ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Where Fellowship and Camaraderie lives: that place where the CPS membership values fun and good fellowship as the cement of the community
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2727
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 373 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by Del »

I kept an eye on the news reports this weekend.

In spite of having several weeks to prepare since the leak, secular reports have absolutely nothing positive to say about Dobbs. They have latched on to a great deal of Dem-talking-point fear mongering about how Republicans want to ban contraception, overturn gay marriage, and even try to attack interracial marriage and make gay sex illegal.

This is a grave fiction that borders on Big Lie. There is no political will, even among the fiercest social conservatives, to overturn those Court-laws. Our culture has come to accept these as "good policy," even if their legal court reasoning was flawed.

The majority Court decision was clear to affirm that Roe failed miserably by failing to balance the child's right to life.
tuttle wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 07:21 The ramifications of Dobbs goes beyond overturning Roe**. According to Justice Thomas (and the dissenting justices) other cases argued on similar grounds (he calls out ‘substantive due process’ as a legal fiction) as Roe, or used Roe to build their case, are now theoretically on the chopping block. Thomas specifically mentioned Griswold (contraceptives), Lawrence (criminal punishment for gay stuff), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage).

Regardless on whether or not those cases do get overturned (I actually think they might within the next decade or so) I think this also signals a shift in where the battles take place. The left can no longer depend on the highest court to implement their social agendas.

**actually, Dobbs is just one piece in what looks to be a turning point in how the court views itself and its powers. A lot of these opinions are doing the legwork for the future by overturning bad past opinions that have handcuffed previous courts. They are looking to clean up the crap and restrict the court's power (ie, no more legislation from the bench), and it's going to have huge ramifications for all of the leftist "achievements" over the last few decades.
Democrats and their media believe that they need to churn fear in order to get votes in the mid-terms. So they threaten that Republicans want to upset the settled lives of their base. It won't happen. The other cases will stand unchallenged, and Thomas alone appears to believe that they are even challengeable.

Clarence Thomas's attack on "substantive due process" could actually save the Democrats from themselves. Thomas is signaling that this Court will not indulge new arguments based on substantive due process. There won't be any decisions which could force parents to trans their kids or force female athletes to let men dominate their competitions.
User avatar
FredS
A Rotten Mexican Woman
A Rotten Mexican Woman
Posts: 1689
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 465 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by FredS »

tuttle wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 07:21 The ramifications of Dobbs goes beyond overturning Roe**. According to Justice Thomas (and the dissenting justices) other cases argued on similar grounds (he calls out ‘substantive due process’ as a legal fiction) as Roe, or used Roe to build their case, are now theoretically on the chopping block. Thomas specifically mentioned Griswold (contraceptives), Lawrence (criminal punishment for gay stuff), and Obergefell (same-sex marriage).

Regardless on whether or not those cases do get overturned (I actually think they might within the next decade or so) I think this also signals a shift in where the battles take place. The left can no longer depend on the highest court to implement their social agendas.




**actually, Dobbs is just one piece in what looks to be a turning point in how the court views itself and its powers. A lot of these opinions are doing the legwork for the future by overturning bad past opinions that have handcuffed previous courts. They are looking to clean up the crap and restrict the court's power (ie, no more legislation from the bench), and it's going to have huge ramifications for all of the leftist "achievements" over the last few decades.
Yes. I typed, then deleted about that exact thing in my earlier post. We've always thought that once a political body (the SCOTUS is just that, inasmuch as the POTUS appoints Justices) grabs or invents a 'power', they'd never let it go. It's good that the court has done that, saying they never had the authority to regulate abortion in the first place, and has now returned that power to the States.
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
User avatar
FredS
A Rotten Mexican Woman
A Rotten Mexican Woman
Posts: 1689
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 465 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by FredS »

Del wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 08:19 . . . The majority Court decision was clear to affirm that Roe failed miserably by failing to balance the child's right to life. . .
Is that really what they've done?

