ESOMKnicks wrote:

Welpee wrote:My comment was in reference to important court cases Justice Thomas insinuated that we may need to revisit. The Loving case made it illegal to ban interracial marriage. My sarcastic comment suggested that he didn't include that case because he is in an interracial marriage, as in he doesn't want to revisit case rulings that affect him personally.

Hope this clarifies things.

Guys, I said this twice already. Do not take a Fox News report at face value. Go and read what Thomas actually wrote in his opinion. His issue is with the way the right to due process has been invoked to defend liberties which he does not think these rights cover. The interracial marriage case invoked the right to equal treatment, so for him it may be a different matter altogether. And he is against erroneous judicial arguments, not the liberties themselves. He insists that the SCOTUS should look at things from a purely judicial perspective, rather than political or social policy perspectives.
I am way in over my head on such juridical matters, so someone with a better understanding could perhaps clarify or correct me.

Welpee wrote:

BigDaddyG wrote:

Welpee wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

Jmpasq wrote:
This piece of **** wants to allow states to ban contraception. We might as well move to Iran

In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Read Thomas's full opinion. The way I have read it, I think that taking this quote separately out of context creates a very misleading impression of what he actually meant to communicate.

Interesting how he didn't reference the Loving case...oh, I forgot, he's in an interracial marriage.

Interracial? What do you consider the basics for being considered human and how many centuries of evolution to go does Ginni have to get there?

I have no idea what you're talking about or asking.

My comment was in reference to important court cases Justice Thomas insinuated that we may need to revisit. The Loving case made it illegal to ban interracial marriage. My sarcastic comment suggested that he didn't include that case because he is in an interracial marriage, as in he doesn't want to revisit case rulings that affect him personally.

Hope this clarifies things.

It was a bad joke. I don't consider Thomas or his wife to be human beings. More like an interspecies marriage. And I'm not talking about physical appearance.

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

What? You realize all of this is the result of people of a certain political persuasion working the system to get judges of the same persuasion on the supreme court. None of this has much to do with what you just posted. It's about judges dying/retiring at the right time under the right president (not to mention that stunt McConnell pulled at the end of Obama's presidency). And like other's mentioned, the majority of people in this country do not support what happened this week.

So your morality/society statement holds very little merit.

I'm fully aware of how government operates and the same can be said in 1973.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth over whether or not the majority is in support or no support of abortion rights. Various polls will clearly show that the "majority" of people want abortion rates and I've seen numbers as high as 65% in support.

However, what I will state is that statistics can be misconstrued. "80% of people choose Colgate Toothpaste," can simply mean that ten people were polled and of the 10, 8 chose Colgate Toothpaste.

Polling 1500 people with regard to abortion rates don't speak for hundreds of millions of people.

As the three Democratic-appointed justices note in their Dobbs dissent, more constitutional rights now are on the chopping block. “Either the majority does not really believe in its own reasoning. Or if it does, all rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure,” the dissenters wrote. “Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.” It seems to be the latter: In his concurrence, Justice Clarence Thomas writes that precedents establishing access to contraception, legalizing same-sex marriage, and striking down anti-sodomy laws should be “reconsidered.”

Setting aside the record of insincerity from Alito himself and the other conservative justices, the reason not to trust his disclaimer is that the Supreme Court has become an institution whose primary role is to force a right-wing vision of American society on the rest of the country. The conservative majority’s main vehicle for this imposition is a presentist historical analysis that takes whatever stances define right-wing cultural and political identity at a given moment and asserts them as essential aspects of American law since the founding, and therefore obligatory. Conservatives have long attacked the left for supporting a “living constitutionalism,” which they say renders the law arbitrary and meaningless. But the current majority’s approach is itself a kind of undead constitutionalism—one in which the dictates of the Constitution retrospectively shift with whatever Fox News happens to be furious about. Legal outcomes preferred by today’s American right conveniently turn out to be what the Founding Fathers wanted all along.

