SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade

[Agent23]

Yeah, CRP thinks that the whole leak is basically a distraction from all of the other Brandon Administration fails, like Ukraine and the economy:



The relevant bit is about 50 minutes in.

When the democrats start reeing about abortion or racism or guns you know they are trying to distract people from something else.
For them all of that stuff are just frozen ideological conflicts.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

. . . Abortion is a major institution OF the uniparty though. One thing that has been consistent is the Uniparty's support for legal abortion, with the only allowable defection/limit being on if Federal money was allowed to be spent on it or not. You can see that in how they constantly use the international institutions to push abortion on countries even when those country's don't want them.

Getting Roe overturned, despite the elites objections, is a MASSIVE blow to their authority and worldview. Instead of the Abortion Debate being settled by the Elites, it will be settled by the Populous. It would also show that there is at least one Institution in the US that ISN'T entirely captured by them, which is why there is so much of the core Democrats who are screeching about packing the court and overturning the filibuster so they can no longer be held back by those few politicians whom are not part of that mess.

I also feel the need to point out: Cultural Marxism started out with abortion. Abortion, and all the language around it, was the proving ground for the linguistic games the left plays. "Pro-Choice" "Women's Rights" pretending the "science" says something that it doesn't while accusing the other side of being "unscientific"... these were ALL things developed and testbedded in the Abortion debate.

The entire libertine morality system pushed by the "uniparty" as you call it, is founded on the idea of no-consequence sex. No-consequence sex is founded in abortion and the assurance of Roe that nowhere in the country can escape its reach.

Roe is one of the foundational cornerstones of the modern left and its project. Most folks know that subconciously which is why the sheer outrage. While it won't be that everything collapses with the fall of Roe, it is a massive change to the entire situation that nobody on the left really wants to see happen.

I could be I'm a bit slow to the "obviously" party, but I'm starting to think that the abortion question is less about the subject itself and more about a gateway to striping the rights of those you don't like. At first abortion had to be done early on and now some states allow late term abortions under the guise of "it's not developed enough to be considered How long before we decide a 3 Year old isn't a "fully developed life" what about 5 years? 8 years? prepubescents? people under 18? people under 21? How long before you decide People who don't agree with your political way of thinking are not "properly developed human beings" and therefore should have no rights and so it is in turn your right to do whatever you want with them?

As a fanfic and internet dabbler who to my shame used Tumblr back when it was a cesspool as well as other sights like DeviantArt, it's disturbing to me how many of these vocal leftist quite literally get off on fiction pieces that involve the "protagonist" torturing people they don't like for minor slights in comparison. I'm talking sick stuff, rape, torture, brainwashing/identity/ conscience death, normally I would dismiss this stuff as just dark fantasy some have them some don't...excpect these are some of the same people that just so happen to advocate that the people they don't like should be stripped of thier rights. Look at that trans author we recently talked about.

These people are like the Trade Federation. They want to commit all these atrocities against thier enemies, but they are too spineless to do it without some big powerful force to "make it legal."

I'm certain that many if not most are straight up sick in the head and they need professional help, they don't need to be the ones advocating for political change.

 

[Agent23]

I could be I'm a bit slow to the "obviously" party, but I'm starting to think that the abortion question is less about the subject itself and more about a gateway to striping the rights of those you don't like. At first abortion had to be done early on and now some states allow late term abortions under the guise of "it's not developed enough to be considered How long before we decide a 3 Year old isn't a "fully developed life" what about 5 years? 8 years? prepubescents? people under 18? people under 21? How long before you decide People who don't agree with your political way of thinking are not "properly developed human beings and therefore should have no rights and so it is in turn your right to do whatever you want with them?

As a fanfic and internet dabbler who to my shame used Tumblr back when it was a cesspool as well as other sights like DeviantArt, it's disturbing to me how many of these vocal leftist quite literally get off on fiction pieces that involve the "protagonist torturing people they don't like for minor slights in comparison. I'm talking sick stuff, rape, torture, brainwashing/identity death normally I would dismiss this stuff as just dark fantasy some have them some don't...expect these are some of the same people that just so happen to advocate that the people they don't like should be stripped of thier rights. Look at that trans author we recently talked about.

