Roe v Wade Overturned?

[Sculptor]

Well I think keeping the giant black lesbian basketball player imprisoned for five months already (not counting the possible 10 year sentence) just for having some weed oil, is a bit much, don'tchu?

I mean random missile attacks on Ukrainian schools and hospitals is one thing, but this takes the cake. When will you bloody conservatives realize that the war on marijuana is a glorious joke?

What's this about a basketball player?

And about "random" attacks. This is a war FFS. The West turn a blind eye to Israel's undeclared war against Palestinians schools, hospitals, and News centres; again another blind eye towards Saudi Arabia.
The US and EU decided long ago to keep Russia has their enemy when they had a massive opportunity to change the relationship. But having Russia has an enemy is good for business.
I get pretty sick at the hypocrisy and Ukrainian flag waving whilst the West pours cash into the meat grinder to keep the killing going as long as possible.

[commonsense]

...if the Federal Government had indeed banned abortion...

We'll never know.

They didn't.

If they had, I'd have cheered. But it still wouldn't have been constitutional. That's a separate question.

Am I correct in guessing that you would have cheered the ban and left the issue of the constitutionality separate?

[Immanuel Can]

...if the Federal Government had indeed banned abortion...

We'll never know.

They didn't.

If they had, I'd have cheered. But it still wouldn't have been constitutional. That's a separate question.

Am I correct in guessing that you would have cheered the ban and left the issue of the constitutionality separate?

Would I be happy to see the murdering of children stop? Of course.

Was I particularly concerned about a constitution that is not mine, either way? Not really: I admire much about the American constitution, and would prefer to see it honoured; but it is not authoritative in my world, nor am I in a position to defend it or vote relative to it. So in terms of my own interests, the jurisdictional facts do not affect me personally...at least, not directly.

But I see they concerned the Supreme Court -- and should, since it is the body charged with legally safeguarding the constitution and the divisions of powers. So I'm glad they did their job, for two reasons: firstly, because they upheld the constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is for, and secondly, because maybe now fewer babies will be torn apart and killed without a chance at life.

I feel pretty happy about both.

[commonsense]

We'll never know.

They didn't.

If they had, I'd have cheered. But it still wouldn't have been constitutional. That's a separate question.

Am I correct in guessing that you would have cheered the ban and left the issue of the constitutionality separate?

Would I be happy to see the murdering of children stop? Of course.

Was I particularly concerned about a constitution that is not mine, either way? Not really: I admire much about the American constitution, and would prefer to see it honoured; but it is not authoritative in my world, nor am I in a position to defend it or vote relative to it. So in terms of my own interests, the jurisdictional facts do not affect me personally...at least, not directly.

But I see they concerned the Supreme Court -- and should, since it is the body charged with legally safeguarding the constitution and the divisions of powers. So I'm glad they did their job, for two reasons: firstly, because they upheld the constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is for, and secondly, because maybe now fewer babies will be torn apart and killed without a chance at life.

I feel pretty happy about both.

Except that I narrowmindedly assumed you were American, I expected a reply like the one you made, and I appreciate the clarity with which you write.

I suspect that you can educate me on another point as well. I have heard it said that Roe v. Wade is supported by the US Constitution by virtue of the right to privacy. How can the Pro-Choicers say that? Is there a right to privacy in the Amendments or am I not paying attention to what I read?

I thank you in advance for your reply.

[Immanuel Can]

Am I correct in guessing that you would have cheered the ban and left the issue of the constitutionality separate?

Would I be happy to see the murdering of children stop? Of course.

Was I particularly concerned about a constitution that is not mine, either way? Not really: I admire much about the American constitution, and would prefer to see it honoured; but it is not authoritative in my world, nor am I in a position to defend it or vote relative to it. So in terms of my own interests, the jurisdictional facts do not affect me personally...at least, not directly.

But I see they concerned the Supreme Court -- and should, since it is the body charged with legally safeguarding the constitution and the divisions of powers. So I'm glad they did their job, for two reasons: firstly, because they upheld the constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is for, and secondly, because maybe now fewer babies will be torn apart and killed without a chance at life.

I feel pretty happy about both.

Except that I narrowmindedly assumed you were American, I expected a reply like the one you made, and I appreciate the clarity with which you write.

I have no objection to being mistaken for an American. But I'm not officially one.

I have heard it said that Roe v. Wade is supported by the US Constitution by virtue of the right to privacy.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think that, obviously. And they are supposed to be the expert intepreters of constitutional intent. And, obviously, abortion was not an issue considered by the founders, and so it's not surprising it has no constitutional status of its own.

But the truth is that abortion itself was not under judicial consideration in this case. What was being debated was whether or not the Federal government had status to decide the question. And it didn't. The same happened in the case of the EPA, shortly thereafter, it seems; the government had once again reached beyond its jurisdiction. Different issue, same result.

But privacy is, of course, always a local issue. You can't get more local, or more private, than the individual himself/herself. I can't really think of a personal issue on which I want the Supreme Court to rule, whether in favour or against me. I accept that they can rule according to the constitution; but in all other matters, I'd prefer they minded their own business, and stayed out of mine.

Whether the states themselves have right to rule on abortion is another question. But that one was not debated. If anybody has proper jurisdiction, it's more likely to be states or even local areas.

I thank you in advance for your reply.

Well, that's nice of you. Thanks for your politeness, too. I am quite happy when people who may see things differently, or even oppositely, can get along and talk.

Not everybody can handle that, apparently. Apparently, you can.

[commonsense]

Would I be happy to see the murdering of children stop? Of course.

Was I particularly concerned about a constitution that is not mine, either way? Not really: I admire much about the American constitution, and would prefer to see it honoured; but it is not authoritative in my world, nor am I in a position to defend it or vote relative to it. So in terms of my own interests, the jurisdictional facts do not affect me personally...at least, not directly.

But I see they concerned the Supreme Court -- and should, since it is the body charged with legally safeguarding the constitution and the divisions of powers. So I'm glad they did their job, for two reasons: firstly, because they upheld the constitution, and that's what the Supreme Court is for, and secondly, because maybe now fewer babies will be torn apart and killed without a chance at life.

I feel pretty happy about both.

Except that I narrowmindedly assumed you were American, I expected a reply like the one you made, and I appreciate the clarity with which you write.

I have no objection to being mistaken for an American. But I'm not officially one.

I have heard it said that Roe v. Wade is supported by the US Constitution by virtue of the right to privacy.

Well, the Supreme Court doesn't think that, obviously. And they are supposed to be the expert intepreters of constitutional intent. And, obviously, abortion was not an issue considered by the founders, and so it's not surprising it has no constitutional status of its own.

But the truth is that abortion itself was not under judicial consideration in this case. What was being debated was whether or not the Federal government had status to decide the question. And it didn't. The same happened in the case of the EPA, shortly thereafter, it seems; the government had once again reached beyond its jurisdiction. Different issue, same result.

But privacy is, of course, always a local issue. You can't get more local, or more private, than the individual himself/herself. I can't really think of a personal issue on which I want the Supreme Court to rule, whether in favour or against me. I accept that they can rule according to the constitution; but in all other matters, I'd prefer they minded their own business, and stayed out of mine.

Whether the states themselves have right to rule on abortion is another question. But that one was not debated. If anybody has proper jurisdiction, it's more likely to be states or even local areas.

I thank you in advance for your reply.

Well, that's nice of you. Thanks for your politeness, too. I am quite happy when people who may see things differently, or even oppositely, can get along and talk.

Not everybody can handle that, apparently. Apparently, you can.

Thank you for your response.

In answer to one of my curiosities, there is no right to privacy in the Amendments, although the Fourth has been extrapolated to include such a right. The Fourth prohibits unwarranted searches and seizures of a person’s private property, so that individuals will be secure in their privacy.

Would that every Forum member could engage in polite debate.

[henry quirk]

Here's the thing: it doesn't matter if you (the reader of these words) think RvW bein' dead as a dodo is unfair and wrong. It doesn't even matter if RvW bein' dead as a dodo is unfair and wrong.

The SC is the last stop and it has spoken and there ain't a flippin' thing you can do about it 'cept...

...wait a few decades for the court's composition to shift in a direction where a Dobbs challenge can get some meaningful attention.

...lobby for an amendment to the federal constitution (and be prepared to work your ass off...a convention of the states ain't no light thing).

...lobby congress, by way of your congress folk, to pass legislation federally guaranteein' national abortion access (and be prepared for legal challenges, cuz they'll happen).

...lobby your state legislature to pass legislation guaranteein' state abortion access (and be prepared for legal challenges, cuz they'll happen).

...encourage folks to be self-responsible and to take advantage of birth control and regulation methods includin' tubal ligation and vasectomy.

