Doc Posted April 12 Posted April 12 4 hours ago, ChiGoose said: No they weren’t. SCOTUS was. I don’t think overturning Roe was even part of the certified question that SCOTUS was asked to address. It’s such a weird and illogical way to look at this. Just trying every trick to excuse the people actually responsible because it makes your side look bad. State passes unconstitutional law Petitioner: hey! That’s unconstitutional SCOTUS: we are changing the constitution to allow things way beyond the law we were asked to look at Internet geniuses: this is the petitioner’s fault. So you're saying that even if JWHO hadn't sued Dobbs, SCOTUS still would have overturned Roe?
ChiGoose Posted April 12 Posted April 12 30 minutes ago, Doc said: So you're saying that even if JWHO hadn't sued Dobbs, SCOTUS still would have overturned Roe? Dear lord, you’re obtuse. You do realize that the natural conclusion of your questioning is: let states pass unconstitutional laws and never challenge them because it might get worse, right? Is that what you’re looking to defend here? Just letting whatever state pass whatever unconstitutional law it wants without any recourse?
Doc Posted April 13 Posted April 13 22 hours ago, ChiGoose said: Dear lord, you’re obtuse. You do realize that the natural conclusion of your questioning is: let states pass unconstitutional laws and never challenge them because it might get worse, right? Is that what you’re looking to defend here? Just letting whatever state pass whatever unconstitutional law it wants without any recourse? I'm not obtuse. You just don't like the question or that I turned the "2nd and 3rd order effects" back on you. As for the Gestational Age Act being "unconstitutional," many have argued that Roe was. And the then and current makeup of the SCOTUS was one that could potentially overturn it. And what I don't get is that, from what I've read, JWHO only performed abortions up until 16 weeks. The GAA wanted to limit it to 15 weeks except for danger to the mother. It wasn't worth it and again I wonder if they had to do it all over again, would they have?
ChiGoose Posted April 13 Posted April 13 (edited) 1 hour ago, Doc said: I'm not obtuse. You just don't like the question or that I turned the "2nd and 3rd order effects" back on you. As for the Gestational Age Act being "unconstitutional," many have argued that Roe was. And the then and current makeup of the SCOTUS was one that could potentially overturn it. And what I don't get is that, from what I've read, JWHO only performed abortions up until 16 weeks. The GAA wanted to limit it to 15 weeks except for danger to the mother. It wasn't worth it and again I wonder if they had to do it all over again, would they have? No, man. I get the game you’re trying to play, you’re just very bad at it. If JWHO didn’t challenge the law, then an unconstitutional law would be in effect. If you want to blame them for the outcome of challenging a blatantly unconstitutional law, then what you’re actually doing is arguing that states should be able to pass unconstitutional laws. If California passed a law that nobody under 35 had a right to own a gun, the NRA would likely challenge that as unconstitutional. If SCOTUS took the case, and instead of deciding the question asked, proclaimed that nobody who wasn’t a member of a regulated state militia had a personal right to own a gun, would you blame the NRA? Your line of questioning implies you would, and I think that’s just stupid. Edited April 13 by ChiGoose
BillStime Posted April 13 Posted April 13 On 4/11/2024 at 2:24 PM, Doc said: You think the JWHO regrets their decision? Or does the political fallout make it worth it? Playing both sides of the coin. We all know who regrets this decision.
Doc Posted April 13 Posted April 13 11 hours ago, ChiGoose said: No, man. I get the game you’re trying to play, you’re just very bad at it. If JWHO didn’t challenge the law, then an unconstitutional law would be in effect. If you want to blame them for the outcome of challenging a blatantly unconstitutional law, then what you’re actually doing is arguing that states should be able to pass unconstitutional laws. If California passed a law that nobody under 35 had a right to own a gun, the NRA would likely challenge that as unconstitutional. If SCOTUS took the case, and instead of deciding the question asked, proclaimed that nobody who wasn’t a member of a regulated state militia had a personal right to own a gun, would you blame the NRA? Your line of questioning implies you would, and I think that’s just stupid. It's less about blame than what you said about 2nd and 3rd order effects. I've always believed people should think first before they act. It's how I live my life. If a person walks through a bad section of town at night and gets mugged/injured/killed, do you blame them for what happened? I just didn't think the juice was worth the squeeze, seeing as how it reduced the abortion limit by just a week from JCHO's own limit. And it certainly wasn't worth it considering the outcome.
ChiGoose Posted April 13 Posted April 13 8 minutes ago, Doc said: It's less about blame than what you said about 2nd and 3rd order effects. I've always believed people should think first before they act. It's how I live my life. If a person walks through a bad section of town at night and gets mugged/injured/killed, do you blame them for what happened? I just didn't think the juice was worth the squeeze, seeing as how it reduced the abortion limit by just a week from JCHO's own limit. And it certainly wasn't worth it considering the outcome. That’s just a long load of nonsense that amounts to: who gives a damn about the constitution? Let states ignore it.
Recommended Posts