices on the bench.

Yes and no. The real power is from the bench, and most of our presidents have known that. It has been a goal for quite some time. Even Regan said it. Ginsberg should have left the bench but she was selfish about it. This all lead to the perfect storm.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
3.2.7  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.2.6    one month ago

Ginsberg also knew that Roe vs Wade was bad law.

Maher was saying that the Repubs are successful because they play the long game.  I think that they’ve abandoned the long game years ago and play only to win the next election.  I think that they are weakening their party and have abandoned any real political philosophy.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Principal
3.2.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @3.2.7    one month ago

The question of Ginsberg's opinion is irrelevant. She was pro-choice but being that she was, you would have thought she would have cared more and retired before this happened.

I think that they’ve abandoned the long game years ago and play only to win the next election.  I think that they are weakening their party and have abandoned any real political philosophy.

I think they were playing the long game, but I agree with you on the rest. I feel the same about the Dems, too. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    one month ago

As this devolves into the "Jews control the media" level of conspiracy mongering, did it ever occur to you that if sort of secret Catholic conspiracy existed to impose Catholic rules on the country,  the Catholics on the  Court would have actually imposed a rule or law consistent with Catholic doctrine?  Making it legal to kill a human until its completely out of the birth canal isn't in line with Catholic teaching, is it?

[deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.4  arkpdx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    one month ago

They have already done that in the People's Republic of China and in Russia. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @3.4    one month ago

Really?  And you have personal knowledge? so "Vas you dere Charley?"  (Baron Munchausen)

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.4.2  arkpdx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.1    one month ago
And you have personal knowledge 

A more so than you have on what is coming next. I heard of the Russian gulags and how they treat their prisoners. I have heard of China's "reeducation camps and how they treat the Uighurs.

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
3.4.3  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @3.4.2    one month ago

And yet the USA imprisons a much higher percentage of its citizens than nearly any nations in our inhumane prisons?

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.4  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @3.4.2    one month ago

LOL.  You have HEARD of....."  Oh, yes, hearsay is acceptable on social news sites.  I may not know enough about Russian gulags, but I think I know more about China than someone who only relies on hearsay.  I learned in Law School that there are always two sides to a story, even though they may not be equal.  Sure, I've actually lived in and seen a lot of the other side of the story when it comes to China - a person can learn quite a bit living in a country for 16 years, but I don't intend to either defend or criticize, and I will admit that I don't know anything for sure because I've never been to Xinjiang, so I'll not take sides on that issue and I don't necessarily agree with anyone who does, and am only critical of those who DO take sides who DON'T actually know.  However, I do note that the head of the UN Human Rights recently did a tour and she was not as critical as you probably are by even mentioning it.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.5  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  JBB @3.4.3    one month ago

The USA boasts the highest rate of incarceration in the world.  So I think you and I would agree that those who are critical of other nations are somewhat hypocritical. 

› news ›  us ...
.
Aug 17, 2021  · Despite these trends, the U.S. still has the world's highest incarceration rate, says the World Prison Brief, a database maintained by the Institute for Crime & Justice Policy Research
 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.4.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.4    one month ago

you don’t know what hearsay is if you think the evidence of Chinese concentration camps is “hearsay” 

Good for you not taking sides on throwing a million people in concentration camps because of their religion. It’s really all people need to know when you go on your Anti American rants.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
3.4.7  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @3.4.3    one month ago

While I appreciate you openly joining the shilling for incarcerating people because of their religion (very on brand) you do understand the difference between imprisoning people because of their religion and imprisoning them after they were convicted in a trial by their peers, right?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.4.8  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @3.4.3    one month ago
And yet the USA imprisons a much higher percentage of its citizens than nearly any nations 

And each and everyone of them have been found guilty of their crimes by a jury of their peers and have ample opportunities to appeal their convictions  multiple times. 

in our inhumane prisons?

Compared to most of the world our prisons are palaces. Would you want to be incarcerated in a prison in North Korea or in Alabama. A prison in south America or one in California. 

