The most depressing part of this is that so many activists (and most citizens as well) have no comprehension of what the ruling was about. It was not a statement about whether abortion was right or wrong, it was whether an activist court overreached in making it legal on a federal basis in 1972.
Most of the states where these protests are occurring are not impacted at all by the ruling.
Unfortunately, our media either doesn't understand the ruling as well, or they do, and instead of being journalists, choose to paint it in a way to create as many clicks as possible, and encourage divineness amongst the readers.
My other favorite is the "six week abortion ban", I've had people parroting their deceptive media sources tell me "don't they know there may not even be a fetal heartbeat at six weeks!"
(the bills are EXPRESSLY bills that only ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat, and the MSM simply calls them six week bills in order to deceive a bit and control the language, since "fetal heartbeat" creates more empathy)
And the media never mentioning that RBG stated that R V W was a “ leaky document” and that it should go back to the States. Never diffuse a misunderstood DIVISIVE topic.
What really has them angry is that in recent decades, the left has relied on judicial overreach to implement policies that they could never get legislative approval for. They see this court reversing that trend, and it scares the hell out of them.
Actually, I was most encouraged by the SCOTUS position to reign in some of the regulatory agencies, another back door that Dem congress folks have used instead of passing legislation.
Narcissism. “Hey everybody, look at me, I’m [pro or anti] abortion!”
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood’s website lists 12 different birth control methods, many that are 99 percent effective, and the morning after pill is available in 50 states.
The funniest thing to me is that there is some small but critical mass of loud shouters who think that they can control the engine of government to make other people do what they want them to do. It never works. It never has worked.
Prohibition: people still drank alcohol, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
Attempts at gun control: people still have guns, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
End of Roe v. Wade: people will still get abortions because they feel the need to and don't care about the law
The only thing sillier than the state making itself look silly are the people who insist the state should make itself look silly.
You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses. The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women. Abortions will be either illegal or extremely hard to obtain or require a great deal of money. The next step is to ban all birth control methods that don't require the women to beg the man to cooperate and leave her helpless against him.
Except for the states that allow abortion up until birth. Do you think California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, et al are going to restrict their current abortion laws? No, they won’t. So stop with the useless scare tactics. It makes you look stupid.
Here in Illinois, the legislature via Dem super majority is all-in on abortion for all. No need for a minor having it done to advise her parent. Also, the IL Gov who is running for Pres had ribbon-cutting ceremony at new metro-East (St. Louis) women's health care/abortion clinic. Illinois is officially an abortion destination.
"The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women."
Wow! I did not know this. That's really terrible. Is it even possible for us decent people to live among all these monsters? And to think that many of them are women themselves! Unbelievable! Anyway, it's cool that you know so much about them so you can inform us. I'll be on the lookout.
Plenty of women are dupes thinking that men regard them as SPECIAL and that they will still be respected and allowed to engage in meaningful work after men get the laws they want. Other women are stupid whores who deserve miserable lives but the Special Cool Girls will be exempt! You’re totally wrong; to men you’re just another piece of worthless dirt to be scraped off after you’re no longer useful.
WTF are you talking about? The only factual statement you made is, "You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses." You're absolutely right...celebrating the demented photos of partial birth aborted babies demonstrates the evil you state.
Nonsense. ‘Partial birth abortion’ was a slogan devised by the woman-haters to make a rare procedure done in terribly dangerous pregnancies scary to the uninformed public. If you cared about babies, you had 50 years to make birth control free, child care and parental leave universally available, and force men to actually be some use around the house.
You did NONE of those things; you opposed every single effort we feminists made.
Maybe in the blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland. I will deliver it garbed as Lord Humungus from THE ROAD WARRIOR, shouting through a bullhorn to a terrified encampment.
I disagree about the loud shouters, etc. There have been demonstrations, or rather, series of demonstrations, that worked, to wit, the US Civil Rights demonstrations. The point of a demonstration, or any other form of direct action, is not to make friends and influence people, or to present a logical argument; it is to make trouble over an issue which the demonstrators care about, and to continue making trouble, exacting a cost from their opponents / oppressors, until the cost rises to the point where it outweighs the benefit to the o/o to continue whatever it is they're doing. It is not a contest of ideology, manners, righteousness, or popularity; it's a contest of will and interest. Loud shouting is usually annoying, and therefore may be a useful tool, but in most cases it's only a beginning.
I think the protests are nothing more than an attempt to stir up the blue base before the midterms, and a significant number of protestors are paid to be there.
A good friend of mine’s unemployed son is currently being paid to carry a protest sign. I did know what cause he’s protesting; could be pro or con. Paid protesters are all too real.
The SCOTUS is wrong. Women have the inherent right to control their lives that includes ending a pregnancy, it is not granted by the government at any level as explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. The ONLY role that the courts are granted the power to play as per Article III is to ensure that rights are not infringed and thus whether a law is constitutional or not.
For conservatives, this was just the first step towards a nation-wide, court-decreed ban on abortion on the basis of ‘life begins at conception’. Next will be an interstate case to move to the next leg of the race. Whatever it takes to get a case before the Supremes where they will rule on the question of whether life begins at conception or not.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Don't be stupid. The Dobbs decision self there is no :right of "privacy" arising in the Constitution related to abortion. It had nothing to do with the "federal government", with or without the courts. Don't be an idiot.
The court had no authority to nullify the right to abortion. If they believed it to be improperly ruled as under the unenumerated right to privacy, ironically, privacy is not an enumerated right, then they should have placed it where it belongs, under the Ninth Amendment.
You see the same exact thing with Citizens United. People hate it but don't realize that if it went the other way, government could simply outlaw your speech before an election.
If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
Luckily (and this has been pointed out many times to you), the court did no such thing - they simply (correctly) stated the states were the ones with the power (thank you 10th Amendment).
Wrong. The SCOTUS did nullify a woman's right as it threw the issue back to the states to decide, which makes it a privilege. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Therefore, Dobbs is unconstitutional on its face.
actually i understand completely what the ruling was about; it is about christians setting up a theocratic state under the guise of states rights or the ruling was decided incorrectly. the majority opinion cherry picked data, if they had gone back to 1776 the statement would have noted that abortion prior to quickening was legal in the US when the constitution was ratified but that would have interfered with their preordained decision
I agree, but do you know why or have an opinion on why the Supreme Court decided to make this decision now? It's a highly charged political issue and in the midst of all that is going on, couldn't they have waited? Like do it next year. I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states.
Because the state of Mississippi brought a case that they accepted and ruled on. I don't know that anybody has tried bringing the case for review before, but I may be wrong. As RGB said, this past ruling was on shaky ground, and Congress should have made it an enumerated right decades ago.
Thanks. I found a good article on it. This issue was taken up rather late last year. I wish they would have waited. I'm not against people taking to the streets to voice their objections, but I have had my fill of marches, screaming voices and banners.
"I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states."
Wrong. All rights are constitutional issues as government's role is t protect them, not nullify them as explained in the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist #84 and the Ninth Amendment. The court's ruling unconstitutional on its face as it has no authority to nullify rights.
The media doesn't understand? The most depressing part is that people like you don't understand!
The SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to do what it did, nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life that includes ending a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus itself becomes a being, when its brain develops the capacity for mind.
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which16 they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
Ah, Jeffey, your idiocy arises again! You must be the dumbest shit out there. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life". It merely said the US Constitution does not include a right to privacy such that laws cannot be enacted regulating abortion.
You really are one of the worst Trolls commenting here.
The idea a person, despite humble origin and a myriad of flaws both personal and professional, can rise above their station and do more than anyone bargained for? By staying true to their principles the best they know how, forge a legacy worth remembering, whatever the shortcomings?
That perhaps, so that we may even improve on it to form a more perfect union?
Please. Culturally expropriate the every living shit out of that. I insist.
LOL! You're a true idiot. Read The Federalist #84 and the historical background of the Ninth Amendment and deal with the facts laid out by the founders on this or don't post.
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility."
