DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings

"Supreme Court Extremists"

Words matter when talking to the public and many of you blamed Trump for this type of rhetoric. This garbage should be denounced by everyone whether you agree with the decision or not. It is encouraging a response that is not good.

"We wont' let the the Supreme Court have the last word". Who does she mean by "we"?

The fascists?

The majority of Americans

Something I find strange is that so many or you guys keep saying its only men who are against abortion the women i know are split about 50/50. So why do you insist that no women support overturning Roe v wade?

That's because they are extremists. Not much better than the Taliban forcing their religion on the whole country. And they are maybe 20-25 % minority.

The fascist right IS the problem. We are ANTIFA. All 75% of us. We hate the fascism of the far right. Stop projecting or sidestepping the obvious.

ANTIFA is an idea, nothing more.

Hitler learned otherwise.

You and your love of Hitler references.

Let me know when the concentration camps and ovens start up.

It is hyperbole.

It’s not the same. That type of rhetoric is wrong and we need to be consistent at calling it out. FrankZ called out the point earlier that this ruling invalidates Roe’s decision that abortions are constitutionally protected under the right to privacy. That’s the central issue at play and was during Roe. The game has now shifted to still defining a “human being” and making the same arguments on a state by state basis that everyone is making all over this thread. It’s gotten far away from the central legal tenant at issue though.

On Friday, in his concurrent opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Thomas emphasized that SCOTUS should “reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. “

“Because any substantive due process decision is ‘demonstrably erroneous’... we have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents... After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated,” wrote Thomas.

The cases mentioned include Griswold v. Connecticut, which ruled that states had no right to ban contraception, Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled on same-sex sex, and Obergefell v. Hodges, which ruled that same-sex couples could legally marry.

He also alluded to the fact that there were other 'wrongly decided' cases which needed to be addressed. It seems like he's talking about such cases as 'Lawrence v. Texas', 'Plyler v. Doe', 'National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius', and maybe even 'Loving v. Virginia'.

Loving vs Virginia-Inter racial marriage
Plyler v. Doe-truck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children
Lawrence vs Texas-Same sex sexual activity
'National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius-Ability of congress to enact provisions of the Affordable Care Act

I actually didn’t take that part as bad. I’m assuming she meant the legislature. I didn’t take it as threatening for whatever that’s worth.

Fortunately it was a concurrence. That’s a foul on Thomas’ part getting so out of bounds on the question posed.

Correct, concurring and dissenting opinions are merely speculation and thought exercises. They are not considered binding.

And in regards to other opinions that could be overturned, first the question has to come to the court. The court does not go looking for the question. It takes a lot of work to get there.

Oh, we'll stop the alt-right before they get to do that. Real Americans will put them in their place.

I know it's your schtick and all, but the whole nazi stuff is so overplayed.

Yep. That was my point on the foul. He overreached. Are you a fellow JD?

They just made women 2nd class citizens. A few months ago they attacked trans kids. SCJ Thomas put out a call for cases to ban gay marriage, adult same-sex consensual sex, and birth control. He mentioned everything but loving v virginia because he is a black man married to a white woman. They are absolutely coming after our rights and attacking the most vulnerable. I don't give a damn what my words sound like, and neither should you. This isn't a Kumbaya moment, it's a get in the trenches moment. They are religious political zealots with no shame. They stole SCOTUS seats and attempted a coup FFS.

Goodness no, I am just someone interested in personal rights, and on occasion I read a court opinion for fun.

All I have to say is that we learned today that elections do have consequences.

We will see how much in November.

This is Reuters for crying out loud. Fair and balanced honest news.

"Corporations are people, my friend-"

Willard "Mitt" Romney, 8/11/2011

This will become a possibility if America's priorities ever shift.
But that would require money to be sent to places other than where it's going now.
I wish us all luck with that.

Oh my! This isn't a good look.


Anti-Life Democrats Chant ‘America Was Never Great’, Shout ‘Hail Satan’''
By Tom Pappert
Published 4 hours ago

https://spreely.video/v/1526097796/...istian-Woman---Let-s-Hear-It-For-Satan--

A large group of pro-abortion protesters outside the Supreme Court chanted “America was never great” while a smaller group chanted “Hell” after the high court overturned Roe v. Wade, returning abortion laws back to the states.

An elderly woman led the chant, “Two, Four, Six, Eight, America was never great” in an apparent response to 45th President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign slogan. The elderly woman then promised in a chant, “What are we doing tomorrow? Staying in the streets!”



Meanwhile a smaller group of protesters engaged with a solitary Christian woman who warned members of the audience that they were destined for hell.

One woman shouted, “I want sex” as part of a vulgar rant. “I want to orgasm,” she added.

“Lady, no one is asking Jesus to save us,” another woman replied.



The same group later began chanting “Hell” repeatedly after one man said, “Let’s here it for hell, let’s here it for Satan.”

At the end of that chant, yet another woman shouted “Hail Satan!”



This morning the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in a landmark 5-4 decision backed by the court’s conservative majority. Chief Justice John Roberts offered a concurring opinion that would have stopped short of overturning the precedent set by Roe.