These people are like the Trade Federation. They want to commit all these atrocities against thier enemies, but they are too spinless to do it without some big powerful force to "make it legal."

I'm certain that many if not most are straight up sick in the head and they need professional help, they don't need to be the ones advocating for political change.

We had an extensive discussion in the abortion thread about all that.
TBH the concept of being alive should be unified and related to neural activity and brain development, so that a fetus will be put to the same test as someone that has undergone brain death.
At least that was my view, IIRC @Abhorsen had a somewhat similar opinion.And we should probably move a lot of this discussion to that thread.

 

[49ersfootball]

Rochelle Garza: the likely Dem nominee for TX State Attorney General issued this tweet:

​

 

[Cherico]

Gay marrage has more then enough support to make it through the ballot box.

The conversation was actually had and progress made at a state wide level, its pretty much a settled issue.

 

[Sobek]

They know they don't really have a argument so all they are doing is lying and fearmongering over a issue that people might care more about.

 

[Battlegrinder]

I don't recall ever seeing a serious argument being made that Obergfell should be overturned, and IIRC it's not even related to the "reasoning" used in Roe.

Roe: "There's a right to privacy in the constitution somewhere, or there probably is anyway, and part of privacy is being able to kill babies as much as you want, obviously".

Obergfell: "The state has said marriage exists, and extended certain privilege's toward married couples. Having done this, it cannot then go back arbitrary say which couples count as married and which ones can't".

 

[Sobek]

It begins, Dems are now openly calling for impeachment of the SCOTUS conservative judges over this because not being able to kill babies as a federal bedrock law is literally Jim Crow.



Holy fuck the sheer level of insanity. They are completely and utterly mad over this.

 

[Planchar]

They can impeach the justices all they want, they will never be able to convict and remove them.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

They are gonna pull a 72. Fire up the radicals hard, and scare away the entire moderate center to the right.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'd love to see all their time taken by the ridiculous impeachment movements against the Conservative Justices. Take up all the time you want you idiots. Don't pass anything...spend months wasting your time and pissing off 60-70% of the electorate. Go ahead, I double-dog-dare you.

In regards to the leak, I would absolutely celebrate the reversal of Roe.

For all doubting the Win, and thinking this means the midterms are lost. Wash the sand out of your underwear. This would be an absolute win and mean MILLIONS of babies won't die b/c A LOT of states will immediately move to make abortion the extremely rare procedure it needs to be.

Take that WIN and use it to motivate you into ACTING in support of other victories down the line. This WIN would mean a significant LONG-TERM victory. Would you give that up, and the millions of people it will save, in order to get a few more reps and senators in office just for them to do ABSO-FRACKIN'-LUTELY NOTHING while in control of the Legislature? What makes you thing that a Congress controlled by Republicans will move the conservative agenda AT ALL?

Take the WIN, IF IT'S actually true. Nothing has happened yet. Write in support of the Justices that they not be swayed by all the crap that's about to come their way.

 

[Free-Stater 101]

Imagine being butthurt about giving states the ability to decide anything democratically, if abortion is such a 'right' they damn well should have faith that a flood of people will swarm to polls to defend it.

 

[The Immortal Watch Dog]

I think he meant he would vote blue if they pulled off anti gay marriage measures

But why would he? He's a Libertarian.. if he was true to his convictions he would do what William F Buckley Jr did with desegregation and stand against a federalized mandate because the Supreme Court decision to allow gay marriage utterly raped the 1A and violates the 10A.

Or I guess his Libertarianism ends at some dude in some state he will never move to telling him he can't engage in arguably the most risky and dangerous manuevre a gay man can engage in short of having sex with Anthony Bathhouse Fauci in current year and that's opening himself to the horrors of divorce court? Because I'm with the upper Class gays who opposed that SCOTUS decision on the grounds that their companies already provided benefits that simulated the marriage tax breaks but carried none of the risks of your spouse taking half your shit.