Should Alexander Hamilton had met our dear and illustrious Jeff Biss, he would've bestowed upon Biss' personage and all his heirs the title of, "King Cunt of Taibbi's Substack."
I certainly appreciate the Hamilton quote, and understand the concern. The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights.
The Court overstepped it’s authority in Row because it created a Federal law, which it has no authority to do. Should the abortion issue come before them in the context of unenumerated rights the outcome might be far different from Dobbs. My understanding (which is minimal) is that there is even some historical support of the right to an abortion. I’m sorry I don’t have a source for my reference.
The point is SCOTUS did not do something unconstitutional, in fact they restored some Federalism. It’s really easy to play this up as anti-abortion Justices forcing their ideology on the nation, and then leave out context. But that context is crucial and totally missing from the conversation. Which I think is the point. It keeps the public divided and distracted while the politicians and their Overlords do other more consequential things.
People's feelings about feelings (about feelings ...) do not affect the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter what Sotomayor feels, and likewise feelings about her feelings are equally irrelevant.
In liberal theory, states, being artifices, do not have rights, only powers, which are granted to them provisionally by the people and serve at their convenience.
"The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights."
Wrong. It is about the inherent right of women to control their own lives without state interference. No level of government has the authority to nullify any right. Their ruling is unconstitutional as Article II provides no power to nullify a right as explained clearly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in his Ninth Amendment.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If the "inherent right of women to control their own lives" is retained by the people, what was the point of Roe in the first place? Sound totally superfluous.
WHAT RIGHT? That's the effing point. There is not "right" enumerated in the Constitution and the Roe decision was wrongly decided. Now it's been corrected and women who want an abortion can get one in a state that provides it. No one is stopping them. You can start a gofundme for all of those women who want to aid and abet (just as the moronic protestors screamed).
Sorry, unenumerated rights are simply a loophole to drive through pseudo-laws when a minority is trying to act in opposition to a majority, imho. Abortion should have become an enumerated right, but the fanatics on both sides of this issue prevented it from happening. I'm pro choice, but anti infanticide, which is where, I believe, the vast majority of the population resides.
The solution is for the states to pass laws, or the US Congress to do the same.
For too long, again, imho, SCOTUS and regulatory agencies (EPA big time) have bailed out our dysfunctional Congress by over reaching their roles to change society, when it should be Congress deliberating and acting.
This. There is much talk of executive overreach and judicial overreach (I, personally, am no fan of either) but they might not happen so much if Congress would just do its fucking job. The fact that it hasn't for at least 80 years might be something for a competent political scientist to explain.
Read The Federalist #84. The SCOTUS has no constitutional power to nullify any right as it did with the right to abortion. Article III provides no such power.
Sorry, but you're wrong as explained in the Declaration of Independence, rights are not granted by man, they simply exist and by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. I suggest that you read it. Women have the inherent right to abortion, it is not granted by any state, the federal government, the vote, etc. All unenumerated rights exist, such as the right of privacy, self defense, to take a walk, to read a book, to work on Saturday or Sunday, to live in the neighborhood on one's choice, etc, and are protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Ah, Jeffey, you must be one of the stupidest commenters here. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life." It said there is not a Constitutional right to abortion. If there is an "inherent right" then, OK, just talk to your state legislators about it. Some may disagree, but you are so convinced I am sure you can also convince them.
You continue to be one of the dumbest shits commenting.
LOL! You are dim. Read The Federalist #84. The state, at any level, has no power to nullify any right. The SCOTUS' ruling is unconstitutional as Article III grants it no power to nullify any right and states also have no such power.
Abortion is not an issue the Supreme Court should ever have decided, that is, not a constitutional issue. It's a decision that was meant to be determined by the states.
LOL! It is a constitutional issue to the extent that government has no authority to nullify a woman's right to abortion. It only has the authority to protect rights that would involve setting limits on abortion to protect the fetus when it becomes a being, a person, at the point that its brain develops the capacity for mind.
I see. Your cutoff point is "when it becomes a being, a person, at the point its brain develops the capacity for mind." Crystal clear. When does that happen? 9 months? 8? 7? 6? 5? 4? Upon emergence from the birth canal? Sometime afterward?
