Supreme Court Draft Decision Would Strike Down Roe v. Wade

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

Grappa night not over?

This is why this country is headed into the abyss. Even people who largely agree with one another can't do so without acting like an ass-hat with one another.

Well done.

a reply to: loam

Take that up with yourself.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

The 4th Amendment enshrines the expectation of privacy and due process. It protects our right to be secure in our person, our homes, our papers and other effects against warrantless searches and seizures. Theoretically, it should protect us from governmental mandated physical intrusion upon our person, government interference in our medical treatments and seizure of our medical history.

I'm sure that's what you think (I can use bold tags too). I'd be willing to bet at this point that anything you read enshrines abortion as a right... even this part:

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

See? See? It says so right there! The Constitution is to be adopted! That means babies have to be aborted!

"Marriage" is not enshrined in the Constitution, period.

I never said it was. I said the 14th Amendment guaranteed that marriage (which is an unenumerated right since it was legally practiced with minimal restrictions during the history of the country) could not be racially restricted.

I know it's hard, but try to keep up.

Same sex marriage didn't legally become a constitutional right until 2015.

But you just said marriage is not a Constitutional right. But now you claim same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right?

I guess it's the "same-sex" part that makes it a right...

Loving v. Virginia found that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for no good reason. Alito likes to use the caveat "no legitimate goal".

Isn't that what i said?

That's what happens when the government violates the 4th Amendment, inserts itself inside people's bodies and bedrooms and denies certain people equal protection and due process.

"Equal protection" is in the 14th Amendment, not the 4th Amendment.

That counting and numbers stuff is really hard, I know.

Roe found that the state has an interest protecting women's lives life by ensuring that abortions are safe and accessible, and that women are not forced to source their needs from black market drug dealers and shady back alley clinics.

Strange that they didn't just state that.

It has an interested in protecting the potential life of a fetus, which is NOT recognized as a person constitutionally, but above the life and welfare of the actual born person, endowed with constitutional rights and that the government is charged to represent and protect.

That's what it says, with your own biased interpretation added in. The potential life of the unborn child. That would refer to the fact that the child has no rights whatsoever until it is born under Roe v. Wade.

However, it apparently has no qualms with a person other then the mother being charged with murder for causing a miscarriage or fetal death.

LOL It dates back way earlier than that.

Be careful there... the test was used way earlier than it was developed? You could destroy Universal causality and cause the Universe to run backward with that kind of thinking.

Did people drive Buicks in the 14th century, too? That was "way before" they were developed. Maybe the Bible is wrong and Jesus rode into Jerusalem in a Toyota Camry?

(Damn, I just realized... now she's going to make a thread claiming that. Sorry, everyone...)

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

But you just said marriage is not a Constitutional right.

That's not what I said. You said the right to inter-racial marriage is enshrined in the constitution. I said marriage isn't a right that's mentioned, or enshrined, in the Constitution. It's an implied, enumerable right. I said that the right to an inter-racial marriage wasn't legally enforced until around 100 years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It took took years and a Supreme Court ruling to make inter-racial marriage a recognized right.

It took till 1973, for Roe V Wade to make abortion rights legally enforceable.

YOU SAID
But it [inter-racial marriage] was addressed by the 14th Amendment, with clear legislative intent to right the wrongs of slavery. That made interracial marriage a right enshrined in the US Constitution.

ME
"Marriage" is not enshrined in the Constitution, period.

YOU
I never said it was.

Be careful there... the test was used way earlier than it was developed?

Science didn't develop a pregnant woman's urine or a way for it to kill rabbits. Scientist studied the reason why the age old practice seemed to work.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

All those cases took years because there were no challenges in lower courts for all those years.

💎🗜️

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: JinMI
Breaking.

Alito’s draft is labeled as a proposed majority opinion, though the wording of the court’s ultimate ruling and the line-up of justices who support it could change before final release, expected by late June or early July.

Source

Will add more soon

ETA

Daily Beast Source

Justice Alitos draft can be found in both sources. Some claiming it was a leak.

ETA: If what im reading is correct, a leak from the SCOTUS has never been done and this isnt due for a few months yet?

More games? Riots?

To OP - apologies if this has already been said. This thread is extremely long at this point and I dont have time to go through it all yet.

My thoughts are that this was not leaked to impact the mid terms or distract from other issues.

The reason it wasnt leaked to impact the mid terms is simple. This was a draft from Feb 22 - leaked in May 22 - due to be released in July 22. With the elections being in Nov 22 a release in July 22 would be far more impactful to boost mid terms turnout. This far away the rage will have subsided and the people that would always be inclined to vote dem will vote dem. Independents will have so many news cycles between now and then that it will be a secondary issue at best.

My theory is that this was leaked to pressure Kristen Sinema, Joe Manchin and any number of RINO senators to vote to remove the filibuster. My reasoning is that they are well aware that they will not have the votes to make Roe a law via the senate standard procedure. They know this, so their only option is to pressure the people listed into being "white knights for women's rights" and voting to remove the filibuster so dems can codify it.

They will then use the new found removal of the filibuster for all sorts of craziness before Nov 22. They know the senate is 100% gone and so is the house after the mid terms. Look for this to be a way to push through "voting rights", "packing the court" etc..

I think the timing seems like a play to go after other things that they have been after. They are on a tight timeline now with nov 6 months away. No chance they get this stuff through without the removal of the filibuster - which they were trying to do just a few months ago - and were stopped.. this gives them a way to push RINOs to vote for it this time if Sinema and Manchin refuse - which it looks like they will.

Just my .02.

Also this always was meant to be decided at the state level. Alito is 100% right - if it isnt directly in the constitution or applicable then it needs to be decided at the state level.

YUGE win for Trump - he got the court to the proper ratio to make this happen. That will be his biggest and most important legacy years from now.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

That's not what I said.

I challenge anyone reading this to go back through the last several pages and verify what was said for themselves. As a public service, one can always click the little "chess pawn" below a poster's mini-profile and one of the menu choices will be "View Posts in Thread."

Also as a pubic service, I will caution readers that reading Sookiechacha's posts for too long can cause intra-cranial bleeding as the frontal cortex desperately attempts to see reality in her posts.

Science didn't develop a pregnant woman's urine or a way for it to kill rabbits. Scientist studied the reason why the age old practice seemed to work.

So it didn't work until science figured out why it had worked for so long?

Excuse me while I check my other threads... I feel that intra-cranial bleeding starting up...

TheRedneck

a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

the poor, not so much.

Those are the people who will reproduce and have unwanted children whose only care and upbringing will be provided by the state.

Until the right wing state cuts those social services, too. Who cares about education, child tax credit, food, shelter, etc, for children?

As Carlin said, they claim to care about them only while they're in the womb, forcing birth: after that, they're on their own: no assistance, no food, no schooling, no medicine, no clothing, no welfare, etc.

That's not pro life, that's anti-Women.

ETA:

a reply to: SirHardHarry

There is no issue which does not affect others, and there is no such thing as a political party which has the best interests of its supporters at heart all the time. Neither exists, neither has ever existed in history, and I don't expect either to exist in the foreseeable future.

Issues like this do not get "fixed" by a single bill or decision. They require continuous monitoring of public officials. It is the lack of monitoring, the lack of demanding results form our leaders, that has led us to this place. It is continued neglect on that front that will keep us where we are or even slide us further into chaos.

We get the government we deserve.

TheRedneck

a reply to: SirHardHarry

You know the funny part? They constantly post about BLM, wait until there's a lot more of the 'B' part in twenty years.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

Good post, but I would point out that by way of the USA Patriot Act 20 years ago the Fourth Amendment was effectively nullified by our illustrious elected representatives.

originally posted by: SirHardHarry
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

the poor, not so much.

Those are the people who will reproduce and have unwanted children whose only care and upbringing will be provided by the state.

Until the right wing state cuts those social services, too. Who cares about education, child tax credit, food, shelter, etc, for children?

As Carlin said, they claim to care about them only while they're in the womb, forcing birth: after that, they're on their own: no assistance, no food, no schooling, no medicine, no clothing, no welfare, etc.

That's not pro life, that's anti-Women.

ETA:

Its not that the right doesn't care. That is simply not true. The problem is that we know the system as it stands now is being horribly abused and can not continue in its present form. The left will always try to characterize that as an attack on poor people, people of color, women, whomever they can lump in there to make it sound as bad as possible.

At some point these programs will either be retooled or closed and replaced with something that offers better oversight. It must happen at some point or the spending will just keep increasing and help will continue to miss the intended recipients.

I have to say I am truly disappointed in the number of people across social media that think this would mean all abortion is immediately illegal in this entire nation. While I know it is a fringe element of barely functional people who believe that, I am still shocked at the sheer numbers involved. It seems like these people are everywhere. Or its the same people who are very prolific with their social media posts.

Personally, I believe the law regarding abortion could use some work, but it all needs to be grounded in common sense, which is something we seem to have precious little of.

a reply to: Vroomfondel

But that’s the next step in many of the GOP minds. To make it illegal nationally. That's a fact, as they have for decades been trying to overturn Row as a first step to banning it nationally.

Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals

The fight over abortion restrictions could soon go from statehouses to Capitol Hill, as the Washington Post reports Republican lawmakers and anti-abortion rights activists are working to enact a federal abortion ban if the Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade this summer as expected and the GOP regains control of Congress.

www.forbes.com... als/?sh=78598b8c23ed

If they get the congress and presidency they will succeed

a reply to: peaceinoutz

But that’s the next step in many of the GOP minds. To make it illegal nationally.

Then they just shot themselves in the foot. With a bazooka.

The leaked opinion by Justice Alito will, if it becomes the majority decision, serve to forbid the US government from even addressing the abortion issue at all! The entire opinion boils down to there being no implied or enumerated right to abortion in the US Constitution. That means the 10th Amendment rules, and only the states can pass legislation either outlawing or legalizing abortion.

What you're hearing is a bunch of political promises no one has to (can) keep.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Here are some more quotes from that article, since the link is kind of fragile.

Republican senators have met to discuss legislation that would ban abortion nationwide, Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) told the Post, and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) would reportedly likely introduce the bill.
Anti-abortion groups like the Susan B. Anthony List are working to garner support for the legislation, and have met with Republican contenders for the 2024 presidential nomination about such a ban, including former President Donald Trump.

“Most of” the potential candidates support the ban and would make it a “centerpiece” of their campaign, Susan B. Anthony List president Marjorie Dannenfelser told the Post.
A federal abortion ban could restrict the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy, based on current proposals, with anti-abortion advocates believing a 15-week ban wouldn’t go far enough.
While many states are already taking steps to ban abortion—even before the Supreme Court rules—a federal law would stop those seeking abortions from being able to obtain one by traveling out of state, and overrule legislation in Democratic-led states that enshrines the right to the procedure.

So, it's clear the GOP isn’t done on abortion and intends to make this a national issue. This is NOT just about states’ rights

www.forbes.com... als/?sh=78598b8c23ed

a reply to: Vroomfondel

The problem is that we know the system as it stands now is being horribly abused and can not continue in its present form.

Do you know this? Or is this like those times Republicans "knew" everyone on welfare were drug users so they made drug tests mandatory to receive welfare benefits, which ended up costing their states more money because the were so few drug users?

a reply to: peaceinoutz

That is not the next step in GOP minds. It cant be. All this does is put it in the hands of the states where it belongs. What the states do is up to them. The only thing this accomplishes is that it takes the fed out of the game, as it should be.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Your propaganda is lacking. Yes, I know this to be true. And no, no one ever said "everyone on welfare is a drug abuser." However, it would take monumental stupidity to believe no one on welfare uses drugs.

The drug tests showed between 5% and 10% of people on welfare were using illicit drugs. Now understand, this was the percentage of people caught with illicit drugs in their system - after they were warned they were going to be tested.

The actual rate of abuse is much higher. We had mandatory periodic drug testing at my place of employment. We were always told in advance when the tests would be. Not the exact day, but the week. Surprise surprise! No one failed a drug test. I know for a fact that several of our employees used various drugs, yet they all passed the tests every time. Call me crazy, but telling a drug user ahead of time when the test will be taken kind of lowers the chances of catching them.

I wonder if that works with welfare recipients too...