The 6–3 majority has removed any appetite for caution or restraint, and the justices’ lifetime appointments mean they will never have to face an angry electorate that could deprive them of their power. It has also rendered their approach to the law lazy, clumsy, and malicious, and made the right-wing justices’ undead constitutionalism all the more apparent.

Many of the Court’s recent decisions, even before Dobbs, have demonstrated this. In the case over the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for employers, the conservative justices disregarded the explicit text of a federal statute allowing the government to set emergency regulations governing “toxic substances or agents” in the workplace, and employed soft anti-vax arguments that had only become prominent in conservative media since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. As part of its rationale, the majority wrote that “in its half century of existence,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration “has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind,” which is true, because during that period there had not been a global pandemic that killed more than 1 million Americans.

In their decision earlier this week overturning restrictions on concealed carry of firearms in New York, the right-wing justices ignored historical examples of firearm regulations in order to argue that any such regulations—not just those in New York—were presumptively unconstitutional. The decision was a significant escalation in the Court’s gun-rights jurisprudence from the 2008 Heller decision, which found an individual constitutional right to possess a firearm. In the most recent ruling, Thomas wrote that only those restrictions “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” are constitutional, but he did so ignoring, as the writer Saul Cornell points out, a centuries-long history of closely regulating arms in densely populated areas. That record is irrelevant. The restrictions deemed consistent with tradition will be whatever the current right-wing consensus happens to be.

In his concurrence in that case, Alito sneered, “How does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.” The logic of the assertion suggests that laws against murder are useless because murderers continue to exist; it is a quality of reasoning that might come from a fifth grader. The argument is also not in any sense a legal one, just a paraphrase of culture-war blather one hears in right-wing media—which are a much more significant influence on the majority than the law or the Constitution is. Clearly, Alito does not believe laws against abortion to be similarly pointless, even though abortions will continue regardless.

https://apple.news/ATa2aZfFtRF6Mn-6D0ntIaw

Here is an experts saying the court is a bunch of radical Conservatives imposing their views on everyone else. What’s posted above is a snippet that really shows where this particular court are just a bunch of radicals.

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

Welpee wrote:People who should be excluded from deciding on this issue:

1) Men
2) Women beyond their child bearing years
3) Married women

I find it interesting how people who will either never need to make this decision and people who are likely to have a system of support if they found themselves in an unwanted pregnancy, they have so much to say when imposing their beliefs on a small population of women who are confronted with having to actually deal with whether or not to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

When people site god and religion for their anti-abortion stance, I always wonder why they do not equally advocate for outlawing divorce? Religiously it's just as frowned upon as abortion. Could it be that since half of marriages end in divorce more people are comfortable overlooking that sin since there's a strong chance it may directly affect them? But since abortion or gay rights only affects a small percentage of the population, those are the popular sins to focus on.

Again, I have no problem with people having their beliefs and living their life based on their beliefs. But when it comes to imposing on others, it needs to be based on facts, not your beliefs or religion. And referring to someone who has an abortion with the same terminology as a gang member who shoots someone in the head on the streets is very inappropriate.

Food for thought.

In 2019 the were 629,898 reported legal abortions to the CDC but states such as California, New Hampshire, and Maryland doesn't report to the CDC because it's voluntary. The World Health Organization estimates abortions in the US to be around 886,000. 629,898 is not a small number and for context, that's a tad below the entire population of Detroit and more than the populations of cities such as Baltimore, Milwaukee, Kansas City, and Atlanta. The number of abortions performed since 1973 is equivalent to the Holocaust happening 10 times.

Again, I get how framing things for sensationalism and shock value can be an effective way of advancing the agenda. Here are the straight facts minus injecting P.R. language. Let's go with your number: 629,898 legal abortions, there are almost 260 million adults in the U.S. over 18 years old. That's around 0.24% of the adult population.

Thanks for proving my point. That's around .24% of the US population on a YEARLY basis. Multiply by x number of years and the percentages increase. Since when is using fact P.R. language?

But what's the point? No matter how you slice it, it's still a very small percentage of the population having your belief system imposed on them.

It's not my belief system being imposed on anyone. This is an issue of morality and society dictates morality.

Doesn't society favor legal abortion? Generally it is like ~65% of people who not in favor of overturning Roe vs Wade

By your own statement, society favors legal abortion.

Society is predominantly pro-choice which is why my belief system isn't being imposed on anyone. I believe in what I do and have my reasons why.

Roe V. Wade being overturned and being handed back to the states simply means that if society wants abortion rights then the fight will be at the state level.

After trigger laws go into effect and taking into account states that will place server restrictions approximately half of the states will still provide abortion rights with no change.

Sounds pretty similar to what was happening that prompted the civil war. Let each state decide if people of dark complexion are humans or property.

That is a ridiculous comparison.

You compared getting pregnant to drunk driving just a few pages back...

SergioNYK wrote:I blame organized religion, specifically Christianity, which is the worst creation of mankind in it's history.

There was a time when slavery was sanctioned by the Catholic church. You can go through any written text and cherry pick sections that gel with your worldview. I don't blame religion per se, but there's no doubt it is a powerful tool that can be used to exploit the sheeple.

Welpee wrote:
So it's purely coincidentally that the cases Thomas referenced in his quote are rulings that would be considered liberal? Only rulings that lean liberal should be examined as erroneous? Come on now.

Are you aware of any cases where right to due process or right to privacy were invoked to promote conservative agenda, i.e. to restrict individual liberties? Doubt it, since conservatives are by definition against individual liberties. But, once again, my knowledge of these matters is very weak.

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

wargames wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

martin wrote:This is reality in one state. Today.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349909311832067

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349912956780547

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/NicoleClowneyAR/status/1540349925531168769

I personally think it's insane but it's a state issue and would like to think that rational and logical thinking/reasoning will prevail.

That’s bull**** because they just took away the states right to regulate gun licenses…

You can’t waive this away as a state issue the Supreme Court is a radical body and they are making choices based on their politics with no legal standing.

Negative sir. New York can no longer dictate the number of licenses provided to citizens who should have never been denied the right to carry a firearm. The denial was found to be unconstitutional.

Bull****…. Also don’t call me Sir. It makes it seem like you’re trying to be reasonable when your argument is anything but.

It’s all the same issue regarding state rights. States are going to dictate the number of abortions that take place within them. Also don’t say “well the constitution” because the constitution isn’t sacred and that same argument was used to support other monstrous policies like slavery and segregation for most of this countries existence.

There is no justification for this change besides they wanted to do it. In literally a two day span this particular court has lost any legal justification for its decision making besides “we have power” which is fantastic because it’s the minority dictating terms on the majority.If they were a states right court they would have allowed NY to continue to dictate gun licenses within its borders. At least then what they did today could have been justified as them being a court that was supportive of states rights as you like to say.

I'm unreasonable because I you don't agree with my point of view?

I never said the constitution was sacred. If it were sacred there would be no way to ratify the constitution which eliminated policies like slavery and segregation. If the constitution were sacred Roe v Wade would have never been put into law in 1973.

"Justice Clarence Thomas delivered the majority opinion for the ideologically divided court, writing that New York's "proper-cause requirement" prevented law-abiding citizens from exercising their Second Amendment right, and its licensing regime is unconstitutional."

New York state can still prevent non-law-abiding citizens from carrying a firearm. What made the licensing unconstitutional is that New York State was providing licenses to some law-abiding citizens but not all law-abiding citizens using the proper clause requirement thus violating the 2nd Amendment.

"Under the law in place since 1913, a person applying for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public has to show "proper cause," or a specific need, to carry the weapon."

New York state can create restrictions as long as the state does not violate the constitution. Every state has its own constitution but it cannot infringe on the constitution of the U.S. State law cannot infringe upon federal law.

You’re unreasonable because on one hand your trying to sound polite while on the other hand arguing for taking away from your fellow citizen rights to appease a document that was written hundred of years ago because you know you would lose if you just said “I feel this way because a preacher told me too”. Your argument and points insults my intelligence because you’re trying to seem reasonable defending decisions that are anything but.

