|
Post by cameron on May 19, 2024 9:57:41 GMT -5
The people? Dobbs took the decision away from the people and gave it to the states.Don't people live in states? There are 341,814,420 people in the U.S. There are 6,177,224 in Maryland, my state. A person, pro or anti abortion, can have more impact if they are 1 out of 6,177,224 than if they are 1 out of 341,814,420. If you're pro abortion and want to have the most impact on abortion law you should welcome moving the decision from the federal to the state level. Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on May 19, 2024 10:02:18 GMT -5
Don't people live in states? There are 341,814,420 people in the U.S. There are 6,177,224 in Maryland, my state. A person, pro or anti abortion, can have more impact if they are 1 out of 6,177,224 than if they are 1 out of 341,814,420. If you're pro abortion and want to have the most impact on abortion law you should welcome moving the decision from the federal to the state level. Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves. What state do you live in?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 10:03:03 GMT -5
Don't really care. I am interested in how he decides cases before him. For instance, I agree with him in Dobbs in that abortion to be decided by the States and the People, not the Court. The people? Dobbs took the decision away from the people and gave it to the states. The States authority to decide anything rises from the people who put elected officials in office, yes?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 10:04:54 GMT -5
Don't people live in states? There are 341,814,420 people in the U.S. There are 6,177,224 in Maryland, my state. A person, pro or anti abortion, can have more impact if they are 1 out of 6,177,224 than if they are 1 out of 341,814,420. If you're pro abortion and want to have the most impact on abortion law you should welcome moving the decision from the federal to the state level. Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves. Then the people in that State can exercise their voting rights and put into office those representatives who will move the practice of abortion in a manner the majority of voters feel is correct.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on May 19, 2024 10:06:26 GMT -5
Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves.What state do you live in? Maryland. Note the avatar.
|
|
|
Post by cameron on May 19, 2024 10:08:35 GMT -5
Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves. Then the people in that State can exercise their voting rights and put into office those representatives who will move the practice of abortion in a manner the majority of voters feel is correct. OR we could simply leave the decision to the PEOPLE.
|
|
|
Post by mrsmlh on May 19, 2024 10:18:47 GMT -5
Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves. Then the people in that State can exercise their voting rights and put into office those representatives who will move the practice of abortion in a manner the majority of voters feel is correct. Except for in the gerrymandered states and in the states refusing to let the issue go to referendum
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 19, 2024 10:58:53 GMT -5
Why it is that when conservative Justices decide cases that align with their view of the Constitution, the very view that got them there, they are evil , but when liberal Justices follow the same course, they are (supposedly) great legal minds? This conversation is not about their politics but their ethics, and how their lack of the same highlights a sad fact: the apparent only criterion GOP presidents consider when making this choice is political loyalty.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on May 19, 2024 11:14:15 GMT -5
So . . . Do you have any comment at all about the flag flying upside down outside Alito's house? Don't really care. I am interested in how he decides cases before him. For instance, I agree with him in Dobbs in that abortion to be decided by the States and the People, not the Court. You don't care that he's corrupt and obviously partisan. You care that he's on your side.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on May 19, 2024 11:14:45 GMT -5
Then the people in that State can exercise their voting rights and put into office those representatives who will move the practice of abortion in a manner the majority of voters feel is correct. OR we could simply leave the decision to the PEOPLE. This
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on May 19, 2024 11:23:43 GMT -5
Not sure what you're on about. Dobbs gives me a vote in somebody else's decision. Before Dobbs, the decision was up to the person. Now it's up to the states to protect the little ladies from themselves. Then the people in that State can exercise their voting rights and put into office those representatives who will move the practice of abortion in a manner the majority of voters feel is correct. This is where this kind of thinking falls apart. You've essentially created a modern day Jim Crow except in this case it refers to a woman's right to make choices about the kind of health care she receives. And, like Jim Crow before it, it has turned the country into a patchwork confederacy where the rights you have depend entirely on the state you happen to be in at the time. A resident in a so-called blue state may decide to take his wife, 5 months pregnant, to visit her parents who live in a so-called red state. If on the way or during the visit, something goes terribly wrong with the pregnancy, that couple may or may not be able to receive life saving, or pregnancy saving treatment, because some fervent right-wing legislators passed draconian abortion laws. Or even if the parents live in another blue state, maybe the couple has to get there via circuitous routes that only go through pro-choice states. Alito plunged the nation into chaos.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 19, 2024 11:51:12 GMT -5
Don't really care. I am interested in how he decides cases before him. For instance, I agree with him in Dobbs in that abortion to be decided by the States and the People, not the Court. You don't care that he's corrupt and obviously partisan. You care that he's on your side. In a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on May 19, 2024 12:15:53 GMT -5
What state do you live in? Maryland. Note the avatar. So who would you rather have making your laws, legislators in Annapolis or legislators in Washington, D.C?
|
|
|
Post by cameron on May 19, 2024 12:49:06 GMT -5
Maryland. Note the avatar. So who would you rather have making your laws, legislators in Annapolis or legislators in Washington, D.C? It took the 14th amendment to apply due process to the states. Painstakingly, piece by piece and case by case, the Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Which of these rights would you have me surrender to the states?
