DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus SC Rulings continued

No you didn’t.

Nope not hard to understand at all. You support snuffing out the life of human children just for the pleasure of others.

Just because you chose to not believe doesn't mean I am not right. You don't seem to like the constitution much when it is being followed, only when it gets you what you want.

You calling me a fascist shows you really have no idea what that means. I want less government, I want the to stop trying to run our lives.

From the Merriam Webster for you:


You want a more central controlling government, you want to silence anyone that doesn't agree with you, you really seem to want a one party system by rigging the courts to control everything... sounds like you are way further down the road to fascism than I am.

Go kick your own rocks. You try to dictate what others think by screaming about fascism and trumpian BS, you vent your spleen any time anyone disagrees with you. Go swallow your butthurt and grow up.

When you build a house on a faulty foundation you have trouble. Roe was flawed, badly. They tried to shore it up in Casey. The house needed to be torn down.

It was wrongly decided, it was ends means and it was just wrong.

You want abortion to be a constitutionally protected right? Get it in the constitution. There is an amendment process.

If Roe was flawed Dobbs is flawed as well. Probably more so.

And every constitutional originalist hates the 9th amendment.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

I believe that the arguments in the Dobbs decision were based on a 14th amendment right, but I think if fails badly on the 9th. You can't say that because it was not in the Constitution, it does not exist. That is what the 9th amendment is all about. Using the 9th, certain rights are being denied and disparaged rights retained by the people.

Fundamentally this is something that has national significance and should not be a harbinger of states conflict.

I do agree that the Roe decision was more legislative in nature than it should have been.

It falls into the same category as the second amendment, people would rather fight than fix.

And ironically, Brown v Board overturned a SCOTUS decision in Plessy V Ferguson.

The court has reversed some of it's decisions on maybe a few hundred occasions. It's a small percentage of times, but it happen's.

I don't hate 9A. I've never argued that there isn't a right to abortion. I have stated elsewhere there might likely be, but it is tricky to make an argument that there is when, at the heart of it, you have a being that is harmed in the exercise of the right itself. As I have discussed previously it may be argued that the mother holds the rights of the child, specifically in this case the right to life, because the child is reliant on the mother. Of course children are reliant on parents longer than just being born, but all of this makes the conversation interesting.

In regards to 9A, if abortion is actually a right, the constitution would retain it to the people, and as such the people, through the state, would make the decision. This would, in my eyes, strengthen the opinion in Dobbs v Jackson, though I haven't finished reading it.

I'm gonna need to see all these DT lawyers' law licenses pretty soon. I call BS on the lot of you self-righteous Trump lovin' anti-women's-equality types. I see some pretending to be anything but Trumpian trolls to pass off their remarks as anything more than asinine. I'm sure I'll get flamed, but educated sophisticated people don't argue alt-right talking points as reasonable or rational, yet here we are.

Sorry, I didn't know you had super jr.; I wouldn't know anything about that.

Blah blah blah.

Words have meaning. A dividing cell, a zygote, a fetus, a baby… all different things.
But you keep up the emotional blathering. I’ll stick to science.

To your point. I think the problem is if abortion rights had stuck to that clump of cells as you mention, I doubt it would have come to this point. The problem is you folks took it to too far and what was being sucked out didn't look like a "clump of cells" any longer.

You don't stick to science at all.

LOL...the old you're going to have to prove it argument....then going on to say only educated people think like you. LOL

And how many women don’t regret it? Everyone I’ve known that has had the procedure has moved on with their lives.
Some people have buyers remorse after buying a new car. Should we not sell new cars? .

What the hell is wrong w/you?

My x wife had an abortion before we married and didn’t tell me until years after we married. We had two children. She came across as a total pro life Republican d-bag and probably still is. When she told me she had an abortion long ago I was floored. I only said “how convenient for you and you being a staunch Catholic and all”. Yeah I was cold but she should have told me before we married. Probably one of the main reasons we divorced, was her deceit in many things like this. But still I realize men don’t have a say here. It’s her body and she has to deal with her choices. It’s none of my biz. Men in general certainly have not gained enough trust to control a women’s reproductive rights, that’s a given.

Lol the old prove it game. Lol. We now live in world where you don’t need to prove yourself? alrighty then.

It's not BS. I am much more on your side on the "who's going to speak for the baby" argument, but it's still a debate because we've still been unable to draw a line that makes sense. While advancing science has actually muddied the water a bit, it really comes down to both sides of the debate being too entrenched to meaningfully discuss.

What Pit is saying, however, is something very different. Some might argue even more important (not sure I would, but I can see the argument). It is so critically important to keep religious beliefs (any of them) out of lawmaking. We are a country founded by Christians, so it's only natural that our laws would parallel various Christian tenets, but one of the primary cited reasons the settlers left to find the New World was to flee religious persecution. A critical step in the founding of our country was due in large part to people not wanting to be governed by religious beliefs that conflicted with their own. Separation of Church and State, while sometimes messy, is a central pillar of our country.

Supreme Court says EPA does not have authority to set climate standards for power plants

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/06/30/-su...-climate-standards-for-power-plants.html

holy hell this SC is bought and paid for.

this is literally part of the roll of the EPA. the fact that the trash ass lobbyist was able to argue this successfully is freaking sad, especially because they know the current filibuster will save them from any sort of regulations because republicans and a couple of dem senators will block it.

what the hell man....

The illegitimate Extreme Court needs to go. We can't live with these people calling the shots for the next 20-30 years. That's all I have to say.

I haven't read the opinion but the summary is:


Congress did not grant the Environmental Protection Agency in Section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act the authority to devise emissions caps based on the generation shifting approach the Agency took in the Clean Power Plan.

Which doesn't sound the same as CNBC's description. Not sure I am up for reading this one or not yet

Once again, it's not a question of what I believe. It's a question of if I feel I have the right to inflict my beliefs on others. I don't feel I have that right.

j/c...

And see, this is your personal beliefs. That doesn't make it a fact. That doesn't mean that you are correct or that other people may not have different views and that yours is the only possible one that is correct We really aren't that different as far as personal views go. The difference is you feel that your view on the matter is 100% correct and as such you have the right to support inflicting your belief on the topic on everyone else. I share your views on the actuality of human life and that I feel abortion is wrong. But that last sentence in the quote above is just mind boggling. That's pure judgement on everyone that gets an abortion to your moral beliefs that actually have no basis in fact. It's nothing but an emotional response with which to try and make anyone with views other than your own sound evil and sinister.

Now like I said, we both agree that abortion is wrong. But let me explain a discussion I had with someone who helped me understand that there is a legitimate reason why I'm not as consistent as I thought I was and it made me see that there is another valid way of looking at it. It certainly didn't change my view on abortion but it did make me understand why I should respect the other sides view about it.

First the point they made was that to us this is about life. When in the reproductive system that a fetus becomes a human be that at conception, as soon as a heartbeat begins or when the stage of human viability begins. Human viability is the stage at which life can be sustained outside the womb. that is considered to be at around 23 weeks.

So this person asked me to be as honest as possible and in return I was. He asked me at what point I thought a butterfly became a butterfly? Was it a butterfly when it was an egg? Because as an egg it will become a pupa.Was it when it becomes a pupa? Because once again, the pupa doesn't become a butterfly, it becomes a caterpillar. Is a caterpillar a butterfly he asked?

I found that trying to claim that the original egg of the butterfly was actually a butterfly was something I simply couldn't do. I found that at almost every state of the butterflies development along the way it was very hard for me to consider it a butterfly.

Now that didn't change my personal view regarding abortion. What it did do is help me to understand that my morality didn't hold true for everyone. And that while I didn't agree with their view on abortion those with differing views were NOT..".You support snuffing out the life of human children just for the pleasure of others."

Just wow dude. You have allowed your emotions to get the best of you and seem to feel your opinion on the topic is the end all be all. That only the way you see it counts. Sad....

No love for the court for biden vs Texas?


They sided with Biden over removing the remain in Mexico rule. 5-4

I know it is typical to use memes to disparage people, especially to point out when you think they are stupid. The question becomes, will grain, left on it's own without outside interference, become bread? An fetus surely will grow into sentient human.

An executive order has never been considered something that can't be overturned by the next president. The order was based on Covid which was killing thousands and thousands of Americans. The way it was written confined that reasoning to covid. There were also restrictions on people flying into the country from other nations for those very same reasons. None of those restrictions remain and this falls in line with that.

This isn't overturning precedent.

I understand that. I also understand it isn't something that people will be able to vent over and call the court extremists and illegitimate.

And this thread is supposed to be about SCOTUS rulings (opinions).

I agree that's what the thread is about. However pointing out that this was never a constitutional issue to begin with to show the difference between this ruling and others is also legitimate part of the conversation.

Also happening today:


Binanchi vs Frosh - GVR see New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen ("assault" weapons ban)
Young vs Hawaii - GVR see New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (public open carry)
Duncan vs Bonta - GVR see New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (magazine capacity)
NJ Rifle vs Bruck - GVR ee New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen (magazine capacity)

By GVR it is likely none of these cases will survive under the new NYSRPA v Bruen opinion. If states try to play shenanigans with them they could be back in front of the court post haste with stern directives coming out. I almost wish Brian Frosh would play chicken with SCOTUS.

When Trump instituted remain in Mexico so many on the left yelled it was unconstitutional for him to do so. When Biden tried to remove it the right was screaming it was unconstitutional.

aye you got the opinion link on this one? interested to read the dissent and break it down.

And your point?

The point is yer looking to fight.

I very quickly read the syllabus.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/21-954_7l48.pdf

Yeah, it's me. People can read. I'll leave it at that.