By that logic, the Justices that overturned "separate but equal" in the Plessy v. Ferguson case committed perjury.
Sorry, it does not work that way. Precedent is given precedence, so to speak, unless some compelling argument is made, or circumstance is encountered, that makes it necessary to overturn it.
In the case of "Roe v. Wade" even the late liberal hero, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg had said before her death that while she favored the outcome, "Roe" was poorly reasoned and argued and was apt - she predicted - to be overturned.
"Roe," because of its weaknesses, lacked the strength to forge a broad social consensus in its favor. That is why it remained so controversial, and why, for example, the courts turned intellectual handstands to avoid answering questions like when life begins. (Please note, the "third trimester rule" does not actually come from Roe, but from later cases.)
Brown v. Board of Education had the force of logic and was able to, in time, solidify a gradually developing social consensus against the "separate but equal" established by Plessy v. Ferguson. Please note that stare decisis was the dominant legal view back then and you will not lack for records of judicial candidates who appeared before the Senate and supported the principle.
The law must be adapted to circumstance and changing social mores and if the courts - the Supreme Court very much included - is precluded from revising law in that light, in due course the courts and the law will be delegitimized. The "conservative" Justices - and please note that "conservatism" in a judicial context means something somewhat different from its ideological definition - were not committing perjury.
Rather they were committing to a principle that, all other things being equal, conduces to a stable legal and social order. The problem being that Roe never conduced to that stable legal and social order and thus why it was revisited and, as the late Justice Ginsburg, living on borrowed time.
Every single one of them should be fired it has nothing to do with our laws. And none of them are following it they have now become an identity that has broken the law and tried to do a power play that is against the law every single one of them should be fired and never be able to be a judge again make another decision it's bullshit they were bought out and now they are a gang as far as I'm concerned This is called the Wake Up Call this is what our politicians are doing they're doing the exact same thing big business buys them out lobbyist buy them out there is an agenda happening it is taking the American people way off the path it's supposed to be on our elected officials are being bought and sold they're being bought we're being sold
This is figures did Roby versus Wade this is our politicians doing what they do this is what our elected officials doing what they do and they got caught this time whoever it to the Press is a hero as far as I'm concerned
What we just witnessed happens every day with our politicians it is so fucking sad it's disgusting they should all be fired we need to wake up people of America we need to wake up we are not one anymore and we need to become one
It would not be a case of lying to congress, and it certainly would not be a case of perjury. If the justices overturn Roe, then they would only need say that the arguments in THAT case, convinced them that Row was poorly decided. The Judiciary are absolutely allowed to change their mind in light of new facts. Also, all they need say IF they promised to respect Stare Decisis in Roe, is that the arguments made by counsel were compelling enough to outweigh stare decisis! It’s that simple. Now… if you could PROVE that a Supreme Court Justice had ALWAYS believed that Roe was poorly decided, and they testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that they would respect stare decisis in Roe v Wade, then possibly they could be impeached! But arrested? No! Judges and SCOTUS Justices are afforded immunity for their decisions while in the commission of their duties.
Yes, because they suddenly saw the merits of Bork's 1980's opinion that they'd never seen or heard of in law school. It's like looking at a child with a face full of chocolate claiming they haven't seen the cake.
@goaded I’m terribly sorry, you lost me? Bork, quite famously did not get confirmed, so he never served on the Supreme Court. (I learned that during the Kavanaugh hearings, because the news guys said he was “getting Borked” and went on to explain I with video clips & everything). Also in this analogy who are the ones who did not read “Bork’s 1980’s opinion” Congress, or SCOTUS? Thanks for your reply sweetie.
I was referring to the justices that are currently on the court. Bork explained his thinking about Roe during his confirmation hearing, it was a large part of the reason he wasn't confirmed. The leaked document sounds like a transcript of that explanation.
They can say what they like, including "arguments made by counsel were compelling enough to outweigh stare decisis", but it beggars belief that any lawyer heading for the supreme court hadn't heard or read Bork's reasoning before their confirmation, let alone all five of them, or that they didn't understand that Roe was the specific reason they were being asked about Stare Decisis. They knew what they were going to do if Roe came up before them, and so did the people who nominated and confirmed them.
@goaded Oh, okay! Well the Bork stuff, is WELL before my time, and I guess not historically important enough to learn about it in either AP history, or AP Government which is sad b/c, it seems like an important enough event in history, that we should have learned about it! As for whether the justices were “put there to overturn Roe” maybe the newer additions were, but the opinion that has been making the rounds on the news and twitter, was Alito’s opinion, and he was confirmed a few years after I was born I think 2006? Regardless, I hope they discover who the leaker was. The independence of the court is at stake, and if we loose the Supreme Court as a trusted institution, our country is over as we know it. And before I get painted as some raving “fascist, right-wing anti-abortion republican”. I happen to be very liberal, I am pro-choice, although I’m not in favor of abortion, but that’s because I’ve actually HAD one when I was 13, and I had been repeatedly raped by my uncle! I am very pro-choice, I just believe in this country, I’m the daughter of an immigrant and a veteran. My mother was. A US Army surgeon who met my dad while on leave in England. And I believe in the rule of law… I’m not naïve, I know that politicians lie, and so do people on job interviews, even Supreme Court nominees. I just figure an attorney who has reached the level of being nominated to the Supreme Court, is savvy enough to answer a question in a way that wouldn't get them impeached, or charged w/ perjury!
"The independence of the court is at stake, and if we loose the Supreme Court as a trusted institution, our country is over as we know it." I couldn't agree more. (And I'm very sorry to hear about your experiences.)
I don't think they care about whether they perjured themselves or not, impeachment would require seventeen Republican senators to vote with the Democrats (assuming they'd all vote to convict). We know how that turns out, having seen it twice in the last few years.
70% of the country wants Roe to stand, but there's no way to get 67 senators to protect it or SCOTUS. If Roberts came out and denounced them, maybe, but I doubt that would happen.
@goaded Well as Mark Twain said “There are lies, damned lies, and there are statistics!” I do think it is disingenuous to look at THAT and say “this shows that 70% of Americans are in favor of keeping Roe”! Gallup is a good polling firm, but without knowing methodology, I mean really? Gallup could have called ten thousand Americans IN ALABAMA and that poll would show 90% of Americans want Roe overturned! Or polled only California and New York and you’d get VERY different results! Also,“What the hell is the difference between “under ANY circumstances“ and “under ALL circumstances”? But the biggest thing I’m struck by is almost HALF the county think that abortion SHOULD be legal, but with restrictions! That is most definitely not what the progressive left want! What if those restrictions are it’s legal, but only in cases of rape, incest, and where the LIFE of the mother is in danger? Would you REALLY include people with THAT attitude to abortion as being in favor of Roe v Wade? I wouldn’t! That being said, even accounting for that, still 51% of Americans are in favor of abortion under any or all circumstances! While it’s not a landslide, it IS a majority. So you are right to say a majority of Americans want to keep Roe. As I have said ad nauseum this week, I am pro-choice, but I despise abortion, but that’s because I actually HAD ONE! I was raped at age 13, but I STILL feel guilt over it! I think Dems pushed too far! We went from “Safe, Legal, and RARE”, to abortion on demand, right up to the time the baby is born! That is so disturbing to so many Americans, including many Dems, and even liberal women who have already had an abortion! We overstepped, we pushed to far, and this the result! If you win a political victory that your opponent believes is morally repugnant, don’t rub it in their face! When Dems come out to in favor of aborting anywhere up to 9mos… your opponent will regroup, and they’ll find a way to defeat YOU! That’s exactly what happened!
Well, OK, but the poll via The Hill says 77% and specifically asked about Roe (in particular, only 13% said they wanted Roe overturned). Even Fox News' poll says 63%.
"But the biggest thing I’m struck by is almost HALF the county think that abortion SHOULD be legal, but with restrictions! That is most definitely not what the progressive left want!" Well, in that they don't want legal restrictions on women's decision, I suppose that's right. They trust pregnant women to make reasonable decisions for themselves and that doctors will refuse to perform late abortions on healthy fetuses. What they don't want are things like forced ultrasounds or long delays.
You're welcome, it's been a nice conversation. (One final statistic: the rate of abortions is lower than it was in 1973, half it's 1980 peak, and has been since 2011. It's not all bad news!)
I'm Republican. I hate when ANY politician lies during their confirmation hearing and then does the opposite once they are in office, which ALL of the supreme court justices did. Democrats do it too. I don't think a bunch of men should ever be making laws about women's bodys NOR should they be applying religion to American law which republicans ALWAYS do. The constitution states 'separation from church and state' yet you keep hearing these republicans applying the bible to abortion issues. Now shockingly; most republican states are planning to make it illegal for rape and incest victims to get an abortion which I am shocked by. I am a republican and think this is the most ridiculous infuriating thing.
Supreme Court justices are supposed to be independent and apolitical. The senate should ensure that. If the number of votes a nominee required was 60 and not just 50, none of the five would have been confirmed.
Can you point out where it says in the constitution it says "separation of church and state"? If you are talking about the 1st Amendment, it just says that the government can't establish a religion or prevent the free exercise of one. Also you don't need to go to the Bible to be opposed to abortion; you just need a little bit of morality and an understanding of biology. As most people agree, murder is wrong, no matter how old the victim is.
@shortster It just happens that many state laws would based on some people's reading of Christian ethics, not Jewish ones or, as the law currently stands, a reasonable balance between the rights of the woman and the fetus? Pure coincidence.
If you allow for abortion you don't allow for any rights of the fetus. Let alone a balance between the two. Also you don't need Jewish or Christian ethics; you just need basic ethics to ban abortion in all cases save for the life of the mother exception.
@shortster Rubbish. It's murder in all cases to intentionally kill a one day old baby. You have to be insane* to think that a just fertilised ovum should have the same rights as that baby or any other living human being, it's not even implanted yet. There is a balance somewhere between those two points. Reasonable people can disagree and come to a compromise. Roe has been that compromise, supported by 70% of Americans, for nearly 50 years.
* Given the chance to save either a container of viable frozen fertilised human ova or a 2 year old child from a fire, I really hope you would not choose the container, no matter how many ova were in it.
@shortster What about when the mother finds out her baby-to-be has some major issue? Something they probably won’t survive, but if they do, they will live in unbearable pain? These situations exist, and the internet is full of their heartbreaking stories. Do you believe the government and all the busy-bodies who claim to care about children should get a say in how those women choose to deal with these incredibly sad realties?
@goaded a fertilized ovum is still alive. Wether you want to consider it fully human or just an animal, it is still alive. By the time it is a fetus I hope you consider it human at that point. As for your hypothetical question; I have two arms I can try to save both.
@shortster no one says it’s not human. Sperm is human. We’re saying it’s not a person. No brain activity or nervous system. Any person in the hospital would be unplugged.
But again, none of that matters. Women have a right to total bodily autonomy. If the fetus could survive on its own great. Don’t give it more rights than you or I have.
@UCrayCray I don't want them to be aborted. I am concerned about how far it goes; do people with Down Syndrome get aborted? What about autism? How long before it becomes Jewish babies? Think that last one is hyperbolic? Maybe, but Hitler started with a baby like you just suggested.
@shortster You believe it reasonable to force mothers to give birth and watch as their babies wither in unimaginable pain because it’s a slippery slope that nobody has gone down in the 50 years since the roe decision? I don’t believe it’s quite the concern you are trying to make it out to be. I don’t think the government, or anonymous internet posters, should be allowed in other people’s hospital rooms to make medical decisions for them. I think that’s a far more worrisome trend than allowing women to choose what’s best for themselves and their families.
@UCrayCray I don't believe euthanasia is reasonable. I also view it as a violation of the hypocratic oath to kill someone as a doctor. If someone is in pain we have a plethora of painkillers. They can't prescribe one or more for the child?
@OddBeMe they are like skin. Part of an individual. Not a unique organism. They are also haploid so unlike skin cells they can't replicate more sperm cells.
@shortster So.. like I said, you believe it’s reasonable to force women to give birth to babies that are not viable, or will only know pain, because YOU don’t believe in euthanasia? How about we allow Jehovah’s Witnesses make all your medical decisions based on their beliefs? Would you okay with that?
@UCrayCray force is not required to continue a pregnancy. Only terminate one. How many babies are stillborn or only know pain? If I ceded those two options would you be happy or would you continue to push for more?
@shortster “force is not required to continue a pregnancy.” Unless the female doesn’t want to continue the pregnancy. Being made to do anything against your will is being forced to do so. I support a women’s right to make choices for her own body, especially when it comes to medical decisions. I don’t think it’s a good idea to allow others in on those decisions. What happens if the doctor and the women decide abortion is the best course of action, only to have some stranger come in and question that choice? Should they have the right to come in and override that decision because they have strong feelings like you do? And you didn’t answer my question about other people making your medical choices for you based on their beliefs. Would you be okay with that?
