Political/Religious Random Chat - Politics & Religion

mickilennial
The Most Trusted Name in News

Gender: Female
Age: 35
Location: Detroit

tigercap wrote:

Well, it's not designed to "stop" abortions. It brings the choice to each state, as the constitution intends.

lol

BARDAMU

tigercap wrote:

Well, it's not designed to "stop" abortions. It brings the choice to each state, as the constitution intends.

First-of-all, who cares about what the constitution intends? It's a 200+ year old document. If anything it's in desperate need of a rewrite.

Second-of-all, abortion should be a right. Period. That frankly should not be up for debate on a state-by-state basis.

tigercap

Is your username based on Ferdinand Bardamu?

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

The thread where the comments below are

StreetSpirit (my stupid former username) wrote:

Regardless of Trump's view on abortion, I don't believe he has any authority to overturn a Supreme Court decision. Only the Supreme Court can overturn its own rulings, and I believe they would need to hear a case in order for that happen. So I am not concerned we're gonna be repealing Roe v. Wade anytime soon.

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

All it would take is for a liberal justice to die in the next four years and then social conservatives could potentially have a majority against abortion and gay marriage, no?

StreetSpirit wrote:

True, social conservatives could have a majority. But they cannot just overturn a previous decision without a hearing a case. And as we know, most cases never get to the Supreme Court.

HigherThanTheSun wrote:

Buut if Trump appoints a pro life judge as he's said he will, then surely a case can be manufactured by an individual or state that would reach the supreme court and potentially then result in Roe v Wade being overturned? Or not? I don't know.

Hayden wrote:

Also, based on everything Trump's said since winning, he's definitely pro-choice

StreetSpirit wrote:

When did Trump say he was pro-choice after the election? I recall from the 60 Minutes interview that he wanted abortion rights to go back to the states, but I never heard that he was pro-choice. But it doesn't matter because he cannot overturn a Supreme Court decision.

Muslim-Bigfoot wrote:

He can overturn it; He will appoint at least one and possibly three justices and conservatives will have a majority and can bring a new case and issue a new ruling, effectively overruling Roe v Wade. Roe V Wade, from what I understand, has always been a very fragile ruling, being protected completely contingently through constitutional philosophy of Anthony Kennedy; based on that precedent, Republicans will not repeat Reagan's mistake and will appoint explicitly anti-abortion (not just conservative) justices, as they have promised.

StreetSpirit wrote:

You're making several assumptions here.

Oh how these comments have aged. Ugh.

Hayden

Location: CDMX

Honestly, I still stand by that. I think Trump (as an individual, perhaps not a politician) is pro-choice.

The US Supreme Court is an absolute trainwreck though. Apart from the warning a couple of weeks ago, I feel like this came out of nowhere. Genuinely concerned what else they reverse/implement. That Thomas/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett/Alito lean is terrifying.

Luckily, from what I'm understanding, a good handful of States won't abide to the SC's ruling (or don't have to, or something like that).

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Hayden wrote:

Honestly, I still stand by that. I think Trump (as an individual, perhaps not a politician) is pro-choice.

I was not specifically calling out your post, just giving a gist of the conversation flow, which there's a lot more to in the old thread. I, specifically, am the one who was sorely mistaken in hindsight. Muslin Bigfoot and HTTS were right. Look how accurate their posts have turned out.

Hayden wrote:

The US Supreme Court is an absolute trainwreck though. Apart from the warning a couple of weeks ago, I feel like this came out of nowhere. Genuinely concerned what else they reverse/implement. That Thomas/Gorsuch/Kavanaugh/Barrett/Alito lean is terrifying.

Luckily, from what I'm understanding, a good handful of States won't abide to the SC's ruling (or don't have to, or something like that).

Correct, this Dobbs Decision returns abortion rights to the states. Here are some maps to how it may look:

https://fortune.com/2022/06/24/abortion-laws-by-state/
https://people.com/health/see-what-stat...verturned/
https://scheerpost.com/2022/06/25/guide...oe-v-wade/

While there's a good number of states where nothing will change, there are many where abortion will be outright illegal, or restricted. Unsurprisingly, the states where it will be illegal or restricted are the large states in the middle and southern sections of the nation. Thus, for abortion-seeking women in those states, it's gonna be quite a travel to a state where it's legal. Either that, or have the child. Or back-alley abortions, which I reckon will return.
_________________
on such a winter's day

junodog4
Future Grumpy Old Man

Gender: Male
Location: Calgary

What I'm really hoping for is that these recent moves are motivating the apathetic 'middle' voter into voting this fall. Increased voter turnout doesn't favour Republicans. I hope their reach back the the 1950s pisses off enough women to make them lose huge.

...but I could be wrong. Confused

_________________
Finnegan was super bad-ass.

mickilennial
The Most Trusted Name in News

Gender: Female
Age: 35
Location: Detroit

Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

Thumbnail. Click to enlarge.

mickilennial
The Most Trusted Name in News

Gender: Female
Age: 35
Location: Detroit

Ignoring abortion, the deeply flawed Supreme Court has:

- gutted what the EPA is able to do in enforcing environmental protections
- opened the door to gut regulation et al
- dismantled the ability of states to enact gun safety laws
- attacked the sovereignty of tribal nations
- halted a lower court order that had struck down Louisiana's racial gerrymander
- weakened the separation of church and state
- could give state legislatures far greater power over all manner of election laws

This is just the beginning of a dismantling of a centrist nation.

CA Dreamin

Gender: Male
Location: LA

Gowi wrote:

Clarence Thomas writes, in a concurring opinion, that the Supreme Court should reconsider Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell — the rulings that now protect contraception, same-sex relationships, and same-sex marriage.

One can make an argument that abortion is murder. And obviously murder is unconstitutional, so I can understand that. I don't agree with the Dobbs decision, but I can understand it. However, what is unconstitutional about the Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell decisions? That's going as far as governing who we're allowed to love and what we're allowed to do in our private lives. Why doesn't Thomas suggest reconsidering Loving vs. Virginia while they're at it? Hmm, maybe because that would directly impact him? Thomas doesn't care how many individual freedoms he restricts or takes away, as long as they're not his individual freedoms. His opinion on the Dobbs ruling seems more about power and control than it is about being pro-life, which doesn't seem to be an objective interpretation of the law as he sees it. Instead, he comes off as a vindictive old man who enjoys restricting our freedoms, not because he thinks they're unconstitutional, but simply because he can.

Gowi wrote:

Ignoring abortion, the deeply flawed Supreme Court has:

- gutted what the EPA is able to do in enforcing environmental protections
- opened the door to gut regulation et al
- dismantled the ability of states to enact gun safety laws
- attacked the sovereignty of tribal nations
- halted a lower court order that had struck down Louisiana's racial gerrymander
- weakened the separation of church and state
- could give state legislatures far greater power over all manner of election laws

This is just the beginning of a dismantling of a centrist nation.

Welp, we can hope these recent rulings will motivate the 'apathetic middle voter' as junodog described, into showing up this November. But I wouldn't count it because 1. Americans are likelier to vote out the party in power when the economy is fragile, with civil freedom issues considered secondary. And 2. Higher voter turnout doesn't always sway elections due to gerrymandering.