Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Supreme Court to overturn Roe vs Wade

Options
1…1314161819…33

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016441#Comment_119016441

    There is a big difference between that and people trying to stop Congress from doing what is law to do. I suspect you do know that



  • Options
    #453
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,739 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016554#Comment_119016554

    Nope, thats called a coalition.


    The American "system" applied here would mean the people of Leitrim got to elect 20 TD's to the dail, while Dublin only elected 4 TD's.



  • Options
    #454
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016441#Comment_119016441

    The January 6 insurrection was not a single or localized incident. Multiple states and their political parties were involved in the autocoup, including efforts by the White House and members of Congress to recruit additional state governments in their efforts (eg. The Secretary of State of Georgia). Nor was it the only violent event. Violence and disruption of democratic process erupted at and even inside multiple ballot counting facilities between November and January. January 6, and specifically, the Electoral Count, merely served as the climax.

    https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/group-disrupt-ballot-counting-detroit-convention-center/story?id=73981354
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/05/us/election-protests-portland-minnesota-arizona.html

    So I don't see what the fuss you think there is here that there was a skirmish of police running over people in LA. I think I predicted this earlier, that some people are dying for a window to get broken or a building to get burned so they have something to crow about.



  • Options
    #455
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Personally Im Pro choice but ultimately roe vs wade was a mistake. There wasn't really anything in the US constitution permitting abortion.

    It should be decided state by state.

    The best approach is an amendment to the constitution. For pro choice groups

    Actually while they are at they could try getting rid of the electoral college



  • Options
    #456
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016554#Comment_119016554

    The 2 election systems are very different; we don't do ranked choice voting.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016587#Comment_119016587

    I think you are getting a bit confused there with terms and house elections. Bigger states get to elect more members to the Congress then smaller ones due to size. The Senate is meant to be a more equal chamber for all with each state regardless of size gets to elect 2 senators each. Not 100% on the exact reason.


    So Dublin would still be able to elect more TDs then Leitrim maybe even more if we go by how many tds per 1000 if we went by American rule, but each would have 2 senators


    Coalition is a different thing which we have due to PR and the amount of parties



  • Options
    #458
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016488#Comment_119016488

    Ah yes, the "attempted coup" by a bunch of bozos in horned helmets that had no institutional support and was put down within hours of starting with the election being certified the very same day. The rioters killed no cops with the only person dying on the day being a rioter. (I'm not complaining about that by the way.)

    As a history buff I can tell you America has had numerous insurrections in its past virtually all of which came closer to succeeding than the farce that took place on Jan 6th. In fact, insurrections in the US are MORE of a "norm" than what took place here. As the original Politico article says "no draft decision in the modern history of the court has been disclosed publicly while a case was still pending."

    "while a case was still pending" is the key part. The only reason you leak an opinion while the case is pending is to influence the outcome. I think we can say this undermines the legitimacy of an independent judiciary.

    As for the right being the ones who leaked it.... Yes it seems like a great idea to leak an opinion of a pending decision that you support that will no doubt lead to pressure tactics against the justices planning to vote for it.



  • Options
    #459
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016612#Comment_119016612

    With the ruling there is nothing to stop the republicans from bringing in a federal law that covers all states making abortion illegal. The door is also open for states to criminalise those who go to other states to seek abortions

    There isn't anything in the US constitution permitting a lot of things, for example marriage equality - be it on the basis of gender or race



  • Options
    #460
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016612#Comment_119016612

    The getting rid of the electoral college (which I feel will happen) then one on abortion



  • Options
    #461
    pjohnson
    Registered Users Posts: 23,739 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016626#Comment_119016626

    Probably misphrased it a bit but the main flaw in the american democracy is that it completely over-values the votes/voices from people in smaller states. Not every citizens votes are equal.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016559#Comment_119016559

    Well then is hasn't worked, clearly, since a party which has often held a slim majority has taken out people from the opposite party at a whim.

    They purposefully, for a year, left the court at 8 seats so their slim majority could go nuclear and use their slim majority, under trump, to fill up the bench with lifetime stooges. When Scalia died the court still stood in control by Republican appointees: Kennedy, Chief Justice Roberts, Thomas, Alito, vs Breyer, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan. And I say majority because the Chief Justice still bears functional control of the issues the Court takes up in large part, and during this time most 4-4 split decisions favored conservatism.