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on May 19, 2024 14:33:38 GMT -5
Maryland. Note the avatar. So who would you rather have making your laws, legislators in Annapolis or legislators in Washington, D.C? On this issue? Neither. This should be between a woman or a couple and their doctor. No one else which is why overturning Roe was such a disaster.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on May 19, 2024 14:39:58 GMT -5
As well as getting treats for performing tricks for their corporate masters. I wish Ishmael would be as avid finding fault with guilty parties as he is with seeking shade for them. My wish for you is that you find the door out of the basement and start to enjoy some sunshine again. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. The lullaby of fascists. Yes, it's familiar advice and we all know what familiarity breeds.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on May 19, 2024 14:42:56 GMT -5
Why it is that when conservative Justices decide cases that align with their view of the Constitution, the very view that got them there, they are evil , but when liberal Justices follow the same course, they are (supposedly) great legal minds? This conversation is not about their politics but their ethics, and how their lack of the same highlights a sad fact: the apparent only criterion GOP presidents consider when making this choice is political loyalty. It's more about the avoiding of ethics when discussing SCOTUS. But yes, ethics is the only issue here. The Right is as blind to ethics as the actually blind are to color.
|
|
|
Post by vosa on May 19, 2024 15:15:51 GMT -5
So who would you rather have making your laws, legislators in Annapolis or legislators in Washington, D.C? It took the 14th amendment to apply due process to the states. Painstakingly, piece by piece and case by case, the Supreme Court has applied the Bill of Rights to the states. Which of these rights would you have me surrender to the states? You didn't answer my question so why should I answer yours?
|
|
|
Post by vosa on May 19, 2024 15:18:30 GMT -5
So who would you rather have making your laws, legislators in Annapolis or legislators in Washington, D.C? On this issue? Neither. This should be between a woman or a couple and their doctor. No one else which is why overturning Roe was such a disaster. So no restrictions on abortions. Does that include partial birth abortions?
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 16:29:40 GMT -5
Why it is that when conservative Justices decide cases that align with their view of the Constitution, the very view that got them there, they are evil , but when liberal Justices follow the same course, they are (supposedly) great legal minds? This conversation is not about their politics but their ethics, and how their lack of the same highlights a sad fact: the apparent only criterion GOP presidents consider when making this choice is political loyalty. Nonsense, but there is no point is discussing reality with you on this issue, as your contempt for those Justices who have the nerve not to do as you wish is overbearing.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 16:34:05 GMT -5
You don't care that he's corrupt and obviously partisan. You care that he's on your side. In a nutshell. Wrong. Again. On both your accounts. Dobbs was correctly decided because the will of the people, all of the people, must be heard. There are some people, in some States, who believe that abortion is wrong. They do not have to justify their motivation to anyone. They elect people to represent them who will put forth that belief. What you two want is your own way, and screw those who have as much right to vote for their beliefs as you do for those. You want to make abortion available to all? Run an amendment campaign.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 16:40:02 GMT -5
Then the people in that State can exercise their voting rights and put into office those representatives who will move the practice of abortion in a manner the majority of voters feel is correct. This is where this kind of thinking falls apart. You've essentially created a modern day Jim Crow except in this case it refers to a woman's right to make choices about the kind of health care she receives. And, like Jim Crow before it, it has turned the country into a patchwork confederacy where the rights you have depend entirely on the state you happen to be in at the time. A resident in a so-called blue state may decide to take his wife, 5 months pregnant, to visit her parents who live in a so-called red state. If on the way or during the visit, something goes terribly wrong with the pregnancy, that couple may or may not be able to receive life saving, or pregnancy saving treatment, because some fervent right-wing legislators passed draconian abortion laws. Or even if the parents live in another blue state, maybe the couple has to get there via circuitous routes that only go through pro-choice states. Alito plunged the nation into chaos. "Fervent right wing Legislators" were elected by the people in that State to represent a particular POV. That you don't like that POV is high on the "too bad" list. The people who oppose abortion have as much right to elect people that represent their POV as you and yours do to elect people who think ending fetal life is fine. Now, whether they have the right to abortive medical care in the situation you propose is at the heart of the Idaho v US and Moyle v US cases just argued before the Court. I can't see how the Court can avoid supporting the Supremacy clause, which would mean your example is moot.
|
|
|
Post by Evil Yoda on May 19, 2024 17:30:21 GMT -5
Wrong. Again. On both your accounts. Dobbs was correctly decided because the will of the people, all of the people, must be heard. There are some people, in some States, who believe that abortion is wrong. They do not have to justify their motivation to anyone. They elect people to represent them who will put forth that belief. What you two want is your own way, and screw those who have as much right to vote for their beliefs as you do for those. You want to make abortion available to all? Run an amendment campaign. This has NOTHING to do with abortion. It's about Thomas' lack of ethics, and about the fact that Alito is likely the worst kind of Trumpist - the kind who thinks 1/6 was okay. Please stop trying to maneuver the conversation in irrelevant directions.
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on May 19, 2024 17:52:38 GMT -5
Wrong. Again. On both your accounts. Dobbs was correctly decided because the will of the people, all of the people, must be heard. There are some people, in some States, who believe that abortion is wrong. They do not have to justify their motivation to anyone. They elect people to represent them who will put forth that belief. What you two want is your own way, and screw those who have as much right to vote for their beliefs as you do for those. You want to make abortion available to all? Run an amendment campaign. Nope, we’re just going to try to take the House and Senate and pass it through Congress. Here’s something people like you have never been able to grasp. Opposed to abortion? Don’t get one. Instead you’re determined to impose YOUR version of morality onto the rest of us. It’s tyranny
|
|
|
Post by JoyinMudville on May 19, 2024 17:54:30 GMT -5
This is where this kind of thinking falls apart. You've essentially created a modern day Jim Crow except in this case it refers to a woman's right to make choices about the kind of health care she receives. And, like Jim Crow before it, it has turned the country into a patchwork confederacy where the rights you have depend entirely on the state you happen to be in at the time. A resident in a so-called blue state may decide to take his wife, 5 months pregnant, to visit her parents who live in a so-called red state. If on the way or during the visit, something goes terribly wrong with the pregnancy, that couple may or may not be able to receive life saving, or pregnancy saving treatment, because some fervent right-wing legislators passed draconian abortion laws. Or even if the parents live in another blue state, maybe the couple has to get there via circuitous routes that only go through pro-choice states. Alito plunged the nation into chaos. "Fervent right wing Legislators" were elected by the people in that State to represent a particular POV. That you don't like that POV is high on the "too bad" list. The people who oppose abortion have as much right to elect people that represent their POV as you and yours do to elect people who think ending fetal life is fine. Now, whether they have the right to abortive medical care in the situation you propose is at the heart of the Idaho v US and Moyle v US cases just argued before the Court. I can't see how the Court can avoid supporting the Supremacy clause, which would mean your example is moot. I can. They’ll just make something up
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 18:05:13 GMT -5
Wrong. Again. On both your accounts. Dobbs was correctly decided because the will of the people, all of the people, must be heard. There are some people, in some States, who believe that abortion is wrong. They do not have to justify their motivation to anyone. They elect people to represent them who will put forth that belief. What you two want is your own way, and screw those who have as much right to vote for their beliefs as you do for those. You want to make abortion available to all? Run an amendment campaign. Nope, we’re just going to try to take the House and Senate and pass it through Congress. Here’s something people like you have never been able to grasp. Opposed to abortion? Don’t get one. Instead you’re determined to impose YOUR version of morality onto the rest of us. It’s tyranny I am not determined to do anything of the sort. I am simply relaying fact. By all means, take both the legislative and the executive and pass your end of fetal life wish into law. And when the inevitable swing to the right occurs, we can have this conversation again, as they ban abortion nationally.
|
|
|
Post by zenwalk on May 19, 2024 19:01:56 GMT -5
Nope, we’re just going to try to take the House and Senate and pass it through Congress. Here’s something people like you have never been able to grasp. Opposed to abortion? Don’t get one. Instead you’re determined to impose YOUR version of morality onto the rest of us. It’s tyranny I am not determined to do anything of the sort. I am simply relaying fact. By all means, take both the legislative and the executive and pass your end of fetal life wish into law. And when the inevitable swing to the right occurs, we can have this conversation again, as they ban abortion nationally. Can't kill yourself twice. You overlook that the "inevitable swing" to the Right took 50 years and its earned them a probable crushing defeat come this November. Well done! I doubt this dog catching the car example is going to be forgotten in 50 years. You guys overplayed your hand. Try again in a 100 years. Leave the rest of us alone.
|
|
|
Post by ishmael on May 19, 2024 20:47:38 GMT -5
I am not determined to do anything of the sort. I am simply relaying fact. By all means, take both the legislative and the executive and pass your end of fetal life wish into law. And when the inevitable swing to the right occurs, we can have this conversation again, as they ban abortion nationally. Can't kill yourself twice. You overlook that the "inevitable swing" to the Right took 50 years and its earned them a probable crushing defeat come this November. Well done! I doubt this dog catching the car example is going to be forgotten in 50 years. You guys overplayed your hand. Try again in a 100 years. Leave the rest of us alone. Well, I guess will see in 6 months. Have a good night zenwalk.
|
|
|
Post by pickle20 on May 20, 2024 6:06:04 GMT -5
Note that many of the states don't want abortion to be on ballot measures or referendums and have sought to block it from reaching the people.
States rights my ass.
|
|
|
Post by mrsmlh on May 20, 2024 7:29:20 GMT -5
Note that many of the states don't want abortion to be on ballot measures or referendums and have sought to block it from reaching the people. States rights my ass. I'm curious to see what the legislature in Ohio does now that the people actually voiced their opinion on abortion.
|
|