Or you can hang-wring and rage about the unfairness and wrongness of RvW's demise (which means, of course, do nuthin' at all).

[Walker]

...

If Leftists are involved there’s more nefarious, illegal possibilities, such as an escalation of the SCOTUS intimidation that might cause individual justices, who lean towards Constitutional-originalism, to one way or another bow out.

“A man’s got to know his limitations,” and for most folks who aren’t fanatics or movie characters, risking family is a limitation. I read that an under publicized attempt against a justice and his family was already too close for comfort, and that was before the ruling that returned decisions about the life and death of innocents back to the will of the people.

The Brandon administration is not arresting those Leftists who are making illegal threats, illegal threats defined as protesting on public streets outside of a justice’s home without gifts of roses or bribes. So, there's really no incentive for the threats to end other than cold weather, seeing as how the Leftist mob is egged on by Leftist politicians such as Schumer, and by any other public voice that is complicit, with non-condemning silence.

[godelian]

Does your mother know what a hardcore misogynist you are?

Ha ha ah!

That is imbecile shaming language!

Kevin Samuels has an interesting definition for the term "worthless woman".

One is the use of shaming language. Two is the need to always be right. There are a few more characterics that he describes in his analysis, but those are the most important ones.

We can safely conclude that you cannot keep a man, because no man can stand you for any relevant length of time. You will die alone. Have fun looking after your cats!

ROF & LMAO

You will never manage to keep a man. As I have said already: No man of value wants to stay long-term with you. Die alone!

[godelian]

You wonder?? Fucking hell!
Use your fucking imagination.

Who even cares?

By the way, Vladimir Putin is religious. I really like that guy. He is doing a great job. Long overdue, really.

Like I said; deluded.

The Sarmat-2 ("Satan-2") nuclear missiles of the Russian Federation are certainly not a delusion. They are very real. As Lukachenko of Belarus recently pointed out, Vladimir Putin will not hesitate to use them, and that is exactly the way it should be.

[henry quirk]

there’s more nefarious, illegal possibilities, such as an escalation of the SCOTUS intimidation that might cause individual justices

Oh, sure: there's all kinds of shenanigans they can get up to, especially when they make the claim the current court acted illegally (though they can't exactly say how).

Truth is: the court, 50 years ago, overstepped and only someone who'll torture the constitution into unrecognizability claims otherwise.

SCOTUS intimidation

That might work in future rulings, but, when it comes to RvW, right or wrong, that's a done-deal and no amount of brow-beatin' (or hand-wringin') is gonna change that.

[henry quirk]

Ha ha ah!

That is imbecile shaming language!

Kevin Samuels has an interesting definition for the term "worthless woman".

One is the use of shaming language. Two is the need to always be right. There are a few more characterics that he describes in his analysis, but those are the most important ones.

We can safely conclude that you cannot keep a man, because no man can stand you for any relevant length of time. You will die alone. Have fun looking after your cats!

ROF & LMAO

You will never manage to keep a man. As I have said already: No man of value wants to stay long-term with you. Die alone!

commonsense is a guy and he ain't (I think) queer, so...

[Immanuel Can]

Would that every Forum member could engage in polite debate.

Yep. For sure.

[Gary Childress]

You wonder?? Fucking hell!
Use your fucking imagination.

Who even cares?

By the way, Vladimir Putin is religious. I really like that guy. He is doing a great job. Long overdue, really.

Like I said; deluded.

It's not worth the bandwidth. The guy thinks it's a great idea to bring nukes into the equation. Probably one of Putin's Internet trolls. Just block him. He's full of shit.

[godelian]

ROF & LMAO

You will never manage to keep a man. As I have said already: No man of value wants to stay long-term with you. Die alone!

commonsense is a guy and he ain't (I think) queer, so...

Really? What a feminized simp!

In that case, he is one of those manginas eternally orbiting and white-knighting in the friendzone, while other men pump and dump the girls that will otherwise never want him.

Seriously, it does not pay to take on the role of emotional tampon.

So, these girls cry on his shoulder when they get dumped by a more masculine chad, while year after year, he patiently keeps waiting for his turn, which will most likely never come. Nice guys may finish last, but emotional tampons do not even get to ever finish at all.

When a man is "just like a woman", such conclusion is meant to be insulting, because it is. Seriously, which woman wants a man who is "just like a woman"? Women don't want them, and men despise them.


[Redacted by iMod]