  • Options
    #463
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016640#Comment_119016640

    That will be the next battle after this same sex marriage and will be more bolden after the suspected gains they would now get if the November elections were run now.

    The problem with the Constitution is not what isn't written in it but how it was written. The founding fathers always believed the constitution should change in time depending on the times and people would be smart enough to do it, but that was before party politics really became a thing



  • Options
    #464
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Ah yes, the "attempted coup" by a bunch of bozos in horned helmets that had no institutional support

    Please stop the blatant misinformation.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Bay_Sweep_%28politics%29#:~:text=The%20Green%20Bay%20Sweep%20is,it%20in%20multiple%20media%20interviews.




  • Options
    #465
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016636#Comment_119016636

    Rioters injured hundreds of cops, one died during the attack, and others have taken their lives afterwards. As a history buff, can you tell me how many of those insurrections were actively supported by the spouse of a sitting SCJ?

    That politico article isn't accurate, there have been plenty of leaks from SCOTUS - sure the original Roe v Wade was leaked in advance.

    It does seem like a great idea by the right if either a) one or more of the justices were having second thoughts or were pushing back on the contents of the draft or b) they wanted to distract, feign outrage, and play the victim about the leak to take away from the expected backlash of the content - just like you are doing now. How much the biggest right wing media outlets are playing down the decision says the latter is very likely, they know this is going to be hated by the wider public and want anything else to distract.



  • Options
    #466
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016667#Comment_119016667

    The only way they do that really is the electoral college IMO which I believe should change



  • Options
    #467
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016644#Comment_119016644

    Never happening - why would the turkeys vote for christmas? Republicans fight every effort to support voter's rights, they are never going to change a rigged system that is the only thing giving them any chance of power.



  • Options
    #468
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016672#Comment_119016672

    First of all they did not take out anyone they just did not vote someone in big difference. If the Democrats thought they could do that the would. I do not think you be complaining on here. As for the lifetime on the Supreme Court that has been a thing for a lot longer then Trump so not something he came up with. I agree it's bad but even if you put a time limit on them it still be bias on who is but there be it be by president, Congress, or some board. And again you would not give 1 flying f of time limits if it was your guy with your political bias



  • Options
    #469
    Bobtheman
    Site Banned Posts: 2,799 ✭✭✭Bobtheman


    Society changes. Rules change.

    It will take time but the electoral college will go.

    Not necessarily replaced by a straight vote either.



  • Options
    #470
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016728#Comment_119016728

    If it loses them the president a few times they might. Each will try to rig it (Democrats no angels either if they can) to there own design



  • Options
    #471
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,670 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016218#Comment_119016218

    How is a 34 week old baby not born yet?



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016757#Comment_119016757

    First of all they did not take out anyone they just did not vote someone in big difference. 

    No not at all. In US Politics this tactic even has a name, it's called Borking.


    https://www.vox.com/2018/9/26/17896126/bork-kavanaugh-supreme-court-conservatives-republicans

    If the Democrats thought they could do that the would. I do not think you be complaining on here. [...] And again you would not give 1 flying f of time limits if it was your guy with your political bias

    This is a counterfactual. I'm an Independent, I'm not a Two Parties fan, I'm a No Parties fan (or at least a Ranked Choice fan, sheesh, America). Neither was John Adams, an OG Originalist if you will:

    image.png

    "Time limits" weren't the issue, but rather the large amount of work the Supreme Court undertook that resulted in split decisions that should have otherwise been decided one way or the other.



  • Options
    #473
    Sean.3516
    Registered Users Posts: 862 ✭✭✭Sean.3516


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016640#Comment_119016640

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Cited in Loving v. Virginia (1967) which decided that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional.

    The US Constitution doesn't "permit" people to do anything. It assumes pre-existing natural rights in accordance with Common Law. It permits the government to do only what the Constitution says it can. Anything else (unless the Constitution says otherwise about it) is a state issue.

    This is why abortion will still be legal in California and New York if Roe V Wade is overturned.

    If the Dems are worried about a federal law banning abortion, why don't they enact a federal law guaranteeing abortion rights? Oh that's right, they don't have the votes.