@goaded that is a reductive analysis to explain the functionality in terms that lay people can understand. Sperm cells can't smell because they don't have a nervous system. They have proteins in their cell membrane. The article says olfactory like; as in it is like your nose; but it isn't a nose.
@UCrayCray Outlawing a medical procedure, that ends the life of someone else, is a far cry from having someone else make your medical decisions for you. Also it isn't just your body it is your baby's life. You are making a medical decision for them. If someone forced you to get pregnant that is illegal and they should be prosecuted for rape. However, if you decided to have sex while ovulating and without any contraceptives. Have you not decided to get pregnant?
@shortster Why do you insist on giving the unborn special privileges that born people don’t have? At no other point in our lives are we allowed to demand someone violate their bodily autonomy to keep alive another. No one will ever demand that of you, yet you demand it of others. And you are trying to make medical decisions for others. Yes. Absolutely, without question, you are. “However, if you decided to have sex while ovulating and without any contraceptives.” So deciding to have sex while ovulating, while using contraception that fails is okay then? Or are you bringing it back to the argument that when a woman chooses to share her body with someone, she must be open to allow others to use her body as well? (That’s usually where these conversations end up when if you engage a pro-lifer long enough.) She had sex, so it negates any ownership she may have had over her own body? That’s really what it all comes down to.
@goaded No honey bunches. You a man that doesn't even have a vagina; do not get the "right" to make laws determining whether some 14 year old girl in Alabama gets to abort the fetus of her step-father or father or may have raped her you sicko. I can't wait for Democrats to add more members to the Supreme Court. Which they will =)
@Kristy7di88ddd I dont know of any republican state that is going to make abortion illegal in cases of Rape. But ultimately unless you live in said state, its no more your business than the same judgement in any other country. If you do live in such a state you at least have the freedom to vote against the judgement of the majority with your feet.
A freedom most of the world, including the unborn do not have to protect their own right to life
@goaded Oh. Also; Lying on the stand is called 'perjury'. You go to jail for that. Each one of them comitted straight up perjury. They need to be thrown in jail
@UCrayCray you are trying to give mothers a right no one else has. To freely end the life of another person. Also my point about women engaging in sex is that the whole point of sex is to procreate. So if you do that you are essentially choosing to get pregnant. It would be like going to an amusement park and then getting angry for having fun. As the point of an amusement park is to have fun.
@monorprise Texas' law has no exception for rape or incest, I'm sure other states have something similar. Mississippi's, does. www.theatlantic.com/.../
@shortster “You are trying to give mothers a right no one else has.” Well let’s be honest here, mothers also have responsibilities no one else has. Sometimes, when you’re the only person who can get a specific job done, you get more say than others in the execution of that job. But that’s not what’s really happening. The right to bodily autonomy is greater than the right to life. We know this because people are not forced to donate parts of their body to save the lives of others. I say you are trying to make special rules for the unborn that don’t apply to the rest of us. You say I’m trying to make special rules for women. Fundamentally, we disagree. So who do you believe should get to decide for my uterus?
@goaded Most of them were confirmed with 60 votes, only a few had merely 50 votes. The U. S. supreme court has NEVER been apolitical. That is just a dangerous lie designed to create the illusion of evenhandedness much like the court secrecy
@shortster @goadedIt is worth noting that most of the States that ratified the 1st amendment had some kind of Established religion and would continue to have some kind of religion effecting laws for more than 100 years thereafter.
The 1st amendment was written and designed by those states and people to keep The Federal government from interfering with the already established religions of States. Indeed the quote of "separation of church and state" is from a letter from later president Thomas Jefferson (who had nothing to do with the amendment due to being in France at the time) explaining why he could NOT intervene against the State of Connecticut which was at that time acting unfavorably towards a minority religion.
@goaded I do not know or care what precise balance of rights the people of Texas care to strike. I certainty can respect said position on the ground that killing a 3rd party to restore to 1 party what anther party has done to them is morally abhorrent.
but then again much of this dispute comes down to whether or not you regard the unborn a human life.
The scientific and Christian religious definition does, the cultural definition of half this country does not. Each state needs to decide that issue in reflecting the values of the people of their state just as they also decide what kind of killing constitutes murder.
Frankly if you can't trust your state legislator to come to an equable compromise on such issues, as someone already born you should be a lot more worried about their laws on murder and assault than abortion.
@goaded A fetus by both scientific and Christian definition being a human life is an extremely important point of consideration for many if not most people in deciding whether or not they are entitled to equal protection of the law with regard to their right to life.
The state need not concern itself with the origins of said definition but merely which one the state choose to observe, and under what exceptions the state chooses to permit said killing of anther human being.
This is the most fundamental power of any state, that can be done in no other place for the simple reason that the power to decide who is entitled to the protection of their rights is a perquisite to anyone having any protection at all.
@shortster If the right to life trumps the right to bodily autonomy, then we would be forcing people to donate from their bodies to help save people who are dying. There is a reason why we don’t force people to give up a part of their liver, or their blood, or their bone marrow, in order to someone else’s life. Do you know why that is?
@monorprise You mean the thing that was removed by McConnell for the last three nominees so that they didn't even need 60 votes to move on to the final vote? If it had still been in place, none of them would be there right now.
@monorprise And was explicitly still in place for the supreme court when Democrats controlled the Senate. Republicans were happy to leave massive gaps in the federal judicial system until they got to fill them, that's why the bar was lowered for lower judges.
You really need to put an "other" button. If the Supreme Court only followed precedent, they would do nothing, if Roe v. Wade is in opposition to the Constitution, then they could overturn it. You just think you understand American Government. You are correct in that they follow precedent, but that's in place to make overturning rulings extremely difficult. They need a balance of both, but protecting the Constitution's kinda their first priority I'll compare this to the case of Dred Scott. He was a slave that sued for his freedom, arguing that he was no longer a slave, as he was on free land and his "owner" brought the case to the Supreme Court to decide if he was free or not. The decision was shocking The decision was that Dred Scot was not free and that he didn't have the right to sue in court, it then went on to say that he was property and that states do not have the right to illegalize slavery, effectively undoing years of progress against slavery. If the Court was led by precedent alone, we might still have slavery to this day
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(30-35)
+1 y
Just politics as usual. Biden lied about student debt forgiveness and is only now taking it seriously when everything else in his agenda has failed. Had anything else he tried actually succeeded, there would be no more talks of forgiveness today. The ONLY reason he is doing so now is to try to save his party at midterms. His little "memo" has been available for a year now but he deliberately waited to make a decision so he could see how his agenda played out and to have an ace up his sleeve should it fail, which it did. Point being this is a political stunt for Biden.