Three of the justices who formed the majority decision – Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett – were appointed by Trump during his administration.

CNN claimed in an article today that Trump is owed credit for the landmark Supreme Court decision, suggesting that it is the culmination of a process he set in motion on the campaign trail in 2016.

Trump, meanwhile, refused to take credit for the pro-life achievement when asked by Fox News. Instead, the 45th president told the network “God made the decision.”

https://valiantnews.com/2022/06/vid...merica-was-never-great-shout-hail-satan/

I’ve stated my stance on abortion before - which is in line with GM’s - but this is absolutely a colossal failure of the GOP. Quite honestly, I’m surprised this even happened because I had always felt they were just giving lip service to the notion and just wanted to draw the line. Reading the reports coming out now about Trump regretting the downfall of RvW because of its impact on the next election makes me think that actually was the case. They were almost surprised the court actually did what it did, despite the fact it was set up to do just that.

Anyhow, I digress.

It should be about every single one of those things that were mentioned. I am 100% for it and anyone else who is pro life but takes the “NO EnTitLemENts!!” stance is being horrifically hypocritical and obtuse on this front. It irks me like crazy.

They just one government. They are just bricks in the wall.

That's like saying all drug overdoses are the fault of everybody else but the person who overdosed
I mean hell if drugs were legal, and easy to get, and they passed out as much narcan as people wanted, then those poor, poor people wouldn't have had to go to some back ally dealer for their drugs.

Except this isn’t illegal drugs. This is MEDICAL CARE.
bUT tHE fErtiLizED egG!!! soO PrEciOus… except if it’s in a lab… then who gives a crap.

It's medical care if the mother has major problems with the pregnancy or birth. It's just done for convenience in most cases.

j/c

Can anyone anywhere point to a scintilla of evidence that the Constitution addresses abortion? If more people understood the responsibilities of the three branches of government then there would be better and different uproar about issues like abortion...aimed at the legislators that one GETS TO VOTE FOR.

The SC did not outlaw abortion yesterday...they simply DID NOT. The BS in this thread and by idiots like Warren are by people who want our country run by the whims of the day. The SC got it wrong in '73 and they corrected that wrong yesterday. The SC is not - and never should be - concerned about a citizen's opinion of what should be allowed or not...that is why we get to elect our representatives.

Abortion has always been a states' rights issue. Whether a person believes abortion should be legal is NOT the concern of the SC. This is simply not that complicated when one understands why our system of government is what it is and how it works.

You mean specifically. There are many vague constructs in the Constitution that said in general terms which cover many issues. Do you have any idea how many things have been ruled on that weren't named specifically but were found to be described by definition in the constitution? That's exactly why we have a SCOTUS. To interpret what the constitution means on a myriad of topics.

here is a synopsis of the original ruling. The original ruling about Roe was about state government overreach into a woman's life and the protection of her privacy.

On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that continues to divide the nation to this day. In Roe v. Wade, the Court ruled that a state law that banned abortions except to save the life of the mother was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision has proven to be one of the most controversial cases in the Court’s history.



Norma L. McCorvey discovered that she was pregnant in June 1969. It was to be her third child, but McCorvey wished to have an abortion. At the time, Texas law only allowed for abortion in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother. McCorvey was advised by her friends to falsely assert that she had been raped, but there was no police report to back up this claim. Instead, McCorvey attempted to have an illegal abortion, but she soon discovered that the authorities had shut down the facility.

McCorvey visited a local attorney seeking advice on what to do next. The attorney assisted McCorvey with beginning the process of putting her child up for adoption, and also referred her to Linda Coffee and Sarah Weddington, two recent graduates of the University of Texas Law School.

Coffee and Weddington brought a lawsuit on McCorvey’s behalf (who went by the alias “Jane Roe” throughout the case to protect her identity) claiming that the state’s law violated Roe’s constitutional rights. The suit claimed that, while her life was not in danger, Roe had a right to obtain an abortion in a safe, medical environment within her home state. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas agreed, and ruled that the Texas law violated Roe’s right to privacy found in the Ninth Amendment, and was therefore unconstitutional.

Yeah, but if doesn't actually mention something in the constitution by name it doesn't count, right?

And make no mistake about it, the other three cases that thomas mentioned yesterday are not on the docket at this time, but he specifically said that they need to be addressed-he fired a salvo to bring those cases up to the court and we will fix them.

These cases are not about undoing the actions described in the lawsuits-abortion, gay marriage, married couple contraception, inter racial marriage-they are about undoing your personal privacy and undoing many of the freedoms being a citizen of this country affords.

Hell, in his opinion yesterday, he mentioned the case regarding married couple contraception nearly 2 dozen times.

From the Washington Post

Audrey Sandusky, the National Family Planning and Reproductive Rights Association’s senior policy and communications director, told The Washington Post that the opinion shows there is an ‘’appetite among at least some on the Court to dismantle a whole landscape of rights, including the right to access contraception and the fundamental right to privacy.’’

Pointing to instances in which states have deemed certain contraceptive methods as abortifacients, or substances that can induce abortions, Sandusky said the decision will embolden more of those kinds of state policies.