 
 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.9  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Sean Treacy @3.4.7    one month ago

Your hysterical comments about people being incarcerated "because of their religion" are ignorant and just plain wrong.  The Uyghurs are Muslims, and there are more than 30 million Muslims in China who live normal lives same as everyone else, pray in their mosques, celebrate their festivals and holidays, send their children to the same schools as everyone else (I taught Muslim students in the private high school where I taught here) and freely carry on their businesses (I particulaly prefer their restaurants because I like lamb more than pork).  And that is inclusive of the many Uyghurs in Xinjiang who live normal lives.  The Chinese government explains that it is those who were religious extremists, separatists and actual terrorists who have been sent to reeducation camps or imprisoned.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.4.10  arkpdx  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.9    one month ago

And of course the Chinese government would never lie or attempt to mislead the rest of the world. They are as honest as the day is long just like the Russians are or the Soviets we're or the North Koreans or the Iranians. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.11  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  arkpdx @3.4.10    one month ago

Maybe they do and maybe they don't, but then I doubt that there is a nation in the world where the lawmakers DON'T EVER LIE, and that includes the lawmakers in your "exceptional" nation.  Those lawmakers who criticize other nations for their own personal or party's or nation's benefit are not beyond criticism as well.   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.12  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.4    one month ago

Get this BUZZ

"You know those of you who think you know everything really bother those of us who really do."

In regards to those 'I heard of . . . ' nonsense.  

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.13  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Tessylo @3.4.12    one month ago

When so much effort and methods are used to contain China, so much demonization and interference with China's domestic affairs, a person with a brain in their head just might start to doubt some of the damning stories being told.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
3.4.14  Tessylo  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.13    one month ago

"When so much effort and methods are used to contain China, so much demonization and interference with China's domestic affairs, a person with a brain in their head just might start to doubt some of the damning stories being told."

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.4.15  Ronin2  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3.4.13    one month ago

So China doesn't interfere in US affairs; or the affairs of NATO or NATO allies right?

Welcome to being a world military and economic super power. Life if rough at the top.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.4.16  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Ronin2 @3.4.15    one month ago

Oh yeah, sure China forms a QUAD organization to contain the USA, and asks other nations surrounding the USA to pressure America, and gets together with other nations to send nuclear subs to circle the USA, and sails warships into the Gulf of Mexico, and passes government resolutions damning American legislation necessary for American domestic affairs.  Gee, I guess I really AM missing a lot these days.

 
 
 
Hallux
Junior Principal
3.5  Hallux  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    one month ago

Before one and all get too carried away ...

 
 
 
Revillug
Freshman Guide
3.6  Revillug  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    one month ago

Nobody should remain a Catholic after learning that their church tortured people to death in the name of god.

That's not to say there aren't protestant churches guilty of the same thing. If you want to be a Christian you need to find a church that is true to Christ's teachings. Institutional torture and execution are disqualifying. 

 
 
 
MonsterMash
Sophomore Participates
3.7  MonsterMash  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @3    4 weeks ago

This isn't China

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
3.7.1  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  MonsterMash @3.7    4 weeks ago

No need to apologize.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
3.7.2  arkpdx  replied to  MonsterMash @3.7    4 weeks ago

I thank God for that every morning

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
4  Tessylo    one month ago

Don't really give a shit what Bi!l Maher thinks

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4.1  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @4    one month ago

I am sure he feels the same way about how you "think". 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
4.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @4.1    one month ago

What a pithy and original response! /S

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2  Ender  replied to  Tessylo @4    one month ago

Me neither. Can't stand the asshole.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4.2.1  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @4.2    one month ago

See comment 4.1

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.2  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.1    one month ago

Why? It was dumb.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
4.2.3  arkpdx  replied to  Ender @4.2.2    one month ago

Not as dumb as tessy's #4 or your 4.2

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
4.2.4  Ender  replied to  arkpdx @4.2.3    one month ago

Nope he is an asshole. Funny to me that the right wing has a soft spot for him...

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Sophomore Guide
5  Right Down the Center    one month ago

"Shaken the country"

You gotta love CNN and their "sky is falling" shtick hoping to get a few people to watch and read their crap. Somehow I don't feel shaken. I guess ct isn't part of the country anymore 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1  arkpdx  replied to  Right Down the Center @5    one month ago
get a few people to watch 

And that is exactly what they get, very few people watching them. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.1  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @5.1    one month ago

By "very few" do you mean the billions of people around the world who have seen parts of Cassidy Hutchison's testimony indicting Donald Trump?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago

You mean her hearsay testony? Even she admitted she wasn't there but heard others say it. And I really don't think it was billions that heard her. If you have definitive proof that there were I would like to see it. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.2    one month ago
Even she admitted she wasn't there but heard others say it.

She did not admit it, she stated this upfront and quite clearly.   Did you see the balance of her testimony or is this part the only part that registered?

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.4  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.1.1    one month ago
By "very few" do you mean the billions of people

CNN hasn't had .ooo1 percent of that many people listen to it in the entire time it has been in existence. 

 
 
 
JBB
Professor Principal
5.1.5  seeder  JBB  replied to  arkpdx @5.1.4    one month ago

Hutchinson's testimony was seen on all networks worldwide! 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
5.1.6  arkpdx  replied to  JBB @5.1.5    one month ago

CNN is not all networks worldwide. It is just one cable network and has fewer viewers than the farm report. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.7  Ronin2  replied to  JBB @5.1.5    one month ago

You mean her carefully coached testimony with no cross examination? 

The testimony that has secret service agents and Trump administration people lining up to testify to refute her.

Like everything else about the Jan 6th committee- it is completely full of partisan shit!

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7  TᵢG    one month ago

I will say this, JBB, the abrupt overturning of Roe v. Wade gives credibility to those arguing about the dangers of a politically/ideologically unbalanced SCotUS.   It should be taken as a given that justices are indeed human beings who will interpret the CotUS through the lens of their ideology and beliefs.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
7.1  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @7    one month ago
the abrupt overturning of Roe v. Wade 

Abrupt overturning? We have been trying to overturn it for over fifty years. Much too long on my opinion and I am sure the 63 million aborted babies would agree.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @7.1    one month ago

Yeah, abrupt.    The SCotUS had accepted R v W as a solid precedent and basically left it alone until now.   The justices, during confirmation, all noted that R v W is an established precedent and none indicated that they would vote to overturn it.    And of course none stated they would overturn it because that alone would have cost them their seat.

You did not notice that this decision was a surprise?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.1    one month ago
e SCotUS had accepted R v W as a solid precedent and basically left it alone until now

Lol. Casey almost completely rewrote Roe in 1993, and its been litigated constantly since.

 And of course none stated they would overturn it because that alone would have cost them their seat

It sure would. Imagine a nominee promising how they would rule on a matter certain to come before the Court.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.2    one month ago
Lol. Casey almost completely rewrote Roe in 1993, and its been litigated constantly since.

You must be laughing at your own rhetoric:  "almost completely rewrote" is indeed laughable given R v. W was substantially upheld by the SCotUS in '92 in that the R v. W right of a woman to choose to have an abortion remained intact prior to viability.

Casey attempted to overturn R v W and instead the SCotUS affirmed R v W.

So, back to my statement:  the SCotUS had accepted R v W as a solid precedent and basically left it alone until now.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    one month ago

I'm tired of people saying that these lying hypocrites never said they would overturn Roe v Wade when essentially they have.  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.5  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.3    one month ago
"almost completely rewrote" is indeed laughable given R v. W was substantially upheld by the SCotUS in '92 in

Of course, if you've actually read either case you'd know I'm correct.  The Court in Casey completely ditched the Roe trimester framework and created an entirely new, "undue burden" standard with a new standard of viability.  That's the opposite of leaving it alone.

You know what happens when a Court leaves a precedent alone? They don't ditch it's reasoning and create a new standard. 

Claiming Roe, as a precedent, "was basically left alone" is ignorant and can't be honestly defended.   Here's the ACLU discussing Carhart II from 2007: "In a 5-4 decision, the Court upheld the federal ban, undermining a core principle of Roe v. Wade: that women's health must remain paramount.   

I guess the ACLU's lawyers didn't get the memo that Roe "was basically left alone." Even after Casey, one of it's "core principles" was being undermined. 

he SCotUS had accepted R v W as a solid precedent and basically left it alone until now.

