bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

flyguy89 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

flyguy89 wrote:

Good lord. Enough with these sophomoric analogies. The Constitution literally enshrines a right to life. If, like a lot of people, you believe a fetus is life then it’s deserving of protection based on that right. Same for the comparison to being forced to donate blood/tissue to an ailing patient…while you certainly can’t be forced to donate, you’re similarly not allowed to creep into their hospital room and murder them.

As a matter of principle I personally don’t think the government should be banning abortion, but these are difficult moral questions that good faith people on either side wrestle with. I find it very unfortunate that there never was a legislative attempt at the federal level regarding abortion.


Hard to see how automatically writing off about half the country is a recipe for electoral success.

?????? You do realize with two parties, it is always 50-50 roughly. The issues balance out. On this one though the issue is much more malleable. Abortion has always been a wedge issue that the courts always protected giving businesses cover for their donations. With that gone. Women will be gone on a larger scale from the GOP. Their are much fewer marriages now, and many more female bread winners. The people that choose to be "WRITTEN OFF" are much fewer than 50% when abortion comes to the table. But they are also the people most likely to not ever get one or need one.

I wasn’t talking about the deleterious effects on the GOP’s vote share, which may certainly come to pass…I was referencing your seeming dismissiveness for all Trump voters. But perhaps that’s not what you meant?

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

You don't think that financial reasons, timing, don't like your partner, need to focus on other children, etc. aren't convivence reasons? BTW, its not about winning or losing, its about listening, learning, and growing. I guess that is lost on a lot of people.

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

bpatus297 wrote:

And no other species living on this planet preforms intentional abortions. You can suspect about me all you want, but would 100% be incorrect. I am not going into my personal life details on the internet, so go ahead and flame on, I don't care. As far as "OUR OWN circle of life.". the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

You are, in effect, dismissing those reasons if you are willing to ban abortions.

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

Convenience means being able to plug-in my EV when I take my kids to the park. Having an abortion because you're not financially, psychologically, or emotionally prepared for raising a child who will become a lifelong member of society is not a "convenience." Dismissing reasons for having an abortion because you deem them those reasons to be morally unacceptable doesn't sound like listening, learning, and growing to me.

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

So are you against contraception?

I wasted so much human life as a teenager!

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

And no other species living on this planet preforms intentional abortions. You can suspect about me all you want, but would 100% be incorrect. I am not going into my personal life details on the internet, so go ahead and flame on, I don't care. As far as "OUR OWN circle of life.". the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.

Do know I am not flaming you. Challenging, questioning but not flaming.

Actually there are several species that abort their fetuses in certain situations. And then there is the whole eating the babies/driving them off to starve or be killed thing that a lot of them do... That is pretty intentional.

And you are wrong as to "the fetus you create become part of that circle whether you like it or not.". For one, abortion is an option, ALWAYS (whether or not you approve or it is legal), and the other, many fetus' miscarry. This is all part of the circle of life.

Tugg

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

You are, in effect, dismissing those reasons if you are willing to ban abortions.

No, I am presenting the other side of the argument. Financial reasons are not a valid reason to end a life, if that is in fact what a fetus is. Back to the crux of the disagreement, when does life begin?

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

So are you against contraception?

I wasted so much human life as a teenager!

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An unfertalized egg and sperm, having only 23 chromosomes is different than a fetus with 46 chromosomes. Stopping the act of fertilization is different from terminating a life (if that's what it is).

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

You are, in effect, dismissing those reasons if you are willing to ban abortions.

No, I am presenting the other side of the argument. Financial reasons are not a valid reason to end a life, if that is in fact what a fetus is. Back to the crux of the disagreement, when does life begin?

Financial reasons can absolutely be a reason to have an abortion, but it isn’t you decision so it matters not.

And no, the crux of the issue is absolutely NOT about when life begins, it is about the freedom to choose what happens to your own body, the fact that it may be a life or not is secondary to the disenfranchisement of women from their own bodies.

Your continuation to deflect from this is not going unnoticed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

So are you against contraception?

I wasted so much human life as a teenager!

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

An unfertalized egg and sperm, having only 23 chromosomes is different than a fetus with 46 chromosomes. Stopping the act of fertilization is different from terminating a life (if that's what it is).

My neighbours grandson has 45 chromosomes, in he less worthy? Sick!

Fred

Holy crap, of course not. I can't believe I am even replying to this. I would be willing to continue this conversation if you want to talk like adults, apparently not.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

bpatus297 wrote:

flipdewaf wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

No, I am presenting the other side of the argument. Financial reasons are not a valid reason to end a life, if that is in fact what a fetus is. Back to the crux of the disagreement, when does life begin?