Let's be precise and let's be honest. If, by this decision, the court put any sort of protection on the unborn child's right to life, or if they've defined unborn children as persons having such rights, then state legislatures will not be able to remove those rights. Right?
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
User avatar
tuttle
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 424
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 05:21
Location: Middle-west
Has thanked: 213 times
Been thanked: 90 times
Contact:

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by tuttle »

FredS wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:09
Del wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 08:19 . . . The majority Court decision was clear to affirm that Roe failed miserably by failing to balance the child's right to life. . .
Is that really what they've done?

Let's be precise and let's be honest. If, by this decision, the court put any sort of protection on the unborn child's right to life, or if they've defined unborn children as persons having such rights, then state legislatures will not be able to remove those rights. Right?
I haven't read all of it, but they might have said something to that effect without their decision resting on it.

Basically they said Roe wasn't decided on good jurisprudence. We're going to rectify it and reframe the court to be more in line with what the court should always be, an arbiter deciding a case between two parties. Way more to it than that, but that's the essence of the decision here. They're basically punting it (legally speaking, rightly) back to the States to determine it, since there is no constitutional right to an abortion, nor can any such right be found in common law. They're saying, that ain't our job. Shouldn't have been and lot's of bad jurisprudence has been the result.

It's a fantastic sign for the direction of the court.

Now I did hear an interesting theory from a lawyer looking at the NY firearms case that came out the day before Dobbs, and his theory was that the court could eventually hear something like whether an unborn person is an actual person, but because of how they've been deciding these court cases, the onus is now on those trying to prove through common law that an unborn person is NOT a person, and no lefty will want to go at it from that angle because they literally cannot, and it will force the court to pronounce otherwise, that in fact there is a common law tradition that recognizes the unborn as legal persons (ie. unborn children as heirs to estates, etc), and the whole thing would blow up in their face and would likely trigger some sort of nationwide abortion ban at that point (b/c you can't murder legal persons). So he thinks no liberal will try to go through the Supreme Court anymore over this and that their tactics will shift to making it a law (but then, they'd have to deal with the possibility of the law being found unconstitutional, bringing up the same type of dilemma.) I don't know if all of that is as sound as he put it, but to him it seemed like this was a brilliant victory.

Of course if the court swings left they could upend all that, so the safest move (legally speaking) for the left is to probably just sit on their hands and rah rah their people to vote for them until then. The danger for them is that it could be a while and in the meantime more and more legal protections become enshrined, etc. The danger for the country (in my opinion) is that they'll do something far and away more worrisome than try to address it legally.
"tuttle isn't saved" - Legion
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2727
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 373 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by Del »

FredS wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:09
Del wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 08:19 . . . The majority Court decision was clear to affirm that Roe failed miserably by failing to balance the child's right to life. . .
Is that really what they've done?

Let's be precise and let's be honest. If, by this decision, the court put any sort of protection on the unborn child's right to life, or if they've defined unborn children as persons having such rights, then state legislatures will not be able to remove those rights. Right?
Even the original Roe decision admitted that the child has rights (in tension with his mother's rights), and made up the viability test to balance those rights. A viable child's life was protected.

Casey changed the standard from viability test to an "undue burden test," strengthening the mother's rights over her child's life. States had to argue that late-term abortions were dangerous to the mother in order to protect the child somewhat. But some states were willing to allow abortion right up to birth.

Justice Alito wrote that Blackmun's opinion failed to give sufficient weight to the child's rights, while erroneously finding an absolute right to abortion in the Constitution. And as an absolute Right is not found in the Constitution, then the duty of balancing rights belongs to the legislatures, and not to the Court.

Dobbs specifically allows Mississippi to protect children after 15 weeks gestation, even though the child is not yet viable apart from her mother. But it also allows voters in Missouri to prohibit any sort of surgical or chemical abortions. And it allows voters in California to permit abortions up to birth, and even to force taxpayers to pay for abortions.

In Dobbs, the Court has simply removed all constitutional constraints.
User avatar
FredS
A Rotten Mexican Woman
A Rotten Mexican Woman
Posts: 1689
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 06:05
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 465 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by FredS »

Del wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 12:47
FredS wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:09
Del wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 08:19 . . . The majority Court decision was clear to affirm that Roe failed miserably by failing to balance the child's right to life. . .
Is that really what they've done?

Let's be precise and let's be honest. If, by this decision, the court put any sort of protection on the unborn child's right to life, or if they've defined unborn children as persons having such rights, then state legislatures will not be able to remove those rights. Right?
Even the original Roe decision admitted that the child has rights (in tension with his mother's rights), and made up the viability test to balance those rights. A viable child's life was protected.

Casey changed the standard from viability test to an "undue burden test," strengthening the mother's rights over her child's life. States had to argue that late-term abortions were dangerous to the mother in order to protect the child somewhat. But some states were willing to allow abortion right up to birth.

Justice Alito wrote that Blackmun's opinion failed to give sufficient weight to the child's rights, while erroneously finding an absolute right to abortion in the Constitution. And as an absolute Right is not found in the Constitution, then the duty of balancing rights belongs to the legislatures, and not to the Court.

Dobbs specifically allows Mississippi to protect children after 15 weeks gestation, even though the child is not yet viable apart from her mother. But it also allows voters in Missouri to prohibit any sort of surgical or chemical abortions. And it allows voters in California to permit abortions up to birth, and even to force taxpayers to pay for abortions.

In Dobbs, the Court has simply removed all constitutional constraints.
Thanks. Like Tuttle, I haven't read the entire decision. I honestly only read the first page of the document he linked in the OP. And, somewhat like Hugo, I rely on the knowledge you've gained championing the cause for so many years. That said, I understand we're prone to hyperbole when it comes to our passions, and you're certainly passionate about this.

I'll presume that even though "Justice Alito wrote that Blackmun's opinion failed to give sufficient weight to the child's rights" [your words], Alito has not, in this decision, *afforded any more or less rights than the child had last week, and that state legislatures can create laws allowing that child to be aborted at whatever age they and their constituents desire. In fact, it seems overturning Roe, with it's protections after an age of viability, will allow states to apply even looser restrictions. If the viability test was/is found only in the Roe decision, I pray we get busy codifying laws that will specifically give federal protection to children on and after that age.

*Again, I'm setting aside the Christian position that rights are bestowed by the Creator, not men.
If we ever get to heaven boys, it ain't because we ain't done nothin' wrong. - Kris Kristofferson
User avatar
Del
Usher
Usher
Posts: 2727
Joined: 11 Apr 2022, 22:08
Location: Madison, WI
Has thanked: 233 times
Been thanked: 373 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by Del »

FredS wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 14:27
Del wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 12:47
FredS wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 10:09
Is that really what they've done?

Let's be precise and let's be honest. If, by this decision, the court put any sort of protection on the unborn child's right to life, or if they've defined unborn children as persons having such rights, then state legislatures will not be able to remove those rights. Right?
Even the original Roe decision admitted that the child has rights (in tension with his mother's rights), and made up the viability test to balance those rights. A viable child's life was protected.

Casey changed the standard from viability test to an "undue burden test," strengthening the mother's rights over her child's life. States had to argue that late-term abortions were dangerous to the mother in order to protect the child somewhat. But some states were willing to allow abortion right up to birth.

Justice Alito wrote that Blackmun's opinion failed to give sufficient weight to the child's rights, while erroneously finding an absolute right to abortion in the Constitution. And as an absolute Right is not found in the Constitution, then the duty of balancing rights belongs to the legislatures, and not to the Court.

Dobbs specifically allows Mississippi to protect children after 15 weeks gestation, even though the child is not yet viable apart from her mother. But it also allows voters in Missouri to prohibit any sort of surgical or chemical abortions. And it allows voters in California to permit abortions up to birth, and even to force taxpayers to pay for abortions.

In Dobbs, the Court has simply removed all constitutional constraints.
Thanks. Like Tuttle, I haven't read the entire decision. I honestly only read the first page of the document he linked in the OP. And, somewhat like Hugo, I rely on the knowledge you've gained championing the cause for so many years. That said, I understand we're prone to hyperbole when it comes to our passions, and you're certainly passionate about this.

I'll presume that even though "Justice Alito wrote that Blackmun's opinion failed to give sufficient weight to the child's rights" [your words], Alito has not, in this decision, *afforded any more or less rights than the child had last week, and that state legislatures can create laws allowing that child to be aborted at whatever age they and their constituents desire. In fact, it seems overturning Roe, with it's protections after an age of viability, will allow states to apply even looser restrictions. If the viability test was/is found only in the Roe decision, I pray we get busy codifying laws that will specifically give federal protection to children on and after that age.

*Again, I'm setting aside the Christian position that rights are bestowed by the Creator, not men.
It was Casey v. Planned Parenthood that overturned Roe's protection after viability. Several states already have statutes that allow abortion up to birth, and nothing will change in those states.

Roe and Casey established that a mother has a Constitutional right to abortion, and that no state could apply any "undue burden" to restrict that right. Requiring an abortion doctor to have a relationship with a hospital in case of severe complications was an undue burden. A three-day cooling off waiting period was an undue burden. The cases were brought by the abortion industry, not actual women, and provided protection for Planned Parenthood more than anyone else.

Dobbs has removed all of that. Voters and state legislatures are pretty much free to set whatever standards they wish.

Nancy tried to press a federal statute allowing abortion up to birth all across the nation. It failed to pass filibuster in the Senate. Pro-life states would surely oppose such federal overreach.

I don't know if pro-life Republicans will try to establish any federal protections. If Democrats fail to kill the filibuster, they will certainly use it to stop any reasonable federal pro-life protections. Not that Catholic Joe would ever sign such a bill, in any case. And the Abortion States would sue to stop such federal overreach, anyhow.

So the legal battles go back to states, as it was before 1973. Vet our local candidates, and let our views be known to them.

*Natural Human Rights are given from God. Natural and civil rights are secured by law and restrained government.
User avatar
DLJake
Sunday School Superintendent
Sunday School Superintendent
Posts: 517
Joined: 09 Apr 2022, 18:05
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 73 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by DLJake »

What will we do to bring support to those in need?

I think this means the US Fed level cannot fund Planned Parenthood anymore; but I might be wrong.

We've got to support and help these people in need.

Ya know, as soon as the farging ice holes stop terrorizing crisis pregnancy centers and all.
Nothing destroys cowboy boots faster than mare's urine. - JimVH as published in Equine Quarterly September 2022
User avatar
coco
JimVH from the old site
JimVH from the old site
Posts: 1453
Joined: 08 Apr 2022, 15:54
Location: Sweet Home Alabama
Has thanked: 18 times
Been thanked: 249 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by coco »

DLJake wrote: 27 Jun 2022, 17:23 What will we do to bring support to those in need?...
On Sunday our church prayed that we would be dedicated to helping young mothers, supporting adoption, and proclaiming forgiveness in Christ to those who need to hear. There is much good that will need to be done.
I am not as cool as JimVH. Nor or you. Well, unless you ARE JimVH.
User avatar
Thunktank
Sunday School Teacher
Sunday School Teacher
Posts: 104
Joined: 14 Apr 2022, 21:34
Been thanked: 2 times

ROE V WADE OVERRULED!

Post by Thunktank »

An awful lot of happiness in this thread from you dudes.

I’m baffled.

I’m pretty sure there’s gonna be less sex going on now in some of your states. She gate keepers gonna lock that down tight for some poor fellas. No more love for you!

But some of you getting kinda old so probably not doing much of that anymore anyway, so party on CPS, party on! :twisted:
Post Reply