You can make ignorant declarations all you like. No informed person believes that. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.6  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.5    one month ago

After Casey, as I stated:

TiG @7.1.4 ☞ You must be laughing at your own rhetoric:  "almost completely rewrote" is indeed laughable given R v. W was substantially upheld by the SCotUS in '92 in that the R v. W right of a woman to choose to have an abortion remained intact prior to viability.

Your rebuttal is to claim that what I stated above means that Casey overturned R v W.    Yet, as I noted above, woman were still, across the nation, able to choose an abortion prior to viability (that basically means the first two trimesters).

Hyperbole is not an argument.   R v W was the established precedent since 1973 and until 2022 it remained as such.   R v W protected a woman's right to an abortion nationwide.   Until this year that precedent remained.    The essential right provided by R v W remained regardless of adjustments.   

Are you now going to try to argue that R v W has been overturned before 2022?   

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.5    one month ago

292257040_10222072156052560_3978285658342630216_n.jpg?_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=G1B7kn1B-1IAX-ONFkX&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_uTL1QKpU9kO3OctAa9VkBT4jg6_dqR-98esSy0JSvGg&oe=62C9397D

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.6    one month ago
claim that what I stated above means that Casey overturned R v W. 

No, not at all. Your original claim was that  " R v W as a solid precedent and basically left it alone until now". Since you can't backup that rhetoric you've changed your argument to the "well, the right to an abortion has existed since Roe"  Those are not the same arguments. Maybe you don't understand the difference between the two but they are not the same thing, at all. 

Hyperbole is not an argument.

I agree.  That's why I provided factual arguments that you can't rebut. Your original argument was pure hyperbole, and now you are backtracking to create a new defensible  argument, without admitting what you are doing. 

re you now going to try to argue that R v W has been overturned before 2022?   

Why would I? That's not what you originally claimed and there's no need to chase your moving goalposts. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    one month ago

Yeah Sean it has basically been left alone.    The word basically is operative;  do you NOT see that word in what I wrote — you quoted me ... did you read what you quoted??   R v W established the national right of women to choose to abort.   That national right has remained until now.   The R v W precedent had been in place since 1973.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.1.10  Tessylo  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.8    one month ago

292184257_10228391747798082_2537375964527020786_n.jpg?stp=cp1_dst-jpg_s600x600&_nc_cat=101&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=8bfeb9&_nc_ohc=F4UdcQbnXv0AX8A867F&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT_OMqHvDqsAoTyQHBWYo5X8ZYcVe9Jya5GKFIXNw_QvXA&oe=62C9D793

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.11  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.9    one month ago

he word basically is operative; 

It is. Which is why I fear you don't understand what that word means or are being dishonest.  "Basically left alone" implies that  its premise  had not been rewritten, its core principle had not been undermined (in the words of the ACLU) and that it hadn't been continuously relitigated since it was first handed down. All of those things, of course, have happened. 

"Basically left alone" doesn't not mean, which you now claim it does, completely reengineered but   not formally overturned. 

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
7.1.12  Brucelina  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.7    one month ago

No man is going to tell me what to do with my fetus.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
7.1.13  arkpdx  replied to  Brucelina @7.1.12    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
7.1.14  Brucelina  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.13    one month ago

That is unkind, I am in menopause and it is probably not likely although me and my partners are trying.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.11    one month ago

Roe v Wade established the national right for a woman to have an abortion.   That is the basic right that it established.   That right continued until 2022.

There was no 'complete reengineering' of this by Casey or any other action.   The national right of an abortion up to viability has been in existence since 1973.

Not until 2022 have we seen "Roe v. Wade Overturned" as an item of news.    Your 'complete reengineering' is hyperbole.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
7.1.16  Sean Treacy  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.15    one month ago

was no 'complete reengineering' of this by Casey or any other actio

Lol. It's discarded Roe's reasoning and legal standard and created a new one.  That's indisputable no matter how stridently you object. 

Not until 2022 have we seen "Roe v. Wade Overturned" as an item of news. 

So what? That's not what you claimed originally.  

