Supreme Court Justices signal they'll OK new abortion limits, may toss Roe v. Wade

[Counselor706]

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court's conservative majority on Wednesday signaled it would uphold Mississippi's 15-week ban on abortion and may go much further to overturn the nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years.

The fate of the court's historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion throughout the United States and its 1992 ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirmed Roe, probably won't be known until next June.

But after nearly two hours of arguments, all six conservative justices, including three appointed by former President Donald Trump, indicated they would uphold the Mississippi law.

And there was also substantial support among the conservative justices for getting rid of Roe and Casey altogether.

Source

 

[ll74]

Speculation is fun.

I signalled I had a bean burrito earlier

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The Governor of CA is already preparing for this. He announced plans to lure abortion providers and their customers to California and make the state the industry hub. It’s unclear how much additional tax revenue it will generate but the state legislature is very effective at taxation.

 

[GothTalk]

Good, should be a state issue.

 

[LukSkyFokker]

Newsom says he will use Texas abortion law tactics to restrict assault weapons

"If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives," Newsom said.

 

[WillJ8787]

Speculation is fun.

I signalled I had a bean burrito earlier

Yep, I just signaled....wonder if he heard it....I've got my ass up close to the keyboard...did you here it Counselor?

 

[pecksniff]

Good, should be a state issue.

It practically is now, and no good has come of that yet.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Speculation is fun.

I signalled I had a bean burrito earlier

It be must and will be overturned. Total States Rights issue. R v W was and remains overreach by SCOTUS. The should NEVER have been heard.

 

[GothTalk]

Newsom says he will use Texas abortion law tactics to restrict assault weapons

"If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives," Newsom said.

And just like that, Democrats finally understand Republicans.
https://c.tenor.com/OqZ3-4d7jyUAAAAC/rock-clapping.gif

 

[Sean Renaud]

Yeah, and we're scum for pulling that bullshit too.

 

[Cubantripod]

Newsom says he will use Texas abortion law tactics to restrict assault weapons

"If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives," Newsom said.

More lefty grievance porn. It's a Texas law and the Supremes are letting Texas deal with it first.
https://reason.com/2021/12/10/here-...-the-states-abortion-ban-is-unconstitutional/

You can't expect anything less from a leftist. Rather than fight the law and protect rights, they use it to go after other rights. The abortion law will be struck down. You'll have a harder time with second amendment legislation. That one certainly won't last very long.

 

[Cubantripod]

It be must and will be overturned. Total States Rights issue. R v W was and remains overreach by SCOTUS. The should NEVER have been heard.

You're using states rights in this case to go after rights you don't like. Certain matters shouldn't be up for a vote.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

You're using states rights in this case to go after rights you don't like. Certain matters shouldn't be up for a vote.

Such as?

 

[LukSkyFokker]

More lefty grievance porn. It's a Texas law and the Supremes are letting Texas deal with it first.
https://reason.com/2021/12/10/here-...-the-states-abortion-ban-is-unconstitutional/

You can't expect anything less from a leftist. Rather than fight the law and protect rights, they use it to go after other rights. The abortion law will be struck down. You'll have a harder time with second amendment legislation. That one certainly won't last very long.

That's not grievance porn, moron.

 

[Cubantripod]

Such as?

Abortion and other matter dealing with family planning. Medical decisions, gun ownership being others. Not agreeing or liking something doesn't mean you need to push to prevent others from that right.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Abortion and other matter dealing with family planning. Medical decisions, gun ownership being others. Not agreeing or liking something doesn't mean you need to push to prevent others from that right.

You do ralize that even things like free speech, press, etc. were once voted on, yes? These are natural rights, but they were discerned to be thus after deliberation, discussion and a vote. Two original Amendments actually failed to pass.

I'm quite sure others would have a different list of untouchable things...how do we determine which are going to be really untouchable?

 

[Cubantripod]

You do ralize that even things like free speech, press, etc. were once voted on, yes? These are natural rights, but they were discerned to be thus after deliberation, discussion and a vote. Two original Amendments actually failed to pass.

I'm quite sure others would have a different list of untouchable things...how do we determine which are going to be really untouchable?

