When abortions were legal people still had the choice didn't they? Those who don't believe in it presumably don't have one. Taking the choice away is regressive IMO.
Also. To the religious. If god hates abortions so much why does he abort, via miscarriage, about a million babies a year?
Again, you are missing the point that taking away the rights of women isn’t democratic. As I said before, living in America has melted your brain.
“When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.”
They stormed the Capitol, halted the democratic functions of state and tried to bring the facking elected government down, ffs.
“The left is threatening to do the same…”
Have a word with yourself.
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 25 seconds ago
Again, you are missing the point that taking away the rights of women isn’t democratic. As I said before, living in America has melted your brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s also the small matter of fact that the SC *knew* a very comfortable majority of US citizens didn’t want Roe vs Wade overturned.
DeMoCrAcY at wOrK.
Pro lifers are very much pro the embryo until it's born, grows up and turns out gaay.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
''If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution''
100% this.
Sadly the Left-Leaning media have led the blinkered populous down another dead-end...........and so has the geriatric POTUS.
Go figure.
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Again, you are missing the point that taking away the rights of women isn’t democratic. As I said before, living in America has melted your brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except yesterday didn’t take anything away.
It never existed, the 14th amendment was a reach at best as justification for abortion.
The right to abortion is now in the hands of the people and their elected officials.
The liberal media believes the vast majority of Americans did not want Roe overturned. So in theory the vast majority should be able to elect officials who agree with them.
Now you’re probably going to rebuttal me that won’t save the poor women in the deep red states who are outnumber X : 1.
Yeah you’re probably right.
But did you know the constitution can be amended? That the right to abortion can be added unilaterally to the constitution?
It requires 38/50 states to ratify it. At last count there were 13 states that had varying levels of laws either outlawing abortion or making it as difficult as it is in the UK.
Some of these trigger laws are very old. There’s no guarantee that some of these states will even reenforce them. Particularly when a couple of them swung blue at the last election.
It would require only one of those trigger states to agree with the other 37 and abortion could be added to the constitution.
Which would end the debate of whether Roe was ever actually constitutional.
How would this be achieved? By people voting for it.
I.e democracy
I'm struggling to understand how limiting a pregnant woman's options is more democracy. Perhaps, in the strictest eyes of the law Roe v Wade wasn't constitutional in what it stated but can someone explain to me how denying women a choice fits into the constitution.
But one thing that is fascinating, is the upset of a constitutional right (which it never was, but the beneficiaries perceived as one) being taken away.
The same people who claim it’s unconstitutional to take it away and it’s a right given by this country and cannot be messed with and it’s a crime to take it away, are the same people who want the second amendment taken away and dismiss all the pro gun peoples arguments despite the fact they’re making the same argument. Except the second amendment is pretty clear.
The 14th amendment was stretched to breaking point in Roe v Wade.
Pot kettle…..but the hypocrisy is always lost on the left, can’t say the government can’t take away a “right” while also begging the government to take away a right you don’t like.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except you fail to mention or consider all the women between now and the next vote who all of a sudden can't do anything about their unplanned pregnancy. They don't get a vote to change things today do they?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 38 seconds ago
I'm struggling to understand how limiting a pregnant woman's options is more democracy. Perhaps, in the strictest eyes of the law Roe v Wade wasn't constitutional in what it stated but can someone explain to me how denying women a choice fits into the constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue at hand isn’t whether it’s right or wrong.
I am firmly in the pro choice camp. Although I do have some feelings towards the lack of rights of the unborn as father.
The issue here is in the US states are free to enact their own laws provided they do not conflict with the national constitution.
Texas outlawed abortion and the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment that law was unconstitutional. It’s been debated for decades and the overall opinion has always been that the ruling was wrong.
However because of the subject it was more a case of it’s a mistake that benefits more than it costs.
Now with a hard line SCOTUS majority the ruling was overturned, correctly, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing isn’t the debate there.