Financial reasons can absolutely be a reason to have an abortion, but it isn’t you decision so it matters not.

And no, the crux of the issue is absolutely NOT about when life begins, it is about the freedom to choose what happens to your own body, the fact that it may be a life or not is secondary to the disenfranchisement of women from their own bodies.

Your continuation to deflect from this is not going unnoticed.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I'm not deflecting, I don't want anything to do with controlling what other do with their bodies, up until that interferes with the rights of others. The fetus (if its a life) is the third person in this equitation. Whether you like that or not.

Tugger wrote:

To everyone, the key thing that everyone needs to know and accept is that abortions will not stop because of any ruling. They will continue. And with the interconnected world we now have it will not be all that hard for anyone that does want one to have one.

The shame is the misery that it can cause and the open demonstration of those states that do ban them of valuing or caring about women.

Tugg

bpatus297 wrote:

I know animals have abortions (miscarriage), but they don't make a choice to have an abortion like humans do. As far as animals eating their young, really? That's a complete fallacy.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

To everyone, the key thing that everyone needs to know and accept is that abortions will not stop because of any ruling. They will continue. And with the interconnected world we now have it will not be all that hard for anyone that does want one to have one.

The shame is the misery that it can cause and the open demonstration of those states that do ban them of valuing or caring about women.

Tugg

Well put. And I think you hit the key word - 'misery.' This will not stop abortions from happening. They will still occur, and the 12 year old rape victim in state X will need to travel to state Y to get an abortion so she isn't treated like a criminal in the GOP led state X for seeking said abortion. I can't think of anything much more miserable than treating a rape victim like a criminal.. but here we are.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

We are not talking about cases where the mothers health is in question.

Yes we are. The fetus is a life , is your sole concern in the opening. The mother's life has everything to do with that fetus until it is born.

No, we have not been talking about that. We have been talking about the roughly 98% of abortions that are done for convivence.

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know animals have abortions (miscarriage), but they don't make a choice to have an abortion like humans do. As far as animals eating their young, really? That's a complete fallacy.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... os-animals
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/7-animals- ... eir-young/
https://africageographic.com/stories/un ... fanticide/
https://www.livescience.com/60431-do-an ... other.html

Tugg

MaverickM11 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

To everyone, the key thing that everyone needs to know and accept is that abortions will not stop because of any ruling. They will continue. And with the interconnected world we now have it will not be all that hard for anyone that does want one to have one.

The shame is the misery that it can cause and the open demonstration of those states that do ban them of valuing or caring about women.

Tugg

Well put. And I think you hit the key word - 'misery.' This will not stop abortions from happening. They will still occur, and the 12 year old rape victim in state X will need to travel to state Y to get an abortion so she isn't treated like a criminal in the GOP led state X for seeking said abortion. I can't think of anything much more miserable than treating a rape victim like a criminal.. but here we are.

Something "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition", as someone might say.

...until conservatives ban any mention of it because it causes discomfort for white men.

skyservice_330 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

To everyone, the key thing that everyone needs to know and accept is that abortions will not stop because of any ruling. They will continue. And with the interconnected world we now have it will not be all that hard for anyone that does want one to have one.

The shame is the misery that it can cause and the open demonstration of those states that do ban them of valuing or caring about women.

Tugg

Well put. And I think you hit the key word - 'misery.' This will not stop abortions from happening. They will still occur, and the 12 year old rape victim in state X will need to travel to state Y to get an abortion so she isn't treated like a criminal in the GOP led state X for seeking said abortion. I can't think of anything much more miserable than treating a rape victim like a criminal.. but here we are.

bpatus297 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I know animals have abortions (miscarriage), but they don't make a choice to have an abortion like humans do. As far as animals eating their young, really? That's a complete fallacy.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... os-animals
https://a-z-animals.com/blog/7-animals- ... eir-young/
https://africageographic.com/stories/un ... fanticide/
https://www.livescience.com/60431-do-an ... other.html

Tugg

Are you suggesting that we should start to kill out young because some animals do? I still don't see where they make a choice to abort their offspring.

bluecrew wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

Tugger wrote:

To everyone, the key thing that everyone needs to know and accept is that abortions will not stop because of any ruling. They will continue. And with the interconnected world we now have it will not be all that hard for anyone that does want one to have one.

The shame is the misery that it can cause and the open demonstration of those states that do ban them of valuing or caring about women.

Tugg

Well put. And I think you hit the key word - 'misery.' This will not stop abortions from happening. They will still occur, and the 12 year old rape victim in state X will need to travel to state Y to get an abortion so she isn't treated like a criminal in the GOP led state X for seeking said abortion. I can't think of anything much more miserable than treating a rape victim like a criminal.. but here we are.

