Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

77
Biden chastised the Supreme Court for “outrageous behavior” and said he would support an exception to the Senate’s filibuster rules to make it easier to write abortion protections into law. Biden, speaking on the world stage in Madrid, called the court’s decision last week to overturn Roe v. Wade “destabilizing” and said an exception should be made to a Senate rule that requires 60 votes for most bills to advance.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... kson-live/

Biden knows there aren't the votes in the Senate to do it, but it's an election year and he has to appease the Pro Choice community. Democrats had many opportunities to place Roe in statute law and they didn't do it. Make a special carve out for abortion and then Republicans will make a special carve out for religion, tampering with the filibuster is how Trump got three justices on SCOTUS and Democrats couldn't do anything about it.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

79
Here's a new idea to combat this.
We need a new plan, and the 13th Amendment might be the answer. To satisfy the most ardent originalists who demand some textual basis for both individual rights and congressional authority to legislate, this plan would have to put Black people at the center of their legislative efforts in ways that Roe’s original privacy-based right did not.

Since the court decided Slaughter-House Cases in 1873, it has been accepted that the original intent of the framers of the 13th Amendment was to benefit those who were formerly enslaved. The 13th Amendment not only establishes declaratory freedom but also grants Congress all the power it needs to enact legislation that undoes slavery, as well as its “badges and incidents,” as the court has put it. Although neither the court nor Congress has set forth an exhaustive list of those badges and incidents, in 1968, the court found Congress has the authority to enact legislation aimed at alleviating the institution’s “burdens and disabilities.”

Denying the rights of reproductive health and choice, bodily integrity and personal autonomy was essential to U.S. slavery, which recognized enslavers’ complete dominion over the people they enslaved. U.S. slavery also forced enslaved women to reproduce, which fueled the domestic slave trade after the official prohibition on the importation of enslaved people into the U.S. in 1808.

With the power of the 13th Amendment, Congress can enact reasonable laws that protect these rights today. Just as slavery branded all Blacks with slavery’s “badges and incidents,” regardless of status, Blackness rather than any other aspect of identity would trigger rights protected by any law enacted by Congress using its enforcement power under the amendment today. The 14th Amendment’s equal protection guarantee, meanwhile, would allow non-Black people to assert their right to enjoy the same rights the 13th Amendment grants to Black people as a matter of racial equality.
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/a ... -rcna36309

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

80
Originalism bites back.
“[The] Honorable Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh and all of our other patrons at the restaurant were unduly harassed by unruly protestors while eating dinner at our Morton’s restaurant,” the restaurant said in a statement provided to Politico. “Politics, regardless of your side or views, should not trample the freedom at play of the right to congregate and eat dinner. There is a time and place for everything. Disturbing the dinner of all of our customers was an act of selfishness and void of decency.”

Morton’s statement raises an urgent constitutional question: Is there actually a constitutional right to dinner? Or, more specifically, did the Constitution protect a right to dinner at the time that the Constitution was adopted? The Supreme Court has shown in Dobbs and other cases such as New York State Pistol and Rifle Association v. Bruen that originalism is the only proper method to answer these questions. My own originalist analysis of this issue leads me to conclude that no such right to dinner exists in our legal heritage. Accordingly, I do not think such a right should be recognized now.
https://newrepublic.com/article/167019/ ... ght-dinner

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

81
There is no right to eat dinner in private in a public establishment. I doubt it’s found anywhere in the constitution. Yes you can congregate, but nothing stops others who oppose your views to congregate in the same public place. Supreme Court justices are not afforded special status by the constitution and neither are politicians.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

82
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:32 pm There is no right to eat dinner in private in a public establishment. I doubt it’s found anywhere in the constitution. Yes you can congregate, but nothing stops others who oppose your views to congregate in the same public place. Supreme Court justices are not afforded special status by the constitution and neither are politicians.
But, they think they are “Special” because they were appointed by “God”` or the Congress to complete the mission of the Rightwing and Christian Catholic Church.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.-Huxley
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis Brandeis,

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

83
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:21 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:32 pm There is no right to eat dinner in private in a public establishment. I doubt it’s found anywhere in the constitution. Yes you can congregate, but nothing stops others who oppose your views to congregate in the same public place. Supreme Court justices are not afforded special status by the constitution and neither are politicians.
But, they think they are “Special” because they were appointed by “God”` or the Congress to complete the mission of the Rightwing and Christian Catholic Church.
I’m going to love seeing how the scotus will support these unconstitutional assholes.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

84
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:08 pm
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:21 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:32 pm There is no right to eat dinner in private in a public establishment. I doubt it’s found anywhere in the constitution. Yes you can congregate, but nothing stops others who oppose your views to congregate in the same public place. Supreme Court justices are not afforded special status by the constitution and neither are politicians.
But, they think they are “Special” because they were appointed by “God”` or the Congress to complete the mission of the Rightwing and Christian Catholic Church.
I’m going to love seeing how the scotus will support these unconstitutional assholes.
SCOTUS doesn't have to support anything.

It will be the businesses that decide to simply have those who they disapprove of thrown out.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
Stories coming to you from Deep South Texas!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

85
sig230 wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:10 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:08 pm
TrueTexan wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 2:21 pm
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 12:32 pm There is no right to eat dinner in private in a public establishment. I doubt it’s found anywhere in the constitution. Yes you can congregate, but nothing stops others who oppose your views to congregate in the same public place. Supreme Court justices are not afforded special status by the constitution and neither are politicians.
But, they think they are “Special” because they were appointed by “God”` or the Congress to complete the mission of the Rightwing and Christian Catholic Church.
I’m going to love seeing how the scotus will support these unconstitutional assholes.
SCOTUS doesn't have to support anything.

It will be the businesses that decide to simply have those who they disapprove of thrown out.
LoL. That will be an interesting precedent.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

86
Been done before. I was one of the kids at the time trying to open lunch counters.

The difference between then and now is which cases SCOTUS decides to even hear. If SCOTUS Sees no evil, Hears no evil, Says no evil then by simply not supporting hearing cases the Good Old Days can return.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
Stories coming to you from Deep South Texas!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

87
sig230 wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 6:15 pm Been done before. I was one of the kids at the time trying to open lunch counters.

The difference between then and now is which cases SCOTUS decides to even hear. If SCOTUS Sees no evil, Hears no evil, Says no evil then by simply not supporting hearing cases the Good Old Days can return.
That would be a response I’d expect. I don’t consider that a justifiable response, it’s a non response which means they don’t want to address the issue. Sure the assholes win, but no legal precedent is set.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

90
Four justices have to agree to hear a case and they're generally looking for the right case if they want to get 5 votes to win. It's been over 10 years since McDonald and even though Thomas dissented when cert was denied in some firearms cases, it wasn't until Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the court that Bruen and Dobbs were possible. They could have banned all abortions in the US in Dobbs, but stopped at the state level. They could have banned any firearms restrictions in the US in Bruen, but stopped at the state level.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

91
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:53 pm No it’s called evading the truth or addressing an issue.
Can you explain how pointing out reality is evading the truth or not addressing an issue?

As long as Citizens United is a fact of life the dollar will decide issues like fairness and compassion and empathy.

If the courts decide not top hear a case then the status quo stands.

It may not be what any of us would like to see as the outcome but it is still the outcome.

So far there has been no model, method, mechanism, process or procedure presented to so a reasonable expectation of overturning Citizens United.

The problem is funding. A candidate that cannot raise the amount of money needed today is unlikely to make it past the primaries and unless the candidate is on one of the corporate funded parties has almost no chance of winning an election. Until there is a different funding source that matches or exceeds the current big business voice little change is possible. But no one has suggested a way to create that counter balancing voice.

Once labor had a chance. If, in August 1981, all of the State and Federal workers had supported the air traffic controllers then there would have been that alternate voice. But labor did not speak up. And the voice of the working class has been muted and is today just irrelevant.
To be vintage it must be older than me!
Stories coming to you from Deep South Texas!
The next gun I buy will be the next to last gun I ever buy. PROMISE!

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

92
The best government money can buy.

More's the pity. CU won't be overturned without a constitutional amendment barring bribery and requiring against anonymity. It could be done by voter initiative in the states that have such a mechanism. Prolly not this week, though. ;-)

I do find it weird that bribery is one of the few crimes mentioned in the Constitution, yet it's the way our corrupt government has been operating, lo, these many years. Shakespeare wrote something about lawyers...

In other news,
ShutDownDC, a liberal advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said on Friday that it will offer up to $250 to service industry workers in the district for every sighting of the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/09/shutdo ... oe-protest

CDFingers
Image
Image
I can tell the Queen of Diamonds by the way she shines
Come to Daddy on an inside straight: I got no chance of losin' this time

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

93
sig230 wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 7:59 am
sikacz wrote: Sat Jul 09, 2022 7:53 pm No it’s called evading the truth or addressing an issue.
Can you explain how pointing out reality is evading the truth or not addressing an issue?

As long as Citizens United is a fact of life the dollar will decide issues like fairness and compassion and empathy.

If the courts decide not top hear a case then the status quo stands.

It may not be what any of us would like to see as the outcome but it is still the outcome.

So far there has been no model, method, mechanism, process or procedure presented to so a reasonable expectation of overturning Citizens United.

The problem is funding. A candidate that cannot raise the amount of money needed today is unlikely to make it past the primaries and unless the candidate is on one of the corporate funded parties has almost no chance of winning an election. Until there is a different funding source that matches or exceeds the current big business voice little change is possible. But no one has suggested a way to create that counter balancing voice.

Once labor had a chance. If, in August 1981, all of the State and Federal workers had supported the air traffic controllers then there would have been that alternate voice. But labor did not speak up. And the voice of the working class has been muted and is today just irrelevant.
I think we are barking up the same tree, we just don’t understand each other’s way of expressing it.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

94
CDFingers wrote: Sun Jul 10, 2022 9:13 am The best government money can buy.

More's the pity. CU won't be overturned without a constitutional amendment barring bribery and requiring against anonymity. It could be done by voter initiative in the states that have such a mechanism. Prolly not this week, though. ;-)

I do find it weird that bribery is one of the few crimes mentioned in the Constitution, yet it's the way our corrupt government has been operating, lo, these many years. Shakespeare wrote something about lawyers...

In other news,
ShutDownDC, a liberal advocacy group in Washington, D.C., said on Friday that it will offer up to $250 to service industry workers in the district for every sighting of the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade.
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/09/shutdo ... oe-protest

CDFingers
Nailed and shut. Agree.
Image
Image

"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many. Texas Chapter Chief Cat Herder.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

95
I predict that ShutDownDC and other groups will run out of steam before SCOTUS reverses the Dobbs decision. Justices are protected by US Marshals and so are their families. It was the marshal's who intercepted Nicholas Roske who threatened to kill Kavanaugh.

Image
Police stand outside the home of U.S. Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh as abortion-rights advocates protest on May 11, 2022 in Chevy Chase, Maryland.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

98
SCOTUS does not necessarily have the final word on this or any other issue. Andy Jackson defied the court and removed Native Americans from their homes and lands in the southeast after SCOTUS forbade him from doing so. Paraphrasing, he said "They made their decision, let's see them enforce it." With the country so polarized, it follows that there are conflicts between the branches, depending on which party has more power in each.
The older I get, the better I was.

Re: SCOTUS issues decision overturning Roe v Wade and Casey

99
Eisenhower is reputed to have said something similar after Brown. Lincoln did many illegal things during the Civil War. SCOTUS moves at glacial speed like it did after 9/11 with Guantanamo, water boarding and all the other illegal activities. Each branch of government gives a certain level of deference to the others. It still takes a case to get to them before they rule.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron