[Unthinking Majority]

If you did not care about their behaviour and choices, then you would not use their behaviour and choices to justify your stance.

Strawman, I never argued that. Of course I care about their choices because their choices are killing unborn babies.

If someone wants to make consensual choices that kill unborn babies and want the a-ok from the government to allow and provide services for them to do this then no I don't agree with it.

If a women is raped then she never had consent and she should have the right to remove a foreign substance from her body from a person who forced it inside her against her will. If you have consensual sex and obviously know the risks involved then no you shouldn't be able to just create and destroy human life at will with no questions asked just so a man and woman can get their rocks off. Everyone has the right to have sex, but they don't have a right to have sex and pretend there are no very serious consequences. The most serious consequences most of us will ever encounter. This is contrary to the most basic laws of nature. It's grotesque, and the height of selfish entitlement.

The argument that this is ' just to punish women" is like a plantation owner arguing that abolishing slavery is just a means to punish slave owners. Well no, maybe people actually care about the rights and welfare of the slaves?

slaves?

[Saeko]

When would the Federal authority to violate states rights to make a legal situation be an individual right?

Slavery, for one. And many others throughout history.

Or, why is you in an individual State closer to the Federal District or the Federal Government than the State you're in with your rights? Thats the state cop, thats the governor approving the execution.

Because the federal government takes precedence over state governments, as per the constitution.

[Rancid]

The states rights crutch.

[Drlee]

Yes. Did you read the syllabus (much shorter than the actual decision - it's the first several pages)? If you don't agree with the outcome of the ruling, you can at least realize they had many good reasons for the decision they came to. It was backed up with plenty of case law.

The dissent is also in there. Both sides aired their views. But acting like this is just a power struggle is BS. Let the states hash it out for their individual populations.

But anytime the DNC doesn't get their way, it's like the end of the fucking world. Really? Is it the end of the world because you didn't get your way for the next 50 years on abortions? Are you barred from visiting another state? Did you really NOT get your way, or was life made just a little more difficult, but not the end of the world?

@BlutoSays makes a couple of very good points. They are:

The SCOTUS did not take away any rights that anyone already had. They simply said that this was largely a states rights issue. That simply means that each state is free to craft the law as they would like for their people. The law they craft will be tested in their state courts and in the next election. If, as so many on the progressive side would like us to believe, women are outraged and want some particular reproductive right, there are absolutely enough of them in every state to force these rights in the political process.

To put this another way, it is not the men who are impinging on a woman's right to choose, it is the women themselves who are. Women must remember that the pro-life movement is largely a woman's movement and that in the states with the most restrictive abortion laws, these laws are widely supported by the women of those states.

Roe V. Wade was bad law. Every legal mind in the past 50 years has admitted it. More than the current law it was an act of judicial activism. What has been the negative effect of Roe V. Wade?

Well first of all it contained the seeds of its own defeat. By NOT asserting that a woman had an inalienable right to an abortion, it has single-handedly decided the makeup of the SCOTUS itself for 50 years. The ONLY litmus test of ANY SCOTUS candidate has been his/her stand on Roe.

Secondly it did NOT assert a woman's right to control her own body by giving her the right to an abortion. Indeed it said that she only had the prerogative to choose an abortion under some fairly narrow circumstances. Even the attempt in Casey to change the issue from one of privacy to one of liberty failed miserably.

NOW I WANT EVERYONE TO FUCKING PAY ATTENTION TO THIS:

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke for 90 minutes at the Chicago Law School. All on the left raise your hand if you believe that RBG was all about gender equality and women's rights including reproductive rights. Good. 100% now lets move on.

RBG Said: “My criticism of Roe is that it seemed to have stopped the momentum on the side of change,” Ginsburg said. She would’ve preferred that abortion rights be secured more gradually, in a process that included state legislatures and the courts, she added. Ginsburg also was troubled that the focus on Roe was on a right to privacy, rather than women’s rights.

“Roe isn’t really about the woman’s choice, is it?” Ginsburg said. “It’s about the doctor’s freedom to practice…it wasn’t woman-centered, it was physician-centered.”