Going beyond changing the constitution. The 14th amendment still allowed for segregation and the court supported this with their Plessy v. Ferguson decision on the books until Brown vs. Board of Ed almost 60 years later. Certain prior decisions literally make up the fabric of our current society and saying something half assed like “let the states decide” is avoiding owning up to what just happened.

The court is made up of Radical Conservatives and that may align with your views but don’t come here and try to justify it as anything but a vocal minority forcing the rest of us to deal with your side’s bull****. Now to the gun laws once again this is a over 100 year old law that was based on the state deciding who and how to give gun licenses. You could argue the 10th amendment gives states the right to decide how people get guns since the federal government doesn’t pass laws. Yet this state right isn’t on par for the radical conservative court to a state saying a woman cannot have abortions? If people in NY want to own guns with no hassle they could just move to another state right? This is a state issue right?

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2022/06/miranda-warnings-supreme-court-alito-kagan.html They on the low began to gut Miranda rights.

Because you don't agree with our form of government and laws of this country doesn't mean I'm insulting your intelligence.

When the constitution was put into effect the framers had no idea of social issues that could arise in the future. That's why the constitution may be ratified and new amendments can be put into place and why case law exists as you showed at the beginning of your statement. You know how it works and you simply disagree with the decision the SC made in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.

In New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen it was found that the "proper clause," provision as part of the licensing application process violated the 2nd amendment. New York case law defines proper cause as requiring an applicant to "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." Mr. Nash and Mr. Koch were granted a gun license but restricted gun license and wanted the restrictions removed for the purpose of self-defense. Self-defense meets the "proper clause" requirement but the issue at hand is why can self-defense be used in certain areas but not in others. This was a 2nd amendment issue plain and simple. If you don't agree read the case and get back to me.

Nowhere in the constitution is abortion mentioned and nowhere in the constitution is the taking of life protected. Abortion was protected by the 14th amendment under the right to privacy in Roe V Wade and the SC in hearing Dobbs created new case law in which abortion was given back to the state because there was no constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wan be on different sides of the fence or on the same side but it doesn't change anything. NY gun law and abortion are not comparable because they are two different and apart issues.

It will be up to the people in the states where abortion will be made illegal to overturn that law.

ESOMKnicks wrote:

CashMoney wrote:

ESOMKnicks wrote:

smackeddog wrote:
Yeah, can you imagine the uproar if women decided that sperm were human lives and so banned whacking off or any form of ejeculation outside of baby making, using the justification "that's just where I think life begins- your murdering every time you crack one off!"?

Given that there are millions of sperm in a single ejaculate, whacking off would not be just murder, but mass genocide, exceeding the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot combined.

I honestly struggle with the concept of life beginning at conception. There is no way a fetus in the early stages of development is a distinct living creature, it is just a clot of unconscious organic matter, same as the mother's kidney or spleen. Life may well be considered to form before birth, but no way it forms right at conception. And I am a deeply religious man.

I hate the whacking-off argument because it's illogical. Every time a guy doesn't pull out his failure to do so does not result in pregnancy 100% of the time.

Interesting you used the term "early stages of development" and then used organic matter. If the organic matter is allowed to develop the result is life. However, purposely terminating the development is okay.

Very good that you are trying to apply Aristotelian teleological reasoning. Still, an acorn is not the same as an oak, organic is not the same as alive, alive is not the same as conscious, and conscious is not the same as human.

Acorns grow from Oak trees so if I don't want acorns I'll just chop down the tree before the acorns grow. Better yet, if I don't want acorns I won't grow an oak tree. Organic is not the same as alive because in order for something to be alive it must be organic. Consciousness is a state of human life that begins with organic matter. All different but intertwined.

I get it though. You're deciding factor is consciousness whereas mine is I have a problem with not allowing consciousness to develop. However, consciousness is not present until leaving the womb and has only been proven in infants as young as 5 months old but possibly occur as early as 2 months old.

Would it be okay to give birth to a child, change my mind and toss it into the trash? Of course not because that is murder because the child is a human life even though it does not yet have consciousness.

With that being said, would you agree that a child is not a child until it leaves the moves and achieves consciousness?