Supreme Court Overturns Roe v Wade After 50 Years

[Pabst]

Since I've already stepped in it multiple times, what's one more?

Sorry, the "settled law" or "precedent" argument is BS. The Supreme Court has overruled prior precedent more than 200 times, and there are loads of notable examples:

Atkins v. Virginia (2002). The Supreme Court held that executions of intellectually challenged criminals were “cruel and unusual punishments” barred by the Eighth Amendment. The decision overturned Penry v. Lynaugh (1989).

Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a 6-3 ruling, cited the Due Process Clause and invalidated a Texas law making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual conduct. The decision overturns Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The court decided that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law, barring public speech calling for illegal activities, was unconstitutional on First and 14th Amendment grounds unless the speech incited “imminent lawless action.” The decision overruled Whitney v. California (1927).

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Kennedy said the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause guaranteed the right to marry as a fundamental liberty that applied to couples regardless of their sex. The decision overruled a one-sentence ruling in Baker v. Nelson (1972)

[LakecrestSteeler]

We need to ban pregnancy tests. That will fix the abortion problem!

Supreme Court justices have been replaced with Christian Mullahs…..nothing to see here; move along!

[955876]

We need to ban pregnancy tests. That will fix the abortion problem!

Supreme Court justices have been replaced with Christian Mullahs…..nothing to see here; move along!

That’s extreme.

All the Supreme Court did was kick it back to the states where the decision belongs.

Waaah

[Professor Half Wit]

We need to ban pregnancy tests. That will fix the abortion problem!

Supreme Court justices have been replaced with Christian Mullahs…..nothing to see here; move along!

That’s extreme.

All the Supreme Court did was kick it back to the states where the decision belongs.

Waaah

Ultimately voters are to blame. Congress won’t do its job and pass legislation bc of the people voters put there. This ruling is opposed by a large majority.

When McConnell dies I will squeal with joy. This is his court. He’s a piece of shit, but I tip my cap to his ruthlessness.

[COR-TEN]

Since I've already stepped in it multiple times, what's one more?

Sorry, the "settled law" or "precedent" argument is BS. The Supreme Court has overruled prior precedent more than 200 times, and there are loads of notable examples:

Atkins v. Virginia (2002). The Supreme Court held that executions of intellectually challenged criminals were “cruel and unusual punishments” barred by the Eighth Amendment. The decision overturned Penry v. Lynaugh (1989).

Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a 6-3 ruling, cited the Due Process Clause and invalidated a Texas law making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual conduct. The decision overturns Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The court decided that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law, barring public speech calling for illegal activities, was unconstitutional on First and 14th Amendment grounds unless the speech incited “imminent lawless action.” The decision overruled Whitney v. California (1927).

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Kennedy said the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause guaranteed the right to marry as a fundamental liberty that applied to couples regardless of their sex. The decision overruled a one-sentence ruling in Baker v. Nelson (1972)

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that precedent rules everything. In this case, the public and congress was misled by the newly appointed justices. They said precedent in this case means something, and they considered it settled. Only to turn around and overturn a decision that the majority of the public agreed with for 50 years. This, in my eyes, reflects the way the conservative right governs. A minority decides what the majority does not want; i.e. abortion, gun control (universal background checks), social security, taxes, protect capital and oppress labor; protect a fetus yet when the baby is born, they no longer want to protect life and provide an environment to kill it, etc. If it were about life, then there would be universal healthcare, education, day care, etc.

Equal rights amendment not ratified in all 50 states after 50 years? It's clear conservatives do not respect women enough to treat them equally, and believe legislating a woman's uterus is more important than legislating guns. The reason Roe v Wade wasn't codified is because of republican opposition. Period.

Republicans will speak in public in favor of legislation and yet vote against it in congress. McConnell waited for an election and refused hearings for a nominated justice, and then jammed one thru immediately before an election - all in order maintain minority control. Conservatives spew nonsense about the glory of democracy, but do everything to destroy it. Justice thomas said that the majority should just shut up and accept shit they don't want. False equivalencies, logical fallacies, double standards, and red herrings are at the base of conservative governance. Politics to some degree includes all of that, but the question is to what degree.

And I know many on the right believe the left is just as guilty, but I simply do not see it. It's obvious to me the right speaks out of both sides of their mouths in order to deceive and impose their ideology on the public. I know I'll be told I'm partisan. But this is the big picture, not the minutia of the law/ science.

IMO, a fetus is not viable outside the womb. A baby eats and shits. I understand a baby needs assistance to continue to live, but once a fetus is removed from the womb at 8 weeks, it dies. If life starts at conception because of duplicating cells, does this mean cancer is alive? Should the law protect cancer because it reproduces cells? Can you claim a fetus on your tax return as a dependent? Government says it's not a person.

Besides, women aren't simply incubators. They should decide what to do with their bodies, not a governing body. Conservatives don't want the government telling them to wear masks or get vaccinated, but a woman's womb is OK? I think this has more to do with religion and ideology than anything else. The court is illegitimate because it reflects the way republicans govern.

[Stlcrtn1974]

Since I've already stepped in it multiple times, what's one more?

Sorry, the "settled law" or "precedent" argument is BS. The Supreme Court has overruled prior precedent more than 200 times, and there are loads of notable examples:

Atkins v. Virginia (2002). The Supreme Court held that executions of intellectually challenged criminals were “cruel and unusual punishments” barred by the Eighth Amendment. The decision overturned Penry v. Lynaugh (1989).

Lawrence v. Texas (2003). Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, in a 6-3 ruling, cited the Due Process Clause and invalidated a Texas law making it a crime for two persons of the same sex to engage in sexual conduct. The decision overturns Bowers v. Hardwick (1986).

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969). The court decided that Ohio’s criminal syndicalism law, barring public speech calling for illegal activities, was unconstitutional on First and 14th Amendment grounds unless the speech incited “imminent lawless action.” The decision overruled Whitney v. California (1927).

Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Kennedy said the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause guaranteed the right to marry as a fundamental liberty that applied to couples regardless of their sex. The decision overruled a one-sentence ruling in Baker v. Nelson (1972)

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that precedent rules everything. In this case, the public and congress was misled by the newly appointed justices. They said precedent in this case means something, and they considered it settled. Only to turn around and overturn a decision that the majority of the public agreed with for 50 years. This, in my eyes, reflects the way the conservative right governs. A minority decides what the majority does not want; i.e. abortion, gun control (universal background checks), social security, taxes, protect capital and oppress labor; protect a fetus yet when the baby is born, they no longer want to protect life and provide an environment to kill it, etc. Those issues are firm and rigid when in their favor, but when they aren't, they are subject to be overturned, regardless of what they say.

Equal rights amendment not ratified in all 50 states after 50 years? It's clear conservatives do not respect women enough to treat them equally, and believe legislating a woman's uterus is more important than legislating guns. The reason Roe v Wade wasn't codified is because of republican opposition. Period.

Republicans will speak in public in favor of legislation and yet vote against it in congress. McConnell waited for an election and refused hearings for a nominated justice, and then jammed one thru immediately before an election - all in order maintain minority control. Conservatives spew nonsense about the glory of democracy, but do everything to destroy it. Justice thomas said that the majority should just shut up and accept shit they don't want. False equivalencies, logical fallacies, double standards, and red herrings are at the base of conservative governance. Politics to some degree includes all of that, but the question is to what degree.

And I know many on the right believe the left is just as guilty, but I simply do not see it. It's obvious to me the right speaks out of both sides of their mouths in order to deceive and impose their ideology on the public. I know I'll be told I'm partisan. But this is the big picture, not the minutia of the law/ science.

IMO, a fetus is not viable outside the womb. A baby eats and shits. I understand a baby needs assistance to continue to live, but once a fetus is removed from the womb at 8 weeks, it dies. If life starts at conception because of duplicating cells, does this mean cancer is alive? Should the law protect cancer because it reproduces cells? Besides, women aren't simply incubators. They should decide what to do with their bodies, not a governing body. Conservatives don't want the government telling them to wear masks or get vaccinated, but a woman's womb is OK? I think this has more to do with religion and ideology than anything else. The court is illegitimate because it reflects the way republicans govern.

Logic doesn't apply, don't waste your time.

[LakecrestSteeler]

We need to ban pregnancy tests. That will fix the abortion problem!

Supreme Court justices have been replaced with Christian Mullahs…..nothing to see here; move along!

That’s extreme.

All the Supreme Court did was kick it back to the states where the decision belongs.

Waaah

Well we should kick back to the states being able to vote based on previous conditions of servitude too. That way we can get blacks off the voter rolls.

Makes perfect sense to kick back women’s healthcare to the states; state laws prohibiting medical procedures based on sex and state laws funneling and forcing patients to undergo more expensive procedures; not a violation of the 14th Amendment Section 1 at all!

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

[Pabst]

I think you're missing my point. I'm not arguing that precedent rules everything. In this case, the public and congress was misled by the newly appointed justices. They said precedent in this case means something, and they considered it settled. Only to turn around and overturn a decision that the majority of the public agreed with for 50 years. This, in my eyes, reflects the way the conservative right governs. A minority decides what the majority does not want; i.e. abortion, gun control (universal background checks), social security, taxes, protect capital and oppress labor; protect a fetus yet when the baby is born, they no longer want to protect life and provide an environment to kill it, etc. If it were about life, then there would be universal healthcare, education, day care, etc.

Equal rights amendment not ratified in all 50 states after 50 years? It's clear conservatives do not respect women enough to treat them equally, and believe legislating a woman's uterus is more important than legislating guns. The reason Roe v Wade wasn't codified is because of republican opposition. Period.

Republicans will speak in public in favor of legislation and yet vote against it in congress. McConnell waited for an election and refused hearings for a nominated justice, and then jammed one thru immediately before an election - all in order maintain minority control. Conservatives spew nonsense about the glory of democracy, but do everything to destroy it. Justice thomas said that the majority should just shut up and accept shit they don't want. False equivalencies, logical fallacies, double standards, and red herrings are at the base of conservative governance. Politics to some degree includes all of that, but the question is to what degree.

And I know many on the right believe the left is just as guilty, but I simply do not see it. It's obvious to me the right speaks out of both sides of their mouths in order to deceive and impose their ideology on the public. I know I'll be told I'm partisan. But this is the big picture, not the minutia of the law/ science.

IMO, a fetus is not viable outside the womb. A baby eats and shits. I understand a baby needs assistance to continue to live, but once a fetus is removed from the womb at 8 weeks, it dies. If life starts at conception because of duplicating cells, does this mean cancer is alive? Should the law protect cancer because it reproduces cells? Can you claim a fetus on your tax return as a dependent? Government says it's not a person.

Besides, women aren't simply incubators. They should decide what to do with their bodies, not a governing body. Conservatives don't want the government telling them to wear masks or get vaccinated, but a woman's womb is OK? I think this has more to do with religion and ideology than anything else. The court is illegitimate because it reflects the way republicans govern.

Quite a bit going on here....

No, I'm not missing the point on the precedent question. I'm saying that the premise of the question is BS. It's a dumb semantic game, and sadly that's what all of these confirmation hearings have become. Ask weasel-worded questions, get weasel-worded answers. Yes, Roe v Wade was precedent, but the Supreme Court gets to overturn precedent. Happens all the time. We could play this game with Liberal justices on 2nd amendmend cases as well.

Regarding minority control - First off, "popular vote" is not a standard anyone plays by and it's not how we determine who wins the White House. Second, Republicans won the majority of Senate seats in 2014 and took control of the chamber. They were well within their rights to block the nomination. You might not like it, but it's within the rules and is absolutely not 'destroying democracy'.

Also on the 'minority control' topic - You cited several issues. Here's the thing, the overwhelming majority of people have nuanced views on these topics and it very much depends how you frame it. For example:
- By a 58-35 split, a healthy majority did not want Roe overturned. However....the same poll shows near identical a 55-36 split saying that abortion should be illegal after the first trimester, which is forbidden by Roe. (Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx)

- "Medicare-for-all" gets 53-42 support. When you ask if people support a tax increase to pay for it, support plummets to 37-60. (Source: https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-op ... -coverage/)

- Yes, people overwhelmingly support Universal Background Checks on guns. The issues arise when it comes to how these checks are implemented.


As far as speaking out of both sides of their mouth, there's a great recent example of this - check Democrat rhetoric regarding the filibuster in 2012 vs 2017 vs 2021. Ironically enough, this past January Democrats filibustered a bill that would have placed sanctions on Russia. Stew on that one for a bit.


No women are not simply incubators. Frankly, I would argue that legal abortion allows more men to treat women as disposable sex objects rather than people. And as has been pointed out, the issue is not a woman's womb - it's the baby inside it. The Good Professor addressed this topic earlier.

And what makes the court illegitimate? They ruled in a way you disagree with? Justices were appointed by a President you hated? The opposite party blocked a nominee you wanted? Welcome to the world Conservatives were living in for 70 years.

[Pabst]

Once again - I'm not trying to start a flame war here. Just expressing my pro-life opinions & legal side of the argument. I'm aware that I'm not going to be changing any minds on a controversial topic on a football message board.

I'm not going to reply to the over-the-top crap.

[SteelPro]

FWIW, neither Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, nor Amy Coney Barrett said Roe was settled law under oath (though Susan Collins said Kavanaugh told her in private meetings that it was "settled law"). All of them discussed precedent and handling of Roe to various degrees. All of them said Roe was an important precedent and should be treated as such. That is essentially meaningless since as Pabst pointed out precedents are frequently over turned. Amy Coney Barrett was quite clear that Roe did not fit her criteria of a "super precedent" which in her writings is a precedent that should be considered "settled".

[jebrick]

All the issues named were decided based on the Row decision's interpretation of the 14th Amendment. As Thomas has said in his decision, bring those others before the court because we can use the same logic to invalidate them. DOMA was found unconstitutional which lead to the the allowing of gay marriage. So the Congress did not have the authority to say that it could define marriage.

No they were not. Two of those cases, Griswold (contraceptives) and Loving (inter-racial marriage) were decided well before Roe v Wade.

And yes, DOMA was found unconstitutional for violating the 14th amendment. That is a completely different argument than whether/not Congress has the authority to override states on marriage, contraceptives, abortions, etc.

And this is what I've been saying - If Dems are worried about the court overruling Loving (for example), they can easily pass a law codifying it. This would only then become an issue if a state passed an interracial marriage ban (which is unfathomable at this point). Frankly, this is what's driving me up a wall with Democrats right now. There is so much easy low hanging fruit for them:
- Codify the terms of Obergefell and Loving defining marriage
- Make birth control available over the counter (leave the insurance mandates out for now)
- Mandate allowances for abortions in cases of rape/incest or when a mother's life is in danger

You are pointing to decisions that Justice Thomas called out in the decision to review. That is my point. He all but asked for people to challenge them and bring a case to the Court. Oddly, he did not point to Loving but it falls under the same 14th Amendment rights.

The cases he cited are Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawerence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Nothing will happen for 5+ years while things have a change to move through the Courts but I will bet some crazed Legislators will listen and write up laws.

[Pabst]

You are pointing to decisions that Justice Thomas called out in the decision to review. That is my point. He all but asked for people to challenge them and bring a case to the Court. Oddly, he did not point to Loving but it falls under the same 14th Amendment rights.

The cases he cited are Griswold vs. Connecticut, in which the Supreme Court said married couples have the right to obtain contraceptives; Lawerence v. Texas, which established the right to engage in private sexual acts; and Obergefell v. Hodges, which said there is a right to same-sex marriage.

Nothing will happen for 5+ years while things have a change to move through the Courts but I will bet some crazed Legislators will listen and write up laws.

I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying:

Thomas' argument (I suppose) is that the 14th amendment doesn't apply in these cases and is therefore not a matter for the court to decide. What I'm saying is that Congress can/should pass codifying the terms of each case. It renders Thomas' point moot.

[COR-TEN]

https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/what- ... -hearings/

Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.

Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.

Barrett said in the hearings that she shared Scalia’s judicial philosophy of “originalism and textualism,” but she declined to give an opinion on that specific case.

“I think in an area where precedent continues to be pressed and litigated, as is true of Casey, … it would actually be wrong and a violation of the canons for me to do that as a sitting judge,” she said. “So if I express a view on a precedent one way or another, whether I say I love it or I hate it, it signals to litigants that I might tilt one way or another in a pending case.”

Pressed again by Feinstein whether she “agree[d] with Justice Scalia’s view that Roe was wrongly decided,” Barrett again declined to answer.

“Senator, I completely understand why you are asking the question, but again, I can’t pre-commit or say yes, I’m going in with some agenda, because I’m not,” Barrett said. “I don’t have any agenda. I have no agenda to try to overrule Casey. I have an agenda to stick to the rule of law and decide cases as they come.”

Barrett said that if a question about overturning Roe or Casey or any other case comes before her, “I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”

Under questioning from Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Barrett said she did not consider Roe v. Wade to be a “super precedent,” at least not according to her definition of it as “cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling.”

“And I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said. “And scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean that Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean that it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling.”

All implying they wouldn't/ shouldn't overturn the decision. Barrett was the most cagey, and non committal. Again, I'm not suggesting precedent can't be ignored or is carved in stone. All I know is when I listened to the hearings, I heard them dodge the question and try to make it seem like they weren't going to address R v W. I'm not the only person that feels this way, and many aren't engaging in partisanship.

[Pabst]

All implying they wouldn't/ shouldn't overturn the decision. Barrett was the most cagey, and non committal. Again, I'm not suggesting precedent can't be ignored or is carved in stone. All I know is when I listened to the hearings, I heard them dodge the question and try to make it seem like they weren't going to address R v W. I'm not the only person that feels this way, and many aren't engaging in partisanship.

I'm not getting that at all - what they said is that it's precedent and needs to be respected. To me, all that means is that if you're going to overturn precedent then you better address why you did it.

I should also point out that none of the Senators asking these questions voted to confirm Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Barrett anyway. They new what would happen.

[Professor Half Wit]

COR, the cancer analogy doesn’t work. Cancer cells do not have as their end the completion of a rational agent. Cancer is a material defect of an animal’s nature, not the animal’s essence. Once an egg is fertilized, it begins to organize toward being a human. That’s not what cancer does.

I’m pro choice. The idea that a fertilized egg in a woman’s womb is not human life is a bad faith argument. The embryo is not growing into a rabbit or a fern. It’s obviously human life. Pro choice people should concede there is human life at conception. The question is what is the source of moral obligation and when does that source obtain for embryo and if never then when for a fetus? Pro life folks generally almost always fall flat on their faces here. Why does a fetus that is fully human in potentiality trump the ends of a woman fully human already in actuality? Still, it is a question of moral source. It is a philosophical question. A damn hard one that goes straight to what it means to be human.

This is not a scientific question, but a moral one that must be informed by science.

[Professor Half Wit]

All implying they wouldn't/ shouldn't overturn the decision. Barrett was the most cagey, and non committal. Again, I'm not suggesting precedent can't be ignored or is carved in stone. All I know is when I listened to the hearings, I heard them dodge the question and try to make it seem like they weren't going to address R v W. I'm not the only person that feels this way, and many aren't engaging in partisanship.

I'm not getting that at all - what they said is that it's precedent and needs to be respected. To me, all that means is that if you're going to overturn precedent then you better address why you did it.

I should also point out that none of the Senators asking these questions voted to confirm Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Barrett anyway. They new what would happen.

Collins, Manchin expressing outrage. It makes the eye roll.

[COR-TEN]

All implying they wouldn't/ shouldn't overturn the decision. Barrett was the most cagey, and non committal. Again, I'm not suggesting precedent can't be ignored or is carved in stone. All I know is when I listened to the hearings, I heard them dodge the question and try to make it seem like they weren't going to address R v W. I'm not the only person that feels this way, and many aren't engaging in partisanship.

I'm not getting that at all - what they said is that it's precedent and needs to be respected. To me, all that means is that if you're going to overturn precedent then you better address why you did it.

I should also point out that none of the Senators asking these questions voted to confirm Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Barrett anyway. They new what would happen.

I knew as well what would happen. As did others. The federalist society chose them (dumpster had zero to do with it) because they checked all the boxes, and overturning R v W was one of them. Also, the world, throughout history, has leaned left. And continues to do so. So "the world conservatives have living in for 70 years" is also BS. The 50's were dominated by conservatives into the 60's, and then again in the 80's.

[COR-TEN]

COR, the cancer analogy doesn’t work. Cancer cells do not have as their end the completion of a rational agent. Cancer is a material defect of an animal’s nature, not the animal’s essence. Once an egg is fertilized, it begins to organize toward being a human. That’s not what cancer does.

I’m pro choice. The idea that a fertilized egg in a woman’s womb is not human life is a bad faith argument. The embryo is not growing into a rabbit or a fern. It’s obviously human life. Pro choice people should concede there is human life at conception. The question is what is the source of moral obligation and when does that source obtain for embryo and if never then when for a fetus? Pro life folks generally almost always fall flat on their faces here. Why does a fetus that is fully human in potentiality trump the ends of a woman fully human already in actuality? Still, it is a question of moral source. It is a philosophical question. A damn hard one that goes straight to what it means to be human.

This is not a scientific question, but a moral one that must be informed by science.

I'm using a bad faith argument debating the other side that constantly uses bad faith arguments when I refer to cancer. Good for the goose good for the gander? And I don't mean @Pabst. He's a good guy that I respect, among others here. Steelpro, jebrick, etc..

I can understand the "potential of a human" you are highlighting. I get it. But a fetus is untenable outside the womb, so IMO it is not life. It's why Kangaroos have pouches. Humans don't have pouches. Life needs to be realized. Are plant seeds life? They have the potential for life, yes? What about chicken eggs? Are they chickens? And what about declaring a fetus as a dependent when the gov doesn't recognize it (pronouns anyone?) as a human, but recognizes corporations the same as a human individual's right to express free speech?

[Pabst]

All implying they wouldn't/ shouldn't overturn the decision. Barrett was the most cagey, and non committal. Again, I'm not suggesting precedent can't be ignored or is carved in stone. All I know is when I listened to the hearings, I heard them dodge the question and try to make it seem like they weren't going to address R v W. I'm not the only person that feels this way, and many aren't engaging in partisanship.

I'm not getting that at all - what they said is that it's precedent and needs to be respected. To me, all that means is that if you're going to overturn precedent then you better address why you did it.

I should also point out that none of the Senators asking these questions voted to confirm Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Barrett anyway. They new what would happen.

I knew as well what would happen. As did others. The federalist society chose them (dumpster had zero to do with it) because they checked all the boxes, and overturning R v W was one of them. Also, the world, throughout history, has leaned left. And continues to do so. So "the world conservatives have living in for 70 years" is also BS. The 50's were dominated by conservatives into the 60's, and then again in the 80's.

There's always an ebb and flow. Yes, conservatives held control in the 50s and to a degree in the 80s (the GOP never held the house under Reagan). Progressives had control for the majority of the first half of the 20th century, parts of the 70s and 90s, then large swaths of the 2000s as well as the present day. This is exactly why I'm against removing the filibuster, btw.

Also, i'll go ahead and reject the idea that history "leans left". Left/right can mean different things in different countries/cultures (and at different times), and there is no linear progression of history.

And my '70 years comment' was in reference to the composition of the Supreme Court. Why is it not legitimate solely because they decided in a manner you disagree with? Sorry, but the idea that justices are somehow illigit because they were appointed by a President that lost the popular vote is 100% meaningless. Ditto any accusations against Kavanaugh and Thomas. You don't like how the Garland nomination was handled? Doesn't matter - Senate rules allowed McConnell to do it. All 9 judges were nominated/approved/appointed based on the laws of the country, and they have the authority to rule on cases that come before the court.

[COR-TEN]

I'm not getting that at all - what they said is that it's precedent and needs to be respected. To me, all that means is that if you're going to overturn precedent then you better address why you did it.

I should also point out that none of the Senators asking these questions voted to confirm Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, or Barrett anyway. They new what would happen.

I knew as well what would happen. As did others. The federalist society chose them (dumpster had zero to do with it) because they checked all the boxes, and overturning R v W was one of them. Also, the world, throughout history, has leaned left. And continues to do so. So "the world conservatives have living in for 70 years" is also BS. The 50's were dominated by conservatives into the 60's, and then again in the 80's.

There's always an ebb and flow. Yes, conservatives held control in the 50s and to a degree in the 80s (the GOP never held the house under Reagan). Progressives had control for the majority of the first half of the 20th century, parts of the 70s and 90s, then large swaths of the 2000s as well as the present day. This is exactly why I'm against removing the filibuster, btw.

Also, i'll go ahead and reject the idea that history "leans left". Left/right can mean different things in different countries/cultures (and at different times), and there is no linear progression of history.

And my '70 years comment' was in reference to the composition of the Supreme Court. Why is it not legitimate solely because they decided in a manner you disagree with? Sorry, but the idea that justices were appointed by a President that lost the popular vote is 100% meaningless. Ditto any accusations against Kavanaugh and Thomas. You don't like how the Garland nomination was handled? Doesn't matter - Senate rules allowed McConnell to do it. All 9 judges were nominated/approved/appointed based on the laws of the country, and they have the authority to rule on cases that come before the court.

Ok the bolded. Expanding the court is also within the rules, yes? So why is the conservative right wigging out over that?

*And lets not forget about eight years of bush in the aughts in regard to republican control.

[Pabst]

Ok the bolded. Expanding the court is also within the rules, yes? So why is the conservative right wigging out over that?

*And lets not forget about eight years of bush in the aughts in regard to republican control.

Yes to both (sorry, forgot about the early 2000s).

Conservatives are 'wigging out' because it's a really bad idea. I'd put court expansion in the same bucket as eliminating the filibuster. Democrats won't be in control forever. I'd even argue that you could draw a direct path from Harry Reid spiking the filibuster for judicial nominations to the overturning of Roe.

This is why I brought up the point to begin with - Dems were up in arms over the filibuster in the early 2010s but pulled a complete 180 on the topic when Trump took office. Then they pivoted straight back once they took back power.

Take it for what it's worth, but Republicans are currently projected to take both houses of Congress in November. With Biden's approval currently in the toilet, it's not out of the question that Republicans get the trifecta in 2024. You really want to give them a filibuster-free Senate?

[Professor Half Wit]

COR, the cancer analogy doesn’t work. Cancer cells do not have as their end the completion of a rational agent. Cancer is a material defect of an animal’s nature, not the animal’s essence. Once an egg is fertilized, it begins to organize toward being a human. That’s not what cancer does.

I’m pro choice. The idea that a fertilized egg in a woman’s womb is not human life is a bad faith argument. The embryo is not growing into a rabbit or a fern. It’s obviously human life. Pro choice people should concede there is human life at conception. The question is what is the source of moral obligation and when does that source obtain for embryo and if never then when for a fetus? Pro life folks generally almost always fall flat on their faces here. Why does a fetus that is fully human in potentiality trump the ends of a woman fully human already in actuality? Still, it is a question of moral source. It is a philosophical question. A damn hard one that goes straight to what it means to be human.

This is not a scientific question, but a moral one that must be informed by science.

I'm using a bad faith argument debating the other side that constantly uses bad faith arguments when I refer to cancer. Good for the goose good for the gander? And I don't mean @Pabst. He's a good guy that I respect, among others here. Steelpro, jebrick, etc..

I can understand the "potential of a human" you are highlighting. I get it. But a fetus is untenable outside the womb, so IMO it is not life. It's why Kangaroos have pouches. Humans don't have pouches. Life needs to be realized. Are plant seeds life? They have the potential for life, yes? What about chicken eggs? Are they chickens? And what about declaring a fetus as a dependent when the gov doesn't recognize it (pronouns anyone?) as a human, but recognizes corporations the same as a human individual's right to express free speech?

Why does dependency on a place for gestation mean that what has such dependency is not alive or lacks life? You have an organism taking nutriment by virtue of its own power and using that nutriment by virtue of its own power to grow and organize toward an end.

All life is dependent on beings other than just itself. Sounds totally arbitrary to me.

And the reason you concede life is that if you grant your opponent her principles and show that what she wants does not follow from them, then you are in a much better position to persuade.

Seed is only potentially alive. Seed is not growing. So that analogy misses the mark.

But I understand why some pro choicers prefer to claim an embryo is not life. Makes abortion much less nasty. But that embryo is alive. The proof is easy and I gave it in the first paragraph of this post. Make no mistake. Abortion kills a living being that is human in potentiality. What prolifers don’t seem to appreciate is that it dies not follow from this admission that it is morally impermissible to do it. And they tend to fall flat on their faces in attempting to explain why it is morally impermissible.

[COR-TEN]

COR, the cancer analogy doesn’t work. Cancer cells do not have as their end the completion of a rational agent. Cancer is a material defect of an animal’s nature, not the animal’s essence. Once an egg is fertilized, it begins to organize toward being a human. That’s not what cancer does.

I’m pro choice. The idea that a fertilized egg in a woman’s womb is not human life is a bad faith argument. The embryo is not growing into a rabbit or a fern. It’s obviously human life. Pro choice people should concede there is human life at conception. The question is what is the source of moral obligation and when does that source obtain for embryo and if never then when for a fetus? Pro life folks generally almost always fall flat on their faces here. Why does a fetus that is fully human in potentiality trump the ends of a woman fully human already in actuality? Still, it is a question of moral source. It is a philosophical question. A damn hard one that goes straight to what it means to be human.

This is not a scientific question, but a moral one that must be informed by science.

I'm using a bad faith argument debating the other side that constantly uses bad faith arguments when I refer to cancer. Good for the goose good for the gander? And I don't mean @Pabst. He's a good guy that I respect, among others here. Steelpro, jebrick, etc..