Just because something was once voted doesn't mean that deliberation was correct. We make mistakes. Whether it be legislation or court decisions. Somethings shouldn't be up for debate.

 

[Bud_Spencer]

Just because something was once voted doesn't mean that deliberation was correct. We make mistakes. Whether it be legislation or court decisions. Somethings shouldn't be up for debate.

But that doesn't help us identify what those things are, does it? If we are going to put some things out of the reach of the whims of legislatures, don't we have to identify them first and then agree that they should be so walled-off?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Newsom says he will use Texas abortion law tactics to restrict assault weapons

"If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives," Newsom said.

Turns out there is a problem with Newsom’s knee-jerk reaction – The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in Congress in 2005, was passed to protect manufacturers from lawsuits going after the gun rather than the person who pulled the trigger. It was a nice little tweet but got “shot down” pretty quickly.

 

[pecksniff]

Turns out there is a problem with Newsom’s knee-jerk reaction – The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in Congress in 2005, was passed to protect manufacturers from lawsuits going after the gun rather than the person who pulled the trigger. It was a nice little tweet but got “shot down” pretty quickly.

That wouldn't apply here.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom said he plans to use the same tactic as Texas' abortion law to target assault rifle sales after the Supreme Court declined to block enforcement of the law.

Newsom said in a statement Saturday that he has directed his staff to collaborate with the Legislature and Attorney General Rob Bonta to draft a bill that would allow private citizens to sue "anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in the State of California."

"If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives," Newsom said on Twitter.

I.e., no one would be sued because they gun they sold was used.

 

[BidudeinWi]

You're using states rights in this case to go after rights you don't like. Certain matters shouldn't be up for a vote.

Not at all. Just following the Constitution. There is LITERALLY no Constitutional authority for the SCOTUS to rule on this issue AND it WILL be overturned! In the meantime, go pound sand up your ass you immoral prick!

 

[GothTalk]

Yeah, and we're scum for pulling that bullshit too.

Why?

Shouldn't the people of California get to say how Californians live??

 

[Cubantripod]

Not at all. Just following the Constitution. There is LITERALLY no Constitutional authority for the SCOTUS to rule on this issue AND it WILL be overturned! In the meantime, go pound sand up your ass you immoral prick!

Go choke on Putin's dick commie shit big. You don't believe in the Constitution. You hide behind "state's rights" to go after rights you don't like. You don't get to decide what rights other people are entitled to. You conveniently want a literal interpretation here to rationalize a weak argument. All elected officials, judges, lawyers swear an oath to defend the constitution. All of it. Even the parts they don't like. Rights are to be interpreted in a manner that give the most amount of rights to the most amount of people. You choose to ignore the right to privacy and liberty.

Perhaps we should have a mental health evaluation to determine someone's competency to vote. With your wild conspiracy theories on the vaccine, I don't think you're fit to vote.

 

[BidudeinWi]

Go choke on Putin's dick commie shit big. You don't believe in the Constitution. You hide behind "state's rights" to go after rights you don't like. You don't get to decide what rights other people are entitled to. You conveniently want a literal interpretation here to rationalize a weak argument. All elected officials, judges, lawyers swear an oath to defend the constitution. All of it. Even the parts they don't like. Rights are to be interpreted in a manner that give the most amount of rights to the most amount of people. You choose to ignore the right to privacy and liberty.

Perhaps we should have a mental health evaluation to determine someone's competency to vote. With your wild conspiracy theories on the vaccine, I don't think you're fit to vote.

Blah blah blah, didn’t read your post and it doesn’t matter. If you don’t understand the Constitution and the Enumerated Powers Clause, then we cannot have a conversation cuz you’re not intelligent enough. Not at all surprised!

 

[Cubantripod]

Blah blah blah, didn’t read your post and it doesn’t matter. If you don’t understand the Constitution and the Enumerated Powers Clause, then we cannot have a conversation cuz you’re not intelligent enough. Not at all surprised!

Tell me where your law degree is from again? You don't understand doctrines of constitutional interpretation. You pick and choose arguments that sound good to you and the rights you like without having any real understanding on the Constitution as a whole and how the amendments in particular the reconstruction amendments have expanded rights.