How about enlightening us on how states will: a) know someone is pregnant b) leaves the state and c) get an abortion? Checkpoints at the airport? Requiring doctors to give up patient info? Roadblocks at state borders?
States can’t keep criminals from crossing their borders illegally but you’d have them with impenetrable borders within the US right? Moron.It's never happened before but Politico got ahold of a draft opinion. Reading the tea leaves, since the opinion was written. by Alito, that means it was 5-4 with Roberts voting against.
So....
1) No one has ever leaked a document like this.
2) It's emblematic of how politicized the Court has become.
3) Many states are now poised to ban abortion with draconian laws that would forbid women even to travel to another state.
4) A right established 50 years ago has simply been erased. Precedent no longer means anything.
5) What will the effect be on upcoming elections? One thing's for sure, many women will never vote for another Republican.
6) There will be calls to expand the number of justices.
that are not specifically vested to individuals to the states, where the representatives elected by the people will decide the issue for that state. This ruling, if it's real, just returns the issue of abortion to the states where it has always belonged under the US Constitution. Prostitution is legal in some countries, so sex vacations are popular with many guys in those countries. Similarly, there will now be abortion vacations for those who live in a jurisdiction that doesn't allow it. You won't even have to leave the continental US. California and New York will be waiting for the influx of abortion tourism. You can take you kid to Disneyland just before he's born and then kill him the next day.
It is much more than that SCOTUS has returned the issue to the states, which would be bad enough. It's that many states (like Texas) are also criminalizing going to ANOTHER state for an abortion. And making it illegal to use the mail to send abortion pills to people.
How about that?
complicated to confuse their not-too-bright voters. It's really simple. MOVE to where it's legal for six months and then move back when it's over. How can "you changed your mind about living in New York" be criminalized? Perhaps the real answer is to take some responsibility in the first place and use birth control? Why let people off the hook who throw caution to the wind and are irresponsible to the point of involving an innocent third life in their fucking?
Why should someone have to move out of state for six months to get an abortion? If you don't see how ludicrous that is then you clearly fall into your own "not-too-bright" category.
Then, like a typical Republican, you blame the victim.
if they don't like paying State income tax, they should leave NY or California, and many people have. In this case, if they want an abortion, they will have to prioritize what is important to them. There is no state income tax in Texas. Do they want to kill their baby, and pay income tax for the privilege, or do they want to have the child and live free of state income tax? Life is about freedom of choice, and they still have choices.
Does this mean you're really pro-choice? Or only when you're not a woman? Most of the women whose choices are about to be deleted are too poor to travel, which makes your brilliant solution meaningless. And many of them are people of color. So, while you righties whine about Dems letting illegal brown people into the country so they can vote, you're in favor of the legal ones being forced to birth kids who'll vote Democrat.
Yep, that makes a whole lot of sense.
CDL's solution for when abortion is outlawed in one state is the perfect example of a statement made by an elitist Republican who has no concept of what it's like to be poor. It's the most insensitive comment since Marie Antoinette allegedly said, when told the people had no bread: "Let them eat cake."
Of course, I'll give CDL the benefit of the doubt that even he isn't that insensitive. His comment is yet another one in a long line of troll posts by righties and by CDL in particular. This is what CDL does; he isn't interested in a genuine political debate because he knows he doesn't have the intellectual heft to compete. So he trolls and uses poetic license because, in his own words: "... I have admitted before that this is the ONE board I take a little poetic license with, because the Lefties here are so tied up in knots, it makes their heads explode."
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/politics-and-religion-39/i-prefer-the-slice-of-time------396945?frmSearch=1#396945
CDL also said:
"I already admitted years ago that I like to use a little poetic license to gin up the hard core faithful on the P & R board..."
http://www.theeroticreview.com/discussion-boards/ter-general-board-12/i-told-you-to-be-specific-and-you----983161?frmSearch=1#983161
The truth is CDL NEVER admitted to using poetic license until he was repeatedly busted for it. But what he HAS admitted is that the only reason he posts on P&R is "to make Lefties heads explode" and "to gin up the hard core faithful." So take CDL's post with a grain of salt. In fact, take them with a whole salt mine.
When my post is full of irrefutable facts, it's pretty hard to call it poetic license, and that's why everyone has their panties in a bunch.
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
that Kamala Harris has when she knows she is being made a fool of?
at your latest ludicrous blather.
Nervous laugh of Kamala when she's on the ropes but wants to portray confidence. It might work sometimes. It was worth a try.
not one sentence about why this wouldn't work. The Biden administration can organize and bus illegals all over the country. Why can't they bus women to other states to get abortions? They can give homeless people vouchers to stay in modest hotels for several nights. Why couldn't they do that for women from other states getting abortion. H&HS should be able to manage something simple like this. They could call the bus the "Baby-killing Express" and put decals of little arms and legs on the sides of the bus.
Most poor Americans still have more money than illegals, so your point is not very well made. It's just your usual name-calling without any substance. You can take my post with a grain of salt, but they should take yours with a bucket of hot air. Lol
How about enlightening us on how states will: a) know someone is pregnant b) leaves the state and c) get an abortion? Checkpoints at the airport? Requiring doctors to give up patient info? Roadblocks at state borders?
States can’t keep criminals from crossing their borders illegally but you’d have them with impenetrable borders within the US right? Moron.
Conservatives believe is was a liberal Hail Mary attempt to get the Court to change their opinion by riling up public sentiments.
Liberals believe it was an conservatives move to force the hand of a wavering con Justice Gorsuch or the Chief Justice.
It’s at times like these that it’s more important to follow the facts.
As a Yale student, Jain blasted Yale for supporting Brett Kavanaugh's nomination.
Jain was quoted in a 2017 Politico piece by Josh Gerstein.
Today, Gerstein published the draft SCOTUS opinion on Roe.
Clerks are not assigned to justices, they are interviewed and hired, so this is a huge reflection on Sotomayor's judgment, and likely to give other justices, even the libs, pause in what kind of info they trust her with in the future.
From the Times:
"Senator Susan Collins of Maine, one of the few Republican supporters of abortion rights in Congress, expressed anger at Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh, saying their reported support for the draft ruling “would be completely inconsistent” with what they had told her about their views of Roe as settled law."
The only question here is what will the ruling's impact will be in Nov.
The issues that will be important at the polls are inflation, crime, economy, and gas prices. If Biden and the Dumb Dems can't fix these by November, abortion is not an issue that anyone will care about. Thinking this issue will drive voters to the polls in November to vote for Democrats is just wishful thinking.
Once the primaries are over, the Trump rallies will start again to help GOP candidates and Trump will not let anyone forget what the REAL issues are that I listed above.
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/kavanaugh-asks-if-anyone-has-seen-briefcase-he-accidentally-left-at-bar-last-week
"Kavanaugh Asks If Anyone Has Seen Briefcase He Accidentally Left at Bar Last Week"
.
"... The jurist was evasive when asked to describe the contents of his briefcase, saying only that it was “work papers and junk” that he would “really like to have back.” ..."
Clerks are not assigned to justices, they are interviewed and hired, so this is a huge reflection on Sotomayor's judgment, and likely to give other justices, even the libs, pause in what kind of info they trust her with in the future.
From inflation, the border, the economy, and everything else they are fucking up
Also did anyone notice how fast a few hundred protesters showed up in front of the Supreme Court building last night…Hmmmmm ….it was like they knew it was coming.
So if reversing Roe v Wade and leaving it up to the states is the right thing to do, what's next ?
Loving v Virginia? Leave it up to the states to decide if couples can marry. Put justice Thomas in jail for marrying the trader bitch.
if couples can marry or divorce. Obviously, the most liberal laws are in Nevada, where people can get married on very short notice to someone they picked up in a bar, and then get a divorce the next morning. Other states have varying degrees of hoops to jump through from there. It's surprising you don't already know that marriage is a state issue, since same-sex marriage is also governed by individual states. It started out slowly, but now, most states allow it.
Not just couples. Loving v Virginia was ruling for interracial couples could marry. In my lifetime it was illegal for interracial couples to marry. Being a state decision it was legal in Maryland but not in Virginia. Please explain how Roe v Wade would be different.
In the early days of same-sex marriage couples merely went to states that allowed it. The same will be true with abortion. If you choose to get an abortion, but don't live in a state that allows it, you simply travel to a state that allows it. Illegals come thousands of miles on foot to have their anchor babies here, so what is the big deal about traveling to have the opposite result . . . . a dead baby?
-- Modified on 5/6/2022 9:22:39 PM
Don't think it can't happen. White men are concerned how much in the minority they will be in a few years so what if a couple of states get together and decide to end interracial marriage. Clearly most of the country would be against it but what does that matter....as we see this shit take place.
The ruling specifically rules out the Dobbs decision as having any impact on interracial or gay marriage.
The ship has sailed on banning gay marriage anyway. The last winning Presidential candidate to run opposing gay marriage was Barack Obama in his first campaign (2008). There’s no group or faction in either party with the political heft to make banning those types of marriages a legitimate issue anymore.
The fact that abortion rights activists are relying on this red herring shows they know the weak standing Roe has and how easy it will be to overturn it.
Here’s a good summary:
Roe v Wade was settled law....until it wasn't......
What are some examples of “constitutional rights” granted by case law as decided by the Supreme Court that aren’t enshrined in the constitution?
So your definition of an unborn child extends to how many weeks?
The Supreme Court has been making rulings applying the Constitution to things not enumerated in it since it was created. So pardon me if I don't give you a list. Try doing to homework.
My definition of the rights of an unborn child is covered in Roe and Casey.
The Supreme Court has been making rulings applying the Constitution to things not enumerated in it since it was created. So pardon me if I don't give you a list. Try doing to homework.
My definition of the rights of an unborn child is covered in Roe and Casey.
So your stance is taken directly from the Casey case?
The subversive radical far left militant zealots do what they always do
they resort to violence.
It’s a federal crime to protest at a federal judge’s home. Does Garland have the cajones to prosecute them? Does Biden have the cojones to fire Garland if he doesn’t?
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or
with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty,
pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or
in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or
with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.
against the justices brought to light the irony and the duplicity of the Dems in marching in marching in support of abortion on Mother's Day. Pretty rich.