Roe & Casey overturned.
-
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 23:27 last edited by
What to do now?
Stop killing babies.
An apology wouldn't go amiss.
-
Here’s Jon Stewart and a group of True Believers opining on the ruling.
Link to videoBasically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
wrote on 9 Jul 2022, 23:31 last edited by@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Basically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
One of the more interesting comments about the ruling is that the basic difference between the "two wings" of SCOTUS is that one wing judges on what the law should be, whereas the other one judges on what the law actually is.
Perhaps an overly simplistic view, but it got my attention.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 00:10 last edited by
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 00:15 last edited by
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
OK, so, let's assume that congress passes a law codifying the "right" to abortion.
Would the current 6-3 character of the court overturn that law? My guess is that they wouldn't.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 00:17 last edited by
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
There's a fine line between writing and interpreting.
I would think that how a law is interpreted by the SCOTUS would be thought by some to almost amount to writing it, or rewriting it. -
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
OK, so, let's assume that congress passes a law codifying the "right" to abortion.
Would the current 6-3 character of the court overturn that law? My guess is that they wouldn't.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 01:07 last edited by@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Up to the legislature to write the law. That ain't the court's job.
OK, so, let's assume that congress passes a law codifying the "right" to abortion.
Would the current 6-3 character of the court overturn that law? My guess is that they wouldn't.
I don't think they would.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 03:56 last edited by
I don’t think you’ll find anywhere in the Roe overturn ruling, any reasoning that could be used to overturn a new law guaranteeing access to abortions.
-
@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Basically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
One of the more interesting comments about the ruling is that the basic difference between the "two wings" of SCOTUS is that one wing judges on what the law should be, whereas the other one judges on what the law actually is.
Perhaps an overly simplistic view, but it got my attention.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 04:03 last edited by@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Basically it’s projection about the court having an ideology and working towards a ruling from there. No reflection that that might be what Roe V Wade was.
One of the more interesting comments about the ruling is that the basic difference between the "two wings" of SCOTUS is that one wing judges on what the law should be, whereas the other one judges on what the law actually is.
Perhaps an overly simplistic view, but it got my attention.
I imagine the two sides of the court as lawyers arguing cases for their client. Each side of the culture war is a client. Their lawyers on the Supreme Court fashion their constitutional case as well as they can, but the assumption going into it is that they know who their client is, and therefore which side they’re arguing.
Once in a while judges use their prerogative to switch sides on a case, but with cases where progressives want new law to support their ideology, which is what Roe always was, I suspect the divisions will be exactly as predicted.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 16:05 last edited by LuFins Dad 7 Oct 2022, 16:06
@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
The Roe overturn shouldn’t have anything to do with it. Texas has already established that pre-born have the same rights as anybody… Full props to this lady,
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 16:22 last edited by
@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
I took care of a pregnant woman who was shot in the uterus. Fetus died, she survived.
Perp charged with the death of the fetus. I don't remember the outcome of the charges.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
I took care of a pregnant woman who was shot in the uterus. Fetus died, she survived.
Perp charged with the death of the fetus. I don't remember the outcome of the charges.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 17:26 last edited by jon-nyc 7 Oct 2022, 17:28@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
I took care of a pregnant woman who was shot in the uterus. Fetus died, she survived.
Perp charged with the death of the fetus. I don't remember the outcome of the charges.
It’s actually always been the case that different areas of the law define concepts differently. Indeed you’ve probably seen definition sections at the beginning of congressional bills many times. It seems counterintuitive when defining such concepts as ‘person’ or ‘murder’ but it’s common all the same (e.g. corporations are people under contract law but not, obviously, family law).
So it’s pretty much always been the case that fetuses can (say) inherit money, or a person assaulting a pregnant woman can get charged with harming or killing the fetus, even though the same fetus could be aborted the next day.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 18:01 last edited by Axtremus 7 Oct 2022, 22:05
From a pro-life, pro-family perspective, it wouldn't be a bad idea to let an otherwise unaccompanied pregnant women use the HOV lanes on the account that that will reduce stress and is thus good for the fetus and the pregnant women.
There aren't that many pregnant women anyway so adding them to the HOV lanes shouldn't make that big of a difference to other users of the HOV lanes.
If the police suspects a driver is lying about being pregnant, just write up a citation anyway and let the accused provide a healthcare provider's note to validate the pregnancy claim to get the citation voided.
-
From a pro-life, pro-family perspective, it wouldn't be a bad idea to let an otherwise unaccompanied pregnant women use the HOV lanes on the account that that will reduce stress and is thus good for the fetus and the pregnant women.
There aren't that many pregnant women anyway so adding them to the HOV lanes shouldn't make that big of a difference to other users of the HOV lanes.
If the police suspects a driver is lying about being pregnant, just write up a citation anyway and let the accused provide a healthcare provider's note to validate the pregnancy claim to get the citation voided.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 20:45 last edited by@Axtremus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
From a pro-life, pro-family perspective, it wouldn't be a bad idea to let otherwise an unaccompanied pregnant women use the HOV lanes on the account that that will reduce stress and is thus good for the fetus and the pregnant women.
There aren't that many pregnant women anyway so adding them to the HOV lanes shouldn't make that big of a difference to other users of the HOV lanes.
If the police suspects a driver is lying about being pregnant, just write up a citation anyway and let the accused provide a healthcare provider's note to validate the pregnancy claim to get the citation voided.
I think you've lurched into the truth...
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 21:16 last edited by
The rules regarding HOV lanes probably already took into account parents with kids (where “carpooling” isn’t saving any vehicle traffic) and perhaps even married spouses or family members.
If not it was sloppy law writing to begin with. The intent of the law is to reward groups who reduce vehicle traffic. You can never target that with perfect precision, but you can do better than “mom with child” or “mom with fetus” gets to use the HOV lanes.
-
The rules regarding HOV lanes probably already took into account parents with kids (where “carpooling” isn’t saving any vehicle traffic) and perhaps even married spouses or family members.
If not it was sloppy law writing to begin with. The intent of the law is to reward groups who reduce vehicle traffic. You can never target that with perfect precision, but you can do better than “mom with child” or “mom with fetus” gets to use the HOV lanes.
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 21:48 last edited by@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
The rules regarding HOV lanes probably already took into account parents with kids (where “carpooling” isn’t saving any vehicle traffic) and perhaps even married spouses or family members.
If not it was sloppy law writing to begin with. The intent of the law is to reward groups who reduce vehicle traffic. You can never target that with perfect precision, but you can do better than “mom with child” or “mom with fetus” gets to use the HOV lanes.
Actually, babies and children do count as passengers for HOV lanes in all 50 states. I wasn’t expecting it when I looked it up. I had a completely different post in mind…
-
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
The rules regarding HOV lanes probably already took into account parents with kids (where “carpooling” isn’t saving any vehicle traffic) and perhaps even married spouses or family members.
If not it was sloppy law writing to begin with. The intent of the law is to reward groups who reduce vehicle traffic. You can never target that with perfect precision, but you can do better than “mom with child” or “mom with fetus” gets to use the HOV lanes.
Actually, babies and children do count as passengers for HOV lanes in all 50 states. I wasn’t expecting it when I looked it up. I had a completely different post in mind…
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 21:52 last edited byI allowed for the possibility but it's badly written law. The point is to reward behavior that results in fewer cars on the road.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 21:55 last edited by
There is something to be said for simplicity and ease of enforcement in a law.
-
wrote on 10 Jul 2022, 22:14 last edited by
I regularly used the I-66 HOV lanes, solo, to go from Tysons to Reagan National to catch the Shuttle to LaGuardia. It was early 80's, not a lot of high-tech surveillance.
I was always late and in a hurry. I never got caught.
This was a good use of simplicity and ease of enforcement.
-
wrote on 11 Jul 2022, 16:06 last edited by
In Indonesia, Jakarta (the capital city) has a minimum # of people in the car coming into the city during the morning rush hour.
There would always be street kids that you could pick up and pay them maybe USD$0.50 to ride with you into town so that you had enough people in your car.