I realize you need to have the last word, so feel free to repeat yourself again and trust that I've already rebutted it.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
7.1.17  arkpdx  replied to  Brucelina @7.1.14    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1.18  TᵢG  replied to  Sean Treacy @7.1.16    one month ago
Lol.

The national right of a woman to have an abortion up to viability remained until 2022.   That is the core of Roe v. Wade and that has not been 'reengineered'. 

So what? That's not what you claimed originally.  

That is indeed what I claimed.   Roe v Wade has basically been left alone.  Evidenced by the fact that the national right of a woman to have an abortion up to viability remained until 2022.    Third trimester abortions are not the core of Roe v Wade since abortions almost always are done in the first two trimesters.   Your argument is chickenshit.

Now, 2022, Roe v Wade has been 'reengineered' in that the national right has been abolished and delegated to the states to decide for themselves.   Prior to that the fundamental right of Roe v. Wade (national right to abortion prior to viability) had been in full effect.  

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
7.1.20  Ronin2  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.18    one month ago

Roe v Wade the Supreme Court wrote the law. Courts are not supposed to do that, period.

In the first trimester of pregnancy, the state may not regulate the abortion decision; only the pregnant woman and her attending physician can make that decision. In the second trimester, the state may impose regulations on abortion that are reasonably related to maternal health. In the third trimester, once the fetus reaches the point of “viability,” a state may regulate abortions or prohibit them entirely, so long as the laws contain exceptions for cases when abortion is necessary to save the life or health of the mother.

That is a law, period. The Court had no right to make it.

Planned Parenthood v Casey

The U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirmed a woman's right to an abortion as granted in the 1973  Roe v. Wade case. However, the contentious 5-4 decision altered Roe and upheld a number of Pennsylvania abortion requirements cited in the case, while broadening the authority of states to regulate and restrict abortions.

Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act

Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act was amended in 1988 and 1989, adding five new provisions requiring informed consent, a 24-hour waiting period with information provided on alternatives to abortion, parental consent for minors in most cases, the notification of a woman’s husband that she planned to have an abortion and reporting to be completed by abortion providers.

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania filed suit against the state of Pennsylvania, claiming the provisions were unconstitutional and in violation of the Roe v. Wade decision. The requirements were struck down by a federal district court, but all but the spousal notification provision were upheld by a U.S. court of appeals, which included the future Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito.

The Supreme Court Ruling

With a more conservative-leaning court in place since the Roe verdict 19 years earlier, it came as a surprise to many when Roe ’s constitutional right to an abortion was reaffirmed with a 5-4 vote on June 29, 1992.

The ruling cited “stare decisis,” or adhering to precedent, in upholding Roe . However, in a plurality decision, the court upheld all of the Pennsylvania abortion requirements, except for the provision that a woman’s husband must be notified of the procedure. It also changed the trimester framework set out in Roe , allowing states to regulate abortions before fetal viability as long as a “substantial obstacle” or “undue burden" is not added.

Casey did away with Roe and left us with this legal word salad garbage. What the hell is a "substantial obstacle" or "undue burden"? It depends on who you ask; and it differs by state. Obviously Pennsylvania's Abortion Control Act  (outside of a wife having to notify her husband) was found to be "Constitutional". You will also notice the 5-4 ruling- as the Court was becoming more conservative. 

So why didn't the Democrats when they had complete control of the House/Senate/and White House codify Roe into law? Their last chance was Obama first term. They knew the Court was turning more Conservative. Instead they continued to use it as a campaign ploy to get elected. Their self fulfilling prophecy finally came true. Roe is gone and now it is up to states again.

Then there is the abortion bill the Democrats just tried to ram through the Senate (already passed in the House along party lines).

There was no way Republicans were going to vote for that law. Schumer knew that before he brought the bill to the floor. In fact two Democrats in the Senate voted along with Republicans to scrap it. 

The Bill isn't just Roe; it is Roe on leftist steroids. Rather than try and find a compromise (beyond a dirty word these days); they shot for the leftist moon- and then screamed when it didn't pass.

Republicans are no better with their ban all abortion BS if they take power(except in the case of a threat to the mother; or child born with life altering/hindering birth defect). 

