Roe & Casey overturned.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@jon-nyc said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
f federal law allows the dod to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health of the mother, they would still be able to do that on military bases even in states that outlawed those cases. But that’s a jurisdictional matter, not ignoring a law.
That's right.
Yep the headline is just outrage clickbait. There’s no there there.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Jolly said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
compromised on a twelve-week limit
Like most of the planet.
What’s the difference in development of the fetus between 16 weeks and 12 weeks? For that matter, what’s the difference between 12 and 8?
Me/rry/Christmas
-
@LuFins-Dad I think in both cases the answer is ‘4 weeks’.
-
Come on @jolly You are telling me that it is okay for a sheriff to selectively decide by himself which laws he should follow or enforce?
Maybe I am incorrect, but my understanding is that the sheriff is there to enforce the laws, not to make a decision on the legality of them. He is not the judge of the county/state/country, etc.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
Agreed. But it is the law of the land. Roe never was, and it was only through an interpretation of "privacy" that it became legal throughout the country.
Now, the issue is in the hands of the voters. Elect people who will enact laws which you support, or overturn those you don't.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.
Close. But not quite. Congress can enact a law allowing abortion in any fashion, to any time up to delivery. Presumably, such a law would not be unconstitutional, because, as has been said, the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution. The court's job is to interpret the law and determine the constitutionality of that law, not to determine whether the law is "good" or "bad." That job belongs to the legislature, and by extension, the people who select it.
Hm. Just because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution does not necessarily mean that nothing about abortion can be deduced from the constitution.
From what I understand, the "Roe vs Wade" justices back then thought that a right to abortion is implied by the constitution, but the current SCOTUS does not. No?
-
@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@Klaus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Essentially, it's about whether there is a "natural right" to abortion, or whether it's something that the people decide, using the democratic process.
Close. But not quite. Congress can enact a law allowing abortion in any fashion, to any time up to delivery. Presumably, such a law would not be unconstitutional, because, as has been said, the word "abortion" doesn't appear in the constitution. The court's job is to interpret the law and determine the constitutionality of that law, not to determine whether the law is "good" or "bad." That job belongs to the legislature, and by extension, the people who select it.
Hm. Just because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution does not necessarily mean that nothing about abortion can be deduced from the constitution.
From what I understand, the "Roe vs Wade" justices back then thought that a right to abortion is implied by the constitution, but the current SCOTUS does not. No?
Implied by a tortured interpretation of a privacy loophole. It could not be more obvious that the court at the time wanted abortion to be legal, and fashioned the constitutional argument from there. It was garbage law and the conservatives on the court could be understood to have objected to the fact that it is garbage, though pop culture will assume they are all raving pro lifers who hate women.
Education is extremely important.
-
@Horace said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Hm. Just because the word "abortion" does not appear in the constitution does not necessarily mean that nothing about abortion can be deduced from the constitution.
That's correct. SCOTUS ruled that it is up to the states to decide whether to limit abortion or not. It is not unconstitutional, to do so. It is unconstitutional to impose a national "rule" (not law) without it being codified as such.
Canada, for example, has varying laws on when abortion can be performed. Certain provinces & territories limit, others do not.
Let the people decide.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Come on @jolly You are telling me that it is okay for a sheriff to selectively decide by himself which laws he should follow or enforce?
Maybe I am incorrect, but my understanding is that the sheriff is there to enforce the laws, not to make a decision on the legality of them. He is not the judge of the county/state/country, etc.
Sheriffs do it all the time. Have done so forever.
I've seen cocaine dealers not arrested or prosecuted because of who their families were, I've seen personal weed patches ignored, I've seen petty theft ignored, I've seen burglaries ignored until they hit a certain point or if it became a home invasion.
Rope the DA in on it, and there ae all kinds of things they'll arrest, not arrest, charge or not charge.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
the sheriff is there to enforce the laws, not to make a decision on the legality of them.
They have to manage to a budget of time and money.
Most sheriffs can't afford to enforce every law all the time.
The have to pick and choose.
-
Prosecutorial discretion. Those entrusted to enforce the law has some discretion on whether to enforce the law on a case-by-case basis, though generally not to entirely ignore a particular law in all cases where the law applies.
A district attorney can choose not to prosecute an abortion violation case just as much as a local sheriff can choose not to pursue a gun law violation case, or for that matter, as much as a border patrol agent can choose not to pursue a particular undocumented border crosser — note that in these comparisons we are still talking about not prosecuting particular cases. Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
-
@Axtremus said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Making a blanket policy decision to not prosecute all violations of a partial law is an entirely different matter.
Such as, for instance, 'sanctuary cities', or governors who refuse to carry out death penalties.
-
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
-
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
Let the people decide.
Oh, yeah, remember when Obama said one of the first things he would do when elected would be to codify abortion as legal throguhout the country. He had a majority in the House and a filibuster-proof Senate for two years.
And then, nothing happened.
https://www.newsweek.com/barack-obama-blasted-not-codifying-roe-v-wade-democrat-failure-1719156
"Obama PROMISED that the FIRST thing he would do as president was Codify Abortion rights into law, he had a super majority and purposely didn't do it cuz Democrats want to run on it," tweeted comedian Jimmy Dore on Friday.
"And like clockwork, Democrat apologists excuse the powerful & want you to blame your neighbor," Dore said.
Amy Tarkanian, former chair of the Nevada Republican Party, also pointed to Democrats' majority during Obama's first two years.
"Democrats had a supermajority in 2008 and did not 'codify Roe,'" Tarkanian tweeted. "They control all branches of government RIGHT NOW and did not 'codify Roe'. To those who are so outraged right now, why don't you ask Obama and Biden why they didn't legislate this before the SCOTUS ruling?"
All of a sudden, it was "not my highest priority."
Biden promised to codify Roe too.
-
-
@Mik said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@George-K said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
@taiwan_girl said in Roe & Casey overturned.:
"Is than worse that the sheriffs in the west who say that they will ignore the laws regarding guns because they don't believe in them"
(https://www.cbsnews.com/news/several-colorado-sheriffs-say-they-wont-enforce-red-flag-gun-law-60-minutes-2019-11-15/)The difference is that, though you might disagree, there is a constitutional right to carry a firearm. SCOTUS reaffirmed that this week. No such right to abortion exists, and it's up to the individual states to legislate that.
NB: For the record, I am NOT opposed to abortion in many cases. I'm just talking about the law and the courts. I think a total ban is ridiculous (see Texas and Oklahoma).
For the gun laws, to me, it is not a simple black and white issue. While I agree that the US constitution is one of the greatest documents ever written, there is so much that is different from 250 years ago that the writers could not have imagined and I believe that probably some/many of the writers would cringe when they see people trying to shape their words (on both sides) to fit the particular modern day argument.
Yes, the Supreme Court made an interpretation of what THEY thought the constitution meant. Are they right? Many many smart people say yes, and there is probably an equal number of smart people who say no.
What was or was not 250 years ago is irrelevant. It says what it says. The founders also established a mechanism to change the Constitution should that prove to be what is widely wanted. But it's hard, and no one seems to have the balls to try that approach.
The Bible is a lot older than 250 years, and I think it's pretty durn relevant today.