I can understand the "potential of a human" you are highlighting. I get it. But a fetus is untenable outside the womb, so IMO it is not life. It's why Kangaroos have pouches. Humans don't have pouches. Life needs to be realized. Are plant seeds life? They have the potential for life, yes? What about chicken eggs? Are they chickens? And what about declaring a fetus as a dependent when the gov doesn't recognize it (pronouns anyone?) as a human, but recognizes corporations the same as a human individual's right to express free speech?

Why does dependency on a place for gestation mean that what has such dependency is not alive or lacks life? You have an organism taking nutriment by virtue of its own power and using that nutriment by virtue of its own power to grow and organize toward an end.

All life is dependent on beings other than just itself. Sounds totally arbitrary to me.

And the reason you concede life is that if you grant your opponent her principles and show that what she wants does not follow from them, then you are in a much better position to persuade.

Seed is only potentially alive. Seed is not growing. So that analogy misses the mark.

But I understand why some pro choicers prefer to claim an embryo is not life. Makes abortion much less nasty. But that embryo is alive. The proof is easy and I gave it in the first paragraph of this post. Make no mistake. Abortion kills a living being that is human in potentiality. What prolifers don’t seem to appreciate is that it dies not follow from this admission that it is morally impermissible to do it. And they tend to fall flat on their faces in attempting to explain why it is morally impermissible.

A seed can grow, provided it's given the right environment. A human fetus can grow, provided it's given the right environment. Nobody considers a seed "life." Yes, I understand the difference.

Take a frog heart cell from a frog and it beats in a petrie dish. On it's own. Combine it with another frog heart cell and they beat in unison. Is the frog alive? Is it a frog? Are there two frogs? We're talking about laws which reflect the morality of the majority - in a democracy.

[Professor Half Wit]

I'm using a bad faith argument debating the other side that constantly uses bad faith arguments when I refer to cancer. Good for the goose good for the gander? And I don't mean @Pabst. He's a good guy that I respect, among others here. Steelpro, jebrick, etc..

I can understand the "potential of a human" you are highlighting. I get it. But a fetus is untenable outside the womb, so IMO it is not life. It's why Kangaroos have pouches. Humans don't have pouches. Life needs to be realized. Are plant seeds life? They have the potential for life, yes? What about chicken eggs? Are they chickens? And what about declaring a fetus as a dependent when the gov doesn't recognize it (pronouns anyone?) as a human, but recognizes corporations the same as a human individual's right to express free speech?

Why does dependency on a place for gestation mean that what has such dependency is not alive or lacks life? You have an organism taking nutriment by virtue of its own power and using that nutriment by virtue of its own power to grow and organize toward an end.

All life is dependent on beings other than just itself. Sounds totally arbitrary to me.

And the reason you concede life is that if you grant your opponent her principles and show that what she wants does not follow from them, then you are in a much better position to persuade.

Seed is only potentially alive. Seed is not growing. So that analogy misses the mark.

But I understand why some pro choicers prefer to claim an embryo is not life. Makes abortion much less nasty. But that embryo is alive. The proof is easy and I gave it in the first paragraph of this post. Make no mistake. Abortion kills a living being that is human in potentiality. What prolifers don’t seem to appreciate is that it dies not follow from this admission that it is morally impermissible to do it. And they tend to fall flat on their faces in attempting to explain why it is morally impermissible.

A seed can grow, provided it's given the right environment. A human fetus can grow, provided it's given the right environment. Nobody considers a seed "life."

Take a frog heart cell from a frog and it beats in a petrie dish. On it's own. Combine it with another frog heart cell and they beat in unison. It the frog alive? Is it a frog? We're talking about laws which reflect the morality of the majority - in a democracy.

Seeds don’t grow, COR. Plants grow from out of seeds that furnish material for that initial growth. It’s a bad analogy.

That which is growing because it is growing is by definition alive. You’re trying to convince yourself something that is growing under its own power by taking in nutriment under its own power and organizing into something under its own power is not alive because it requires a womb in order to do so.

[COR-TEN]

Why does dependency on a place for gestation mean that what has such dependency is not alive or lacks life? You have an organism taking nutriment by virtue of its own power and using that nutriment by virtue of its own power to grow and organize toward an end.

All life is dependent on beings other than just itself. Sounds totally arbitrary to me.

And the reason you concede life is that if you grant your opponent her principles and show that what she wants does not follow from them, then you are in a much better position to persuade.

Seed is only potentially alive. Seed is not growing. So that analogy misses the mark.

But I understand why some pro choicers prefer to claim an embryo is not life. Makes abortion much less nasty. But that embryo is alive. The proof is easy and I gave it in the first paragraph of this post. Make no mistake. Abortion kills a living being that is human in potentiality. What prolifers don’t seem to appreciate is that it dies not follow from this admission that it is morally impermissible to do it. And they tend to fall flat on their faces in attempting to explain why it is morally impermissible.

A seed can grow, provided it's given the right environment. A human fetus can grow, provided it's given the right environment. Nobody considers a seed "life."

Take a frog heart cell from a frog and it beats in a petrie dish. On it's own. Combine it with another frog heart cell and they beat in unison. It the frog alive? Is it a frog? We're talking about laws which reflect the morality of the majority - in a democracy.

Seeds don’t grow, COR. Plants grow from out of seeds that furnish material for that initial growth. It’s a bad analogy.