For those that have the resources. How does a $7.25/hr worker in deep southern Texas get to Albuquerque to access the needed care?
They don't. Abortions go way down in the states with trigger laws, child mortality and poverty go way up, and life for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum starts getting even tougher.

This has never been a problem for the people who make decent middle class wages - they'll just fly to LA for a weekend and access their desired provider. This is a direct impact on the working poor of this country.

Not the right move.

bluecrew wrote:

For those that have the resources. How does a $7.25/hr worker in deep southern Texas get to Albuquerque to access the needed care?
They don't. Abortions go way down in the states with trigger laws, child mortality and poverty go way up, and life for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum starts getting even tougher.

This has never been a problem for the people who make decent middle class wages - they'll just fly to LA for a weekend and access their desired provider. This is a direct impact on the working poor of this country.

Not the right move.

Tugger wrote:

bluecrew wrote:

For those that have the resources. How does a $7.25/hr worker in deep southern Texas get to Albuquerque to access the needed care?
They don't. Abortions go way down in the states with trigger laws, child mortality and poverty go way up, and life for a lot of people on the lower end of the economic spectrum starts getting even tougher.

This has never been a problem for the people who make decent middle class wages - they'll just fly to LA for a weekend and access their desired provider. This is a direct impact on the working poor of this country.

Not the right move.

While I agree that abortion should be legal, there will be easily accessible options for medication that will cause an abortion and groups or women that will tend to the needs of those women that need it. They will obtain the needed medication in states where it is legal and relay it, send it on as normal mail or other delivery options, to those women that seek them out on the internet.

These women will be considered criminals and if found, will be prosecuted in those states that see no value in a woman but options will be available. The internet is a great tool for anonymity for such situations. Mail order illegal in

Tugg

bpatus297 wrote:

emperortk wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I'm not dismissing them at all. But in the context of ending a possible human life, yes those reasons are for the convivence of the mother.

You are, in effect, dismissing those reasons if you are willing to ban abortions.

No, I am presenting the other side of the argument. Financial reasons are not a valid reason to end a life, if that is in fact what a fetus is. Back to the crux of the disagreement, when does life begin?

ltbewr wrote:

Republicans of course are making a big deal about who, how and why this draft opinion was leaked, not so much as to what it says. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10963893 ... its-impact

I am quite sure that they are angry at Politico that broke the story and posted - with clear 1st Amendment protections - the draft opinion, bashing them as 'un-american' and other garbage. Possibly Republican's anger is that they wanted the decision closer to the fall elections so not as easily used in opposition by Democrats.

We don't know who publicly disclosed this or their motivations. That includes an intentional 'trial balloon' to gauge reaction to a final decision, to try to throw the vote to keep or narrow Roe v. Wade, to protect legal access to abortion services or help Democrats win this fall's elections. Likely the leaker is someone close to the SCOTUS and its deep inner workings. It is almost a given like when I worked as a litigation paralegal for law firms and a governmental agency for 43 years, had to sign blanket confidentiality affidavits or NDA's as to all work at an employer or as to specific cases. If I disclosed protected information I could face potential criminal prosecution, civil liability, damage to my life. Some of course will see the leaker as a martyr, a hero, sometimes leakers, whistleblowers do great benefit to society. The disclosure here fall into a difficult place

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

They’re entitled to that belief, but they’re not entitled to force their view on others.

scbriml wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

There’s nothing wrong with that - belief, like religion, is an inalienable right. But belief, whether religious or not, is simply how you feel about something and should not extend to control over other people’s private conduct.

Obviously murder, theft etc. are regulated on another level because it can be shown through various undeniable metrics they have deleterious societal impact.

The point is that some people view the fetus as a life and abortion is tantamount to murder. I'm not saying that's right, science doesn't have a consensus of when life begins.

They’re entitled to that belief, but they’re not entitled to force their view on others.

bpatus297 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

Well put. And I think you hit the key word - 'misery.' This will not stop abortions from happening. They will still occur, and the 12 year old rape victim in state X will need to travel to state Y to get an abortion so she isn't treated like a criminal in the GOP led state X for seeking said abortion. I can't think of anything much more miserable than treating a rape victim like a criminal.. but here we are.

Something "deeply rooted in this nation's history and tradition", as someone might say.

...until conservatives ban any mention of it because it causes discomfort for white men.

I'm surprised it took that long for racism to come up.

