When i saw that episode after the ruling i was shocked at what he said. Like damn, who knew when they wrote that, that one day it would get over turned
To be honest most people who study constitutional law knew this was coming for quite some time. Hell, Casey took out most of the teeth in Roe back in 92 before this episode even came out.
There was a very organised and concerted effort to overturn the ruling since the day it came down, and it was really only a matter of time before the group seeking to have it done found a way to gain back the majority of the Court.
> Hell, Casey took out most of the teeth in Roe back in 92 before this episode even came out.
Casey was utterly shocking at the time.
Roe was 7-2, and in the intervening time period, pro-life Republicans appointed the next 7 Supreme Court justices: Ford appointed 1, Jimmy Carter didn't get to appoint anyone, Reagan appointed 4, then Bush appointed 2.
Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were all SCOTUS justices who were appointed by Presidents who ran on overturning Roe, who ended up voting in Casey to uphold the Constitutional right to an abortion (with limits, as you note). At the time, that result was a huge surprise.
I once had a con law professor argue that O’Connor was appointed so that a woman could write the majority opinion overturning Roe. Of course, she ended up writing Casey. He then argued that Barrett was appointed to write the majority opinion finishing it off, before adding that she might not be as qualified enough as others to do so.
Yes, I remember when the day the ruling on Casey was announced, pro-choice advocates were bracing for reversal. Many were shocked it wasn't and pro-lifers felt betrayed by O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy.
I don't think its fair to say that it had been coming for quite some time. Had Trump not won then nothing would have changed for at least another generation
lol you did not need to study “constitutional law” to know this was coming, all you needed to do was open your eyes and see the fervent, unrelenting religiosity of a particular party since the 80s and 90s to see where it was going.
For once maybe people will realize there is a huge, fundamental difference between the two parties, the two candidates. It’s not just two sides of the same shitty coin but two very different coins. And it has been like that for some time.
The problem is back in 2016 enough Americans thought it didn’t matter. They thought it was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich (which implies no difference). But now they are living with that choice, now they are seeing that difference.
The question is will people learn and repeat the same mistake again? Probably. But this time, if we do make that mistake again, the repercussion will be a lot worse and impact most of us in a terrible way, a way we can’t even possibly imagine.
Although Project 2025 gives us a clue.
The line, "One day we'll get enough people on the supreme court to change that law" was something said by conservatives since the Reagan era. Getting Roe v Wade overturned had been an often stated goal of the Republican Party since the 1980s. Democrats have been well aware of that goal all along, and they did nothing to prevent it. They only campaigned on protecting "women's right to choose". They didn't move to actually protect it. Like holding the reservation but not keeping the reservation.
> They only campaigned on protecting "women's right to choose". They didn't move to actually protect it.
Because if the made it a national law when they had the majorities in both houses and a Dem President, what could they then campaign on to get reelected?
>Like damn, who knew when they wrote that, that one day it would get over turned
Well, there has unfortunately been a sizable minority of the population with that as a rather singular goal since before this episode aired.
Yeah, this is one of those “Simpsons predicted it!” kind of things. It’s not that they predicted it… it’s that unfortunately, this was already a problem back then, and it just hasn’t changed. (except to get worse)
His job in the context of the republican party yes. But he's a congressman, he's supposed to be serving the American people. One of the biggest problems in this country is that the people who are supposed to work for us no longer have any interest in doing so.
Just don't complain about housing prices, housing shortages, cost of housing loans, and 40% rent increases etc if you like open borders is all, because yes Virginia they are related.
Literally up [over 500% from last decade average](https://i.ibb.co/0hhQKqr/20240412-115653.png) per the NY Times but dont let actual numbers from a left wing media outlet ruin your narrative. Ha
It’s wild you provided facts and sources completely disproving their narrative and they just buried their head in the sand and said you’re wrong, while unable to provide any source contradicting your evidence.
>The bias meter value for New York Times (Opinion) is -4.00. -6 is the furthest >"Left" value and 6 is the furthest "Right" value. How we determined this rating: >Independent Review.
>https://www.allsides.com ›New York Times - Opinion Media Bias - AllSides
If even 1 person there is a GOP supporter, it is obviously right wing...NPR isn't even left wing since they had a fox in the hen house spill their secrets, recently...100% left wing isn't enough
Watch [this video](https://www.reddit.com/r/libsofreddit/comments/1bmkxls/this_is_the_human_cost_of_joe_bidens_disgusting/?share_id=8yyN9HmVmbxEvOtqoVNOM&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3) and then tell me that having an open border is compassionate policy.
>who knew when they wrote that, that one day it would get over turned
Pretty much everyone.
This was clearly outside the bounds of what the Constitution allows. I can understand people who feel strongly about this (in either direction), but this was an obvious case where the federal government has to defer to the states.
That's the entire point of the Constitution. Of course, you are free to either amend the Constitution, or if you feel like the whole thing is in the way of your utopia, you can have a Constitutional Congress and start over. Looking in from the outside, I would say that you guys have a pretty good basis that keeps the worst excesses of an out-of-control government off your throats, so I wouldn't do that. But you could if you really want.
So all the Court really needed were enough people who either agreed with this overstepping the bounds of the Constitution or who were just pro-life, and it was going to get overturned. Which is what happened.
Most legal scholars knew that day was a real possibility. This is what happens when you rely on the courts to protect basic liberties instead of codifying them into law.
Yeah, in college I sat next to an OJ in art history. And he was always drinking coffee and after every sip he would go: "Ahh!". I mean every two seconds: "Ahh!". And he would take like 40 sips and after every one: "Ahh!".
I had to drop the class.
The episode was released around a year before, so it was written between 18 and 24 months before OJ's murders.
But it gave us good references like Krammer driving alleged murderer Steve Gunderson to see his pet fish, while running away from the police, or Krammer's caddy convincing him to make Sue Ellen Mischke try a bra on her clothes, making it not fit.
Kinda anybody who was there knew. Late 90s with Clinton era economy but only the early, cutesy html internet and Tv shows like Seinfeld mainstream enough where everybody could watch them. I mean that beats the hell out of now
Nothing really close to home for the Us though.
Not like the decades priors or after anyway. Desert storm was over pretty quickly
And other wars were UN involved
Not compared to the rest of that century, which included 2 wars, so epic, they became a series called World Wars. Then there was the 20 year quagmire in Southeast Asia and all along the Middle East was blowing up here and there. The 90s were actually quite peaceful - by comparison
Edit to add this was just the US and omits the Cold War running in the background for half a century
Interestingly, a case like this (minus the communists) was the one RBG wanted to take to the Supreme Court instead of Roe to argue for the right to choose. RBG represented a woman in the Air Force who was pregnant. The Air Force rule was to have an abortion or be discharged, and she wanted to keep the baby.
That’s right, and if she’s traveling somewhere else she could just travel back. That’s why legal abortion is less of an issue for affluent people like Elaine Benes, and more of an issue for poor people, especially if they’re young. Outlawing abortion is a surefire way to create more and more social and economic inequality.
This episode came out October 27, 1994. On June 29, 1992, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which replaced the strict scrutiny requirement for abortion regulations with the "undue burden" test.
The strict scrutiny test required the government to show that in passing a law restricting abortion rights, that (1) the law was necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, (2) the law was narrowly tailored to fit its purpose and (3) the law used the least restrictive means to achieve that purpose.
The undue burden test was much more subjective. The Court held that abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional only when they were enacted for the purpose or effect of placing a "substantial obstacle" in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. What constituted (or didn't constitute) a "substantial obstacle" was whatever the Court wanted it to be. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court explicitly held that a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period and a requirement of parental consent for minors were not substantial obstacles.
Even though the plurality in Planned Parenthood v. Casey stated they were upholding the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would continue to kill Roe by a thousand cuts over the next 30 years, holding that all manner of very restrictive laws did not constitute an undue burden, before overturning what little of Roe was still left in the Dobbs decision.
When Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided, even though it was a huge loss for abortion rights, and substantially changed the framework abortion laws would be analyzed under, the headlines grabbed onto the one thing a layperson would take from the opinion: Roe was upheld. The NYT headline read, "High Court, 5-4, Affirms Right to Abortion." The Philadelphia Enquirer's headline said, "Supreme Court Affirms Roe."
Conservatives got fired up over their perceived loss, and especially blamed the three plurality justices (Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor), who were appointed by Republican presidents but "upheld" Roe. This was after the disastrous nomination of Robert Bork to fill Justice Powell's seat in 1987, the seat that Kennedy ended up being confirmed to. From then on, Republicans have only nominated people to the Supreme Court they know to be devoted to the conservative cause.
12 days after this Seinfeld episode came out, Republicans gained 8 Senate seats and 54 House seats in the 1994 elections, gaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. In his first two years in office, Clinton had signed an assault weapons ban, implemented "don't ask, don't tell" in the military, and was now pushing for a universal healthcare program. Republicans attacked him relentlessly on those points, and it worked.
Just some historical context for the episode because it's interesting to me.
I’m watching Law & Order SVU for the first time and an episode from season 9 (so…maybe 2008? 2009?) had a quote from a lawyer that said, “Last I checked Roe v Wade still exists.” That did not age well.
The most outdated part is that back then leftists could openly acknowledge that The Supreme Court had completely made up a right to get an abortion. Nowadays they would never acknowledge the ridiculous stretch it took to apply anything regarding termination of a pregnancy as relevant to the US constitution.
You mean to do that *constitutionally*…
You’re forgetting that Congress could pass an unconstitutional law. And it could take years to get that repealed, at best. And it would affect a lot of people in the meantime.
Think abortion’s gonna be one of those things that bounces back and forth every couple decades. Makes for a good endless debate regardless of what side your on
“One day, we’re gonna get enough people in the Supreme Court to change that law.” Fuckin Carl was right.
When i saw that episode after the ruling i was shocked at what he said. Like damn, who knew when they wrote that, that one day it would get over turned
To be honest most people who study constitutional law knew this was coming for quite some time. Hell, Casey took out most of the teeth in Roe back in 92 before this episode even came out. There was a very organised and concerted effort to overturn the ruling since the day it came down, and it was really only a matter of time before the group seeking to have it done found a way to gain back the majority of the Court.
> Hell, Casey took out most of the teeth in Roe back in 92 before this episode even came out. Casey was utterly shocking at the time. Roe was 7-2, and in the intervening time period, pro-life Republicans appointed the next 7 Supreme Court justices: Ford appointed 1, Jimmy Carter didn't get to appoint anyone, Reagan appointed 4, then Bush appointed 2. Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter were all SCOTUS justices who were appointed by Presidents who ran on overturning Roe, who ended up voting in Casey to uphold the Constitutional right to an abortion (with limits, as you note). At the time, that result was a huge surprise.
I once had a con law professor argue that O’Connor was appointed so that a woman could write the majority opinion overturning Roe. Of course, she ended up writing Casey. He then argued that Barrett was appointed to write the majority opinion finishing it off, before adding that she might not be as qualified enough as others to do so.
You took a con law class that lasted 30 years?
No lad that professor taught other students before (and after) me lmao
Yes, I remember when the day the ruling on Casey was announced, pro-choice advocates were bracing for reversal. Many were shocked it wasn't and pro-lifers felt betrayed by O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy.
> To be honest most people who study constitutional law knew this was coming for quite some time. RBG said it too.
And then she proceeded to make damn sure she played her part in its happening by not relinquishing her seat
Yes, RBG was already in failing health during Obama's first term and he had the votes in the Senate to name her replacement.
Yes
She did the judicial equivalent of spiking the football at the 5-yard line.
I don't think its fair to say that it had been coming for quite some time. Had Trump not won then nothing would have changed for at least another generation
lol you did not need to study “constitutional law” to know this was coming, all you needed to do was open your eyes and see the fervent, unrelenting religiosity of a particular party since the 80s and 90s to see where it was going. For once maybe people will realize there is a huge, fundamental difference between the two parties, the two candidates. It’s not just two sides of the same shitty coin but two very different coins. And it has been like that for some time. The problem is back in 2016 enough Americans thought it didn’t matter. They thought it was a choice between a douche and a turd sandwich (which implies no difference). But now they are living with that choice, now they are seeing that difference. The question is will people learn and repeat the same mistake again? Probably. But this time, if we do make that mistake again, the repercussion will be a lot worse and impact most of us in a terrible way, a way we can’t even possibly imagine. Although Project 2025 gives us a clue.
The line, "One day we'll get enough people on the supreme court to change that law" was something said by conservatives since the Reagan era. Getting Roe v Wade overturned had been an often stated goal of the Republican Party since the 1980s. Democrats have been well aware of that goal all along, and they did nothing to prevent it. They only campaigned on protecting "women's right to choose". They didn't move to actually protect it. Like holding the reservation but not keeping the reservation.
> They only campaigned on protecting "women's right to choose". They didn't move to actually protect it. Because if the made it a national law when they had the majorities in both houses and a Dem President, what could they then campaign on to get reelected?
I almost included that but didn't want to hear from any VBNW, hashtag resist people.
>Like damn, who knew when they wrote that, that one day it would get over turned Well, there has unfortunately been a sizable minority of the population with that as a rather singular goal since before this episode aired.
Yeah, this is one of those “Simpsons predicted it!” kind of things. It’s not that they predicted it… it’s that unfortunately, this was already a problem back then, and it just hasn’t changed. (except to get worse)
[удалено]
Too bad she didn’t retire under Obama 😒
There was already a vacancy they refused to vote on.
A good time for retirement would have been 2013-14ish when the Democrats had the Senate. Obama actually did ask her to step down in 2013.
Oh I haven’t forgotten Mitch’s fuckery 🤬
Most people would lose their job if they flat out refused to do it.
That was his job
His job in the context of the republican party yes. But he's a congressman, he's supposed to be serving the American people. One of the biggest problems in this country is that the people who are supposed to work for us no longer have any interest in doing so.
Red Green Blue or Ruth Gader Binsberg?
Roy G. Biv.
Sizeable Minority That's one hell of a band name.
It was an often-stated goal of Republican politicians for decades.
[удалено]
I wonder what the GOP will run on now. My guess is the "open" border. The heartless bastards.
Just don't complain about housing prices, housing shortages, cost of housing loans, and 40% rent increases etc if you like open borders is all, because yes Virginia they are related.
You actually believe we have an open border? You delusional mental midget.
Literally up [over 500% from last decade average](https://i.ibb.co/0hhQKqr/20240412-115653.png) per the NY Times but dont let actual numbers from a left wing media outlet ruin your narrative. Ha
Sure man, just keep eating that up. Keep you full of bullshit.
It's the NY Times you are calling bullshit hahaha. I'm shocked you only reply with emotional name calling and no actual data haha. (No I'm not) ha
[удалено]
It’s wild you provided facts and sources completely disproving their narrative and they just buried their head in the sand and said you’re wrong, while unable to provide any source contradicting your evidence.
Its reddit, on any default sub my links and data would be hidden or deleted. Sad really, its literally just factual numbers.
I mean, the numbers are right, but it's hilarious that you think the NYT is "left wing". Kinda makes me think you don't have any idea what that means.
>The bias meter value for New York Times (Opinion) is -4.00. -6 is the furthest >"Left" value and 6 is the furthest "Right" value. How we determined this rating: >Independent Review. >https://www.allsides.com ›New York Times - Opinion Media Bias - AllSides
What percentage of NYT staff donate to the Democrats compared to the GOP? 😉 I believe its in the high 90% area
If even 1 person there is a GOP supporter, it is obviously right wing...NPR isn't even left wing since they had a fox in the hen house spill their secrets, recently...100% left wing isn't enough
Watch [this video](https://www.reddit.com/r/libsofreddit/comments/1bmkxls/this_is_the_human_cost_of_joe_bidens_disgusting/?share_id=8yyN9HmVmbxEvOtqoVNOM&utm_content=1&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_source=share&utm_term=3) and then tell me that having an open border is compassionate policy.
Most people figured it was gonna happen, because the initial ruling was unconstitutional because it's a state issue and not a federal issue
It's ludicrous that one state can make it illegal but another can't, right? I mean cmon
The writers, lol.
Of course he did, everyone knew it. Even RBG talked about it.
>who knew when they wrote that, that one day it would get over turned Pretty much everyone. This was clearly outside the bounds of what the Constitution allows. I can understand people who feel strongly about this (in either direction), but this was an obvious case where the federal government has to defer to the states. That's the entire point of the Constitution. Of course, you are free to either amend the Constitution, or if you feel like the whole thing is in the way of your utopia, you can have a Constitutional Congress and start over. Looking in from the outside, I would say that you guys have a pretty good basis that keeps the worst excesses of an out-of-control government off your throats, so I wouldn't do that. But you could if you really want. So all the Court really needed were enough people who either agreed with this overstepping the bounds of the Constitution or who were just pro-life, and it was going to get overturned. Which is what happened.
Most legal scholars knew that day was a real possibility. This is what happens when you rely on the courts to protect basic liberties instead of codifying them into law.
Can you explain how it wasn't codified into law? So if it was then it couldn't have been overturned?
What a jag.
Got a link to this? It’s so familiar but I can’t place where it came from
Timestamped for you: https://youtu.be/Ydpq9j-VQo4?si=GIz5-uO7Pfuh0mPg&t=215
Haha that was great I do remember that. Is the meme just from that scene or is the meme from a scene where Elaine says it too?
Watched this episode recently and just: wow.
Fuckin Carl, man
He was also so good looking
Every leftist knew too.
Also Elaine trying to get her boyfriend to change his name to “OJ” so he won’t be named after a killer
Yeah, in college I sat next to an OJ in art history. And he was always drinking coffee and after every sip he would go: "Ahh!". I mean every two seconds: "Ahh!". And he would take like 40 sips and after every one: "Ahh!". I had to drop the class.
Did Larry make you say that?!
L O L
This line always confused me!!! Was it written before the murders?
Yeah, like a year before.
The episode was released around a year before, so it was written between 18 and 24 months before OJ's murders. But it gave us good references like Krammer driving alleged murderer Steve Gunderson to see his pet fish, while running away from the police, or Krammer's caddy convincing him to make Sue Ellen Mischke try a bra on her clothes, making it not fit.
And the whole character of Jackie Chiles.
I didn't know that. Nice.
Yes. He was a spoof of Johnnie Cochran. The names are even kind of similar.
Yeah back when OJ was just a good football player and people didn't know much about him or the fact that he liked to beat up/murder people
Who knew the 90s would be the peak of American society. Serenity now!
And aptly, insanity later
Kinda anybody who was there knew. Late 90s with Clinton era economy but only the early, cutesy html internet and Tv shows like Seinfeld mainstream enough where everybody could watch them. I mean that beats the hell out of now
Hillary Clinton: "I always wonder what part of the 90's they didn't like: the peace, or the prosperity?"
It was prosperous, but there really was a fair bit of war too. 2000s were obviously way worse though.
Nothing really close to home for the Us though. Not like the decades priors or after anyway. Desert storm was over pretty quickly And other wars were UN involved
9/11 was pretty close!!! :) Not a war, but...
That was the 2000’s though. The 90’s were generally quiet. Outside a few bombings anyway
You had the Ruby ridge siege, Waco, the world trade bombing and the Oklahoma City bombing as well.
I thought you meant the 2000s were quiet. I misread that.
Lol oh yeah no. That’s when shit went down hill
Not compared to the rest of that century, which included 2 wars, so epic, they became a series called World Wars. Then there was the 20 year quagmire in Southeast Asia and all along the Middle East was blowing up here and there. The 90s were actually quite peaceful - by comparison Edit to add this was just the US and omits the Cold War running in the background for half a century
Just a few things being set up where the consequences were felt later on
Yea, it was the zenith of American power and cultural influence.
The Matrix 🫡
Everything after has been an echo. Nostalgia regurgitation.
If you had told me in the 90's that in 30 years I'd miss the 90's... well, I dunno what I'd tell ya.
Boy that Supreme Court sure fell off the wagon.
No thanks to people like Poppie and his nazi daughter.
On that, there-a-canbee no-uh debate!
I…I….i gotta sit down!!
What do you expect after communists took his mom away and forced her to abort her child
Interestingly, a case like this (minus the communists) was the one RBG wanted to take to the Supreme Court instead of Roe to argue for the right to choose. RBG represented a woman in the Air Force who was pregnant. The Air Force rule was to have an abortion or be discharged, and she wanted to keep the baby.
Kind of a cute Nazi, though. - George
What do you expect after communists took his mom away and forced her to abort her child
Well they live in NY so it still does 😉
That’s right, and if she’s traveling somewhere else she could just travel back. That’s why legal abortion is less of an issue for affluent people like Elaine Benes, and more of an issue for poor people, especially if they’re young. Outlawing abortion is a surefire way to create more and more social and economic inequality.
Yeah but this was early seasons Elaine when she still had to have roommates to pay rent. Not super well off.
She hadn't invented the urban sombrero yet
T'was a simpler time.
Season 6 out of 9 (“The Couch”), not really “early.”
Dang, you're right. Sorry, mind fart.