Same with the justices. Sotomayor and Kagan at their confirmations promised to make rulings independent of their parties but have rarely broken away from the Democrat narrative. They said what they had to do to get on the bench. Same with the Conservative justices. They said what needed to be said to secure the bench.
People act like judges at any level are just magically thoughtless and emotionless, but they are people with their own thoughts and beliefs. NO HUMAN can escape who they are or how they think. It is who they are and their actions and judgements will ALWAYS be influenced by their personalities. No bench, title, honors or duties will change that.
Last thing to note is that no law is permanent in a Democracy or Democratic-Republic. The USA is a Democratic-Republic, not a true Democracy. That means the citizens vote in electives they believe will do what is asked, but the citizens do not vote on every single issue. Basically, you vote for who you believe will advance things important to you but you lose your say when they are in office. This system is how politicians can get away with making promises then do something completely different when in office. They know how to game the system. Put enough of these heartless fools in office and they can change the laws we hold precious.
What is a conservative justice? We have two kinds, those that follow the constitution and those who like to make law from the bench.
There is nothing in the constitution that talks about abortion. As such that means it falls under the 10th and is for states to decide up on.
Thus the constitutional justices are following the constitution.
Courts should not be making laws either, they should simple rule if a law is constitutional or not. In the Oklahoma case, sounds like they will be ruling that states have the right to handle this based on the constitution.
If you ask someone a hypothetical question you are only getting an opinion on how they think at that moment. Imagine asking an expert in something to give you their opinion in 10 seconds. It's not the same as if they sat down and thought about it for months. These decisions are based on specific cases. So no, you can't prove anyone lied even if you think they did.
Historically the court usually goes with (perceived) public opinion on many issues too so obviously a justice who is on the court for life is going to change "their" mind over the course of their life for that reason, if no other reason. If polls said 99% of people are pro-abortion the court wouldn't make a peep about it.
Anyhow, Dems are just going to hurt themselves more in the elections if they push abortion as if it's more important than every other issue.
I’m sorry but every single institution in our government is run by politics especially since Roe v. Wade. I think about this if every single liberal justice like Sonia Sotomayor or Alana Kagan One through the same let Miss test as Cavanagh grocers or Amy Coney Barrett they wouldn’t me a supreme court justice sense The 1970s. The sent has tried to play nice Republicans have tried to play nice as well how are Republicans are stupid for doing that. Democrats want justices that agree with Roe v. Wade Republicans want the opposite. So of course we’re going to appoint judges that uphold our points of view this wasn’t the original idea of the court but that’s what it’s become.
You dont trust a politician, ever. They're professional bullshitters and swindlers. It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue, lets agree we've lost control due to big gov. One party is traditionally very much more big gov, and it ain't the republican voters. Sometimes you reap what you sow. I'm not saying this as an attack to anyone. What I am saying is that people need to start considering the bigger picture before they start asking for certain things because it leaves the door opened for lots and lots of abuse once the transfer of power leaves voters and goes to Washington.
It may have something to do with new arguments that they could not overlook. Not being privy to all what was presented as evidence I'm sure they just didn't meet and say let's overturn this. You can never say never because that can make a lier out of you as well. I feel it might very a bit premature to start speculating on what happened, or if it will happen for sure. I'm sure the legal experts will be discussing it to death, and when the judges opinion is published that will also shed some light on it, and it may make people wonder why the liberal judges didn't agree with the other judges. Just as the original ruling this if/when it happens will be argued over for years to come.
That said if they overturn Roe v. Wade they technically would be following the very real precedent of the prior 200 years.
You should read the 1973 edict and ask your self how it is that we can live in a free country where an unelected court an unilaterally impose a complex system of rules written no where by any legislator nor ratified by any American?
Media keeps telling us Roe V. Wade is about the "right to abortion" but really its about the Constitution and federalism. Its not about what the policy on abortion is, but who gets to make that policy.
And generally, justices have been confirmed without a good reason not to. The current situation shows why at least the last three shouldn't have been, they were liars (and Republicans, but I repeat myself).
@goaded Many if not most republican presidents ran on appointing judges that uphold the constitution including overturning Roe V. Wade. The fact that any of them refuse to vote to overturn this oligarchical edict is really more troubling issue.
I recommend you read the Roe V. Wade edict, if you believed in the rule of law and the Constitution you would find it rather distributing that judges from the bench issued a highly complex system of rules no where written or voted on by the people. This is the behavior of an oligarch not a judge, and if a judge can do this, there is nothing stopping them from issuing any other kind of policy no matter how divorced from the constitution or complex in nature they wish.
It would have been far easier for the Court to have simply gone the other way rather than invent a system of complex conditions in which abortion is be permitted.
And yet that decision has stood for nearly 50 years with massive approval of the population and there are no new arguments against it. They all claimed they would respect established precedent before they were confirmed. They all lied.
@goaded They made no specific guarantee nor could they be held to it, I do in fact agree Judges should be held to honor common law from which precedent comes. Common law however has 3 components designed to insure equally and faithfully upholding a law: 1: The written law, this is a recognition that the legislator is supreme and must be honored. 2: The common custom and practice precedent. (This is recognizing that the local executive understanding of the law must be respected.) 3: The past cases of law precedent (This is recognizing that all people should be treated equally before the court as well)
The federal court disregarded all 3 of these when they enacted the 'case law' of roe v. wade. 1: there was no such written law. 2: for 200 years States had exclusive judication in this area and had in many cases banned abortion. 3: States had in cases of law in the prior 200 years exercised this power.
There is a reason even the most ideology leftist judge on the court RBG acknowledged Roe v. wade was terrible case law. The court literally violated all the rules in imposing it. The real problem is there is regardless of the court correcting itself no way to prevent them from continuing to do similar things in the future but their own 'will' to follow the law.
A future court really could outlaw abortion all together, or legalize murdering people who upset you using the same power unchecked.
1. Legislators have had 50 years to "fix" that judgement and never did (mostly because it's popular with 70% of the country). 2/3. Precedent, 50 years of it, is what these "justices" are breaking without any new argument. It is also what they claimed they would not do, under oath.
I'll note that RBG was confirmed by a vote of 98-0 (iirc). The Republican party has moved so far away from responsible governing that they won't even vote to confirm a well-qualified judge nominated by a Democratic president.
"A future court really could outlaw abortion all together, or legalize murdering people who upset you using the same power unchecked." No, they couldn't, and this court couldn't overturn Roe, if the justices were true to their word.
@goaded The only way to "fix" said a "judgement" of the U. S. supreme court short of using the designed tools of nullification which have been largely condemned by the federal government is a Constitutional amendment which you have no more reason to expect the modern politicians in black robes would follow than they follow the existing Constitution.
The fact that it can be blocked by merely 13 out of 50 states and realistically only 1/3rd of congress makes it politically unrealistic as long as that much of the country supports the measure. No one party has ever controlled that much of congress much less the states in the last 50 years.
That leaves us with non-cooperation which largely happened hence why you will find soo few such clinics in anti-abortion states, and violent rebellion which didn't yet happen except at a tiny scale outside of certain clinics. Men will tolerate many evils before we are willing to risk our lives to right ourselves. This is true of every culture on earth. Roe v. wade was a significant step towards pushing us to that armed rebellion but it was not enough.
@goaded Until The states and congress refuse to help enforce unconstitutional edict, or congress is politically willing to remove judges who do, the judges will do whatever they want. Hamiltonian idea that 'noble' and 'educated' gentlemen would behave in such an office given so little accountability was nonsense just as it was in the 6 year senate term.
I think Hamilton and many of his federalist supporters knew that too, believing instead such people would drawn to generally follow the opinion of the elite circles in which they were living. The others along with the anit-federalist simply embraced the idea that the court would be limited by what the other 2 branches and levels of government were willing to enforce.
It was that will to not enforce that fell apart largely the 20th century as a result the establishment of a largely permeant leadership class. When the Federal Goverment became powerful enough as to enable its political leadership to largely buy their reelection. This started after the civil service reform creating a barrier to replacing Federal employees with those loyal to the new politicians agenda, but really took hold after FDR's New Deal create an enormous welfare state of such people and money to dole out largely to supporters. Hence why reelection rates rose from 50% to 90% thereafter. Thou congressional approve remains in the dumps.
No. They could have passed a law saying the opposite of the court. That would have been enough for the court to re-consider their decision and perhaps reach a different conclusion. Until then, the original decision would remain the accepted interpretation of the existing laws and constitution.
If the five "justices" were politicians, they would accept the will of the people. If they were honest judges, they would accept the decisions of the earlier SCOTUS. They're neither, they're oathbreakers installed by a minority to do the will of a minority of the country. In other words, fascists.
Which matches your final paragraph where you equate endangering the lives of other people with risking your own lives, or does making bombs to attack abortion clinics count as risking your own life?
Hamilton also expected that justices wouldn't be confirmed with a tiny majority in the Senate, because they're supposed to be noble and keep their oaths of office. Today's Republican party has made it clear they're for party and power over country.
@goaded 1: Congress does regularly pass laws which their hand picked federal employees then nullify. Its not nearly so common as the court's usurpations again the politically ideas and factions who didn't appoint them but it does happen.
A politician can be appointed to reflect a general view but anyone not accountable is free to do whatever they fancy. As such because ultimately our congressmen are not too much better at picking people who reflect their specific values than we the people are. They need only restrict themselves to that which they can get about 30% support. Unfortunately there is a near infinite domain of what they can do with such support.
2: We agree they should keep their edicts consistent with the written law, past practice, and past cases of law. But you really need to look into history, the precedent of the prior 200 years is on the other side. It is also radically different on almost every other area of federal domestic power. The Federal Constitution was written to great a "Goverment of few and defined" power of a foreign nature not domestic This is why people keep saying there is almost no support for 90% of what they are now doing.
3: Frankly yes risking your own life involves taking any action which would be opposed with such force. Many people have done this, and will continue to do this into the future. Not enough to have any significant impact. In regard to abortion clinics they tend to be doing it to limit the ending the lives of the smallest and most innocent of our citizens not merely endangering them.
@goaded The fact that for 50 years soo many republican judges have violated such rules and betrayed the people who appointed them in stark contrast to Democrat appointed judges proves republicans have been far less concerned with pushing their ideology.
As for Hamilton, it was fairly obvious being an elite does no make them noble or honorable in any sense. Hamilton himself was very much a dishonest and vengeful back stabber. Political personality flaw that in the 18th and early 19th century eventually got him killed by a member of his own faction.
Again keeping the only oath they actually took would require shutting down most all of the Federal Goverment not just row v. wade something they clearly have no interest in doing.
1. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. In the history of SCOTUS, most justices have been confirmed by at least a high 60s vote in the senate, and often in the high 90's or without any objection. Justices so approved are unlikely to make any radical decisions.
Nominating and pushing through candidates on a party line is a clear path to destroying the integrity of the court. (Not to mention refusing to consider or voting en-bloc against a professional jurist for no good reason other than they were nominated by the other side.)
2. "people keep saying" things like that to justify opposing extremely popular policies, not because they're true.
3. It's natural "BORN" citizens for a reason. And, no, bombing clinics is not risking your life, it's terrorism.
It's not the 18th century any more, and hasn't been for a long time.
@goaded 1: I don't think a court which subjects people to complex laws not written by any legislator nor voted on by the people is too concerned with their creditability. Unfortunately this is not a new problem with men who are otherwise largely unaccountable. 2: We have a constitutional system of federalism designed to insure that such "popular" polices are limited to a safe environment where their failures don't harm everyone striping them of rights without recourse. 3: Natural born citizenship clause defines the point by which citizenship begins at least for one government not the protection of the laws. Even non-citizens get the protection of the laws.
Stripping people of rights in an unaccountable manner is exactly what today's court is threatening to do. Name a single right taken away by Roe, or the other rulings over decades upholding the right to privacy.
@goaded The right to life of the unborn, and the right to vote on the laws which govern us. How abortion is tied to privacy anther right not mentioned in the Federal Constitution is a real mind trick. But I suppose if you think the unwritten right to privacy is so supreme then the same logic should permit anyone to kill anyone I they like.
@goaded How is it not a violation of privacy of a man to be watched on in a back ally killing anther man?
How is it not a violation of the right to "dignity" as expressed in the court's unenumerated gay marriage edict to prohibit a man from shooting anther person who insults or degrades him?
How is it not a right to "privacy" to be observed stealing someone else's property?
These are all more reasonable interoperations of the right to "privacy" than abortion because they actually involve the concept of privacy. The trouble is they are all wrong because there is no supreme protection of the right to privacy in the federal Constitution at all. Not for the federal government and certainty not for the States. Logically if that were a defense there would be no domestic law.
You see the problem with rights is they tend to conflict with other rights such as the right to property, liberty, and life. This is why we only ever authorized governments with defined powers to infringe upon a finite set of rights via a defined process that respects the will of the majority at as many self-governing levels as possible.
Otherwise there is no way to know your not allowed to kill, enslave, or steal from anyone to protect one an infinite domain of rights until 5+ hand picked men in black robes decide decide otherwise.
Any draft that came out of SCOTUS is an illegal test and cannot be judged by anyone.
SCOTUS is independent of any executive or legislative power. The fact that they have changed their minds is possible because of this independence.
Sustaining the independence of the Court is crucial to effectuating conformity with the rule of law.
What we are witnessing today is an attack on one of the major US institutions, by the same ones that accuse others of doing so.
The big problem is the over politicization of SCOTUS in which POTUS and the Senate put their own contribution in the nomination and validation of members.
The member may have given an opinion as a private citizen, but when he becomes a member of SCOTUS his status changes and what he says can vary as and when he wants.
Four of them committed perjury, they should be expelled with prejudice until replacements can be vetted. No government position should be for life and have so little oversight.
Because they're corrupt as hell. I mean, corruption is inevitable when it comes to the amount of power wielded by these departments but it's beyond acceptable and has been for decades.
Do you want them to follow the precedent that black people are worth 3/5 of a vote too? Not all precedents are good ones. And technically, overturning Roe v. Wade is following precedent, and that precedent is what was in place BEFORE Roe v. Wade. You're just splitting hairs at this point. The Supreme Court has the right to overturn any decision made by Supreme Court, in light of new arguments or evidence or in light of a changing of the times. How terrifying would it be if any decision made by the court was set in stone for all time? Judges make mistakes just like anyone else. What if Roe v. Wade had gone the other way to begin with and abortion was banned across the nation? Would you want that to be the law for all time? Forever and ever and ever? Of course not, that's why overturns exist in the first place. All laws should be challenged to see if they can stand the test of time, and laws that can't should be discarded.
The "mistake" was these justices lying on the court upon being confirmed. They comitted perjury; and I am a Republican stating this. No man or supreme court justice should believe they have the right to tell a kid who may have been raped by a family member that they have to keep the fetus of that rapist you sick f*cks. The argument is moot anyway; because after Biden; the next Democrat will add seats to the supreme court and i will be laughing at all the christian republican moron men leading smelly states like Alabama.
@Kristy7di88ddd They didn't lie. The question was simply, "Would you follow precedent", not "would you follow every precedent ever, every single one, ever always for sure". You're being petty. The court exists to interpret law or make the final say on laws in question. It's asinine to have the ability to overturn precedents, but then not expect them to use it. The Supreme Court favors precedent in the majority of cases, but there are exceptions to every rule. If the tables were turned and Roe v. Wade had banned abortion, you would be jumping for joy at the prospect of them overturning that precedent and allowing abortion to be legal again. Don't be a hypocrite.
Hahahhaa I think that YOU are being petty. YES. They did lie. Their language on the stand clearly indicated they were not going to touch Roe Vs Wade as it was decided by other Supreme Court Justices. This entire conversation is a joke; because the next Democrat will SURELY be adding more supreme court justices and I will be laughing at all your Male Christian Republican nutjobs that are trying to force incest survivors to have the children of their rapists. f*ck off hahahahahaaha
@Kristy7di88ddd You're being petty and vindictive. Your arguments are based purely in your own rage and lack of emotional control. That's why they don't hold up.
"The Supreme Court has the right to overturn any decision made by Supreme Court, in light of new arguments or evidence or in light of a changing of the times" In this case, the argument is almost exactly Bork's argument from 1987, which kept him from being confirmed (along with the fact that he was willing to go along with Nixon's cover-up), and the times have changed in favour of abortion being legal in at least some circumstances, not the opposite.
@goaded Public opinion on abortion has been split since forever and I don't think it's moved one way or the other. The Democrats held majorities in the senate and the house for almost 40 years until the 1990s and never bothered codifying Roe v. Wade into law. That tells me they're either not on the abortion hype train or just don't care about it. The possibility of the case being overturned was always there, and it got higher with every conservative justice appointed to the court. The issue will always be hotly contested. I don't think a time will ever exist where there is a large majority opinion one way or the other.
I mean, I'm not surprised they lied. And personally, I'd think that their opinions didn't change at all. I think with the case of Roe, there's really nothing new that comes into the limelight.
I think they probably did lie knowing that banning abortions has been a heavily pursued goal for conservatives.
Yes, the point is that was their plan. And even the “pro women” conservative senators who campaigned tht they would make sure the new justices promised, were in on it.
All justices lie to congress. All congressional reps lie to. Thanks for showing your political bias though. There isn’t a political solution to social problems, it starts with better parenting and human rights for children. Eventually we won’t need a state as all the reasons it claims to need to exist will go away l if we cared more about and spent more time and effort on our most precious resource of all.
Also, is the Trump button ever going to get put aside? I can appreciate how difficult your position of lacking any kind of coherent or substantive argument is, and why it is easier to bleat Orange Man Bad with the other sheep on command, but he’s been gone for a while now, how about coming up with something new besides irrational hatred of whatever the current thing your echo chamber tells you to?
I don’t think this is an unreasonable request; I’m actually trying to help you strengthen your ability to argue your cause so that you might show up better armed for a battle of wits in the future.
Well Trump just got put in Contempt of Court in his corruption trial. Just this last week. Just cuz you zoned out doesn’t mean he isn’t still right wing messiah.
Well technically, most didn't say they would not overturn it. What they claimed was it was precedent. It takes extraordinary circumstances to overturn precedent. So they are claiming that bar has been reached. I think it is more difficult in the cases of Alito and Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh claimed this was precedent on top of precedent. Alito said Roe v Wade was the law of the land.
They all went into their confirmation process intending to do this. Thomas claimed he didn't discuss the most consequential SCOTUS ruling of the year (that his wife hates with a vengance) while he was in law school. No way. None of them got 60 votes in the senate for a reason.
@goaded Well, the point is that certain Republican senators claimed they were misled. Susan Collins claim to fame is that she is "moderate". Even if that is a lie, it is her calling card.
Trump and McConnell have exposed nearly all the faults in the current system. They need to be plugged. 60 votes in the senate for any lifetime appointment, possibly the same for impeachment (Trump would still have got away with it, but much less would be inviting mayhem). Prosecution for alleging voter fraud without evidence, perhaps? Their approach was that as long as enough of them lied, they could steal power. That's not acceptable.
I don’t expect any perjury charges to be pursued though I think there’s enough evidence. Just remember now liberal justices won’t be inclined to be truthful at nomination hearings.
Turkey is a liberal Democrat, but unsurprisingly neither of you actually engaged his arguments.
Odd, you’re not an attorney and you’re a rabid leftist propagandist. Your claim is BS. And note what Turley said about leftists and 2nd Amendment cases.
At the end of the day, Democrats are Communists and behave as such these days, with censorship, massive corruption, purges, and trying to criminalize opposition to their totalitarian agenda.
Turley refers to Heller as a counter example (gun control in DC, iirc), but there were many other SCOTUS decisions prior to that that allowed for various levels of gun control (the "assault rifle" ban, for example, was found constitutional). AFAIK, Roe was the first one for abortion and only clarified by a later decision.
The ugly fact is that what's happening is clearly the endgame of what Republican politicians have been pushing for since Bork. Clarence Thomas claimed under oath not to recall discussing Roe in law school, despite it being a massive event at the time he was there (he was either lying, or a really poor law student; either way he shouldn't have been confirmed). The others all claimed to believe it was settled law that they would leave alone, without mentioning the quiet part: "until we have the votes".
Oh, look, at the same time you were accusing me of not "engag[ing Turley's] arguments", and making the ridiculous assertion that "Democrats are Communists", I engaged his arguments.
Did you hear about Republican legislators wanting pardons from Trump for their actions during the insurrection? Innocent people don't need pardons.
@goaded: Innocent people need pardons because the Democrat-infested DOJ engages in political prosecutions.
You didn't engage his arguments until I criticized you for doing so, but barely. As for abortion, the Court has also ruled numerous times, including placing/upholding some limits on it:
So your argument goes up in smoke. And although the Second Amendment is rather vague, the Constitution doesn't mention abortion at all, so the constitutional basis for it as opposed to private firearm ownership is far lower. Indeed, the ruling Roe v Wade was based on Griswold v Connecticut, which was about the right of married couples to buy condoms! With no constitutional basis and a weak underlying jurisprudence (as recognized by may leftists over the years, including Justice Ginsburg), it was bound to be reversed in part or in whole at some point. The abortion issue should have had a legislative solution, which would have allowed for public debate rather than illegal Democratic intimidation of the Supreme Court (cf. Schumer in 2020) and put a democratic imprimatur on the resulting vote (and that's democratic with a small "d").
The State of Maryland (and others) have an assault weapons ban that may be struck down by the SCOTUS, but I'm not aware of a single assault ban that was not the result of legislative action, as was the federal ban that barely passed in 1994. And that separation of powers issue will keep recurring as long as Democrats attempt to abuse the court system rather than enact their agenda democratically.
But the Second Amendment and abortion are not analogous issues- the latter is about life and death.
I'm not even opposed to first trimester abortion, but I sure am opposed to Democratic mob rule, intimidation of the courts, and the abusive of Congress' impeachment power to promote an extremist agenda.
No, innocent people don't need pardons. It's literally an admission of guilt. Which is why, for example, Roger Stone's sentence was commuted instead. That meant he didn't have to testify against Trump.
You were still typing your bullshit accusation when I posted my comment, they were posted within seconds of each other.
Your "other key abortion cases" are all since Roe, you idiot, and access to guns is obviously about life and death. One man killed 74 people in Las Vegas.
I don’t like it, but they’ve all been on the Supreme Court for a couple years now. They’re allowed to change their minds if they feel it’s in the best interests of the law. If Earl Warren had stayed a conservative we wouldn’t have a lot of our most famous Supreme Court cases.
Given how much both sides of the isle lie to push an agenda it's politics as usual. The problem is that people are so quick to go after the side they are opposed to and quick to do nothing when their side lies. Just remember when you are not willing to call your side out, you are signing off on the lies being told. That makes you guilty by association and failing to take action. You are also a hypocrite a well.
It´s part of politics, the judges are political in the US and politics are changing. If you wanna impeach them you have to prove that they planned to overturn Roe before they came to office. Because otherwise they still could argue that they reacted on some states bringing on stricter abortion laws. I consider that close to impossible, generally speaking lying is never ok but in such cases there doesn´t seem a way to prove that they lied.
They shouldn’t have said that in the first place. Their job is to correctly read the constitution. Precedent doesn’t mean good. Their supposed-future ruling is correct about the constitution, but they shouldn’t have committed to precedent. And neither should progressive supreme justices
12.2K opinions shared on Society & Politics topic.
How, exactly, did they "lie"? By discussing "settled precedent?" This decision reverses a weak, historical wrong and restores abortion to elected legislators in the states. One could look at this as Kavanagh's, Gorsuch's and Barrett's revenge for being beat up in the confirmation process. It was easy for them. They chose to actually read the Constitution literally and not read "rights" in it.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(18-24)
+1 y
That question shows you don't understand what Roe v. Wade actually says, what the new opinion does with that, and how the Supreme Court works. Precedent is controlling for lower courts, not the Supreme Court. Every written opinion ever has in some way changed "precedent," otherwise they wouldn't have written one.
If the Supreme Court was smart enough, they would not go against 70% of the country
I am not sure Roe vs Wade would be overturned because if it was; there would be protests and riots across the country and it would be all the Supreme Court fault
1
0 Reply
Anonymous
(25-29)
+1 y
Are there still fools who believe that a politician is telling the truth? And what about the "conservatives" who are actually more liberal now than the liberals 15 years ago? There are videos with Biden, Obama, Clinton, in which they say only 10 years ago that they are strongly against gay marriage. Biden himself said Roe had gone too far. And about 10-15 years ago, not before 50. The videos can still be found on the Internet, there are them, look for them. So, so much for the extremism of the conservatives and the common sense of the liberals.
When you move so far to the left, it’s expected that the best Conservative will be a snake as well. Tell me that never crossed your mind? I love when people lie, rationalize, say men are women etc etc. but the moment leftists are under attack, let’s question people’s morality. That is pure selfishness right there.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Lol I love how it’s the Republicans fault, as if they control the goddamn Supreme Court.
Don’t like the judges? Threaten to stack the courts and add more!
Get in a judge that you wanted? Blame the Republicans anyways!
The Left’s hypocrisy really is something to behold.
They do control the goddamn Supreme Court. They've nominated 6 of the 9 justices, all of these five liars were nominated by a president that lost the popular vote and confirmed by senators representing less than half the country.
Suddenly, all the leaks from SCOTUS are about how Roberts is trying desparately to salvage the reputation of the court (from people who think a literal witch trial judge is a worthy jurist). If he comes out and says expand the court, or impeach the Trump nominees for lying to congress, he'll have earned a good place in history.
Once Breyer retires, the total number of votes to confirm the 9 justices will be 528 out of a possible 900. Unprecedented, thanks 100% to Republicans.
just as much the fault of the neo libs as neo cons. lee camp has a great piece on this on whats left of his youtube channal, moments of clarity. honestly its worth a look
Forget about that for a minute... Kavanaugh lied directly under oath while being interviewed and was STILL approved by the Conservative led Senate. Apparently, lying doesn't matter if you're about to be a member of SCOTUS.
Roe hasn’t been overturned yet. For all we know, Roberts might have asked for a draft of what overturning Roe would look like in order to craft a compromise.
both parties lie constantly lets just be honest. When was the last time you felt truly represented by anyone in washington? Forget the politics for a second and just tell me the last time in your whole life they did something for YOU. Pro Life, Pro Choice, disregard that for a sec and lets agree we've lost our country in the way our founders intended for it to be.
@OddBeMe people are that gullible. Also many are under informed or outright misinformed. They could know where their rep stands on the 1-2 big issues for what they care about but none of the others. Or they dont know the reps voting record or track record. I've met Americans who dont even know the difference between the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and I've even heard a guy say WWII was fought to end slavery in America. I think we need testing prior to people voting.
@t-8900 can’t disagree with you there. But my point is what they currently think. It’s just strange that we have such a low rating of congress as whole, but our individual reps are awesome.
Awesome isn't the word I'd use for any of them really. Most take bribes I'm sure. Lots of pussyfooting around the floor, lots of prostrating, lots of bs and little effect the majority of the time. They parrot what their donors want, not what they believe in. Also "Liberal" justice? Do we still have those or do we have neo cons and neo libs?
@OddBeMe the 90% reelection rate started when the same politicians acquired the vast domestic powers to buy votes in the 1930s. As it turns out having the power to hand out large amounts of cash enables a politician to insure that cash disproportionally goes to their supporters thus insuring their continued hold on power.
You're talking about green card holders, and you're even wrong about that. I'm talking about Americans.
It was a 20 year war, and many American contractors were there with their families. Doctors, nurses, engineers, carpenters, architects...
Many brought their entire families with them, because they didn't want to miss seeing them grow up. These people only went there because they had the best military on Earth protecting them.
The libs said they chose not to leave, and they weren't left behind. Yes, brilliant. They chose to stay with the terrorists that openly cut people's head's off. Yes, I totally believe Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon.
Colonel Oliver North said that Biden left them behind as a gift to the Taliban, just like he left them 80 billion in weapons. China is now coming to get their gifts of our military technology, so they can reverse engineer them.
It's blatant to anyone with a brain that both Putin and Jinping have dirt on the Biden's.
I'll answer your question when you tell me how Americans were not left behind. And you also need to explain how Republicans have control over a Democratic government. You said the Republicans blocked the Afghans from coming. How does that work?
Do you want me to explain how green cards work? I've gotten a couple for people. It means you are a permanent resident of the United States, and Joey left them behind.
prove that, not all were asked that question. They also said things like they doubted that would happen. They also are not overturning anything. They are giving states their right to decide.
Man It sure is fun watching the political left lose thier minds over losing control if kids. First you lost the ability to groom them, now your losing the ability to murder them.
Brown-Jackson said she couldn't define what a woman was; even though she was nominated for being a woman. So it isn't like the liberal justices don't lie during their confirmation hearings.
Not ok but they knew they wouldn't be approved if they said the truth, besides the point they probably did say the truth at that particular time as some of them been there for a long time already.
This shows you what kind of justice you will get if you always tell truth in court.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
woo hoo! Another leftist propaganda post which is itself, lies. I mean accidentally misleading. 🤣 To answer your question in the most basic way, yes. Everything's fine.
You seem really stuck on what you consider to be lying, but there are alternative explanations - a change of mind being the primary one. Even if they did lie, why does that matter now?
I'm going full Goodwin, here, but apathy and agreement with some of their policies is how the Nazis came to power. In this case, you're on the wrong side.
Sorry, but in this case you are, and it's the wrong one.
Nobody is forcing people to have abortions, nobody is forcing people to have gay marriages, and nobody is forcing people to use contraceptives. The argument is simply that people who want or need to should have the right to do so.
@goaded People can have gay marriages now, and can also use contraceptives. Nothing is stopping them or will stop them. They can also have abortions - they just have to go to more trouble to have them. If and when The Supreme Court invalidates Roe, that will still leave 29 states, Canada, and Mexico as places to get abortions. Unfortunately, in my personal view, but still that will be available.
I know you feel strongly about this, but that does not mean that I am wrong and you are right, or the inverse. Let's talk calmly and not use those terms, ok?
Check a map - 1200 miles is an exaggeration. Also, if they want it badly enough, 1200 miles is not excessive. All sorts of women's organizations will be arranging travel for a lot of women to kill their babies in out-of-state clinics.
It's hundreds of miles in each direction and the new laws make helping people get an abortion a sueable offence. Minimum $10,000 to help someone in need (per person who sues, not per person you help). Who can afford that?
Oh, and they're talking about making abortion the crime of murder in Louisiana. You don't get to murder someone in another state and just come home again.
Leaving aside the fact it's not murder. If people can get abortions anyway (you said "Nothing is stopping them or will stop them"), what's the point of making them suffer for it?
As an inconvenient adopted person, I probably came pretty close to being an abortion victim. I don't think anyone should be killed to convenience women.
I see, you said: "People can have gay marriages now, and can also use contraceptives. Nothing is stopping them or will stop them. They can also have abortions..."
Louisiana is considering a law that treats abortion as murder.
And how sure are you that gay marriages and contraceptives will stay a right? They're both based on SCOTUS decisions based on the right to privacy, same as Roe. Gay marriage was only codified six or seven years ago and contraceptives in 1965.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(30-35)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
Anonymous(18-24)+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
+1 y