"As a first step in answering these questions, we reviewed the literature on fetal pain and fetal anesthesia and analgesia."
"Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
So fair to say you have no real answer and neither do they? Maybe we should appoint a panel of government experts to decide. Maybe we just need the right group of experts to tell us what we wish to hear?
Also, it's an entirely different question than brain-dead people as they are at the opposite end of life's journey.
Rights are central to the constitution as explained in The Federalist #84. Women have the inherent right to abortion, period. The state, government at any level, has no power to nullify rights.
I don't know where you get your information, but abortion is not a constitutional issue, and issues like gun rights are, etc. That's why it went back to the states. Roe v wade should never have been a decision the Supreme Court made. Many seem to think overturning roe v wade was a decision by the court to end abortion rights for women, it is not, but a decision to be made by individual states.
It is a constitutional issue as it is a woman's rights issue. Rights are not granted by any level of government as argued by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Dobbs is unconstitutional as proven by Alito's arguments.
The "right" to exterminate the beating heart of a person with separate DNA is given to someone by whom, by what? Nevermind, I really have no desire to engage you.
The most depressing part of this is that so many activists (and most citizens as well) have no comprehension of what the ruling was about. It was not a statement about whether abortion was right or wrong, it was whether an activist court overreached in making it legal on a federal basis in 1972.
Most of the states where these protests are occurring are not impacted at all by the ruling.
Unfortunately, our media either doesn't understand the ruling as well, or they do, and instead of being journalists, choose to paint it in a way to create as many clicks as possible, and encourage divineness amongst the readers.
Omission by decision. Keep the populace uninformed and you can control them via simple narratives. Every authoritarian regime used the same playbook.
My other favorite is the "six week abortion ban", I've had people parroting their deceptive media sources tell me "don't they know there may not even be a fetal heartbeat at six weeks!"
(the bills are EXPRESSLY bills that only ban abortion after a fetal heartbeat, and the MSM simply calls them six week bills in order to deceive a bit and control the language, since "fetal heartbeat" creates more empathy)
Correction: after a fetal heartbeat is *detected*
And the media never mentioning that RBG stated that R V W was a “ leaky document” and that it should go back to the States. Never diffuse a misunderstood DIVISIVE topic.
What really has them angry is that in recent decades, the left has relied on judicial overreach to implement policies that they could never get legislative approval for. They see this court reversing that trend, and it scares the hell out of them.
Actually, I was most encouraged by the SCOTUS position to reign in some of the regulatory agencies, another back door that Dem congress folks have used instead of passing legislation.
For reasons I don't understand I'm unable to click the heart emoji, so I agree.
What precisely is an example of "judicial overreach to implement policies"?
However, this ruling is unconstitutional for the reasons that I posted.
Narcissism. “Hey everybody, look at me, I’m [pro or anti] abortion!”
Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood’s website lists 12 different birth control methods, many that are 99 percent effective, and the morning after pill is available in 50 states.
The funniest thing to me is that there is some small but critical mass of loud shouters who think that they can control the engine of government to make other people do what they want them to do. It never works. It never has worked.
Prohibition: people still drank alcohol, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
Attempts at gun control: people still have guns, because they felt the need to and didn't care about the law
End of Roe v. Wade: people will still get abortions because they feel the need to and don't care about the law
The only thing sillier than the state making itself look silly are the people who insist the state should make itself look silly.
You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses. The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women. Abortions will be either illegal or extremely hard to obtain or require a great deal of money. The next step is to ban all birth control methods that don't require the women to beg the man to cooperate and leave her helpless against him.
Except for the states that allow abortion up until birth. Do you think California, New York, Illinois, Massachusetts, Washington, Oregon, Vermont, et al are going to restrict their current abortion laws? No, they won’t. So stop with the useless scare tactics. It makes you look stupid.
Here in Illinois, the legislature via Dem super majority is all-in on abortion for all. No need for a minor having it done to advise her parent. Also, the IL Gov who is running for Pres had ribbon-cutting ceremony at new metro-East (St. Louis) women's health care/abortion clinic. Illinois is officially an abortion destination.
Good. Illinois believes women are humans, unlike Texas where I live.
Even WI PP sites moved across the border in anticipation of overturning of Roe.
“Red States eye restrictions on interstate travel for abortion services”
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/red-states-eye-restrictions-on-interstate-travel-for-abortion-services
It’s not ‘scare tactics’, it’s just being honest about what conservatives’ true end goal is here.
Now, how about you stop with the gaslighting?
Do you really think the government can stop people from traveling to another state? Good luck enforcing that in America.
The minute the Republicans have Congress and the Presidency they will ban abortion and birth control nationally. Quit being foolish.
With what legal authority can they do that? You are beyond ignorant.
"The ENTIRE purpose is to make any kind of reproductive healthcare dangerous for women."
Wow! I did not know this. That's really terrible. Is it even possible for us decent people to live among all these monsters? And to think that many of them are women themselves! Unbelievable! Anyway, it's cool that you know so much about them so you can inform us. I'll be on the lookout.
Plenty of women are dupes thinking that men regard them as SPECIAL and that they will still be respected and allowed to engage in meaningful work after men get the laws they want. Other women are stupid whores who deserve miserable lives but the Special Cool Girls will be exempt! You’re totally wrong; to men you’re just another piece of worthless dirt to be scraped off after you’re no longer useful.
You need to take this trauma to a real therapist. It' honestly tragic that this is what you think of all men.
So what category are you in? The dupes, the whores, or the SPECIAL Cool Girls?
I might be able to help you with that reading comprehension problem.
WTF are you talking about? The only factual statement you made is, "You make the assumption that the antiabortion movement ever for one nanosecond actually cared about fetuses." You're absolutely right...celebrating the demented photos of partial birth aborted babies demonstrates the evil you state.
Nonsense. ‘Partial birth abortion’ was a slogan devised by the woman-haters to make a rare procedure done in terribly dangerous pregnancies scary to the uninformed public. If you cared about babies, you had 50 years to make birth control free, child care and parental leave universally available, and force men to actually be some use around the house.
You did NONE of those things; you opposed every single effort we feminists made.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0tQZhEisaE
Your final paragraph would make a great Public Service Announcement.
Maybe in the blasted post-apocalyptic wasteland. I will deliver it garbed as Lord Humungus from THE ROAD WARRIOR, shouting through a bullhorn to a terrified encampment.
I disagree about the loud shouters, etc. There have been demonstrations, or rather, series of demonstrations, that worked, to wit, the US Civil Rights demonstrations. The point of a demonstration, or any other form of direct action, is not to make friends and influence people, or to present a logical argument; it is to make trouble over an issue which the demonstrators care about, and to continue making trouble, exacting a cost from their opponents / oppressors, until the cost rises to the point where it outweighs the benefit to the o/o to continue whatever it is they're doing. It is not a contest of ideology, manners, righteousness, or popularity; it's a contest of will and interest. Loud shouting is usually annoying, and therefore may be a useful tool, but in most cases it's only a beginning.
No kidding. What a shit show of silliness.
I think the protests are nothing more than an attempt to stir up the blue base before the midterms, and a significant number of protestors are paid to be there.
This is complete and utter nonsense.
A good friend of mine’s unemployed son is currently being paid to carry a protest sign. I did know what cause he’s protesting; could be pro or con. Paid protesters are all too real.
I seriously doubt this happened.
Your name is strangely appropriate.
LOL! You don't think! That's your problem.
The decision wasn't even over whether abortion was right or wrong, but whether the federal government, via the courts, can make it legal.
The SCOTUS is wrong. Women have the inherent right to control their lives that includes ending a pregnancy, it is not granted by the government at any level as explained by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. The ONLY role that the courts are granted the power to play as per Article III is to ensure that rights are not infringed and thus whether a law is constitutional or not.
That’s just step 1 of the conservative plan here.
We know this because they’re literally telling us:
‘Red States eye restrictions on interstate travel for abortion services’
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/fairness-justice/red-states-eye-restrictions-on-interstate-travel-for-abortion-services
For conservatives, this was just the first step towards a nation-wide, court-decreed ban on abortion on the basis of ‘life begins at conception’. Next will be an interstate case to move to the next leg of the race. Whatever it takes to get a case before the Supremes where they will rule on the question of whether life begins at conception or not.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Don't be stupid. The Dobbs decision self there is no :right of "privacy" arising in the Constitution related to abortion. It had nothing to do with the "federal government", with or without the courts. Don't be an idiot.
The court had no authority to nullify the right to abortion. If they believed it to be improperly ruled as under the unenumerated right to privacy, ironically, privacy is not an enumerated right, then they should have placed it where it belongs, under the Ninth Amendment.
besides, the Dob bs court did nothing to abortion. Did you pass the 4th grade?
Man, you are dim.
You see the same exact thing with Citizens United. People hate it but don't realize that if it went the other way, government could simply outlaw your speech before an election.
If you read Citizens United you'd see that it was about freedom of speech. I think that it was ruled correctly. Dobbs is unconstitutional though, the court has no constitutional power to nullify any right as Dobbs did.
Luckily (and this has been pointed out many times to you), the court did no such thing - they simply (correctly) stated the states were the ones with the power (thank you 10th Amendment).
Wrong. The SCOTUS did nullify a woman's right as it threw the issue back to the states to decide, which makes it a privilege. Rights are not granted, they are inherent. Therefore, Dobbs is unconstitutional on its face.
Said the mansplainer who will NEVER need an abortion.
Hey, I'm a man, and as I understand it, I can get pregnant, so I have every right to have an opinion.
And 'mansplaining' is a horribly adolescent misandrist term only used by birthing people when they're on the wrong side of an argument.
Tosser.
Is that kind of like 'wanker'?
If not, what am I tossing?
Hey, don't worry, we now have a judge who doesn't even know what a woman is!
Did you just assume his gender? You bigots never learn, do you?
His name is Jon, he self identifies as an "old guy" and proclaimed himself "a man" so I guess you could say it was just a wild guess, Jackass.
Your name is News Nut and your response to his post was… interesting, at minimum.
Do you identify as a retard? Asking for a friend.
And your "name" means you're either a devil or a "pathogen–host interaction search tool", with the emphasis on "tool". Bugger off.
Congratulations. Did you Google that yourself?
I’m so proud.
actually i understand completely what the ruling was about; it is about christians setting up a theocratic state under the guise of states rights or the ruling was decided incorrectly. the majority opinion cherry picked data, if they had gone back to 1776 the statement would have noted that abortion prior to quickening was legal in the US when the constitution was ratified but that would have interfered with their preordained decision
🤣🤣🤣
Seriously.
Spot on! That ruling is unconstitutional on its face for a number of reasons, among which is what you describe.
"encourage divineness amongst the readers"
If only the media were to actively encourage divineness amongst its readers. Guru media.
I agree, but do you know why or have an opinion on why the Supreme Court decided to make this decision now? It's a highly charged political issue and in the midst of all that is going on, couldn't they have waited? Like do it next year. I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states.
Because the state of Mississippi brought a case that they accepted and ruled on. I don't know that anybody has tried bringing the case for review before, but I may be wrong. As RGB said, this past ruling was on shaky ground, and Congress should have made it an enumerated right decades ago.
Thanks. I found a good article on it. This issue was taken up rather late last year. I wish they would have waited. I'm not against people taking to the streets to voice their objections, but I have had my fill of marches, screaming voices and banners.
"I am aware roe v wade is something the court should have never implemented, since it's not a constitutional issue and something that should be decided by the states."
Wrong. All rights are constitutional issues as government's role is t protect them, not nullify them as explained in the Declaration of Independence, The Federalist #84 and the Ninth Amendment. The court's ruling unconstitutional on its face as it has no authority to nullify rights.
Gosh, I wonder why you're not on the Supreme Court of the United States. Oh wait, never mind, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Really? You wonder about that? However, I am correct on this.
The media doesn't understand? The most depressing part is that people like you don't understand!
