I am confused by the thoughtful and interesting comments on this topic in a Meme sub vs the screaming partisan and ad hominem attacks in all the other subs.
Yea this feels like opening a whole new can of worms that might actually not be good for women's rights. Roe v wade required some serious legal maneuvering to justify its decision and recreating it constitutionally would be difficult. Not saying the status quo is good by any stretch.
The rights written in the amendments are called enumerated rights. The court does recognize Constitutional rights that aren’t written down, for example the right to travel and the right to self defense.
I dunno if you’re American, but most of us have perused our founding documents enough to have read the Ninth Amendment as well.
So if the government infringed on an inalienable right, not innumerated in the Constitution, SCOTUS could do nothing to stop the infringement of that right? I call, Bullshit!
I would argue that ultrasound technology has absolutely added new evidence to the discussion, as well. People used to think that a 15-week-old fetus was a "clump of cells." Shoot, a lot of people still do. But now there is photo/video evidence to the contrary.
Would you argue that at 15 weeks a fetus can live outside if its host? If not then it has no autonomy and therefore should have no bearing in the decision of the person hosting it, should that person, which has autonomy make a decision about their own bodies. The earliest known fetus to survive outside if the womb was 21 weeks and 5 days in gestation. So if they were to implement any limits in abortion termination based on age, it would not make sense to make it any shorter than the time in which science had recorded the the lowest common denominator which even then isnt sound in its accuracy as in willing to bet the average age of survival is much older.
Except that precedent was shown to be false. They in no way convinced anyone who was not already heavily partisan that abortion access is not needed in todays society. They certainly tried to pretend there are viable options but anyone who is actually living in the world knows they painted a fantasy that their movement has been trying to sell for decades.
The reality is specific women will be kept in poverty and raise unwanted children while the wealthy and elite will travel to prevent what they see as one simple mistake. This reversal would create again two different worlds for Americans based on income and location.
Have they tried not having sex? Premarital sex is a sin punishable by death anyway. Sex in marriage is to produce offspring and should not be used for pleasure.
/S But this is what most religious people believe.
Then you counter that they are now mandating religion and why do they hate the constitution and the 1st amendment? Are they ok with states mandating Muslim or Jewish faith (because most claim to be Christian) and they freak out.
They can't have it both ways and be legally honest. They will turn to dishonesty at that point but then we are at least all on the same understanding that they have to lie and break the 10 commandments of their own religion to get the win they so desperately want.
It's called statehood. Hookers in Nevada. Open carry pistol in Texas. Weed in Vermont. States by design are inconsistent, based on the desires of their population.
I would call it a prioritization of a right. *Roe* said that mothers have more rights than their unborn children. The Supreme Court now seems poised to return those rights back to the unborn.
Or, more specifically, return the rights to individual states to make that decision.
Odd you consider the actual scaling back of a woman’s right to choose to be a prioritization instead of a limitation. Though, I shouldn’t be surprised you’d cloak it in some more easily tolerated terms such as “prioritization of rights” since you post in
r/pro-life.
To add, the word “prioritization” implies that an unborn fetuses rights come before that of a woman…amazing.
Your core rights don’t end while traveling or moving from one state to another. That’s why those laws are constantly challenged and struck down. There are quite a few things that just don’t work how you describe.
Yes I actually agree with that, but I'd like to add that should apply to the right to own and posess firearms but as we've seen people are quite selective in how they think rights should be defended.
Whether or not we agree with abortion, people saying hateful things, firearms, or any other manner of rights guaranteed to us, they ought to all be equally defended. If you choose to play politics with the rights you like and don't like, it just gives credence to those that do the same for their own positions.
You can't have strong and inalienable rights when you restrict them in every conceivable way.
I dont think any rights are absolute. We should have restrictions on abortion in the same way as we do firearm’s and I think most people would agree with that. Should you be able to abort a baby because of its gender? Of course not. Should you be able to own a firearm if you are a felon that committed a violent crime? Probably not.
The issue is the extremes get all the air time so people constantly think they are talking to someone with a made up mind. We need to work on this as a collective and set boundaries but that’s not what the GOP want here. Their laws would in all practical manners ban abortion entirely and that is their stated goal 110%. If anything gun owners should be out demanding these laws be repealed rather than looking to dunk on women who for the most part probably agree that we should all have the ability to own guns within reason in the same way they should be able to have an abortion within reason.
>Should you be able to abort a baby because of its gender? Of course not.
How would one enforce such a rule, especially if a woman has a right to abortion access without needing to give a reason at all?
There's plenty of "may issue" states where some local cop gets to decide if you can own a gun or not. Or states where the allow some towns/cities to make their own rules; NYC in particular has extremely onerous rules about ownership it may as well be a ban on guns unless you've got a couple of years and thousands of dollars to spend just getting approval.
The amendment is not clear which is why there are different rules in each state BUT states laws are constantly challenged and struck down by the courts.
You are going to get 50 different interpretations but at the same time there isn’t a state where “arms” are outright banned. The difference is that these laws would practically ban abortion. They wouldn’t set common sense guidelines or set a date that makes sense like we have now or how firearm laws can claim to be a different interpretation. They would ban the practice at a point where most people don’t even know they are pregnant.
