The Supreme Court of the United States Thread

#9,176
#9,176
Sea Ray said:
That's exactly why is should be a federal law

IMO abortion is a right for someone, either the mother or the kid. You're free to disagree
Click to expand...

Same sex, interracial marriage ext are already protected by the constitution under the equal protection clause. States nor the federal government can deny benefits or privileges granted to one class, they would either have to eliminate marriage as a state sanctioned union and do away with any state/federal benefits/privileges for being married.
 
#9,179
#9,179
NorthDallas40 said:
She openly stated Roe “went too far”. Her words in an interview. Yes she was a strong advocate for women’s control over their productive rights. But she didn’t agree with how the SCOTUS went about it.
Click to expand...

She did feel that the Constitution protected a woman's right to an abortion through the equal protection clause:

The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said. She and her co-author on the biography, Professor Wendy Williams, spent the last 17 years interviewing Justice Ginsburg for the book and, though it initially didn’t have a release date, they are hoping to publish it some time next year, Professor Hartnett said in an interview.
Click to expand...

Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade (Published 2020)

Her reasoning was that in the example of the military, a pregnant woman cannot be used in many areas thus she could be dismissed unless she got an abortion. If abortion is not legal then her career is seriously impacted whereas a male faces no such issue
 
#9,180
#9,180
Sea Ray said:
She did feel that the Constitution protected a woman's right to an abortion through the equal protection clause:



Why Ruth Bader Ginsburg Wasn’t All That Fond of Roe v. Wade (Published 2020)

Her reasoning was that in the example of the military, a pregnant woman cannot be used in many areas thus she could be dismissed unless she got an abortion. If abortion is not legal then her career is seriously impacted whereas a male faces no such issue
Click to expand...
Thanks for linking that. Now Dr Appt.
 
#9,185
#9,185
NorthDallas40 said:
She openly stated Roe “went too far”. Her words in an interview. Yes she was a strong advocate for women’s control over their productive rights. But she didn’t agree with how the SCOTUS went about it.
Click to expand...

You are not reading the whole story. She said it went too far because she would have preferred more gradual transition. She felt it became a huge target and a gradual transition regarding women's reproductive rights would have would have made the decision much less subject to attack. She actually represented an abortion case around the same time in which she fought for the rights of a woman in the military not to have an abortion. The military prohibited active duty pregnancies and thus the woman had to choose between her career and carrying a baby. The military eventually changed their policy rendering the decision moot prior to SCOTUS hearing the case. Had they decided that the woman in question had certain rights over her body it would have moved the needle a little over towards the pro choice side of the table.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TRUEFANVol
#9,186
#9,186
hog88 said:
Same sex, interracial marriage ext are already protected by the constitution under the equal protection clause. States nor the federal government can deny benefits or privileges granted to one class, they would either have to eliminate marriage as a state sanctioned union and do away with any state/federal benefits/privileges for being married.
Click to expand...

Not according to Thomas.
 
  • Like
Reactions: clarksvol00
#9,187
#9,187
NorthDallas40 said:
@RockyTop85 a question before my appt. I’ll likely have to read later. Did her views get argued in Casey? As they did limit the Roe decision.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure the idea of equal protection covering abortion has never been totally resolved. I assume it was considered in Roe and they chose to go with substantive due process and privacy, instead. That could be deemed persuasive by a particular Justice and I think there was an exchange in the Dobbs oral argument where they got into that, but I don’t think that triggers any kind of stare decisis analysis.
 
#9,189
#9,189
Sea Ray said:
That's exactly why is should be a federal law

IMO abortion is a right for someone, either the mother or the kid. You're free to disagree
Click to expand...
The Kid? How is the Kid going to make a decision? What about the Father?

It's a can of worms but it can all be changed at the State level. I know this is going to sound brash, but it all starts with Voting. Takes time but Flipping States Legislatures is the only way to conquer it and if the voting public sees it your way then it is a way. It is a way it gets back to the Supreme Court, but it will take time.
It starts with Voting and it may not just be a Republican and Democrat association.
For the Federal Govt to take this back, it will be an Act of Congress and that will have no guarantees.
Spreading the Tax Dollar thin...
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, GroverCleveland, NorthDallas40 and 1 other person
#9,190
#9,190
Sudden Impact said:
The Kid? How is the Kid going to make a decision? What about the Father?

It's a can of worms but it can all be changed at the State level. I know this is going to sound brash, but it all starts with Voting. Takes time but Flipping States Legislatures is the only way to conquer it and if the voting public sees it your way then it is a way. It is a way it gets back to the Supreme Court, but it will take time.
It starts with Voting and it may not just be a Republican and Democrat association.
For the Federal Govt to take this back, it will be an Act of Congress and that will have no guarantees.
Spreading the Tax Dollar thin...
Click to expand...

