Overturning Roe v Wade will be a precedent, it can go in many different directions.

W

Walt

Back To Reality
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

How will a precedent that the right to privacy does not protect the right to have an abortion affect other issues? The draft clearly says it does not apply to the other privacy rights and nobody would be dumb enough to say you don't have the right to choose the education for your kids, use contraception, or live with relatives.
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

Calm down Wally, read the actual draft.
 
Flash said:
How will a precedent that the right to privacy does not protect the right to have an abortion affect other issues? The draft clearly says it does not apply to the other privacy rights and nobody would be dumb enough to say you don't have the right to choose the education for your kids, use contraception, or live with relatives.
Click to expand...

Except several Republicans seem to be that dumb.
https://news.yahoo.com/sen-marsha-blackburn-criticizes-1965-201727330.html


In fact, it was exactly 10 years ago next week when the Senate narrowly defeated a proposal, known as the Blunt Amendment, intended to allow all U.S. employers to deny contraception coverage to employees as part of the businesses’ health plans.
Click to expand...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow...se-gop-candidates-give-wrong-answer-rcna17053
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

On the far right, Peter Brimelow, the founder of the VDare nativist website whom the New York Times has linked to the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, was reported to have greeted news of the draft Roe ruling by writing: “Next stop Brown vs Board!”

That was a reference to Brown v Board of Education, the 1954 case which ended racial segregation in public schools.
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

The powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. The rights not enumerated are not automatically denied to the people.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Except several Republicans seem to be that dumb.
Click to expand...

Because you can find a few dumb people does not mean a majority (or the Supreme Court) would go along. Serves no useful purpose. If they have no chance of achieving that goal it is not of major concern.

That bill did not ban people from getting contraceptives, it just said they don't have to be included in health care plans. That is a very different legal issue. I have the constitutional right of access to birth control, I don't have the right to make my employer provide that benefit.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Walt View Post
This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

except no one on the planet wants to do that.........
 
Gin Saké said:
The powers not enumerated are reserved for the states. The rights not enumerated are not automatically denied to the people.
Click to expand...

You see, Gin Sake is actually responding to what is happening. There is no explicitly enumerated right to an abortion, or to marriage, so does that make them states rights? The Supreme Court seems to be saying yes. So will same sex and interracial marriage be the next to be struck down?

Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) has only existed for 7 years, so it would probably be the easiest to reverse. You would think Loving v. Virginia which has existed for 55 years would be impossible to reverse, but Roe v. Wade had existed for nearly 50 years. These things can be reversed.

Two of the justices are in interracial marriage, which might make them think twice before reversing it. None are in same sex marriages.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
except no one on the planet wants to do that.........
Click to expand...

So rights are based on popularity, not on the Constitution?

There are definite some people who want to overturn interracial marriage... But far more people who want to overturn same sex marriage. I could easily see that being thrown back to the states. It could be like abortion will be. If you are gay in Texas, you can get married in a California vacation, and still be married in Texas. But even there, Texas is going to try to make it difficult.
 
guno said:
On the far right, Peter Brimelow, the founder of the VDare nativist website whom the New York Times has linked to the Fox News host Tucker Carlson, was reported to have greeted news of the draft Roe ruling by writing: “Next stop Brown vs Board!”

That was a reference to Brown v Board of Education, the 1954 case which ended racial segregation in public schools.
Click to expand...

Yup, this opens up a whole can of worms.

Some states have been trying to indirectly regulating immigration by banning immigrants from marriage and other things. Those laws might end up being considered constitutional.
 
Flash said:
How will a precedent that the right to privacy does not protect the right to have an abortion affect other issues? The draft clearly says it does not apply to the other privacy rights and nobody would be dumb enough to say you don't have the right to choose the education for your kids, use contraception, or live with relatives.
Click to expand...

Yep. None of us are new to politics. This isn’t our first rodeo. We know fear plays well and that’s what is happening here. Politicians have been using it forever to rally voters and they do it for a reason, because it often works.
 
Walt said:
You see, Gin Sake is actually responding to what is happening. There is no explicitly enumerated right to an abortion, or to marriage, so does that make them states rights? The Supreme Court seems to be saying yes. So will same sex and interracial marriage be the next to be struck down?

Obergefell v. Hodges (same sex marriage) has only existed for 7 years, so it would probably be the easiest to reverse. You would think Loving v. Virginia which has existed for 55 years would be impossible to reverse, but Roe v. Wade had existed for nearly 50 years. These things can be reversed.

Two of the justices are in interracial marriage, which might make them think twice before reversing it. None are in same sex marriages.
Click to expand...


The Constitution is the ultimate law of the United States.

The chief role of the Supreme Court jurist/s is to interpret the Constitution.

The framers founded the core legal /moral principles of the Constitution on the Natural Law philosophy of the Enlightenment, in particular the English political philosopher, John Locke.

The Natural Law says that you are duty bound - that you have a moral obligation not to kill a defenceless human being who was not threatening you with lethal ,or possibly lethal, harm.

From the monent of conception to full term, a foetus/zygote is a fully-fledged, genetically unique, human being - a new member of the species homo sapiens.

If you kill this human being/human person at any moment in this period of time, you have committed MURDER. PERIOD.

You have violated the NATURAL LAW, and you must be punished.

You see, it's all very simple.



Dachshund



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !
 
Last edited:
Dachshund said:
The Constitution is the ultimate law of the United States.

The chief role of the Supreme Court jurist/s is to interpret the Constitution.

The framers founded the core legal /moral principles of the Constitution on the Natural Law philosophy of the Enlightenment, in particular the English political philosopher, John Locke.

The Natural Law says that you are duty bound - that you have a moral obligation not to kill a defenceless human being who was not threatening you with lethal ,or possibly lethal, harm.

From the monent of conception to full term, a foetus/zygote is a fully-fledged, genetically unique, human being - a new member of the specis homo sapiens.

If you kill this human being/human person at any moment in this period of time, you have committed MURDER. PERIOD.

You have violated the NATURAL LAW, and you must be punished.

You see, it's all vert simple.



Dachshund



DLM....Dachshund Lives Matter !
Click to expand...

As if an Aussie dirtbag such as yourself has anything to do with America
 
Walt said:
The Supreme Court has bases future rulings on past rulings, so if this new precedent (when it actually is delivered) will effect hundreds of other issues.

The basic precedent is that any individual right not explicitly in the Constitution is reserved for the states. This is a massive expansion of government rights at the expense of individual rights.

Is marriage an individual right? Sort of. Except for a few extreme Republicans, everyone thinks child marriage should be stopped by the government. But how about same sex marriage? Or how about interracial marriage?

This precedent could reasonably be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia and allow states to ban interracial marriage.
Click to expand...

Since women have become eligible to vote, the number of women that actually votes, have increased each year.

On average, the most recent presidential election years have produced 10 million more women voters than men voters. The Mid-Terms tend to produce a narrower margin between the sexes.

However, more people voted in the 2020 election than ever before in this country.

With the stakes so high in the upcoming Mid-Terms, I suspect the Mid-Terms will produce as many voters as in 2020, AND EVEN A LOT MORE!

If you ask most women- regardless to their political or religious affiliations, if abortions should be left up to a women's choice, most women will say yes.

In fact, most men will say the same thing- regardless to their political or religious affiliations.

So, I believe that ending Roe Vs. Wade is a huge over reach by a minority of WHITE-WING men.

And I believe that the Vocal Majority of Americans will agree on this.

The Vocal majority will see this as a political over-reach by a lop-sided out-of-touch Supreme Court with an agenda, and be prompted to settle this thing at the polls- as even many Republican women will hold their nose and vote Democratic to protect the right for women to have this choice!

This over-reach will flare up the old SEX WARS of the 70's as we look towards going back 50 years in women's progress.

I can see it now, WHITE-WING Republican Men looking over their shoulder at how their own wives will be voting in 2022!

Ah yes! Pictures are worth a thousand words- aren't they? LOL!

104090106-RTX2SKKG.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top