It appears that no law was broken, unless the leak was the product of a break-in or hack. “I’d be really surprised if it ended up with any kind of criminal charge,” University of Texas Law School Professor Stephen I. Vladeck told the Washington Post, speaking for the consensus.

Getting a two- or three-month preview of that plan in a midterm year straight from the horse’s pen amounts to a journalistic coup of the highest order. The government works to keep you in the dark. The press to shine the light. Heaven bless the press.

casinterest wrote:

ltbewr wrote:

Republicans of course are making a big deal about who, how and why this draft opinion was leaked, not so much as to what it says. https://www.npr.org/2022/05/03/10963893 ... its-impact

I am quite sure that they are angry at Politico that broke the story and posted - with clear 1st Amendment protections - the draft opinion, bashing them as 'un-american' and other garbage. Possibly Republican's anger is that they wanted the decision closer to the fall elections so not as easily used in opposition by Democrats.

We don't know who publicly disclosed this or their motivations. That includes an intentional 'trial balloon' to gauge reaction to a final decision, to try to throw the vote to keep or narrow Roe v. Wade, to protect legal access to abortion services or help Democrats win this fall's elections. Likely the leaker is someone close to the SCOTUS and its deep inner workings. It is almost a given like when I worked as a litigation paralegal for law firms and a governmental agency for 43 years, had to sign blanket confidentiality affidavits or NDA's as to all work at an employer or as to specific cases. If I disclosed protected information I could face potential criminal prosecution, civil liability, damage to my life. Some of course will see the leaker as a martyr, a hero, sometimes leakers, whistleblowers do great benefit to society. The disclosure here fall into a difficult place

Republicans are freaked out. The bare naked language that Alito used, makes me think it was a clerk on the conservative side. One of those that was true believer in "originalism". One that saw what Alito wrote as bare naked misogamy and religious overreach using barbaric sources as justification for "historic" rights. It may even have been a woman that recognized in the discussions that the power grab in place in the Supreme Court wasn't about keeping people first, but rather in asserting historic injustices.
I also have to wonder if the court had moved onwards from such a destructive draft. But the point that it had been written probably didn't sit well with someone.
The final decision may change, the draft may look different, but this draft was very ugly look at bad arguments for overturning Roe. They want to destroy personal rights.

casinterest wrote:

Good article addressing this leak.

Getting a two- or three-month preview of that plan in a midterm year straight from the horse’s pen amounts to a journalistic coup of the highest order. The government works to keep you in the dark. The press to shine the light. Heaven bless the press.

MaverickM11 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Good article addressing this leak.

Getting a two- or three-month preview of that plan in a midterm year straight from the horse’s pen amounts to a journalistic coup of the highest order. The government works to keep you in the dark. The press to shine the light. Heaven bless the press.

And honestly, mazels all around for not saving it for a book six months after midterms.

Tugger wrote:

To everyone, the key thing that everyone needs to know and accept is that abortions will not stop because of any ruling. They will continue. And with the interconnected world we now have it will not be all that hard for anyone that does want one to have one.

The shame is the misery that it can cause and the open demonstration of those states that do ban them of valuing or caring about women.

Tugg

c933103 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Republicans are freaked out. The bare naked language that Alito used, makes me think it was a clerk on the conservative side. One of those that was true believer in "originalism". One that saw what Alito wrote as bare naked misogamy and religious overreach using barbaric sources as justification for "historic" rights. It may even have been a woman that recognized in the discussions that the power grab in place in the Supreme Court wasn't about keeping people first, but rather in asserting historic injustices.
I also have to wonder if the court had moved onwards from such a destructive draft. But the point that it had been written probably didn't sit well with someone.
The final decision may change, the draft may look different, but this draft was very ugly look at bad arguments for overturning Roe. They want to destroy personal rights.

I have no guesses about the leak but it does indeed lay bare what "originalism" really is...to the people in power. He literally references a 17th century jurist in his argument, which underlines who exactly has rights in the mind of an "originalist". Straight, white, christian men have rights under originalism--everyone else serves at their whims.

casinterest wrote:

Good article addressing this leak.

And honestly, mazels all around for not saving it for a book six months after midterms.

Laws need to be updated. If the US can had something as meaningless as alcohol ban being a constitutional amendment, why can't the US have something more important as constitutional amendment?

How the political will for an amendment for alcohol ban constitutional amendment was even formed?

c933103 wrote:

MaverickM11 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

Republicans are freaked out. The bare naked language that Alito used, makes me think it was a clerk on the conservative side. One of those that was true believer in "originalism". One that saw what Alito wrote as bare naked misogamy and religious overreach using barbaric sources as justification for "historic" rights. It may even have been a woman that recognized in the discussions that the power grab in place in the Supreme Court wasn't about keeping people first, but rather in asserting historic injustices.
I also have to wonder if the court had moved onwards from such a destructive draft. But the point that it had been written probably didn't sit well with someone.
The final decision may change, the draft may look different, but this draft was very ugly look at bad arguments for overturning Roe. They want to destroy personal rights.

I have no guesses about the leak but it does indeed lay bare what "originalism" really is...to the people in power. He literally references a 17th century jurist in his argument, which underlines who exactly has rights in the mind of an "originalist". Straight, white, christian men have rights under originalism--everyone else serves at their whims.

casinterest wrote:

Good article addressing this leak.

And honestly, mazels all around for not saving it for a book six months after midterms.

Laws need to be updated. If the US can had something as meaningless as alcohol ban being a constitutional amendment, why can't the US have something more important as constitutional amendment?

How the political will for an amendment for alcohol ban constitutional amendment was even formed?

casinterest wrote:

The intrinsic right to privacy and liberty found in the 9th and 14th are good enough for judges 50 years ago. Now these activist judges want to take away people's rights to privacy about their personal choices?

sierrakilo44 wrote:

It didn’t take long, influential figures in conservative politics are already pushing for this upcoming Supreme Court precedent overturning abortion rights to be used to overturn the case making same sex marriage legal:

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status ... DyRCpJbtpg

Could you imagine being a gay person, having thought hard all your life for equal rights, now realising your rights are only temporary and at the whim of 5 unelected highly religious people?

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I beg to differ in regards to the Right. The Right hasn't shifted nor moved to the right. In fact we have moved to the left. We have had to accept gay marriage, back in 2008 not even Barack Obama was in favor of Gay marriage.

SL1200MK2 wrote:

I’ve been trying to figure out why folks try to press their religious beliefs on others so much. Is it possible they’re experiencing some dissonance and figure if they can impress their silly children’s stories on others, it will somehow make it more true?

MaverickM11 wrote:

sierrakilo44 wrote:

It didn’t take long, influential figures in conservative politics are already pushing for this upcoming Supreme Court precedent overturning abortion rights to be used to overturn the case making same sex marriage legal:

https://twitter.com/NoLieWithBTC/status ... DyRCpJbtpg

Could you imagine being a gay person, having thought hard all your life for equal rights, now realising your rights are only temporary and at the whim of 5 unelected highly religious people?

Ben Shapiro and Airworth99 *literally* told us minutes ago that conservatives have moved left on same sex marriage.

https://twitter.com/benshapiro/status/1 ... 9519897601

AirWorthy99 wrote:

I beg to differ in regards to the Right. The Right hasn't shifted nor moved to the right. In fact we have moved to the left. We have had to accept gay marriage, back in 2008 not even Barack Obama was in favor of Gay marriage.

They were both, of course, lying.

Aaron747 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

The intrinsic right to privacy and liberty found in the 9th and 14th are good enough for judges 50 years ago. Now these activist judges want to take away people's rights to privacy about their personal choices?

But but but the Constitution's text doesn't actually HAVE the words 'right to privacy' in it. Dontcha know??? Commence mouth foam.

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I really don't understand the US justice system. How could the Supreme Court overturn another Supreme Court ruling? Shouldn't the ruling be final and binding once it has been made?

Also, why the hell would you allow Supreme Court justices to have a life term? Why can't it be amended so that Supreme Court justices only have a set term limit before retiring?

Newark727 wrote:

TheFlyingDisk wrote:

I really don't understand the US justice system. How could the Supreme Court overturn another Supreme Court ruling? Shouldn't the ruling be final and binding once it has been made?

Also, why the hell would you allow Supreme Court justices to have a life term? Why can't it be amended so that Supreme Court justices only have a set term limit before retiring?

Supreme Court justices are supposed to consider prior precedent in their rulings. It's just that the majority here are such ideologues that they consider prior precedent to be wrongly decided in the first place, so they're just taking the whole thing apart anyway - who's going to stop them?

Supreme Court justices have life terms because it was assumed they'd be much more impartial and apolitical than they currently are. The judiciary's enumerated powers are the most vaguely defined of the three branches of the Constitution, and its powers of judicial review were established in a case (Marbury v. Madison) that took place several years after the Constitution was actually adopted. If you were to magically re-animate a drafter of the Constitution today, he'd likely be surprised that the judiciary has such power over issues that he would've expected the legislature to deal with. It doesn't because Congress is too polarized and deadlocked to make the decisions it needs to.

So if state legislatures do something incredibly stupid, as they often do, there's no power to tell them to knock it off besides the courts.