Roe v Wade
- Thread starter SHUSA
- Start date
Look at my discussion on a previous post when the leak came out. It ignored precedent. It overruled two Supreme Court decisions that legalized abortion. It is unprecedented and when SCOTUS did overrule a prior SC decision, it was to expand rights, not take away.
As you see in Justice Thomas' concurrence, he is inviting challenges to gay marriage and contraceptive SC decisions. Precedent at the p the Supreme Court level is not relevant.
Better increase the security at justices homes because open season has been declared by Jane followers. Regardless of your position another attempt on a justice’s life would cause chaos.I think if it happens GaRoland will have to reverse himself on arresting people who try to influence.justices.He recently dropped the charges against 5 antifa members accused of throwing rocks at cops and stabbing a cop with an umbrella in his view in the interests of justice.Finally you can order morning after pills through the mail,but I guess that is too much of a burden for some To do this or practice protected sex.
So ridiculous. So according to both of you we should still have separate but equal segregated schools? After all, that was a reversal of Supreme Court precedent..
Last edited:
I fail to see why anyone would NEED an abortion, outside of rape. Most people who get abortions WANT it. Big difference. Never understood the pro-abortion argument.
i actually just asked about precedent amd what it means here. was looking for an answer like yours
what about if youre under 18 (too young to reasonably be held to life changing consequences, as per the law essentially)
what about life altering defects of the child? health complications for the mother?
imo abortion should be legal but regulated for only these types of situations. makes no sense to ban any of these cases
Essentially the ruling allows each state to proceed with what their citizens want and consider these options. What I think in PA should have no bearing on the laws in NY or TN.
Unfortunately, in the coming weeks and months, the most extreme positions will have the loudest voices and drown out any efforts for real conversation about what the ruling means and how it will effect laws at the state level.
Last edited:
yes i realize its more about state autonomy which is more akin to what this country was built on. i think the fed should intervene on the matter of human/civil rights and guarantee access to abortion for the above.
i do think some states will be extremem themselves
If you're under 18 and having a baby, that's your own fault for being stupid. Live with the consequences or put the baby up for adoption if you can't handle it.
Life altering defects of the child? What are you talking about exactly? That seems open to debate. Health complications I understand and would make a reasonable exception for, yes.
Your opinion that it should be "legal but regulated for only these types of situations" is a common sense view IMO. The problem is, most of the people throwing a tantrum about this decision don't want that - they want abortion anytime, anywhere. They are radicals.
Once again, that’s what you think. If the electorate of a state wants certain protections for the unborn child, they will vote for representatives that support their view. That’s how it works.
Exactly. This ruling does not ban it. It simply says that it isn't the job of the federal government to guarantee abortion access nationwide. It's up to each individual state to decide how it wants to handle the issue.
What it means to precedence is that it is given exactly the same deference and scrutiny that it always has been given under the court. If you serious about this question I strongly encourage you to read the opinion it is discussed in considerable detail.
eh. politicians are basically all terrible these days. extremely partisan, will do anything to be in office, use it for self gain. there are no good choices. and there needs to be intervention from scumbag states filled with people with terrible ideals. think slavery.
hahah no. youre awful. kids arent allowed to make mistakes? why arent they allowed to vote? remember the whole representation thing? its why they dont get tried as adults and their record gets scrubbed. the doesnt hild their mistakes permanent.
how terribly awful of you to basically doom a child for life because of a mistake. pitiful. you care more about unborn than a child itself. i mean really. kids are basically unable to understand true consequences. have limited understanding of responsibility, economy, etc.
i think i recall you dont have children? and you probably dont remember being one because you sound like your soul has always been 65yrs old by the way you post sometimes
as for the radicals, fair enough. but idk anyone that is in favor of abortion after the pregnancy has gone mid term. so its not full stop mayhem out there either
Stop voting for extreme and partisan politicians. Vote your conscious. Do your research. Why people vote a party line or ignore other candidates and then complain about politicians….smh
This is such a superficial analysis. Precedent in the past has been overruled to expand rights. Not to take them away. And Roe was already reaffirmed by Clancy in a decision by conservative justices.
Some already are. Some won’t allow abortion regardless of rape and health of the mother. Some already allow abortion at any time right up until birth for any reason using unconscionable methods.
Doom a child for life because of a mistake? So when a 15 year old goes shoot up a school, does society upset you because they doom that child for life? Maybe he/she didn't understand true consequences of pulling the trigger. I never thought about that til now. Life changing. Thank you. Kid's are stupid, not that stupid. They know consequences.
Roe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.
www.britannica.com
Brittanica disagrees with your assertion that precedent in the past and in especially inconnection with Roe has been overruled to expand rights.
"Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable." Other cases are cited,
Last edited:
Beware. Don’t get your law out of BritánicaRoe v. Wade | Summary, Origins, Right to Privacy, & Overturning
Roe v. Wade, legal case in which the U.S. Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, ruled (7–2) that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional. The Court held that a set of Texas statutes criminalizing abortion in most instances violated a constitutional right to privacy.
Brittanica disagrees with your assertion that precedent in the past and in especially inconnection with Roe has been overruled to expand rights.
"Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it. In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992), the Supreme Court established that restrictions on abortion are unconstitutional if they place an “undue burden” on a woman seeking an abortion before the fetus is viable." Other cases are cited,
Here is a pertinent part of the Casey decision:
A comparison between Roe and two decisional lines of comparable significance-the line identified with Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, and the line that began with Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537-confirms the result reached here. Those lines were overruled-by, respectively, West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish, 300 U. S. 379, and Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483-on the basis of facts, or an understanding of facts, changed from those which furnished the claimed justifications for the earlier constitutional resolutions. The overruling decisions were comprehensible to the Nation, and defensible, as the Court's responses to changed circumstances. In contrast, because neither the factual underpinnings of Roe's central holding nor this Court's understanding of it has changed (and because no other indication of weakened precedent has been shown), the Court could not pretend to be reexamining Roe with any justification beyond a present doctrinal disposition to come out differently from the Roe Court. That is an inadequate basis for overruling a prior case. Pp.861-864.
(i) Overruling Roe's central holding would not only reach an unjustifiable result under stare decisis principles, but would seriously weaken the Court's capacity to exercise the judicial power and to function as the Supreme Court of a Nation dedicated to the rule of law. Where the Court acts to resolve the sort of unique, intensely divisive controversy reflected in Roe, its decision has a dimension not present in normal cases and is entitled to rare precedential force to counter the inevitable efforts to overturn it and to thwart its implementation. Only the most convincing justification under accepted standards of precedent could suffice to demonstrate that a later decision overruling the first was anything but a surrender to political pressure and an unjustified repudiation of the principle on which the Court staked its authority in the first instance. Moreover, the country's loss of confidence in the Judiciary would be underscored by condemnation for the Court's failure to keep faith with those who support the decision at a cost to themselves. A decision to overrule Roe's essential holding under the existing circumstances would address error, if error there was, at the cost of both profound and unnecessary damage to the Court's legitimacy and to the N ation's commitment to the rule of law. Pp. 864-869.
The difference here is that the schools were not equal. The facilities in the black schools were inferior, the amount of money spent was significantly less, The teacher to student ratio was less, the teachers were paid less etc. The segregated schools were equal in name only.
TK
lol. If you're 17 and doing the deed, you know exactly what the potential consequences are. Stop trying to excuse flagrantly bad behavior.
Justices O'Conner, Souter and Kennedy wrote the opinion. Three Republican Justices. This is something that cannot be ignored.
Some are & some are not. Are you saying that Justice Clarence Thomas is not partisan ???
Clarence Thomas told his clerks he wants to make liberals miserable
In a 1993 article in The New York Times, a former law clerk of the Supreme Court Justice said Thomas held a grudge against liberals for making his life miserable.
www.businessinsider.com
Clarence Thomas told his clerks he wants to make liberals miserable
In a 1993 article in The New York Times, a former law clerk of the Supreme Court Justice said Thomas held a grudge against liberals for making his life miserable.www.businessinsider.com
He is petty and wrong if the report is accurate.
Watching Meet The Press and Face the Nation yesterday, toggling back and forth. Not to sound cynical, but it seemed obvious that the Republican Governors (Noem and Hutchinson) were carefully following the talking points and making them in a calm and measured fashion even though both Chuck Todd and Margaret Brennan were trying to goad and interrupt them constantly during the interviews (which they didn't with AOC and Witmer.
The repeal opens up the opportunity for dialogue and legislative implications at the state level and it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. My sense is that the states with restrictive trigger laws will eventually move to an up to 12-15 week termination. That seems to be the place most of the country is.
And elections have consequences...if either party takes a hard line, they will lose control in their states based on how they dig their heels in. Peggy Noonan (one of the FTN panelists) made a point that the Pro-Life movement has been working on overturning Roe v. Wade for 50 years and we should anticipate that it will take a long time for any pro-choice movement to have any potential changes bubble up to SCOTUS.
The repeal opens up the opportunity for dialogue and legislative implications at the state level and it will be interesting to see how this plays out over time. My sense is that the states with restrictive trigger laws will eventually move to an up to 12-15 week termination. That seems to be the place most of the country is.
And elections have consequences...if either party takes a hard line, they will lose control in their states based on how they dig their heels in. Peggy Noonan (one of the FTN panelists) made a point that the Pro-Life movement has been working on overturning Roe v. Wade for 50 years and we should anticipate that it will take a long time for any pro-choice movement to have any potential changes bubble up to SCOTUS.
Sotomayor and Thomas typically cancel out each other on key votes since you are 99% sure how each will vote.I think it is good practices to limit appointments to people who have previous judicial experience not law professors like Kagen.Trying to now say Kavanaugh and Gorsch lied on this issue is a bit rich Kagan In confirm hearings said gay marriage not guaranteed by constitution and now says it is.Elena please lawyer up for your impeachment LOL
Of course the source is anonymous and there is no context given about the remarks if even accurate. New York Times is/was hardly the purveyor of truth. Pardon my skepticism.
Last edited:
I have been saying this for a long time. People who have spent their career in academia do not belong on the Supreme Court. One should have real life work experience in the practice of the law.
https://www.newsnationnow.com/religion/supreme-court-sides-with-coach-who-wanted-to-pray-after-game/
Another 6-3 vote along conservative/liberal views. This one seems pretty simple...he wasn't forcing anyone to pray with him, but left it open for those that wanted to join him.
Another 6-3 vote along conservative/liberal views. This one seems pretty simple...he wasn't forcing anyone to pray with him, but left it open for those that wanted to join him.
Similar threads