HOLY SHIT BATMAN. Did I just hear her say that Roe was never about woman's choice? Well I think I did. But did we all just endure page after page of nonsense about 'body integrity' and other such nonsense that RBG pointed out years ago was NOT what Roe is about? And, blushing, is this not what I have been saying since my first post here. I guess I agree with RBG. And where did RGB see the answer to the issue CORRECTLY being played out? In the state legislatures? That is what she said. And wait. Didn't this decision throw it back to the states to sort out? What RBG holding back some of her cards? Nope. She went on to say:

In response to a student question about what would happen if Roe were overturned now, Ginsburg said the effect would largely be restricted to poor women in anti-choice states. Many states would never outlaw abortion, and wealthier women will always be able to travel to those states, she pointed out.

“If you have the sophistication and the money, you’re going to have someplace in the United States where your choice can be exercised in a safe manner,” she said. “It would mean poor women have no choice. That doesn’t make sense as a policy.”

POLICY? Yup. That is what she said.

But the court overturning a previous opinion is rare many here say. Is it? Well it is if you consider 230 times rare. For that is how many times the SCOTUS has reversed itself.

So Blutosays and RBG (and myself for what that is worth) all agree on this point: As Bluto said..."Let the states hash it out."

There is absolutely no doubt that RBG believed in a woman's right to choose:

“It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

But look look look. There has never been a ruling by the SCOTUS nor a law passed by congress that asserts a woman's right to choose. Not one. Not ever. And THAT is where the solution lies. Well the US Congress can't do it. So what does that mean? It means exactly what the SCOTUS just ruled. In the absence of a federal law or constitutional guarantee, the decision and ultimately the solution lies with the states.

So girls. Get to work locally. Don't look for your solution on CNN or Fox. Look for it on the local 6 o'clock news.

[Mike12]

Slavery, for one. And many others throughout history.



Because the federal government takes precedence over state governments, as per the constitution.

The only argument anyone is capable of is staring up at a single presidency so that they can ignore a government including their teachers who make up 1 in 5 million people that are your government. I ignore the school teacher because there's a president and I'm going to lazily wait for a patriotic single order from the President. No, the idea of this is that, the teacher's got to slap you silly and thats sort of through the bureaucracy of it all....

Abraham Lincoln ordered no slavery in the Southern States. That's extremely tall, its the Emancipation Proclomation.
Eisenhower had a war in Korea no Senate approval. Supposedly they got the nuke codes over in the executive function.

I don't think a Government grants you rights. The Constitution isn't about Rights. You've memorized 30 amendments and you felt like you now have Rights? That's silly.
NOUN
rights (plural noun)
that which is morally correct, just, or honorable:
"she doesn't understand the difference between right and wrong
2. a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way:

[Saeko]

@Drlee That is pure and utter legalistic horseshit. Laws and constitutions are interpreted according to how the people who use them understand them. There is always an element of the subjective in the interpretation of the law. The "spirit" of the law is a thing. My home state, Illinois, still has sundown laws on the books in many counties. If we stuck to archaic readings of the law, we would have no choice but to enforce them. Hopefully, I don't have to explain why that would be a travesty.

[Drlee]

So you disagree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Roe. It is your prerogative to do that.

But the fact remains that your "legalistic horseshit" is defined as any legal decision with which you, personally, disagree.

I feel your pain. My wife feels it too. Hopefully a shit ton of women feel it enough to get off their asses and do something about it. But the fact also remains that what you refer to as "legalistic horseshit" just happens to be the law of the land.

Get over it or get busy. Stop whining and get to work.

[Drlee]

@Rancid The states rights crutch.

Is it the "states rights crutch" when a state legalizes pot in contravention of federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when states provide welfare or enact a minimum wage in excess of that established by federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when Colorado amended its constitution to read: "Colorado – Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions because of sex. Colorado Constitution, Article II, §29 (1973)"

Sorry Rancid. You may not like that your state fucked the pooch WRT abortion but states rights lead to good things as well as some with which you or I may disagree.

In other words. States rights is not a feature of our government. IT is the very basis for our government. And, I might add, the last hope for people who wish to control an out of control federal government.

[Saeko]

So you disagree with Ruth Bader Ginsburg on Roe. It is your prerogative to do that.

But the fact remains that your "legalistic horseshit" is defined as any legal decision with which you, personally, disagree.

No, I agree with RBG that Roe didn't go far enough. But it was better than nothing and it did establish all kinds of legal precedents even though it was inadequate when it was originally made and precisely because the law is never static.

So no, "legalistic horseshit" is not just something I happen to personally disagree with. Legalistic horseshit is what happens when extremist judges acting in bad faith arbitrarily overturn an enormous amount of legal precedence in the blink of an eye for bullshit reasons.

[Mike12]

Is it the "states rights crutch" when a state legalizes pot in contravention of federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when states provide welfare or enact a minimum wage in excess of that established by federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when Colorado amended its constitution to read: "Colorado – Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions because of sex. Colorado Constitution, Article II, §29 (1973)"

Sorry Rancid. You may not like that your state fucked the pooch WRT abortion but states rights lead to good things as well as some with which you or I may disagree.

In other words. States rights is not a feature of our government. IT is the very basis for our government. And, I might add, the last hope for people who wish to control an out of control federal government.

Good for Colorodo. "Its free-er here"... Colorado... Anyone seen this commercial? Colorado.... You just met population 1 on top of a rocky mountain...

[Rancid]

Is it the "states rights crutch" when a state legalizes pot in contravention of federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when states provide welfare or enact a minimum wage in excess of that established by federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when Colorado amended its constitution to read: "Colorado – Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions because of sex. Colorado Constitution, Article II, §29 (1973)"

Sorry Rancid. You may not like that your state fucked the pooch WRT abortion but states rights lead to good things as well as some with which you or I may disagree.

In other words. States rights is not a feature of our government. IT is the very basis for our government. And, I might add, the last hope for people who wish to control an out of control federal government.

To put it more shortly for you. The concept of states right itself isn't the problem. The problem is that Republicans are lying mother fuckers, as they are not actually for states rights. YOu really believe the Republican party holds states rights as sacrosanct? You just showed this in your very own posted.

The Republican party isn't really about states rights. Otherwise, they would be cool with a state legalizing marijuana or whatever else (they're not). This is what I mean by the states rights crutch. You just showed that it's bullshit.

That Republicans are for states rights is the fucking lie. Countless examples of Republicans stepping all over the concept of states rights. They are full of shit. They don't get to use that phrase all of a sudden.

[Saeko]

Is it the "states rights crutch" when a state legalizes pot in contravention of federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when states provide welfare or enact a minimum wage in excess of that established by federal law?

Is it the "states rights crutch" when Colorado amended its constitution to read: "Colorado – Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the state of Colorado or any of its political subdivisions because of sex. Colorado Constitution, Article II, §29 (1973)"

Sorry Rancid. You may not like that your state fucked the pooch WRT abortion but states rights lead to good things as well as some with which you or I may disagree.

In other words. States rights is not a feature of our government. IT is the very basis for our government. And, I might add, the last hope for people who wish to control an out of control federal government.

No, individual rights, and the protection of such, are the basis of our government. States' rights can only be justified to the extent that they secure the former. Your purported counterexamples are bad because none of those cases involves the abrogation of the right of any individual.

EDIT: And no, it is absolutely NOT the role of states' rights to limit the federal government. That is absurdly anti-constitutional. Only the constitution can define and limit the powers of the federal government.

[Mike12]

No, individual rights, and the protection of such, are the basis of our government. States' rights can only be justified to the extent that they secure the former. Your purported counterexamples are bad because none of those cases involves the abrogation of the right of any individual.

EDIT: And no, it is absolutely NOT the role of states' rights to limit the federal government. That is absurdly anti-constitutional. Only the constitution can define and limit the powers of the federal government.

states rights and fed rights now its hilarious. now its hilarious. Everybody got that game with the two bloody politicians who didn't let down the exact-same constituents in the last man standing ring.
I had right of way, no fair. my rights. state official and federal official. wheres their rights and they look at each other. fed takes you to guantanamo. state is low-key. whoddunit what.

[Mike12]

No, individual rights, and the protection of such, are the basis of our government. States' rights can only be justified to the extent that they secure the former. Your purported counterexamples are bad because none of those cases involves the abrogation of the right of any individual.

EDIT: And no, it is absolutely NOT the role of states' rights to limit the federal government. That is absurdly anti-constitutional. Only the constitution can define and limit the powers of the federal government.

You know what helps this out is the coat of arms on the united kingdom. hold up...


The unicorn exists staked to the ground with iron chains .The lion has a crown on it. Theres a latin phrase going on here. Theres the double appearnce of the 3-lions of england, the scotland yellow and the ireland harp in green but this is getting democratic.

Theres some flourishes. Oh notice there's the white rose of York and the Red rose ringing it of York-Lancaster, that was a nice war of the 1400's....

OK point is the reason why there's States is going to be a Unicorn with a periwinkle the color blue, its blue.... bonnie blue....

Theres some extravagant fabric on a big helmet , I'll have to write in on this one. Point is... Well I just live my life in the royal purple to be honest with a few twist and turns.

[Drlee]

EDIT: And no, it is absolutely NOT the role of states' rights to limit the federal government. That is absurdly anti-constitutional. Only the constitution can define and limit the powers of the federal government.

And how is it that the constitution is established and amended? oh yea. That would be states rights.

No, individual rights, and the protection of such, are the basis of our government.

Only those articulated in the constitution and not some, like the absurd concept of "body integrity" that exist only in your wishful thinking.

And how do the people exercise their individual franchise?

Oh yea. Through the states. There are only two elected officials who are not a function of the rights of the states. they are the President and Vice President. And actually only one because we are not given the right to vote for a different vice president that the one the presidential candidates select.

How are SCOTUS members confirmed? Oh yea. Through the actions of representatives of the states.

And if the federal government decided to ban abortion completely, how could this be stopped? Oh yea. Through the actions of the state legislatures as the first representatives of the people.

It would be a very good idea for you and Rancid to take a government class. Just for fun.

[wat0n]

States and the Federal government were meant to check and balance each other out from the very beginning:

...

There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.

...

This particular issue of the Federalist is true gold.

[Rancid]

It would be a very good idea for you and Rancid to take a government class. Just for fun.

What does this have to do with the fact Republicans are hypocrites on the states right position?

That was my point to you, and you side stepped it, lumped me with some other point and attacked that. You are the one that is full of shit here. That is, you just tried to straw man me.

Are you going to address how is it htat Republicans are actually for states rights given their history?


Here's the answer, they are not. They cherry pick "states rights" when it suites them.

[BlutoSays]

To put it more shortly for you. The concept of states right itself isn't the problem. The problem is that Republicans are lying mother fuckers, as they are not actually for states rights. YOu really believe the Republican party holds states rights as sacrosanct? You just showed this in your very own posted.

The Republican party isn't really about states rights. Otherwise, they would be cool with a state legalizing marijuana or whatever else (they're not). This is what I mean by the states rights crutch. You just showed that it's bullshit.

That Republicans are for states rights is the fucking lie. Countless examples of Republicans stepping all over the concept of states rights. They are full of shit. They don't get to use that phrase all of a sudden.

The justices are not acting as republican or democrat. They are acting in interpreting the law. That the two parties have moored themselves to one view or the other is an after effect.

Those that understand the Constitution are all about states rights. Decentralized power is paramount to a functioning society. it almost functions as a safety valve at this point. If you really don't like an aspect, you move to another state rather than having fewer options under a top-down form of government for every major issue. Of course, people can move overseas today. But that wasn't so easy in the framer's time.

The majority on the court are saying why is abortion left to nine people to decide for the whole country?

Would you be OK with the edict that every state MUST practice capital punishment for capital crimes?

[Rancid]

The justices are not acting as republican or democrat. They are acting in interpreting the law. That the two parties have moored themselves to one view or the other is an after effect.

Those that understand the Constitution are all about states rights. Decentralized power is paramount to a functioning society. it almost functions as a safety valve at this point. If you really don't like an aspect, you move to another state rather than having fewer options under a top-down form of government for every major issue. Of course, people can move overseas today. But that wasn't so easy in the framer's time.

The majority on the court are saying why is abortion left to nine people to decide for the whole country?

Would you be OK with the edict that every state MUST practice capital punishment for capital crimes?

If you've read my posts and understood them you wouldn't be saying this.

I didn't say I'm against the concept of states rights. What I'm saying is, Republicans are hypocritical liars when they evoke that phrase. That is all.

[Rugoz]

Those that understand the Constitution are all about states rights.

Are you that dense? The current conservative SCOTUS tells liberal states what they can or cannot do all the fucking time.