Roe vs Wade Overturned

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, cle23 said:

 

But they don't though.  They are making the restrictions tighter, not helping girls like this.  NC is trying to make abortion a death penalty offense.  That's my issue.  In that case, shouldn't they have left abortion legal and worked towards it from there rather than what they've done?

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state  legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

[ChiGoose]

13 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state  legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

“If women live in deep red states, screw them! Make children carry pregnancies to term no matter the risk! That’s what the people want! Trust the process! America!”

 

I have to admit, it’s not a very convincing argument. What other rights should we let legislatures decide? Interracial marriage? Access to contraceptives? Which religion people practice?

 

I mean, I’m sure all of that would be fine so long as we “trust the process” right?

Edited July 25, 2022 by ChiGoose

[cle23]

52 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That’s the debate society is going to have….but what the court said is that it it’s not up to the judicial branch to make these decisions. That’s not what the court does! So, you petition your state  legislature to make adjustments to your state’s laws. It’s how the process works.

 

Exactly what ChiGoose said.  The Supreme Court's job isn't to make laws, but it is to make sure the rights of the people are not infringed upon, and that includes from states and the populace.  Majority rule is not how a republic works.  That's how a pure democracy works, and that is also why we are not a pure democracy.

[ChiGoose]

In Ohio, the people trusted the process and now rapists get to choose the mother of their children.

 

So we should all be happy that things have worked out well, right?

[B-Man]

 

FROM PRO-CHOICE

 

TO PRO-ABORTION

 

TO ANTI-BIRTH: 

 

In Show Of Pro-Abortion Brutality, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer Just Slashed Care For Pregnant Women From Michigan’s Budget.

By Margot Cleveland

 

Last week, Michigan’s Democrat Gov. Gretchen Whitmer vetoed funding for maternity homes, adoption tax credits, and other budget items that assist pregnant women.

 

While post-Dobbs, Whitmer and her fellow Democrats seek to conceal the party’s pro-abortion agenda by pushing state courts to institute the extreme abortion regime they demand, in striking from the budget any spending that has a semblance of supporting the choice of life, Whitmer exposes her party’s abortion-first position. 

 

https://thefederalist.com/2022/07/25/in-show-of-pro-abortion-brutality-gov-gretchen-whitmer-just-slashed-care-for-pregnant-women-from-michigans-budget/

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

3 hours ago, cle23 said:

 

Exactly what ChiGoose said.  The Supreme Court's job isn't to make laws, but it is to make sure the rights of the people are not infringed upon, and that includes from states and the populace.  Majority rule is not how a republic works.  That's how a pure democracy works, and that is also why we are not a pure democracy.

That is NOT the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is there to make distinctions about whether things are spelled out in the Constitution….not to create ‘rights’ that are not spelled out. So relax and let the process work itself out. If then the Legislative Branch appears to have stepped on people’s constitutional rights THEN the Court will be asked for an opinion. Our legislative process is not a democracy, but instead representative government…which is why they’re called Representatives. 

[ChiGoose]

51 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

That is NOT the job of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is there to make distinctions about whether things are spelled out in the Constitution….not to create ‘rights’ that are not spelled out. 

This would come as a surprise to the authors of the 9th amendment and the Bills of Rights in general.

[All_Pro_Bills]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

This would come as a surprise to the authors of the 9th amendment and the Bills of Rights in general.

Shouldn't those additional rights be either spelled out in the Constitution or provided through the establishment of law by the Legislative branch?  And not through Judicial proclamations or interpretations as the court is not in the business of granting or defining rights.   Given that context, I'm not clear how the court ruling violates or contradicts the 9th amendment. 

Edited July 25, 2022 by All_Pro_Bills

[ChiGoose]

18 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Shouldn't those additional rights be either spelled out in the Constitution or provided through the establishment of law by the Legislative branch?  And not through Judicial proclamations or interpretations as the court is not in the business of granting or defining rights.   Given that context, I'm not clear how the court ruling violates or contradicts the 9th amendment. 

This is a good question, I’ll take a stab at explaining it.

 

The text of the constitution generally talks about what the government itself can or cannot do. It explains the boundaries of the government.

 

However, at the time there was concern about the rights of the people themselves. So while the Constitution spoke to the government, the Bill of Rights was drafted to outline the rights of the people.  
 

This was controversial, because how could you possibly list every single right a person has? Many founders were concerned that future generations would interpret the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of rights and that if something does not appear in its text, then it is not a right. The consequences of them not thinking of a right they believe in while drafting the amendments could be massive.
 

The solution was the 9th amendment which states that just because a right isn’t listed in the text does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is where we’re find the unenumerated rights. It is further expounded through subsequent amendments like the 14th. The Bill of Rights explicitly states some important rights, but it is not exhaustive of all rights retained by the people.

 

So I think it is fair to say that part of the Supreme Court’s job is to draw some lines in that gray area. And we can debate about where the best place is to draw that line.

 

However, the argument that something isn’t a right simply because it doesn’t appear in the text of the constitution or its amendments is antithetical to what the founders intended. 

It’s hard to argue that something left to a legislature is a reliable right since it can easily be revoked by the legislature. I’d also encourage you to think about things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution that maybe you wouldn’t want to leave to the whims of politicians. Interracial marriage, privacy, even the right to travel, are all unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. Do you think all of these should be left to politicians to decide, or would it be better for those rights to be established guardrails that legislatures cannot override?

[SoCal Deek]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

This is a good question, I’ll take a stab at explaining it.

 

The text of the constitution generally talks about what the government itself can or cannot do. It explains the boundaries of the government.

 

However, at the time there was concern about the rights of the people themselves. So while the Constitution spoke to the government, the Bill of Rights was drafted to outline the rights of the people.  
 

This was controversial, because how could you possibly list every single right a person has? Many founders were concerned that future generations would interpret the Bill of Rights to be an exhaustive list of rights and that if something does not appear in its text, then it is not a right. The consequences of them not thinking of a right they believe in while drafting the amendments could be massive.
 

The solution was the 9th amendment which states that just because a right isn’t listed in the text does not mean it doesn’t exist. This is where we’re find the unenumerated rights. It is further expounded through subsequent amendments like the 14th. The Bill of Rights explicitly states some important rights, but it is not exhaustive of all rights retained by the people.

 

So I think it is fair to say that part of the Supreme Court’s job is to draw some lines in that gray area. And we can debate about where the best place is to draw that line.

 

However, the argument that something isn’t a right simply because it doesn’t appear in the text of the constitution or its amendments is antithetical to what the founders intended. 

It’s hard to argue that something left to a legislature is a reliable right since it can easily be revoked by the legislature. I’d also encourage you to think about things that are not explicitly stated in the constitution that maybe you wouldn’t want to leave to the whims of politicians. Interracial marriage, privacy, even the right to travel, are all unenumerated rights not explicitly stated in the constitution. Do you think all of these should be left to politicians to decide, or would it be better for those rights to be established guardrails that legislatures cannot override?

Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!

[ChiGoose]

57 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Why is this so FREAKING hard? You do NOT have the right to kill to someone!!

So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins?

[Boatdrinks]

13 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins?

And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside. 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside. 

We had that compromise: bodily autonomy in first trimester, right of the baby in the third trimester and states could regulate in the second trimester. 

[SoCal Deek]

22 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

So you, and solely you, get to determine when life begins?

No….but neither does the court. Geez you’re insufferable. 

2 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

And therein lies the b*+<#. Who shall determine this? Some compromise will likely be reached on this issue, with limitations at a certain point. Not all states will rule on this the same way. This diversity will continue to be our strength, as we can freely choose the state in which we reside. 

Thank you!!!

[BillsFanNC]

 

 

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, ChiGoose said:

We had that compromise: bodily autonomy in first trimester, right of the baby in the third trimester and states could regulate in the second trimester. 

Via a bad ruling that was overturned. Some states may continue with that guideline and others may not. There is no problem here. Just diversity. 

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Via a bad ruling that was overturned. Some states may continue with that guideline and others may not. There is no problem here. Just diversity. 

Yeah, and if states decide that rapists get to decide the mothers of their children even if the would-be mothers are children themselves, that’s fine! It’s the process working!

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Yeah, and if states decide that rapists get to decide the mothers of their children even if the would-be mothers are children themselves, that’s fine! It’s the process working!

And to quote you….and YOU get to be the one to decide for everyone else? 

[ChiGoose]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And to quote you….and YOU get to be the one to decide for everyone else? 

No. In the tradition of the founders, the courts should try to draw the lines on where our rights are. By abdicating this and leaving it to the states without any guardrails, we are asking for terrible things to happen. 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

No. In the tradition of the founders, the courts should try to draw the lines on where our rights are. By abdicating this and leaving it to the states without any guardrails, we are asking for terrible things to happen. 

Wrong. First, let the legislature do its job. If cases arise from their legislative actions, then the court can rule, or the legislature can rewrite their legislation. Trust the Process.