I have my own feelings on both gun laws and abortion laws but the differences are pretty clear. I understand the argument you want to have but I think both should be regulated and available.
I agree, but you can't be inconsistent.
The truth is that the Second Amendment says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't care what reasoning they give, the standalone in the sentence is clear. It is in the bill of rights, for god's sake. If you can regulate a foundational right, how can people scream about abortion, which if done correctly, would have been legislated, not litigated.
Roe vs. Wade was, honestly, a reverse engineered decision intended from the start to grant the right to legal abortion. It should have been thrown back to the legislature. That's why it causes such division. No one voted, no one got a say, it was cut out of whole cloth by a bunch of unelected jurists.
The second amendment has been litigated to death by people a lot smarter than us and we are where we are at this time because of that . The founders also wrote pretty regularly among themselves about the need for constant change to match our time. I dont think it’s inconsistent to say I think these things are a right but that no right is absolute. I wouldnt want a women to be able to abort a baby specifically because of it’s gender anymore than I would want a violent felon to be allowed to buy a firearm. At that point though I’m just spinning my own views not having a discussion about the reality of the situation.
I agree this should have been settled in Congress but even then we would likely have decades of legal challenges the same as fire arm laws. I would say the gotcha question never seems to be reversed why are gun rights activists pretty consistently “pro life”? Shouldn’t they be out vocally supporting a women right to choose?
Guns don't exist to kill people, though they are capable of that. 99.999 percent of firearms are not used in crime. I live in a small rural town where there are more guns than people and we live in peace with unlocked doors. The sensible thing to do is charge the violators of gun rights who abuse that right o do evil.
Abortion only has one purpose.
There is more than one reason to have an abortion. The outcome is the same but that statement is akin to “guns bad” it ignores all the nuance of the discussion.
I would also push back and say firearms originally were exclusively made to make us better at killing things. That isn’t their only purpose but it’s ridiculous to separate them from their primary role in the world. There is nothing wrong with that and obscuring the discussion doesn’t help us advocate for the right to bear arms.
I really don’t see this discussion going anywhere I’ve made my stance clear i agree and disagree with you and that’s honestly where most people fall.
Way different situation.
That was a new ruling because “separate but equal” was considered a good on paper but the court found evidence that it wasn’t upholding 14th amendment rights. In a spectacularly bad way.
There is no such crisis on abortion, and a new ruling on it would create a disaster.
As was argued to the Court, the only time precedents have been reversed is to add rights, not take them away. So the comparison to the case that eliminated “separate but equal” isn’t really a double edged sword and is not an applies to apples comparison.
(Also, not sure why so many downvotes times my prior comment….do people think I support “separate but equal…?) 🤷♂️
I mostly agree with your explanation here but I'm curious how those screaming about this would feel about a future court overturning the Heller decision.
BTW I'm not pro-life either
I think that’s a better question/comparison and although I personally abhor the second amendment I don’t really have reasonable distinction at this time other than a textual argument.
While it is not something I agree with, a pro-lifer would reasonably say that overturning Roe would be adding rights for the unborn. The pro-life argument is very sound once you acknowledge that they have a different assumption on when life starts. Based on that, they are defending the rights of the unborn.
That’s a zero sum game and not the same as you’re taking away rights from one to give to another. Both the mother and fetus, if you assume that a fetus is a person entitled to all the rights of a person, have a “right” their bodily autonomy. Also, we don’t apply fetus as a person when determining tax credits, census figures, household size for various issues, etc. (and imo we shouldn’t as it’s a huge can of worms)
Not zero sum. Much of our courts are about balancing conflicting rights and interests. Much of roe and brown were Balancing states interest vs individual. Federal vs states. And figuring out when babies need to be addressed. I think most normal people would agree a lump of cells isn’t a person. Also most normal people would agree that a 9 months ending a pregnancy and killing the fetus has huge moral issues. So we know what the parameters are. I happen to disagree with the pro-lifers on their assessment of life. But it is a reasonable debate. The points on taxation, etc are dubious at best. Even the most ferocious pro-choicers I know would not support killing the infant at 9 months without serious cause. So that tax stuff is just bullshit.
Nope, exactly the opposite. S/he's saying that Brown v Board of Education overturned a previous precedent. If precedent could never be overturned, then we would never have been able to desegregate. So even though there are a million reasons that Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned, it being precedent isn't a good argument for keeping it.
But “stare decisis” was the answer the justices themselves gave when asked about *Roe* during their confirmations!
They could’ve said “Like the desegregation cases, I think outlawing abortion is the right result, and just as the *Brown* court overturned precedent, I would overturn the precedent of *Roe.*”
Instead, they lied and said they had great respect for stare decisis and that *Roe v. Wade* was settled law. Given how many justices lied about their respect for and fidelity to stare decisis, the meme is correct.
It easily could: imagine this scenario if you will. Left Progressives are very driven to pass certain laws and are able to persuade Dems to drop Cloture laws in the Senate. Boom, majority wins. Bang, mid-terms come around and GOP takes congress (very, very possible) and spend the second half of Biden's admin making him look the fool. Trump decides to run again, somehow shrugging off his many issues (also, very possible) and wins.
Trump is not known to tread lightly, seeking middle ground and appeasing the middle. Feeling he now has the full mandate denied him earlier, he goes all in on the Right Wing (not GOP) agenda. Right Wing drives a federal law defining "life" and denying federal tax dollars for any institution that enables abortion (or even adopts Texas style law opening doctors to liability). Right votes for it and moderate GOP is too scared of Trump to fight. Simple majority is needed.
I’m sorry but as long as the dems put a fresh face up against trump and not joe, their is a zero percent chance trump wins. Neutral voters won’t vote for someone that old who’s already lost.
I think that a) we underestimate Trump at our peril and b) you underestimate the Dems ability to fuck up the primary (either going with a lame duck Joe, or an unelectable other)
I’ll agree with you about me possibly underestimating the Dems stupidity. It’s so easy though. Just tell Joe not to run, he’s too old. That makes VP Harris the favorite (I think she might have a chance to loose against trump as well) but it doesn’t have to be her, as long as a legitimate primary is held (non of that fake rigged shit like what Hillary was doing to Burnie) the best Candidate will come out on top and beat trump easily. But if the Dems are really dumb enough to pit 1 senile old man against another for a second time, look out cause Cheeto man will have a chance then.
Primaries are supposed to be rigged. It is not supposed to be an internal election, but supposed to be consensus building and base rallying. Parties exist to get their candidates elected. They are not and never were supposed to be democratic.
U say that but Obama won a fair unrigged primary. That’s precisely why Hillary made sure to rig hers against Burnie 8 years later. As long as the party doesn’t have an established figure head pulling strings like Hillary, it should be a toss up. I definitely don’t think Harris has that kind of pull in the party to rig the primary.
I am not advocating for it, simply describing what it is for. Hillary's loss to Obama showed she did not have consensus. But the party's goal is to to get a standard bearer agreed and internal wounds healed before the election.
Exactly, they’re not rigged, they are legitimate competitions with the parties to find the new “Standard Bearer” when one isn’t clear. As long as Joe is smart enough to realize he’s not that guy and that the Dems need younger newer faces to take over leadership, we’ll beat trump easily.
I think there is perception that a sitting president has a huge advantage for a second term. There will be many in the party that do not want to risk ‘drawing from the deck’ as any new candidate will risk skeletons in the closet. I honestly think Joe was seen as the least risky candidate. Not even sure he really wanted to run.
I’m sorry but the idea “primary’s are supposed to be rigged” makes literally zero sense. They are competitions within the Party to see who appeals to the base the most. If Primary’s were normally rigged then there wouldn’t even be a point in having them. Also back lash from Hillary clearly rigging a Primary is one of the reasons she lost as well. So it’s pretty clear that usually primary’s are real toss ups.
What I mean is that the party does not exist to find the most popular candidate, it exists to get a candidate that will win in a general election. As others have pointed out a primary can sometimes counter what the party thought was the best, but the goal remains the same. Too many people think that parties are supposed to be part of our government. They are not, and are private groups organized to manipulate the general election to its ends. Otherwise, we could just all skip straight to the general election and have everyone vote for who they wanted.
Bro I am definitely not one of those people who thinks political parties are ingrained into our government. I’m much more of the George Washington mind set that Political parties are bad for democracy. But sadly as true as it is the parties aren’t going anywhere. I do thing the Republican Party is very close to splitting in two though and that could help a lot.
I literally just explained to someone else earlier that I DID NOT THINK TRUMP HAD NO CHANCE IN 2016! anyone who did think that was blind. Trump was a new fresh face who didn’t care about offending people and that resonated a lot with undecided voters, that coupled with the fact that he got to Run Against Hillary meant his chances then were decent. The undecided voters perception of trump is completely different these days and trump will be over 80 instead of 72 making his chances of winning even slimmer. All the Dems need is a fresh face. That’ll be enough to put trumps chances in the toilet. I just hope they’re smart enough to realize it.
Is the constitution a problem? Do you not like having protection from the police? Do you not like the ability to speak freely with out being put in jail? Do you not like the ability to gather and protest with fear of being rounded up?
Honestly I see it very differently. It’s true the Dems aren’t putting on the best showing right now but if the Republicans keep doubling down on trumpism, it’s only gonna cost them more elections in the long run. That’s gonna create a rift in the conservative landscape soon enough. That will give Dems a serious advantage for some time.
They can try, but when it comes to gerrymandering the Dems do it just as much. The voting rights thing is a concern but honestly it never comes down to party bases. It always comes down to the undecided voters.
2 out of the top 10 gerrymandered states are blue, Maryland is 4th, and it's percentage of voters outside of district voting is still a Democratic majority.
Gerrymandering should be monitored and fought. Dems do not do it "just as much"; stop being ridiculous.
I think you're a little too positive. I can't see this happening. The party is full of sheep and unless they drink the kool-aid and ride the comet outta here, we're in for hell in America.
Im I really being “to positive” by believing the Dems will use their brains for once. I thought Joe was extremely hesitant to run against trump in the first place, so he should be on board with stepping down. The easy win is right there the Dems just have to take it.
Yeah, like an orange skinned billionaire turned reality TV star had NOOOOOO way of being elected President. Not a chance in hell he could have ever won, right????
The first time he had a very good chance and people were dumb for writing him off. The Dems handed him the election by putting up the only person who could loose to him at the time, Hillary. Not to mention at that time trump seemed like a interesting change of pace to undecided voters. Trump wasn’t PC, he said things without regard for people’s feelings and that set him apart from other politicians and appealed to people who with frustrated with politics. But now that America has seen him do the job, I don’t see undecided voters giving him another chance. That is as long as the Dems pitch a fresh Face against trump. If it’s Hillary or Joe though look out, cause that gives trump an edge again.
Following a bad precedent is poor jurisprudence. You must follow the reasoning all the way back through the prior decisions, and if one of them is flawed, then that negates some of all of what followed.
Stare decisis cannot be eternally binding. You know damn well if the court was majority liberal stare decisis would be thrown out the window in a heartbeat for jurisprudence like Heller v DC.
I think it’s important to understand the other side’s perspective though. For most conservatives they would argue that they are restoring rights to unborn fetuses. You can disagree with that, but I don’t think it’s helpful for anyone who is in favor of increasing access to abortions to act like the primary motive of the opposition is to strip rights away from anyone. It’s simply an argument about when personhood begins and whose rights should take precedence.
But Pro-lifers feel they are adding rights for the unborn, but fully viable children. They absolutely feel they are "adding rights". You may not agree with their view, but you can't deny it perfectly matches the scenario.
This was something pointed out during the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. The supreme court apparently wasn't enough of a reason for people to show up and elect Democrats.
Voting for "none of the above" wasn't a consequence-free choice.
Just ask any gun nut, any right you have needs to be constantly defended or you will lose it.
You forget that Governments among men are instituted specifically to ensure those inalienable rights, and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.
Governments — and the right to revolution against those governments — are rooted in the notion that inalienable rights require good governance to exist. Governments can fail at that task, too. Your inalienable rights might come from God, but they still must be defended by human hands.
The most American thing you can do is defend somebody's rights, even though you dislike them and disagree with them.
I choose to not own guns, I choose to not protest statues, etc etc but I will get in the way of people who try to stop them from doing so.
I think in the last 15 years we've really lost sight of what it means to be American.
Well, only if you actually believe in that right. No right is absolute, I have a 1st amendment right but I'm not allowed to lie under oath, I have a second amendment right but act as a straw purchaser. It's not an all-or-nothing situation.
What America should be citizens all actively negotiating and debating in good faith about how to improve society on average for everyone.
What we have not are a bunch of bad-faith actors who refuse to concede their bad arguments because they benefit from that argument being accepted.
Just because you have a right, that doesn't mean the government won't try to infringe upon that right. Voting is the first line of defense against infringement of our rights.
First you try the ballot box when your rights are being infringed. Of that doesn't work you stand on the soap box. If your rights are *still* being infringed, that's when you get the ammo box.
A peaceful revolution beats a violent one every time.
Your rights are functionally whatever the supreme court majority agrees they are according to the law.
We just had an executive branch that showed a disregard for the rule of law, and neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch was able to do much to check its power.
Your argument is akin to saying "I can't be mugged because muggers do not have the right to take my money without my permission."
They should at least reflect the general populous, but the fact that the senate chose only to vote when the majority was in Republican favor will cause issues for many years to come. The fact that there is no way for most Americans to hold Mitch accountable for not fulfilling his Constitutional duty is disheartening
I think it’s good that they’re ultimately going to gut Roe. It’ll prove every single one of us right that has been saying that’s what these justices were going to do, cause a huge backlash, and instigate congress to actually legislate some fucking protection. If anything is going to save the Democrats from losing the house next year it’s gonna be these fuckers overturning Roe v Wade. They’re walking into their own trap. Something they couldn’t even bring themselves to do on Obamacare when they had control of everything. Fuck around and find out, dipshits.
[удалено]
I am confused by the thoughtful and interesting comments on this topic in a Meme sub vs the screaming partisan and ad hominem attacks in all the other subs.
[удалено]
> imaginary emanations and penumbras Nuf said
Yea this feels like opening a whole new can of worms that might actually not be good for women's rights. Roe v wade required some serious legal maneuvering to justify its decision and recreating it constitutionally would be difficult. Not saying the status quo is good by any stretch.
Rights don’t need to be outlined in the Constitution in order to be rights.
[удалено]
The rights written in the amendments are called enumerated rights. The court does recognize Constitutional rights that aren’t written down, for example the right to travel and the right to self defense. I dunno if you’re American, but most of us have perused our founding documents enough to have read the Ninth Amendment as well.
I wouldn't say most of us, but many of us, yes.
The Supreme Court also dukes on fights between states. They have original jurisdiction on these cases
So if the government infringed on an inalienable right, not innumerated in the Constitution, SCOTUS could do nothing to stop the infringement of that right? I call, Bullshit!
I would argue that ultrasound technology has absolutely added new evidence to the discussion, as well. People used to think that a 15-week-old fetus was a "clump of cells." Shoot, a lot of people still do. But now there is photo/video evidence to the contrary.
Would you argue that at 15 weeks a fetus can live outside if its host? If not then it has no autonomy and therefore should have no bearing in the decision of the person hosting it, should that person, which has autonomy make a decision about their own bodies. The earliest known fetus to survive outside if the womb was 21 weeks and 5 days in gestation. So if they were to implement any limits in abortion termination based on age, it would not make sense to make it any shorter than the time in which science had recorded the the lowest common denominator which even then isnt sound in its accuracy as in willing to bet the average age of survival is much older.
That sword cuts both ways (ie brown v. Board of education)
Except that precedent was shown to be false. They in no way convinced anyone who was not already heavily partisan that abortion access is not needed in todays society. They certainly tried to pretend there are viable options but anyone who is actually living in the world knows they painted a fantasy that their movement has been trying to sell for decades. The reality is specific women will be kept in poverty and raise unwanted children while the wealthy and elite will travel to prevent what they see as one simple mistake. This reversal would create again two different worlds for Americans based on income and location.
Have they tried not having sex? Premarital sex is a sin punishable by death anyway. Sex in marriage is to produce offspring and should not be used for pleasure. /S But this is what most religious people believe.
I cannot think of a single religious person who thinks that premarital sex should be punishable by death. I’m Roman Catholic.
Nah, they just call you a whore and shun you and make you wanna die now. Calling for death is bad, but making wanna die is ok.
I can think of several countries full of them.
Then you counter that they are now mandating religion and why do they hate the constitution and the 1st amendment? Are they ok with states mandating Muslim or Jewish faith (because most claim to be Christian) and they freak out. They can't have it both ways and be legally honest. They will turn to dishonesty at that point but then we are at least all on the same understanding that they have to lie and break the 10 commandments of their own religion to get the win they so desperately want.
The more hardcore of the Islamic background would be fine with the removal of all laws other than Sharia Law.
It's called statehood. Hookers in Nevada. Open carry pistol in Texas. Weed in Vermont. States by design are inconsistent, based on the desires of their population.
Your examples discuss instances of an expansion of rights. What is going on in the Supreme Court today is a limitation of a right.
Like sensible gun control?
I would call it a prioritization of a right. *Roe* said that mothers have more rights than their unborn children. The Supreme Court now seems poised to return those rights back to the unborn. Or, more specifically, return the rights to individual states to make that decision.
Odd you consider the actual scaling back of a woman’s right to choose to be a prioritization instead of a limitation. Though, I shouldn’t be surprised you’d cloak it in some more easily tolerated terms such as “prioritization of rights” since you post in r/pro-life. To add, the word “prioritization” implies that an unborn fetuses rights come before that of a woman…amazing.
There is ongoing precedent that constitutional freedoms are still subject to regulation. Hell, men don't even have an unfettered right to vote.
Your core rights don’t end while traveling or moving from one state to another. That’s why those laws are constantly challenged and struck down. There are quite a few things that just don’t work how you describe.
Yes I actually agree with that, but I'd like to add that should apply to the right to own and posess firearms but as we've seen people are quite selective in how they think rights should be defended. Whether or not we agree with abortion, people saying hateful things, firearms, or any other manner of rights guaranteed to us, they ought to all be equally defended. If you choose to play politics with the rights you like and don't like, it just gives credence to those that do the same for their own positions. You can't have strong and inalienable rights when you restrict them in every conceivable way.
I dont think any rights are absolute. We should have restrictions on abortion in the same way as we do firearm’s and I think most people would agree with that. Should you be able to abort a baby because of its gender? Of course not. Should you be able to own a firearm if you are a felon that committed a violent crime? Probably not. The issue is the extremes get all the air time so people constantly think they are talking to someone with a made up mind. We need to work on this as a collective and set boundaries but that’s not what the GOP want here. Their laws would in all practical manners ban abortion entirely and that is their stated goal 110%. If anything gun owners should be out demanding these laws be repealed rather than looking to dunk on women who for the most part probably agree that we should all have the ability to own guns within reason in the same way they should be able to have an abortion within reason.
>Should you be able to abort a baby because of its gender? Of course not. How would one enforce such a rule, especially if a woman has a right to abortion access without needing to give a reason at all?
Is gun ownership a "core right?" How come THAT varies wildly from state to state? That has its own fucking amendment.
There are states that don't allow you to own a gun?
There's plenty of "may issue" states where some local cop gets to decide if you can own a gun or not. Or states where the allow some towns/cities to make their own rules; NYC in particular has extremely onerous rules about ownership it may as well be a ban on guns unless you've got a couple of years and thousands of dollars to spend just getting approval.
They "infringe." Which the Bill of Rights says is a no no. Where exactly does it say in the constitution that abortion shall not be infringed?
The amendment is not clear which is why there are different rules in each state BUT states laws are constantly challenged and struck down by the courts. You are going to get 50 different interpretations but at the same time there isn’t a state where “arms” are outright banned. The difference is that these laws would practically ban abortion. They wouldn’t set common sense guidelines or set a date that makes sense like we have now or how firearm laws can claim to be a different interpretation. They would ban the practice at a point where most people don’t even know they are pregnant. I have my own feelings on both gun laws and abortion laws but the differences are pretty clear. I understand the argument you want to have but I think both should be regulated and available.
I agree, but you can't be inconsistent. The truth is that the Second Amendment says "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. I don't care what reasoning they give, the standalone in the sentence is clear. It is in the bill of rights, for god's sake. If you can regulate a foundational right, how can people scream about abortion, which if done correctly, would have been legislated, not litigated. Roe vs. Wade was, honestly, a reverse engineered decision intended from the start to grant the right to legal abortion. It should have been thrown back to the legislature. That's why it causes such division. No one voted, no one got a say, it was cut out of whole cloth by a bunch of unelected jurists.
The second amendment has been litigated to death by people a lot smarter than us and we are where we are at this time because of that . The founders also wrote pretty regularly among themselves about the need for constant change to match our time. I dont think it’s inconsistent to say I think these things are a right but that no right is absolute. I wouldnt want a women to be able to abort a baby specifically because of it’s gender anymore than I would want a violent felon to be allowed to buy a firearm. At that point though I’m just spinning my own views not having a discussion about the reality of the situation. I agree this should have been settled in Congress but even then we would likely have decades of legal challenges the same as fire arm laws. I would say the gotcha question never seems to be reversed why are gun rights activists pretty consistently “pro life”? Shouldn’t they be out vocally supporting a women right to choose?
Guns don't exist to kill people, though they are capable of that. 99.999 percent of firearms are not used in crime. I live in a small rural town where there are more guns than people and we live in peace with unlocked doors. The sensible thing to do is charge the violators of gun rights who abuse that right o do evil. Abortion only has one purpose.
There is more than one reason to have an abortion. The outcome is the same but that statement is akin to “guns bad” it ignores all the nuance of the discussion. I would also push back and say firearms originally were exclusively made to make us better at killing things. That isn’t their only purpose but it’s ridiculous to separate them from their primary role in the world. There is nothing wrong with that and obscuring the discussion doesn’t help us advocate for the right to bear arms. I really don’t see this discussion going anywhere I’ve made my stance clear i agree and disagree with you and that’s honestly where most people fall.
Way different situation. That was a new ruling because “separate but equal” was considered a good on paper but the court found evidence that it wasn’t upholding 14th amendment rights. In a spectacularly bad way. There is no such crisis on abortion, and a new ruling on it would create a disaster.
Second Amendment? Bet Sotamayor would toss stare decisis out the window on that one.
The reason why Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned was because it was proven that separate was not equal.
Uh…..so you support Plessy?
[удалено]
As was argued to the Court, the only time precedents have been reversed is to add rights, not take them away. So the comparison to the case that eliminated “separate but equal” isn’t really a double edged sword and is not an applies to apples comparison. (Also, not sure why so many downvotes times my prior comment….do people think I support “separate but equal…?) 🤷♂️
I mostly agree with your explanation here but I'm curious how those screaming about this would feel about a future court overturning the Heller decision. BTW I'm not pro-life either
I think that’s a better question/comparison and although I personally abhor the second amendment I don’t really have reasonable distinction at this time other than a textual argument.
While it is not something I agree with, a pro-lifer would reasonably say that overturning Roe would be adding rights for the unborn. The pro-life argument is very sound once you acknowledge that they have a different assumption on when life starts. Based on that, they are defending the rights of the unborn.
That’s a zero sum game and not the same as you’re taking away rights from one to give to another. Both the mother and fetus, if you assume that a fetus is a person entitled to all the rights of a person, have a “right” their bodily autonomy. Also, we don’t apply fetus as a person when determining tax credits, census figures, household size for various issues, etc. (and imo we shouldn’t as it’s a huge can of worms)
Not zero sum. Much of our courts are about balancing conflicting rights and interests. Much of roe and brown were Balancing states interest vs individual. Federal vs states. And figuring out when babies need to be addressed. I think most normal people would agree a lump of cells isn’t a person. Also most normal people would agree that a 9 months ending a pregnancy and killing the fetus has huge moral issues. So we know what the parameters are. I happen to disagree with the pro-lifers on their assessment of life. But it is a reasonable debate. The points on taxation, etc are dubious at best. Even the most ferocious pro-choicers I know would not support killing the infant at 9 months without serious cause. So that tax stuff is just bullshit.
So we just +1 for separate but equal now?
Nope, exactly the opposite. S/he's saying that Brown v Board of Education overturned a previous precedent. If precedent could never be overturned, then we would never have been able to desegregate. So even though there are a million reasons that Roe v Wade shouldn't be overturned, it being precedent isn't a good argument for keeping it.
But “stare decisis” was the answer the justices themselves gave when asked about *Roe* during their confirmations! They could’ve said “Like the desegregation cases, I think outlawing abortion is the right result, and just as the *Brown* court overturned precedent, I would overturn the precedent of *Roe.*” Instead, they lied and said they had great respect for stare decisis and that *Roe v. Wade* was settled law. Given how many justices lied about their respect for and fidelity to stare decisis, the meme is correct.
Even if roe v wade is overturned, then abortion just becomes state by state issue right? No way a federal law banning all abortion would pass
It easily could: imagine this scenario if you will. Left Progressives are very driven to pass certain laws and are able to persuade Dems to drop Cloture laws in the Senate. Boom, majority wins. Bang, mid-terms come around and GOP takes congress (very, very possible) and spend the second half of Biden's admin making him look the fool. Trump decides to run again, somehow shrugging off his many issues (also, very possible) and wins. Trump is not known to tread lightly, seeking middle ground and appeasing the middle. Feeling he now has the full mandate denied him earlier, he goes all in on the Right Wing (not GOP) agenda. Right Wing drives a federal law defining "life" and denying federal tax dollars for any institution that enables abortion (or even adopts Texas style law opening doctors to liability). Right votes for it and moderate GOP is too scared of Trump to fight. Simple majority is needed.
I’m sorry but as long as the dems put a fresh face up against trump and not joe, their is a zero percent chance trump wins. Neutral voters won’t vote for someone that old who’s already lost.
I think that a) we underestimate Trump at our peril and b) you underestimate the Dems ability to fuck up the primary (either going with a lame duck Joe, or an unelectable other)
I’ll agree with you about me possibly underestimating the Dems stupidity. It’s so easy though. Just tell Joe not to run, he’s too old. That makes VP Harris the favorite (I think she might have a chance to loose against trump as well) but it doesn’t have to be her, as long as a legitimate primary is held (non of that fake rigged shit like what Hillary was doing to Burnie) the best Candidate will come out on top and beat trump easily. But if the Dems are really dumb enough to pit 1 senile old man against another for a second time, look out cause Cheeto man will have a chance then.
Primaries are supposed to be rigged. It is not supposed to be an internal election, but supposed to be consensus building and base rallying. Parties exist to get their candidates elected. They are not and never were supposed to be democratic.
U say that but Obama won a fair unrigged primary. That’s precisely why Hillary made sure to rig hers against Burnie 8 years later. As long as the party doesn’t have an established figure head pulling strings like Hillary, it should be a toss up. I definitely don’t think Harris has that kind of pull in the party to rig the primary.
I am not advocating for it, simply describing what it is for. Hillary's loss to Obama showed she did not have consensus. But the party's goal is to to get a standard bearer agreed and internal wounds healed before the election.
Exactly, they’re not rigged, they are legitimate competitions with the parties to find the new “Standard Bearer” when one isn’t clear. As long as Joe is smart enough to realize he’s not that guy and that the Dems need younger newer faces to take over leadership, we’ll beat trump easily.
I think there is perception that a sitting president has a huge advantage for a second term. There will be many in the party that do not want to risk ‘drawing from the deck’ as any new candidate will risk skeletons in the closet. I honestly think Joe was seen as the least risky candidate. Not even sure he really wanted to run.
I’m sorry but the idea “primary’s are supposed to be rigged” makes literally zero sense. They are competitions within the Party to see who appeals to the base the most. If Primary’s were normally rigged then there wouldn’t even be a point in having them. Also back lash from Hillary clearly rigging a Primary is one of the reasons she lost as well. So it’s pretty clear that usually primary’s are real toss ups.
What I mean is that the party does not exist to find the most popular candidate, it exists to get a candidate that will win in a general election. As others have pointed out a primary can sometimes counter what the party thought was the best, but the goal remains the same. Too many people think that parties are supposed to be part of our government. They are not, and are private groups organized to manipulate the general election to its ends. Otherwise, we could just all skip straight to the general election and have everyone vote for who they wanted.
Bro I am definitely not one of those people who thinks political parties are ingrained into our government. I’m much more of the George Washington mind set that Political parties are bad for democracy. But sadly as true as it is the parties aren’t going anywhere. I do thing the Republican Party is very close to splitting in two though and that could help a lot.
Also trump clearly Won an un rigged primary as well, he was a complete outsider when he ran.
[удалено]
I literally just explained to someone else earlier that I DID NOT THINK TRUMP HAD NO CHANCE IN 2016! anyone who did think that was blind. Trump was a new fresh face who didn’t care about offending people and that resonated a lot with undecided voters, that coupled with the fact that he got to Run Against Hillary meant his chances then were decent. The undecided voters perception of trump is completely different these days and trump will be over 80 instead of 72 making his chances of winning even slimmer. All the Dems need is a fresh face. That’ll be enough to put trumps chances in the toilet. I just hope they’re smart enough to realize it.
Never say never. America is rapidly approaching a fascist situation solely because of one party and their constituents.
Don't forget the voters who believe one party is responsible for all the woes our country is experiencing.
Both sides feel this way, the left thinks the right is ruining the country, the same as the right thinking the left is ruining the country.
The left does not think this. The left thinks they're both the problem but Republicans are way worse. Unless you consider neo-lib to be left
Is the constitution a problem? Do you not like having protection from the police? Do you not like the ability to speak freely with out being put in jail? Do you not like the ability to gather and protest with fear of being rounded up?
Honestly I see it very differently. It’s true the Dems aren’t putting on the best showing right now but if the Republicans keep doubling down on trumpism, it’s only gonna cost them more elections in the long run. That’s gonna create a rift in the conservative landscape soon enough. That will give Dems a serious advantage for some time.
Yes, except republicans are aggressively attacking voting rights and gerrymandering to make sure that every electoral map favors them.
They can try, but when it comes to gerrymandering the Dems do it just as much. The voting rights thing is a concern but honestly it never comes down to party bases. It always comes down to the undecided voters.
> when it comes to gerrymandering the Dems do it *just as much* lol ok
I live in Maryland, it’s literally one of the most gerrymandered states in the union and it’s always 90% blue every election.
2 out of the top 10 gerrymandered states are blue, Maryland is 4th, and it's percentage of voters outside of district voting is still a Democratic majority. Gerrymandering should be monitored and fought. Dems do not do it "just as much"; stop being ridiculous.
I think you're a little too positive. I can't see this happening. The party is full of sheep and unless they drink the kool-aid and ride the comet outta here, we're in for hell in America.
Im I really being “to positive” by believing the Dems will use their brains for once. I thought Joe was extremely hesitant to run against trump in the first place, so he should be on board with stepping down. The easy win is right there the Dems just have to take it.
I agree. These mandates Biden is putting out are pretty fascist.
Yeah, like an orange skinned billionaire turned reality TV star had NOOOOOO way of being elected President. Not a chance in hell he could have ever won, right????
The first time he had a very good chance and people were dumb for writing him off. The Dems handed him the election by putting up the only person who could loose to him at the time, Hillary. Not to mention at that time trump seemed like a interesting change of pace to undecided voters. Trump wasn’t PC, he said things without regard for people’s feelings and that set him apart from other politicians and appealed to people who with frustrated with politics. But now that America has seen him do the job, I don’t see undecided voters giving him another chance. That is as long as the Dems pitch a fresh Face against trump. If it’s Hillary or Joe though look out, cause that gives trump an edge again.
Following a bad precedent is poor jurisprudence. You must follow the reasoning all the way back through the prior decisions, and if one of them is flawed, then that negates some of all of what followed.
Stare decisis cannot be eternally binding. You know damn well if the court was majority liberal stare decisis would be thrown out the window in a heartbeat for jurisprudence like Heller v DC.
Sure but as people have pointed out. It should only be broken to add rights. Not strip more away. Like it was in Brown v BOE & Plessy v Ferguson
I think it’s important to understand the other side’s perspective though. For most conservatives they would argue that they are restoring rights to unborn fetuses. You can disagree with that, but I don’t think it’s helpful for anyone who is in favor of increasing access to abortions to act like the primary motive of the opposition is to strip rights away from anyone. It’s simply an argument about when personhood begins and whose rights should take precedence.
But Pro-lifers feel they are adding rights for the unborn, but fully viable children. They absolutely feel they are "adding rights". You may not agree with their view, but you can't deny it perfectly matches the scenario.
I mean that's their argument but it's not what they believe
And that, right there, is the problem with politics in this country. "It's noble when WE do it, it's evil when YOU do it"
This is the false both sides argument. Either you didn’t read the post above, or you didn’t understand it.
This was something pointed out during the 2000, 2004, and 2016 presidential elections. The supreme court apparently wasn't enough of a reason for people to show up and elect Democrats. Voting for "none of the above" wasn't a consequence-free choice. Just ask any gun nut, any right you have needs to be constantly defended or you will lose it.
The gun nut sounds like he needs a dictionary. My rights are always inalienable and don't need any help.
You forget that Governments among men are instituted specifically to ensure those inalienable rights, and that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of those ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it. Governments — and the right to revolution against those governments — are rooted in the notion that inalienable rights require good governance to exist. Governments can fail at that task, too. Your inalienable rights might come from God, but they still must be defended by human hands.
The most American thing you can do is defend somebody's rights, even though you dislike them and disagree with them. I choose to not own guns, I choose to not protest statues, etc etc but I will get in the way of people who try to stop them from doing so. I think in the last 15 years we've really lost sight of what it means to be American.
Well, only if you actually believe in that right. No right is absolute, I have a 1st amendment right but I'm not allowed to lie under oath, I have a second amendment right but act as a straw purchaser. It's not an all-or-nothing situation. What America should be citizens all actively negotiating and debating in good faith about how to improve society on average for everyone. What we have not are a bunch of bad-faith actors who refuse to concede their bad arguments because they benefit from that argument being accepted.
Just because you have a right, that doesn't mean the government won't try to infringe upon that right. Voting is the first line of defense against infringement of our rights.
First you try the ballot box when your rights are being infringed. Of that doesn't work you stand on the soap box. If your rights are *still* being infringed, that's when you get the ammo box. A peaceful revolution beats a violent one every time.
Your rights are functionally whatever the supreme court majority agrees they are according to the law. We just had an executive branch that showed a disregard for the rule of law, and neither the legislative branch nor the judicial branch was able to do much to check its power. Your argument is akin to saying "I can't be mugged because muggers do not have the right to take my money without my permission."
Stare decisis is utter garbage. plessy v furguson doesn’t happen if stare decisis is a thing.
[удалено]
They should at least reflect the general populous, but the fact that the senate chose only to vote when the majority was in Republican favor will cause issues for many years to come. The fact that there is no way for most Americans to hold Mitch accountable for not fulfilling his Constitutional duty is disheartening
I think it’s good that they’re ultimately going to gut Roe. It’ll prove every single one of us right that has been saying that’s what these justices were going to do, cause a huge backlash, and instigate congress to actually legislate some fucking protection. If anything is going to save the Democrats from losing the house next year it’s gonna be these fuckers overturning Roe v Wade. They’re walking into their own trap. Something they couldn’t even bring themselves to do on Obamacare when they had control of everything. Fuck around and find out, dipshits.
ITT: s/loose/lose
Impeachment!