The SCOTUS has no constitutional authority to do what it did, nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life that includes ending a pregnancy without state interference until the fetus itself becomes a being, when its brain develops the capacity for mind.
Alexander Hamilton explained this in The Federalist #84 (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-04-02-0247):
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which16 they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?"
And that fear led to James Madison adding the Ninth Amendment to protect unenumerated rights (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-9/ninth-amendment-historical-background), such as the right to privacy, the right to self-defense, the right to live in the neighborhood of your choice, etc:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
The media should discuss what the SCOTUS did on these points. Article III grants the SCOTUS no authority to do what it did!
Ah, Jeffey, your idiocy arises again! You must be the dumbest shit out there. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life". It merely said the US Constitution does not include a right to privacy such that laws cannot be enacted regulating abortion.
You really are one of the worst Trolls commenting here.
But Jeff quoted a guy who had a musical written about him.
Checkmate!!!
LOL!
shouldn't that musical be cancelled for cultural appropriation?
The idea a person, despite humble origin and a myriad of flaws both personal and professional, can rise above their station and do more than anyone bargained for? By staying true to their principles the best they know how, forge a legacy worth remembering, whatever the shortcomings?
That perhaps, so that we may even improve on it to form a more perfect union?
Please. Culturally expropriate the every living shit out of that. I insist.
Thank you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This!
LOL! You're a true idiot. Read The Federalist #84 and the historical background of the Ninth Amendment and deal with the facts laid out by the founders on this or don't post.
You know, I disagree with Hamilton here.
"Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility."
Should Alexander Hamilton had met our dear and illustrious Jeff Biss, he would've bestowed upon Biss' personage and all his heirs the title of, "King Cunt of Taibbi's Substack."
May He Reign Forever.
worship me.
Sorry, one of my kinks is deicide.
Fuck you, I won't do what you tell me.
You will do as I say you little incel loser.
lol
Internet tough guy, confirmed.
I certainly appreciate the Hamilton quote, and understand the concern. The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights.
The Court overstepped it’s authority in Row because it created a Federal law, which it has no authority to do. Should the abortion issue come before them in the context of unenumerated rights the outcome might be far different from Dobbs. My understanding (which is minimal) is that there is even some historical support of the right to an abortion. I’m sorry I don’t have a source for my reference.
The point is SCOTUS did not do something unconstitutional, in fact they restored some Federalism. It’s really easy to play this up as anti-abortion Justices forcing their ideology on the nation, and then leave out context. But that context is crucial and totally missing from the conversation. Which I think is the point. It keeps the public divided and distracted while the politicians and their Overlords do other more consequential things.
I think it was telling in the dissenting opinion that Sotomayor seemingly made no legal points and only focused on the "feels"
governance by ~~vibes~~
People's feelings about feelings (about feelings ...) do not affect the logic of the situation. It doesn't matter what Sotomayor feels, and likewise feelings about her feelings are equally irrelevant.
I'm not sure if Sotomayor has actually read the constitution.
It's out of fashion.
In liberal theory, states, being artifices, do not have rights, only powers, which are granted to them provisionally by the people and serve at their convenience.
"The thing about this case though is that it is not about unenumerated rights, it’s about State’s rights."
Wrong. It is about the inherent right of women to control their own lives without state interference. No level of government has the authority to nullify any right. Their ruling is unconstitutional as Article II provides no power to nullify a right as explained clearly by Alexander Hamilton and James Madison in his Ninth Amendment.
You mean this one, here?
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
If the "inherent right of women to control their own lives" is retained by the people, what was the point of Roe in the first place? Sound totally superfluous.
LOL! Roe was the result of women not having their inherent right recognized.
If the Democrats gave a shit about women, they would've worked to get some laws on the books instead of using abortion as a political football.
WHAT RIGHT? That's the effing point. There is not "right" enumerated in the Constitution and the Roe decision was wrongly decided. Now it's been corrected and women who want an abortion can get one in a state that provides it. No one is stopping them. You can start a gofundme for all of those women who want to aid and abet (just as the moronic protestors screamed).
Sorry, unenumerated rights are simply a loophole to drive through pseudo-laws when a minority is trying to act in opposition to a majority, imho. Abortion should have become an enumerated right, but the fanatics on both sides of this issue prevented it from happening. I'm pro choice, but anti infanticide, which is where, I believe, the vast majority of the population resides.
The solution is for the states to pass laws, or the US Congress to do the same.
For too long, again, imho, SCOTUS and regulatory agencies (EPA big time) have bailed out our dysfunctional Congress by over reaching their roles to change society, when it should be Congress deliberating and acting.
"it should be Congress deliberating and acting"
This. There is much talk of executive overreach and judicial overreach (I, personally, am no fan of either) but they might not happen so much if Congress would just do its fucking job. The fact that it hasn't for at least 80 years might be something for a competent political scientist to explain.
Read The Federalist #84. The SCOTUS has no constitutional power to nullify any right as it did with the right to abortion. Article III provides no such power.
Sorry, but you're wrong as explained in the Declaration of Independence, rights are not granted by man, they simply exist and by Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist #84. I suggest that you read it. Women have the inherent right to abortion, it is not granted by any state, the federal government, the vote, etc. All unenumerated rights exist, such as the right of privacy, self defense, to take a walk, to read a book, to work on Saturday or Sunday, to live in the neighborhood on one's choice, etc, and are protected by the Ninth Amendment.
Ah, Jeffey, you must be one of the stupidest commenters here. The Court did not "nullify a woman's inherent right to control her own life." It said there is not a Constitutional right to abortion. If there is an "inherent right" then, OK, just talk to your state legislators about it. Some may disagree, but you are so convinced I am sure you can also convince them.
You continue to be one of the dumbest shits commenting.
LOL! You are dim. Read The Federalist #84. The state, at any level, has no power to nullify any right. The SCOTUS' ruling is unconstitutional as Article III grants it no power to nullify any right and states also have no such power.
You are truly clueless.
No, you're truly clueless.
Abortion is not an issue the Supreme Court should ever have decided, that is, not a constitutional issue. It's a decision that was meant to be determined by the states.
One might even say, by the people.
I know, but since it was not a constitutional issue, it's for the states to decide.That's what they say.
LOL! It is a constitutional issue to the extent that government has no authority to nullify a woman's right to abortion. It only has the authority to protect rights that would involve setting limits on abortion to protect the fetus when it becomes a being, a person, at the point that its brain develops the capacity for mind.
I see. Your cutoff point is "when it becomes a being, a person, at the point its brain develops the capacity for mind." Crystal clear. When does that happen? 9 months? 8? 7? 6? 5? 4? Upon emergence from the birth canal? Sometime afterward?
That is the same standard used with brain dead people so it isn't anything new. As for when that occurs in the fetus:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/201429
Neuroscientists can determine this.
"As a first step in answering these questions, we reviewed the literature on fetal pain and fetal anesthesia and analgesia."
"Conclusions: Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester."
So fair to say you have no real answer and neither do they? Maybe we should appoint a panel of government experts to decide. Maybe we just need the right group of experts to tell us what we wish to hear?
Also, it's an entirely different question than brain-dead people as they are at the opposite end of life's journey.
Rights are central to the constitution as explained in The Federalist #84. Women have the inherent right to abortion, period. The state, government at any level, has no power to nullify rights.
I don't know where you get your information, but abortion is not a constitutional issue, and issues like gun rights are, etc. That's why it went back to the states. Roe v wade should never have been a decision the Supreme Court made. Many seem to think overturning roe v wade was a decision by the court to end abortion rights for women, it is not, but a decision to be made by individual states.
It is a constitutional issue as it is a woman's rights issue. Rights are not granted by any level of government as argued by the founders in the Declaration of Independence. Dobbs is unconstitutional as proven by Alito's arguments.
The "right" to exterminate the beating heart of a person with separate DNA is given to someone by whom, by what? Nevermind, I really have no desire to engage you.
What ever you say Jeff, what ever.
The Federalist Papers aren't the law of the land.
LOL! They help identify the founders' intent. There was no intent to allow any government to deny rights.