With regards to democracy, the US government did not outlaw abortions, it simply said the decision was not something that could be governed by the constitution and as such each state was free to decide its own rules.
You may think pro lifers are nuts but under Roe their opinions didn’t matter, they had no say. Whether you think they should or not is not the point.
Now both sides have the ability to vote in a state government that will decide their states policies on abortion. Having that say is more Democratic than being told what to do by the federal government.
To my earlier point, there are all but one state needed to ratify an amendment to the constitution to confer that right to women that no red state could fight.
It will take just one trigger state to vote with the rest, again, assuming the 37 states who don’t have laws about abortion all vote in favor of ratification.
Ironically this may be the lifeline the democrats needed going in to the midterms so they’re gonna milk this and act like they care far more than some of them actually do
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
You are stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Said an idiot
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 38 seconds ago
I'm struggling to understand how limiting a pregnant woman's options is more democracy. Perhaps, in the strictest eyes of the law Roe v Wade wasn't constitutional in what it stated but can someone explain to me how denying women a choice fits into the constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue at hand isn’t whether it’s right or wrong.
I am firmly in the pro choice camp. Although I do have some feelings towards the lack of rights of the unborn as father.
The issue here is in the US states are free to enact their own laws provided they do not conflict with the national constitution.
Texas outlawed abortion and the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment that law was unconstitutional. It’s been debated for decades and the overall opinion has always been that the ruling was wrong.
However because of the subject it was more a case of it’s a mistake that benefits more than it costs.
Now with a hard line SCOTUS majority the ruling was overturned, correctly, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing isn’t the debate there.
With regards to democracy, the US government did not outlaw abortions, it simply said the decision was not something that could be governed by the constitution and as such each state was free to decide its own rules.
You may think pro lifers are nuts but under Roe their opinions didn’t matter, they had no say. Whether you think they should or not is not the point.
Now both sides have the ability to vote in a state government that will decide their states policies on abortion. Having that say is more Democratic than being told what to do by the federal government.
To my earlier point, there are all but one state needed to ratify an amendment to the constitution to confer that right to women that no red state could fight.
It will take just one trigger state to vote with the rest, again, assuming the 37 states who don’t have laws about abortion all vote in favor of ratification.
Ironically this may be the lifeline the democrats needed going in to the midterms so they’re gonna milk this and act like they care far more than some of them actually do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Something tells me that as with much of social media today, you're time is wasted here bud.
Lemmings doing what Lemmings do.
All the very best
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by TENƎꓕ (U17162)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except you fail to mention or consider all the women between now and the next vote who all of a sudden can't do anything about their unplanned pregnancy. They don't get a vote to change things today do they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
Folks seem to not be able to take their feelings out of a binary discussion.
This isn’t whether you’re pro choice or pro life. Overturning Roe was a legally sound judgement.
If, as it’s said, the vast majority of Americans believe this should be protected by the constitution then an amendment can be proposed.
38 state senate legislator signatures on a bill sent to the President and it automatically becomes law.
But rather than focusing on lobbying the states who will happily sign up to get the ball rolling, arguing about the ruling and protesting outside judges houses is what’s being done right now.
People seem incapable of separating these things. You can’t argue with the SCOTUS, it’s whole purpose is to be the final say on the constitution. Like it or lump it that’s the Democratic institution that was created for this very purpose.
As I mentioned earlier, if they voted against the second amendment, which I couldn’t even see a wholly liberal SCOTUS doing because it’s pretty clear what the right is, the nut jobs on the right would be protesting and would be perceived and branded undemocratic for not accepting the results of a Democratic institution.
Women not having the right to make a choice is in my opinion wrong. But that’s an opinion.
SCOTUS overturning Roe was legally right. That’s a fact not an opinion.
The two need to be seperated
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
—
It’s not murder. It’s a collection of cells at that point, not a conscious sentient being.
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 5 seconds ago
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
—
It’s not murder. It’s a collection of cells at that point, not a conscious sentient being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe before 5 weeks, after that it has a heartbeat so some would argue, rightly or wrongly, that if it has a heartbeat it’s a living human, fully formed or not.
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
—
It’s not murder. It’s a collection of cells at that point, not a conscious sentient being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every wall starts with one brick.
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they’d be enlightened and facking heroes
Sign in if you want to comment
Abortion furore & trigger laws
Page 5 of 18
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10
posted on 25/6/22
When abortions were legal people still had the choice didn't they? Those who don't believe in it presumably don't have one. Taking the choice away is regressive IMO.
posted on 25/6/22
Also. To the religious. If god hates abortions so much why does he abort, via miscarriage, about a million babies a year?
posted on 25/6/22
Again, you are missing the point that taking away the rights of women isn’t democratic. As I said before, living in America has melted your brain.
posted on 25/6/22
“When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.”
They stormed the Capitol, halted the democratic functions of state and tried to bring the facking elected government down, ffs.
“The left is threatening to do the same…”
Have a word with yourself.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 25 seconds ago
Again, you are missing the point that taking away the rights of women isn’t democratic. As I said before, living in America has melted your brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There’s also the small matter of fact that the SC *knew* a very comfortable majority of US citizens didn’t want Roe vs Wade overturned.
DeMoCrAcY at wOrK.
posted on 25/6/22
Pro lifers are very much pro the embryo until it's born, grows up and turns out gaay.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 37 seconds ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
''If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution''
100% this.
Sadly the Left-Leaning media have led the blinkered populous down another dead-end...........and so has the geriatric POTUS.
Go figure.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 1 minute ago
Again, you are missing the point that taking away the rights of women isn’t democratic. As I said before, living in America has melted your brain.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except yesterday didn’t take anything away.
It never existed, the 14th amendment was a reach at best as justification for abortion.
The right to abortion is now in the hands of the people and their elected officials.
The liberal media believes the vast majority of Americans did not want Roe overturned. So in theory the vast majority should be able to elect officials who agree with them.
Now you’re probably going to rebuttal me that won’t save the poor women in the deep red states who are outnumber X : 1.
Yeah you’re probably right.
But did you know the constitution can be amended? That the right to abortion can be added unilaterally to the constitution?
It requires 38/50 states to ratify it. At last count there were 13 states that had varying levels of laws either outlawing abortion or making it as difficult as it is in the UK.
Some of these trigger laws are very old. There’s no guarantee that some of these states will even reenforce them. Particularly when a couple of them swung blue at the last election.
It would require only one of those trigger states to agree with the other 37 and abortion could be added to the constitution.
Which would end the debate of whether Roe was ever actually constitutional.
How would this be achieved? By people voting for it.
I.e democracy
posted on 25/6/22
I'm struggling to understand how limiting a pregnant woman's options is more democracy. Perhaps, in the strictest eyes of the law Roe v Wade wasn't constitutional in what it stated but can someone explain to me how denying women a choice fits into the constitution.
posted on 25/6/22
But one thing that is fascinating, is the upset of a constitutional right (which it never was, but the beneficiaries perceived as one) being taken away.
The same people who claim it’s unconstitutional to take it away and it’s a right given by this country and cannot be messed with and it’s a crime to take it away, are the same people who want the second amendment taken away and dismiss all the pro gun peoples arguments despite the fact they’re making the same argument. Except the second amendment is pretty clear.
The 14th amendment was stretched to breaking point in Roe v Wade.
Pot kettle…..but the hypocrisy is always lost on the left, can’t say the government can’t take away a “right” while also begging the government to take away a right you don’t like.
posted on 25/6/22
Bloody hell dwight
posted on 25/6/22
You are stupid.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except you fail to mention or consider all the women between now and the next vote who all of a sudden can't do anything about their unplanned pregnancy. They don't get a vote to change things today do they?
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 38 seconds ago
I'm struggling to understand how limiting a pregnant woman's options is more democracy. Perhaps, in the strictest eyes of the law Roe v Wade wasn't constitutional in what it stated but can someone explain to me how denying women a choice fits into the constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue at hand isn’t whether it’s right or wrong.
I am firmly in the pro choice camp. Although I do have some feelings towards the lack of rights of the unborn as father.
The issue here is in the US states are free to enact their own laws provided they do not conflict with the national constitution.
Texas outlawed abortion and the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment that law was unconstitutional. It’s been debated for decades and the overall opinion has always been that the ruling was wrong.
However because of the subject it was more a case of it’s a mistake that benefits more than it costs.
Now with a hard line SCOTUS majority the ruling was overturned, correctly, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing isn’t the debate there.
With regards to democracy, the US government did not outlaw abortions, it simply said the decision was not something that could be governed by the constitution and as such each state was free to decide its own rules.
You may think pro lifers are nuts but under Roe their opinions didn’t matter, they had no say. Whether you think they should or not is not the point.
Now both sides have the ability to vote in a state government that will decide their states policies on abortion. Having that say is more Democratic than being told what to do by the federal government.
To my earlier point, there are all but one state needed to ratify an amendment to the constitution to confer that right to women that no red state could fight.
It will take just one trigger state to vote with the rest, again, assuming the 37 states who don’t have laws about abortion all vote in favor of ratification.
Ironically this may be the lifeline the democrats needed going in to the midterms so they’re gonna milk this and act like they care far more than some of them actually do
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 3 minutes ago
You are stupid.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Said an idiot
posted on 25/6/22
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 4 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 38 seconds ago
I'm struggling to understand how limiting a pregnant woman's options is more democracy. Perhaps, in the strictest eyes of the law Roe v Wade wasn't constitutional in what it stated but can someone explain to me how denying women a choice fits into the constitution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The issue at hand isn’t whether it’s right or wrong.
I am firmly in the pro choice camp. Although I do have some feelings towards the lack of rights of the unborn as father.
The issue here is in the US states are free to enact their own laws provided they do not conflict with the national constitution.
Texas outlawed abortion and the Supreme Court ruled that under the 14th amendment that law was unconstitutional. It’s been debated for decades and the overall opinion has always been that the ruling was wrong.
However because of the subject it was more a case of it’s a mistake that benefits more than it costs.
Now with a hard line SCOTUS majority the ruling was overturned, correctly, whether it’s a good thing or a bad thing isn’t the debate there.
With regards to democracy, the US government did not outlaw abortions, it simply said the decision was not something that could be governed by the constitution and as such each state was free to decide its own rules.
You may think pro lifers are nuts but under Roe their opinions didn’t matter, they had no say. Whether you think they should or not is not the point.
Now both sides have the ability to vote in a state government that will decide their states policies on abortion. Having that say is more Democratic than being told what to do by the federal government.
To my earlier point, there are all but one state needed to ratify an amendment to the constitution to confer that right to women that no red state could fight.
It will take just one trigger state to vote with the rest, again, assuming the 37 states who don’t have laws about abortion all vote in favor of ratification.
Ironically this may be the lifeline the democrats needed going in to the midterms so they’re gonna milk this and act like they care far more than some of them actually do
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Something tells me that as with much of social media today, you're time is wasted here bud.
Lemmings doing what Lemmings do.
All the very best
posted on 25/6/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 25/6/22
comment by TENƎꓕ (U17162)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 25 minutes ago
comment by Darren The King Fletcher (U10026)
posted 17 minutes ago
You are saying that the decision to remove the civil rights if an entire demographic is the most democracy favouring decision ever.
Of course it’s facking reeetarded.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No it’s not. You just perceive it that way because you don’t like it, while also clearly not actually knowing a thing about the US political institution.
The Supreme courts sole job is review, uphold or overturn laws enacted by states if they do or don’t comply with the national constitution.
It’s not about whether you like or dislike the law, it’s a binary fact.
If you actually read their ruling yesterday it’s a statement of fact that Roe vs Wade was a bad judgement. It is not supported by the constitution and the US federal government has no right to tell anyone what to do with their own bodies in regards to abortion.
States are free to make their own laws because the right is not guaranteed in the constitution.
You don’t have to like the fact but it is a fact.
So now people have to vote in officials at a state level that agree with their views.
A pro lifer would tell you it wasn’t democratic that they had no say in the matter. A pro choice person will tel you they just lost a right.
Both now have a chance to make their voices heard at a state level to ensure they get the outcome they want. Just like every other laws that states have that are not constitutionally protected.
Throwing big fits and threatening to harass, intimidate and attack SCOTUS judges by the way is the most hypocritical thing the left has done in some time.
When the right wing nut jobs didn’t like the election, and protested and tried to overrule that judgement it was an insurrection against democracy and a US institution.
Now the left is threatening to do the same thing just because they too, don’t like the outcome of a certain institutions ruling.
Can’t have it both ways
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Except you fail to mention or consider all the women between now and the next vote who all of a sudden can't do anything about their unplanned pregnancy. They don't get a vote to change things today do they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
Folks seem to not be able to take their feelings out of a binary discussion.
This isn’t whether you’re pro choice or pro life. Overturning Roe was a legally sound judgement.
If, as it’s said, the vast majority of Americans believe this should be protected by the constitution then an amendment can be proposed.
38 state senate legislator signatures on a bill sent to the President and it automatically becomes law.
But rather than focusing on lobbying the states who will happily sign up to get the ball rolling, arguing about the ruling and protesting outside judges houses is what’s being done right now.
People seem incapable of separating these things. You can’t argue with the SCOTUS, it’s whole purpose is to be the final say on the constitution. Like it or lump it that’s the Democratic institution that was created for this very purpose.
As I mentioned earlier, if they voted against the second amendment, which I couldn’t even see a wholly liberal SCOTUS doing because it’s pretty clear what the right is, the nut jobs on the right would be protesting and would be perceived and branded undemocratic for not accepting the results of a Democratic institution.
Women not having the right to make a choice is in my opinion wrong. But that’s an opinion.
SCOTUS overturning Roe was legally right. That’s a fact not an opinion.
The two need to be seperated
posted on 25/6/22
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
—
It’s not murder. It’s a collection of cells at that point, not a conscious sentient being.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 5 seconds ago
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
—
It’s not murder. It’s a collection of cells at that point, not a conscious sentient being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Maybe before 5 weeks, after that it has a heartbeat so some would argue, rightly or wrongly, that if it has a heartbeat it’s a living human, fully formed or not.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 1 minute ago
No they don’t. Just like the thousands of women who aborted babies under what is now deemed an unconstitutional right will not be retroactively charged with murder.
—
It’s not murder. It’s a collection of cells at that point, not a conscious sentient being.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Every wall starts with one brick.
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
posted on 25/6/22
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 seconds ago
comment by Dwight K Schrute (U22590)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by Diafol Coch 77 (U2462)
posted 5 minutes ago
Ok. I think I get it. What you're saying is that it's unconstitutional for the US Gov to dictate to the individual states yes?
It's still crazy though IMO.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bingo
By signing up to the union, you agree to abide by the constitution of the Union. If you don’t well then you can secede, just like the civil war.
But you are free to self govern provided your state laws do not contradict the constitution. That is the whole purpose of the Supreme Court. To be the final judge on whether a state law contradicts the constitution.
It’s vaguely similar to being a member of the EU. The UK could do as it feels but it had to fall in line with some EU laws.
US works in a similar way, states are like countries that do as they please provide they don’t break the overarching laws of the United States
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In theory would a state be in breach of the second amendment if they banned the sale of ammo?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, they’d be enlightened and facking heroes
Page 5 of 18
6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10