Good post. Maybe, just maybe this ruling will make people pay more attention to and participate in local/state elections.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, Sudden Impact and GroverCleveland
#9,191
#9,191
ClearwaterVol said:
You are not reading the whole story. She said it went too far because she would have preferred more gradual transition. She felt it became a huge target and a gradual transition regarding women's reproductive rights would have would have made the decision much less subject to attack. She actually represented an abortion case around the same time in which she fought for the rights of a woman in the military not to have an abortion. The military prohibited active duty pregnancies and thus the woman had to choose between her career and carrying a baby. The military eventually changed their policy rendering the decision moot prior to SCOTUS hearing the case. Had they decided that the woman in question had certain rights over her body it would have moved the needle a little over towards the pro choice side of the table.
Click to expand...
Yes I know. I’ve already referenced Struck myself. She had her own opinions on why a woman’s reproductive rights were her own business but they had nothing to do the the idiot angle of the due process clause in Roe. SCOTUS practiced medicine and wrote legislation from the bench in Roe. They were way out of bounds.
 
#9,192
#9,192
RockyTop85 said:
Pretty sure the idea of equal protection covering abortion has never been totally resolved. I assume it was considered in Roe and they chose to go with substantive due process and privacy, instead. That could be deemed persuasive by a particular Justice and I think there was an exchange in the Dobbs oral argument where they got into that, but I don’t think that triggers any kind of stare decisis analysis.
Click to expand...
I looked up Casey as I hadn’t read as much in that ruling other than they did limit SCOTUS practicing medicine from the bench on the trimester logic as well as limited the prior due process ruling. It was an admittedly quick read and I might have interpreted it wrong so when you flame back I’m not likely to put up much resistance yet 🤷‍♂️
 
#9,194
#9,194
Sudden Impact said:
The Kid? How is the Kid going to make a decision? What about the Father?

It's a can of worms but it can all be changed at the State level. I know this is going to sound brash, but it all starts with Voting. Takes time but Flipping States Legislatures is the only way to conquer it and if the voting public sees it your way then it is a way. It is a way it gets back to the Supreme Court, but it will take time.
It starts with Voting and it may not just be a Republican and Democrat association.
For the Federal Govt to take this back, it will be an Act of Congress and that will have no guarantees.
Spreading the Tax Dollar thin...
Click to expand...
That is really my only hang up on abortion. If any action is taken quickly very early in pregnancy I have no relevant opinion. But at “some” point which I admittedly don’t have a refined point yet I think there needs to be strong advocacy for the unborn child and convenience should not even be a valid consideration from then onward.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970 and Sudden Impact
#9,196
#9,196
Sea Ray said:
I answered: the right of gay marriage (if granted) should be done federally. Personally I'm not a fan of that legislation but if it's going to be legal then it should not be done on a state by state basis
Click to expand...

Marriage contracts have always been the purview of the states. There has never been a Federal marriage license in the history of the country. Federal regulations about marriage have centered around Federal benefits/taxes/etc.

I disagree with you as on general principles, I want as little of my life intersecting with the Federal government as possible. I am a fan of our federally organized system of government. (and not trying to be obnoxious here either, so please do not take it that way)
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, AM64 and allvol123
#9,197
#9,197
Carl Pickens said:
From a musician that had an album called Dookie....and American Idiot

Green Day's Billie Joe Armstrong says he's renouncing his US citizenship: 'F--- America'

"F--- America, I’m f---ing renouncing my citizenship," Armstrong said. "I’m f---ing coming here." "There’s just too much f---ing stupid in the world to go back to that miserable f---ing excuse for a country," Armstrong added.
Click to expand...

Promises, promises. If all the dems who have threatened to leave went through with it, we'd be in a better place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Carl Pickens, NorthDallas40 and StarRaider
#9,198
#9,198
NorthDallas40 said:
That is really my only hang up on abortion. If any action is taken quickly very early in pregnancy I have no relevant opinion. But at “some” point which I admittedly don’t have a refined point yet I think there needs to be strong advocacy for the unborn child and convenience should not even be a valid consideration from then onward.
Click to expand...

I agree.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, NorthDallas40 and TRUEFANVol
#9,199
#9,199
NorthDallas40 said:
That is really my only hang up on abortion. If any action is taken quickly very early in pregnancy I have no relevant opinion. But at “some” point which I admittedly don’t have a refined point yet I think there needs to be strong advocacy for the unborn child and convenience should not even be a valid consideration from then onward.
Click to expand...

This succinctly summarizes my position as well. I also suspect this is the general consensus.

The problem extremes on both sides tend to monopolize the argument. My hang up with the extreme left is is the notion that after the 1st trimester (at least) there isn't a person needing protection. My hangup with the extreme right is equating termination a 3-day old blastocyct with sucking the brains out of a live person.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlipKidVol, Sandman 423 and NorthDallas40
#9,200
#9,200
ClearwaterVol said:
I agree.
Click to expand...
Once you get both extremes out of the picture I think it’s fairly straight forward. But that’s my view. I completely understand that there are beliefs which put no limits or full limits on aborting an unborn child. I cannot buy into the no limits angle at all but I can understand the full limits angle. I just don’t agree with them 🤷‍♂️
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top