  • Options
    #474
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    The effort to begin overturning other rights not explicitly enumerated in gold leaf now begins.

    https://www.mediaite.com/politics/ben-shapiro-says-a-supreme-court-worth-its-salt-would-end-federally-protected-gay-marriage/

    Obergefell v Hodges was decided under Chief Justice Roberts.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obergefell_v._Hodges#:~:text=On%20June%2026%2C%202015%2C%20the,marriages%20granted%20in%20other%20states.

    Kennedy, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, held the majority decision. Roberts, Scalia, Thomas and Alito all wrote and supported each others own dissenting opinions.

    Now: Chief Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett may change their minds and say that the Roberts court was "egregious and wrong" - hey wait



  • Options
    #475
    TooTired123
    Registered Users Posts: 2,232 ✭✭✭TooTired123


    Why are Irish people so upset about this?



  • Options
    #476
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016626#Comment_119016626

    The Census is used to apportion House of Representatives members among the several states counting the whole number of persons and dividing it across the 435 seats with a minimum of 1 per state, for the District of Columbia, for Puerto Rico, etc.

    Those are 2 year terms.

    Senators are 2 per member State (50) and its so devised and staggered that 1/3rd of Senators are up for re-election every 2 years; each term is 6 years.

    More details are spelled out in Article I (Except were amended, eg. the Enumeration Clause now reads from Amendment XIV).

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#:~:text=Article%20I%20describes%20the%20design,the%20powers%20that%20Congress%20has.




  • Options
    #477
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,426 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016882#Comment_119016882

    The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Cited in Loving v. Virginia (1967) which decided that interracial marriage bans were unconstitutional.


    The US Constitution doesn't "permit" people to do anything. It assumes pre-existing natural rights in accordance with Common Law. It permits the government to do only what the Constitution says it can. Anything else (unless the Constitution says otherwise about it) is a state issue.

    Does the law protect mens right to the privacy and dignity choose what medical decisions they make?

    It seems that if the laws protect the rights of one sex but not the other then the law is plainly unconstitutional on a straight reading of the Equal Protection Clause.

    Otherwise what would prevent Congress from declaring interracial marriage was illegal? They still would have every right to marry anyone they wanted who was the same race as them, after all, isn't that "Equal Protection?" /s

    I think men saying "I don't have a right to an abortion so neither do you" is not only a really sophomoric take but a terrible precedent that would upend jurisprudence and open the door for all manner of discrimination as long as everyone was technically 'subject to' the same law that only injures the discriminated persons (eg. Trans Athletes and laws rules or regulations that ban trans athletes in competition)



  • Options
    #478
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016882#Comment_119016882

    Nearly every justice who is now voting to overturn Roe v Wade said it was settled law during their confirmations, yet they are now working to overturn it. Everything is free game in that case - be it Loving, Obergefell, or anything else.

    Not sure what the point of the rest of your post is - I have repeatedly made it clear across many posts regarding the issue of a federal law. I have consistently disagreed with posters who have called for abolishing the filibuster, even if they have the votes unless it is accompanied with massive reforms of the system and SCOTUS. Even if they had the votes now given the rigged system the most likely thing long term is that the republicans will get far worse things over the line in a few years.



  • Options
    #479
    Foxtrol
    Registered Users Posts: 11,146 ✭✭✭✭Foxtrol


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016980#Comment_119016980

    Many live in the US or have families there so the decision directly impacts them.

    Others given their posting record in other threads and terminology they use just get a very weird pleasure from attacking anything they deem as 'woke' or 'liberal', which apparently includes the rights women in the US have over their bodies.



  • Options
    #480
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 11,002 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016997#Comment_119016997

    Thanks very much. Knew it was something in that way but was not sure



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 3,801 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119016762#Comment_119016762

    I rarely post here anymore, and the US is a clown show, but…

    the electoral college is going nowhere because the bias in the electoral college is manifest in how the constitution is changed.

    “An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.”

    That is a bigger bias on favour of small states than the electoral college itself, so why would turkeys vote for Christmas? The electoral college has a small bias in favour of smaller States in any case, it’s the senate elections where there is a really big bias - Montana has the same representation as California with less than 2% of the population.


    But that is by design, the senate represents the States, the House of Representatives represents the popular will. In fact at the beginning senators were chosen by state legislatures not by popular vote. That didn’t change until 1913.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement