SCOTUS overturns Roe megathread (pg 53 - confirmed)

[Person Man]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

Issue. Polling. Is. Worthless!!!

No. It's. Not. Lmfao.

Then explain why universal background checks always poll at above 90% no matter how it's asked, then when it was put on the ballot in Maine it lost even though anti-gun groups spent six times as much as pro-gun groups.

The only form of issue polling that actually matters is the ballot box.

Ok, since we're playing this game. Personhood ballot initiatives have failed in states like North Dakota and Mississippi in the past ten years. West Virginia Republicans were able to get one passed in their state back in 2018 by just 3 points in a state that Trump won by over 40 just two years prior.

There's no reason to believe the polls I posted are inaccurate, especially since they passed your ballot box test

By like what? 3 points?

[American2020]

According to Glenn Greenwald

https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-irrational-misguided-discourse?s=r

[Badger]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

There is precedent for this. If you think carefully about American history I'm sure you'll Spot It.

[Suburbia]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

[fhtagn]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

[Badger]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or four, MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

[OSR stands with Israel]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

No Fhtagn's views on this issue are not made the law of the land by this ruling. What this does is kick the issue back to the elected legislators to decide which laws will get implemnted in their state. Heck in states like Michigan , where ballot measures exist you can put it up to a vote whether Roe should be codified or not.

[fhtagn]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or four, MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

You really need to start typing out your posts instead of using talk-to-text apps.

[fhtagn]

Also why would I have a house of Warships? I'm not a neocon.

[SteveRogers]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

I’m surprised you could even type this post without your keyboard collapsing into a black hole of apathy.

[7,052,770]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

No Fhtagn's views on this issue are not made the law of the land by this ruling. What this does is kick the issue back to the elected legislators to decide which laws will get implemnted in their state. Heck in states like Michigan , where ballot measures exist you can put it up to a vote whether Roe should be codified or not.

Today, that's all, but the anti-abortion crowd isn't going to quit until it's illegal in every state. And to be fair, what other approach could someone who believes abortion is murder take?

[DrScholl]

https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1521569658960240642

inciting violence impeech obama when

You will never ever get Obama on any charges ever.

[Saint Milei]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

No Fhtagn's views on this issue are not made the law of the land by this ruling. What this does is kick the issue back to the elected legislators to decide which laws will get implemnted in their state. Heck in states like Michigan , where ballot measures exist you can put it up to a vote whether Roe should be codified or not.

Today, that's all, but the anti-abortion crowd isn't going to quit until it's illegal in every state. And to be fair, what other approach could someone who believes abortion is murder take?

And what's the issue with this? Your side literally wants to do the same thing

[fhtagn]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

No Fhtagn's views on this issue are not made the law of the land by this ruling. What this does is kick the issue back to the elected legislators to decide which laws will get implemnted in their state. Heck in states like Michigan , where ballot measures exist you can put it up to a vote whether Roe should be codified or not.

Today, that's all, but the anti-abortion crowd isn't going to quit until it's illegal in every state. And to be fair, what other approach could someone who believes abortion is murder take?

And what's the issue with this? Your side literally wants to do the same thing

You see, baby killing is woke. Why should people have to live with the natural outcomes of their life choices? That's literally sexism/racism/fascism/patriarchy/transphobia/homophobia/whatever other buzzword is trending.

[Badger]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

You see, YOUR House of Warships clergy might believe in abortion rights and / or question whether life begins at conception, but MY houses of worship clergy believe life begins at conception and should be protected by law with zero exceptions. And since MY clergy has five votes on the Supreme Court and YOURS has only three or MY religious views are now the law of the land! See how simple that is?

No Fhtagn's views on this issue are not made the law of the land by this ruling. What this does is kick the issue back to the elected legislators to decide which laws will get implemnted in their state. Heck in states like Michigan , where ballot measures exist you can put it up to a vote whether Roe should be codified or not.

OOOOHH. So if her religious views now have a majority in the particular State Legislature (aided substantially by rampant gerrymandering in Most swing states of course) then their religious views become the law of the land there, whereas it they don't have a majority in another state their religious views won't become law of the land there because fetal viability of course is known to change from state to state.

I can't believe even you posted that with seeming complete lack of awareness as to how that is so not, under any definition, a better answer.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

[Badger]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

[Badger]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Read Roe versus Wade. But first you would have to re-educate yourself from grade 1 regarding critical thinking.

It should take only a couple minutes once you download it to your RAM processor

[fhtagn]

We're so close. Maybe we can hit 50 pages by the weekend!

[roxas11]

https://twitter.com/GMA/status/1521521999792807937?s=20&t=NOldiUhOTlRDIZSKl-...

At this point I don't care if there was a poll that showed Roe had 99 percent support because by the end of the day Roe V Wade is still dead mainly because many Americans failed to show up to vote in 2016 and no amount of polling in 2022 is going to change that very damning fact.

[It’s so Joever]

This has radicalized a lot of people on the left, at least temporarily.

[Adam Griffin]

At some point we need to start ignoring the courts.

What exactly does "ignoring the courts" entail here?

Arguing that Marbury v. Madison/judicial review was an invalid and unconstitutional ruling/concept; that the Supreme Court is an advisory body; and adopting the paraphrased spirit of Andrew Jackson (and Jefferson before him): ("[The court] has made [its] decision; now let [them] enforce it").

As Matt Bruenig argues at the People's Policy Project, it would be quite easy in practical terms to get rid of judicial review: "All the president has to do is assert that Supreme Court rulings about constitutionality are merely advisory and non-binding, that Marbury (1803) was wrongly decided, and that the constitutional document says absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court having this power." So, for instance, if Congress were to pass some law expanding Medicare, and the reactionaries on the court say it's unconstitutional because Cthulhu fhtagn, the president would say "no, I am trusting Congress on this one, and I will continue to operate the program as instructed."

And what if the red state governors were just to ignore the Courts? Have the state police shutter any building offering abortion services? 'State's rights, make someone stop us.' The US military is sent in?

Or better yet, if red state governors have the courts on their side and ignore Biden edicts, as the situation is likely to exist. Is the military still supposed to enforce that?

The messiness is real, of course. This is a recurring pattern: "what happens if one side decides to invalidate the courts?", "what happens if the filibuster is abolished?", etc. Increasingly, it is the status quo party (Democrats) that argue these concerns. After all, "MUH WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE RIGHT CONTROLS GOVERNMENT?" etc. Elections should have real consequences - and in the absence of being able to realize them electorally due to various machinations, the politicians should face them via more overt means.

Compared to virtually every other legitimate democratic republic/representative democracy in the world, the US is an anachronistic monolith frozen in time, with no real consequences for elections and no ability to change its governing procedures. Maybe this was a beneficial concept in its early days, but the fact that basically every other developed nation has rewritten its governing documents multiple times and can actually respond to a changing world has left the US in the dust.

I'd also argue that the fact that so many Americans from across the aisle have lost confidence in the government to do what's right, act in their best interests or solve any problem is directly a result of this mindset. When it takes 75% of states to ratify even a minor change to the Constitution or 60% of one body of one branch of government to even pass statute, it's no surprise that so many feel that "both parties are the same" or that "government doesn't matter". Of course, this is a wet dream and intended outcome for the right (as they've never relied upon confidence in government in the modern era), so why should anybody else buy into it?

Let elections actually have consequences. Grease the slippery slope. Maybe we'll have a terrible revolution or breakthrough in enlightenment; either way, this nation is doomed if it remains on its current trajectory. Time to let the fault lines crack. Change is growth and vice-versa.

[Suburbia]

Women's abortion issues are a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

Child abuse is a personal issue. No one should know about it. Period. Stay out of it.

I'll leave it at that.

I am pro-choice on abortion. Their choice, their body. Not my problem. Safe and legal.

[It’s so Joever]

Here is another poll:



https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-just-over-half-favor-banning-abortions-after-15-weeks

Oh well if a majority believe in taking away people's rights, that makes it okay! More genius brain at work folks.

And of course let's not forget that abortion pulling is notoriously scattershot depending on the phrasing of the question, the particular sample, the phases of the moon, Etc. It truly eclipses just about any other issue on that subject.

Also, let's see how those poll numbers react when Republican legislators inevitably start Banning absolute abortion bans upon conception, with all too many states not even leaving exceptions for rape or danger to the mother's life.

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have a right to an abortion

Name me the provision in the constitution where it says people have the right to exist. Checkmate liberal, let’s nuke this planet!