Both sides need to tell their radicals to shut up and sit down; while the adults (if there are any) work on a compromise bill. There are more than enough lawyers on both sides to cover most of the bases. If not I am sure the courts will have no problem pointing out the weaknesses (during litigation) so they can be addressed.

I prefer the Sweden abortion law. I am sure many on the left will find it to be too restrictive. But it is a starting point; and many Democrats point to the European model of health care.

My goal is to get the US much further down the list of abortions performed every year. "Remember safe, legal, and rare"? That seems like a very long time ago. Abortion should always be a last resort; not a first line of defense; when it comes to birth control.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.2  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @7    one month ago
....the dangers of a politically/ideologically unbalanced SCotUS.

I heard an interesting idea the other day on the radio on a SCotUS change I thought was interesting. The speaker noted that many Progressives were calling to add 2 or 4 new judges, but he thought 20 new judges would de-politicize the institution and dilute the power of any single judge seat. I think he mentioned the 1st Circuit Court of Appeals currently has 29 judges. His point was any 15-14 decision would be way more moderate than a 5-4 vote currently. 

I think the idea is brilliant, but there would be no way in hell the current Senate would ever be able to make any kind of deal to get something this epic passed and confirmed. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @7.2    one month ago

Regardless of solution, it is clear that the SCOTUS is more influenced by ideology / beliefs than the founders anticipated.   Adding more justices would itself be based on politics so that would be a mess.  Plus, as we add justices we encourage group think and could result in a large court that is internally political like the House and the Senate.    Thus supreme justice becomes polarized and irrational.

Not sure there is a solution other than somehow placing only the most objective people possible on the court … somehow.

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
7.2.2  arkpdx  replied to  evilgenius @7.2    one month ago

So you would be Ok if a conservative president could nominate the 20 new judges to make up the new court. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.2.3  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.1    one month ago

Fair points.

 
 
 
evilgenius
PhD Guide
7.2.4  evilgenius  replied to  arkpdx @7.2.2    one month ago
So you would be Ok...

Your question has little to no bearing on my post and pretty much misses the entire point of the incredibly brief conversation. It's a moot point anyway.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.5  Tessylo  replied to  TᵢG @7.2.1    one month ago

291027715_5849953135016309_4510382741433698005_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p180x540&_nc_cat=100&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=uwwroaDSo7MAX_2eUqC&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-LGkbtrbJORPoTU36vLZKu6t1yqHD-8lmvDJorNB8i6A&oe=62CC3374

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.6  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.5    one month ago

291840740_5847727241905565_7596826310276448173_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p526x296&_nc_cat=102&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=6T6LOvDwHHMAX9YdETr&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT-ZmlRU86KtVqzlWVWoXEV4lP4xHgeF24-6VqC3xjAI3w&oe=62CDF73C

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7.2.7  Tessylo  replied to  Tessylo @7.2.6    one month ago

291886423_5864792193532403_156377892704459025_n.jpg?_nc_cat=111&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=KiYoP5LDc9cAX9-euGH&tn=ddyv9WRSVi2y4Anp&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT9MBTPiUZYF7YRb3jURXmfbd3MjAAi4v2j07NAPPNlwRQ&oe=62CC5B59

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
8  Brucelina    one month ago

We women really need to boycott sex until our rights are restored. 

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1  arkpdx  replied to  Brucelina @8    one month ago
We women really need to boycott sex 

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
8.1.1  Brucelina  replied to  arkpdx @8.1    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
arkpdx
PhD Participates
8.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Brucelina @8.1.1    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Brucelina
Freshman Silent
8.1.3  Brucelina  replied to  arkpdx @8.1.2    one month ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
8.2  Ronin2  replied to  Brucelina @8    one month ago

I am sure you do not speak for all the women in the US. 

But please, for the sake of men everywhere, start the boycott now!

I don't care if it is just leftist women everywhere. It will greatly reduce the number of abortions needed. Maybe we can let Russia slip past us on the list.

 
 
 
pat wilson
Professor Guide
9  pat wilson    one month ago

jrSmiley_86_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
devangelical
Professor Principal
10  devangelical    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 

Who is online




GregTx
Ed-NavDoc
pat wilson
Dismayed Patriot


37 visitors