That which is growing because it is growing is by definition alive. You’re trying to convince yourself something that is growing under its own power by taking in nutriment under its own power and organizing into something under its own power is not alive because it requires a womb in order to do so.

I'm having fun with this.

Abortion kills a living being that is human in potentiality.

Potential is not life.

[Pabst]

We also eat seeds and frogs. Maybe this isn't the best analogy? I dunno. Carry on.

[COR-TEN]

We also eat seeds and frogs. Maybe this isn't the best analogy? I dunno. Carry on.

The west doesn't eat dogs either.

[Professor Half Wit]

A seed can grow, provided it's given the right environment. A human fetus can grow, provided it's given the right environment. Nobody considers a seed "life."

Take a frog heart cell from a frog and it beats in a petrie dish. On it's own. Combine it with another frog heart cell and they beat in unison. It the frog alive? Is it a frog? We're talking about laws which reflect the morality of the majority - in a democracy.

Seeds don’t grow, COR. Plants grow from out of seeds that furnish material for that initial growth. It’s a bad analogy.

That which is growing because it is growing is by definition alive. You’re trying to convince yourself something that is growing under its own power by taking in nutriment under its own power and organizing into something under its own power is not alive because it requires a womb in order to do so.

I'm having fun with this.

Abortion kills a living being that is human in potentiality.

Potential is not life.

No, you misunderstand. And you are dangerously close if not already just making claims without justification.

When I say human in potentiality, I am saying you are dealing with a being that has yet to actualize the essence that makes something be human. Here we get into deep philosophical waters and I’m not going to write a dissertation on Steeler Fury about it. Let’s just say human embryos don’t do geometry or give themselves their own ends. But human embryos do have human nature, meaning they possess an inner principle in virtue of which they are growing and organizing themselves toward being a fully developed human.

Because an embryo has not yet fully actualized human nature does not mean it is not alive.

[jebrick]

Ok the bolded. Expanding the court is also within the rules, yes? So why is the conservative right wigging out over that?

*And lets not forget about eight years of bush in the aughts in regard to republican control.

Yes to both (sorry, forgot about the early 2000s).

Conservatives are 'wigging out' because it's a really bad idea. I'd put court expansion in the same bucket as eliminating the filibuster. Democrats won't be in control forever. I'd even argue that you could draw a direct path from Harry Reid spiking the filibuster for judicial nominations to the overturning of Roe.

This is why I brought up the point to begin with - Dems were up in arms over the filibuster in the early 2010s but pulled a complete 180 on the topic when Trump took office. Then they pivoted straight back once they took back power.

Take it for what it's worth, but Republicans are currently projected to take both houses of Congress in November. With Biden's approval currently in the toilet, it's not out of the question that Republicans get the trifecta in 2024. You really want to give them a filibuster-free Senate?

I would rather go with Buttigieg's reform idea than "packing the court" It takes politics most out of the court. I think everyone is starting top think that there are Justices that have agendas.

[SteelPro]

A state legislator from Missouri was on ABC News last night. She basically reiteration points from this proposal a few months back.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/1 ... i-00018539

Missouri lawmakers want to stop their residents from having abortions — even if they take place in another state.

The first-of-its-kind proposal would allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident have an abortion — from the out-of-state physician who performs the procedure to whoever helps transport a person across state lines to a clinic, a major escalation in the national conservative push to restrict access to the procedure.

Republican state Rep. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, who is pushing the Missouri policy as an amendment to multiple health bills, said it specifically targets a Planned Parenthood clinic in Illinois just across the river from St. Louis that opened in 2019 with the explicit goal of serving Missouri patients.

This stuff should be chilling to CONSERVATIVES. Sue someone for driving a girl across state lines to get an abortion??? WTF.

“There’s no clear precedent saying that states can’t try to regulate out-of-state conduct if it has some effect in-state or if it [involves] one of their citizens,” said David Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel University’s Kline School of Law and co-author of a forthcoming paper in the Columbia Law Review on impending interstate conflicts in abortion law. “What these laws are doing is saying, ‘We have a different understanding of how America works, and that understanding is that if you live in this state, we control you everywhere you are.’”

I mean seriously...WTF????

According to James Bopp Jr., the general counsel for National Right to Life, there is some legal precedent for such policies: several federal and state laws already prohibit the transportation of minors across state lines for an abortion without parental consent. But Missouri’s attempt to extend that to adults, he noted, is “completely novel.”

Abortion pills — which recently became the most popular method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S. — are also a target of conservative lawmakers looking to police abortion across state lines.

Several states including Texas have moved to crack down on the practice of prescribing the drugs via telemedicine and sending them by mail to people’s homes. Many others are looking to implement similar bans in the wake of the Biden administration’s move earlier this year to loosen restrictions on the pills. Coleman’s proposal in Missouri also includes such a prohibition.

As I mentioned earlier tele-med and mail delivery of abortion pills is the next legal battle ground. And oh.. that same Missouri state law maker believes doctors sending patient records of pregnant women out of state should be surveilled. Regardless of your views on abortion don't tell me there isn't an over-zealousness of pro-lifers to trample individual rights.