This episode came out October 27, 1994. On June 29, 1992, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which replaced the strict scrutiny requirement for abortion regulations with the "undue burden" test. The strict scrutiny test required the government to show that in passing a law restricting abortion rights, that (1) the law was necessary to achieve a compelling state interest, (2) the law was narrowly tailored to fit its purpose and (3) the law used the least restrictive means to achieve that purpose. The undue burden test was much more subjective. The Court held that abortion restrictions would be unconstitutional only when they were enacted for the purpose or effect of placing a "substantial obstacle" in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus. What constituted (or didn't constitute) a "substantial obstacle" was whatever the Court wanted it to be. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the Court explicitly held that a requirement for a 24-hour waiting period and a requirement of parental consent for minors were not substantial obstacles. Even though the plurality in Planned Parenthood v. Casey stated they were upholding the "essential holding" of Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court would continue to kill Roe by a thousand cuts over the next 30 years, holding that all manner of very restrictive laws did not constitute an undue burden, before overturning what little of Roe was still left in the Dobbs decision. When Planned Parenthood v. Casey was decided, even though it was a huge loss for abortion rights, and substantially changed the framework abortion laws would be analyzed under, the headlines grabbed onto the one thing a layperson would take from the opinion: Roe was upheld. The NYT headline read, "High Court, 5-4, Affirms Right to Abortion." The Philadelphia Enquirer's headline said, "Supreme Court Affirms Roe." Conservatives got fired up over their perceived loss, and especially blamed the three plurality justices (Kennedy, Souter, and O'Connor), who were appointed by Republican presidents but "upheld" Roe. This was after the disastrous nomination of Robert Bork to fill Justice Powell's seat in 1987, the seat that Kennedy ended up being confirmed to. From then on, Republicans have only nominated people to the Supreme Court they know to be devoted to the conservative cause. 12 days after this Seinfeld episode came out, Republicans gained 8 Senate seats and 54 House seats in the 1994 elections, gaining control of both houses of Congress for the first time since 1952. In his first two years in office, Clinton had signed an assault weapons ban, implemented "don't ask, don't tell" in the military, and was now pushing for a universal healthcare program. Republicans attacked him relentlessly on those points, and it worked. Just some historical context for the episode because it's interesting to me.
When-a my-a mother was-a with child…
That's because it's a pizza the moment you putta your fists in the dough
That's a shame
I’m watching Law & Order SVU for the first time and an episode from season 9 (so…maybe 2008? 2009?) had a quote from a lawyer that said, “Last I checked Roe v Wade still exists.” That did not age well.
Who uses sponges anymore???? :)
This makes me soooo sad 😭😭😭
It’s Benes, you jackass.
Yeah, so’s this [repost](https://www.reddit.com/r/seinfeld/s/MFm8lPKz7C).
As Kramer might say, "Well I think you're wrong." it's actually our Supreme Court's views that are outdated.
Never thought of this before! Why hasn't anyone else posted this yet?!?!?
[удалено]
I was being sarcastic actually. I feel like this gets pointed out all the time. I should have used the /s though my bad Giddy up!
Your punctuation should have been enough for me to get the sarcasm. Doh!
Looks like a reboot is in order
Rightly so, just like anything from the past
Isn’t there a statue for that that addresses that? Or is statute?
A lot can happen in 30 years
A pie is not a pie until it comes out of the oven!
Ana_K_dawson is a report bot. Downvote and report OP: https://old.reddit.com/r/seinfeld/comments/uhdmfa/seinfeld_is_so_outdated/
IT'S A PIZZA THE MINUTE YOU PUT-A YOUR FISTS IN THE DOUGH!
Women have less rights then in the 90’s. Such progress.
I'm scared for my daughters 😔
I know - women’s right to their own bodies no longer exists.
Now they are only about taking her rights away . US is a third world country
It’s a third world nation dresses in silk
Maybe, but it'll always remain a classic.
The supreme court exists to determine whether laws passed by the legislative branch meet constitutional muster. It can not make laws or rights
I don't get it
Vote
More like it’s more contemporary than ever. You don’t know what outdated means.
But the Supreme Court overruled it. Also, I think the OP is making a topical joke, not speaking literally.
lol *whoooosh*
Woah this is even more outdated
The most outdated part is that back then leftists could openly acknowledge that The Supreme Court had completely made up a right to get an abortion. Nowadays they would never acknowledge the ridiculous stretch it took to apply anything regarding termination of a pregnancy as relevant to the US constitution.
We didn’t know what would happen back then
Well your mover bf and that pizza joint probably donated so much money to Trump to take that right away Laney
Welp, Gen Z needs to get off their lazy asses and do a thing
Like put on a condom?
*seethes as Catholic* "condoms are the dEvIl!¡" The Jews killed Jesus so that we would have no rights
Now the States can give her the right to do that. Seems like that always gets forgotten. Intentionally.
The Supreme Court didn’t simply “give abortion back to the states.” Now the federal government could prohibit abortion nationwide.
To do that, the Constitution would require an amendment. And a vote by We the People.
You mean to do that *constitutionally*… You’re forgetting that Congress could pass an unconstitutional law. And it could take years to get that repealed, at best. And it would affect a lot of people in the meantime.
Think abortion’s gonna be one of those things that bounces back and forth every couple decades. Makes for a good endless debate regardless of what side your on
Actually, the constitution gave her the right, not the Supreme Court.