US Supreme Court, women's bodily autonomy cancelled

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:08:00 GMT voice said:

also the bit in Clarence's ruling that next on the agenda for the far right chritian nationalists was marriage equality, access to contraception and a raft of other rights the right hate (though oddly not inter-racial marriage that was decided on very similar grounds, wonder why that is Clarence?) he explicitly said if cases came before the courts they would strike down as many of the rights gained in the past centaury as possible.

He has been agitating for this for years but did not have the right composition within the SCOTUS.

Now he has enough fellow crazies to support him.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:08:54 GMT mids said:

How many SCJ's that were antagonistic to R vs W were specifically put in place to overturn it during the presidencies of Reagan or the Bushes?

Is your argument that Trump was a batty president that put unqualified justices in power specifically to overturn Roe vs Wade? Are you still trying to link this to people dressing up as Handmaid’s?

Correlation =\= Causation (incidentally Handmaid’s Tale and thus its use as a comparison has been around for decades.)

[voice]

Jun 27, 2022 13:08:54 GMT mids said:

How many SCJ's that were antagonistic to R vs W were specifically put in place to overturn it during the presidencies of Reagan or the Bushes?

Roberts and Clarence (both GOP appointed) were federalist society picks cos they was opposed to Roe, sure they all said, even the most recent ones, Roe was established law and they had no intention of overturning it, but they all lied.

Its odd you persist with this line despite obviously knowing little of the history.

[jimboky]

Jun 27, 2022 13:01:26 GMT voice said:

so while you lack any knowledge of of the history of why and how this ruling came about you persist in pretending you know what you're talking about. This was absolutely a 50 year political long game, in the first few years following RvW there was little religious opposition and little main stream political opposition, the GOP was broadly in support of Roe and even the Southern Baptists agreed life began at birth, something about the bible saying god made Adam then once he was finished breathed life into his nostrils, so the religious nuts at that time said life began at first breath. This slowly changed and by the early 80's it was beginning GOP policy to get justices to overturn Roe, Reagan, who actually signed legal abortions in CA when he was gov was forced to recant and say he was wrong, the religious nuts started saying life began at ejaculation, the terrorist wing of the anti-abortion movement started killing Dr's and so on and so forth. It became the explicit policy of the right to end womens bodily autonomy and have the state have the final say over what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Sure its dressed up by idiots as States right, but as I mentioned earlier in the same week as Roe fell, the court also decided States were not fit to decide gun laws in their states, so its a bollox argument this was about states rights.

And yes this is absoluty about controlling women, either implicitly or explicitly, there's a sh*t load of mens rights crap attached to this as well

(to mids)

dobbs did not outlaw abortion, it only ruled that the US Constitution did not give the US Government power over it, therefor due to the 10th amendment it must go to the states, it has little to do with abortion and everything to do with States rights,

it is amazing that the most violent protests are in the states where this ruling has zero effect, like NY, CA, MA

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:18:56 GMT voice said:

Jun 27, 2022 13:08:54 GMT mids said:

How many SCJ's that were antagonistic to R vs W were specifically put in place to overturn it during the presidencies of Reagan or the Bushes?

Roberts and Clarence (both GOP appointed) were federalist society picks cos they was opposed to Roe, sure they all said, even the most recent ones, Roe was established law and they had no intention of overturning it, but they all lied.

Its odd you persist with this line despite obviously knowing little of the history.

Mids is just trying to argue that they only made moves to overturn Roe vs. Wade because people compared Republicans to the Sons of Jacob (while simultaneously saying he is not making that claim.)

It’s such a long term strategy that conservative talking heads and commentators have criticised past appointments who have turned out not to be as batshit conservative as they liked.

I mean really you could argue that US society has become even more deeply divided ever since they elected a black(ish) man president and conservatives lost their mind…

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:21:40 GMT jimboky said:

Jun 27, 2022 13:01:26 GMT voice said:

so while you lack any knowledge of of the history of why and how this ruling came about you persist in pretending you know what you're talking about. This was absolutely a 50 year political long game, in the first few years following RvW there was little religious opposition and little main stream political opposition, the GOP was broadly in support of Roe and even the Southern Baptists agreed life began at birth, something about the bible saying god made Adam then once he was finished breathed life into his nostrils, so the religious nuts at that time said life began at first breath. This slowly changed and by the early 80's it was beginning GOP policy to get justices to overturn Roe, Reagan, who actually signed legal abortions in CA when he was gov was forced to recant and say he was wrong, the religious nuts started saying life began at ejaculation, the terrorist wing of the anti-abortion movement started killing Dr's and so on and so forth. It became the explicit policy of the right to end womens bodily autonomy and have the state have the final say over what they can and can't do with their own bodies. Sure its dressed up by idiots as States right, but as I mentioned earlier in the same week as Roe fell, the court also decided States were not fit to decide gun laws in their states, so its a bollox argument this was about states rights.

And yes this is absoluty about controlling women, either implicitly or explicitly, there's a sh*t load of mens rights crap attached to this as well

(to mids)

dobbs did not outlaw abortion, it only ruled that the US Constitution did not give the US Government power over it, therefor due to the 10th amendment it must go to the states, it has little to do with abortion and everything to do with States rights,

it is amazing that the most violent protests are in the states where this ruling has zero effect, like NY, CA, MA

It’s only amazing if you’re an idiot. That’s like saying you don’t understand why anti-abolitionism was so popular in states without slaves.

And stop pretending it has nothing to do with abortion and is just about states rights. At the same time they said abortion is a state matter they stripped New York State of its recent changes to guns laws.

[voice]

well not that recent the law they said the state had no right to enforce was put on the books in the 1880's.

[jimboky]

the court DOES have a duty to protect the constitution, the 2nd amendment is the constitution, if you wish to have the Supreme Court to protect abortion rights you must first make it an amendment like gun rights,

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:33:56 GMT jimboky said:

the court DOES have a duty to protect the constitution, the 2nd amendment is the constitution, if you wish to have the Supreme Court to protect abortion rights you must first make it an amendment like gun rights,

You would have a point if New York State was moving to make guns illegal. As it wasn’t - you don’t.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:18:56 GMT voice said:

Jun 27, 2022 13:08:54 GMT mids said:

How many SCJ's that were antagonistic to R vs W were specifically put in place to overturn it during the presidencies of Reagan or the Bushes?

Roberts and Clarence (both GOP appointed) were federalist society picks cos they was opposed to Roe, sure they all said, even the most recent ones, Roe was established law and they had no intention of overturning it, but they all lied.

Its odd you persist with this line despite obviously knowing little of the history.

He also does not know the novel AHT or understand why people make the comparison. It’s a valid comparison as while brutal oppression of women is not the intent of the Gilead regime it’s the clear outcome.

[jimboky]

NY was moving to restrict right to "bear arms"

[voice]

it was on the books since the 1880, so the move was a long time ago, its a bollox ruling though if you think its all about states rights, and if you think its fine to take states rights away only for the stuff you don't want, you're a hypocrite to boot.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 13:40:17 GMT jimboky said:

NY was moving to restrict right to "bear arms"

No it was not.

Although as Voice points out your position on “state’s rights” is highly inconsistent.

[flatandy]

Jun 27, 2022 13:08:54 GMT mids said:

How many SCJ's that were antagonistic to R vs W were specifically put in place to overturn it during the presidencies of Reagan or the Bushes?

Three. Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

The remaining three were appointed under Trump.

But the right had to create a conveyor belt of right-thinking lawyers, all of whom were sponsored and supported by the Federalist Society - and that too a long time. And they had to create an environment in the Republican Party where people couldn't win primaries unless they promised to only appoint judges and justices who were members of the Federalist Society and were on a list approved by Leonard Leo. This is all a long game.

[mids]

So you're saying that the Repubs were successfully playing 4-D chess and the left were too thick to counter them?

[mids]

And, in fact, were too involved in smug, performative ranting about the Handmaiden's Tale to fight back.

[jimboky]

States Rights exist when there is no federal constitution power on the issue, like gun rights, the states cannot over ride the constitution,

the NY gun case was all about NY's restrictions to carry being limited to those favored by the people in power, the need to show a need to carry gun was THE issue, if you were a supporter of the Governor, Mayor, or other politician you had the need, if you were simply a poor citizen who live in one of it's many crime infested area afraid to go to market you were out of luck

[flatandy]

Jun 27, 2022 14:04:40 GMT mids said:

So you're saying that the Repubs were successfully playing 4-D chess and the left were too thick to counter them?

In this instance, yes. The right were trying to destroy democratic and judicial structures, and the left were trying to work within those structures.

[Repat Van]

Jun 27, 2022 14:13:40 GMT jimboky said:

States Rights exist when there is no federal constitution power on the issue, like gun rights, the states cannot over ride the constitution,

the NY gun case was all about NY's restrictions to carry being limited to those favored by the people in power, the need to show a need to carry gun was THE issue, if you were a supporter of the Governor, Mayor, or other politician you had the need, if you were simply a poor citizen who live in one of it's many crime infested area afraid to go to market you were out of luck

NY’s restrictions did not interfere with people’s ability to own guns however. And the rest was your invention.

[flatandy]

1 - there is no constitutional right for individuals to "bear arms", let alone "whatever arms they like", let alone "wherever they want". The constitutional right says "the people", not each person. It's clear that as the text refers to a well organised militia, the context is to do with the people as a whole having the right to bear arms in a militia.

2 - The states don't have sole authority on literally everything that isn't explicitly stated in the constitution

3 - There is an implied right to abortion in the 14th amendment, under the due process clause