@Abhorsen and we really should have a separate thread on divorce courts and family law one day because nah man, gay, straight whatever all that shit is a blight on humanity.

Take the WIN, IF IT'S actually true. Nothing has happened yet. Write in support of the Justices that they not be swayed by all the crap that's about to come their way.

Roe v Wade today, US vs Miller tomorrow.

Buh bye ATF, buh bye Cali style gun laws.

No more obese baby killers with badges.

Shall not be infringed!

Rochelle Garza: the likely Dem nominee for TX State Attorney General issued this tweet:

Cornyn is kind of a cuck but where exactly is he wrong there? Not the examples cited but his overarching point. That the SCOTUS asspulling rights out of thin air delegitimizes the entire justice system and attacks the rites and rights that underpin our entire civilization.

 

[S'task]

It begins, Dems are now openly calling for impeachment of the SCOTUS conservative judges over this because not being able to kill babies as a federal bedrock law is literally Jim Crow.



Holy fuck the sheer level of insanity. They are completely and utterly mad over this.

Once again, if they pull this kind of shit off... the response from the right is not going to be pretty.

There has been anti-abortion terrorism in the past. One of the things that managed to tamp it down was a concerted effort to delegitimize it as a method due to there being a legal recourse against abortion. It was a long and difficult recourse, granted, but the Pro-life movement gritted its teeth and over 50 years made a long, LONG march to change, playing by the rules under the promise that if they played by the rules they'd be given a fair shot.

If the Dems change the rules at the last minute just to prevent the other side from having victory, the case against anti-abortion terrorism starts getting paper thin, especially since this is spitting in the face of a movement that specifically disavowed such tactics on the promise of a fair shake at doing things within the law. Remove that... and yeah...

Of course, that's what the Dems want. They WANT anti-abortion terrorism. It will finally give them the right wing bogyman of terror that they've been trying to gin up with false flag FBI operations for years now. I just think they might be underestimating how bad the backlash will be.

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Once again, if they pull this kind of shit off... the response from the right is not going to be pretty.

There has been anti-abortion terrorism in the past. One of the things that managed to tamp it down was a concerted effort to delegitimize it as a method due to there being a legal recourse against abortion. It was a long and difficult recourse, granted, but the Pro-life movement gritted its teeth and over 50 years made a long, LONG march to change, playing by the rules under the promise that if they played by the rules they'd be given a fair shot.

If the Dems change the rules at the last minute just to prevent the other side from having victory, the case against anti-abortion terrorism starts getting paper thin, especially since this is spitting in the face of a movement that specifically disavowed such tactics on the promise of a fair shake at doing things within the law. Remove that... and yeah...

Of course, that's what the Dems want. They WANT anti-abortion terrorism. It will finally give them the right wing bogyman of terror that they've been trying to gin up with false flag FBI operations for years now. I just think they might be underestimating how bad the backlash will be.

Ive seen some predict this could cause a civil war, I'm not sure if it would go that far myself but who knows.

 

[Bigking321]

Well if they pack the court with left wing activists then they are effectively seizing control of the country.

It's one of the few things they could do that would be a direct and obvious provocation and justification for civil war.

Like, real talk. Literally the only reason the constitution still means anything at all is because Trump beat Hillary.

If Hillary had won she would have put another leftist rubberstamp on the Supreme Court and then we would have a bunch of 5-4 decisions getting rid of gun rights or religious rights or any limitations on executive overreach.

All those vaccine rulings saying they went to far and they couldn't do that? All reversed. And the government would be able to do anything it wants to you for public safety. All churches and gatherings permanently closed to stop the spread. Masks forever. Can't buy food or work unless you're up to date on your 6th booster.

We came within a razors edge of a fascist authoritarian takeover of the country. And they haven't stopped trying.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

And Manchim and Sinema have already said they will not support nuking the filibuster in order to pass abortion bills.

 

[Sobek]

Suddenly, the left loves Horse Paste

 

[Carrot of Truth]

Irony is clearly lost on these people.

 

[Emperor Tippy]

I don't recall ever seeing a serious argument being made that Obergfell should be overturned, and IIRC it's not even related to the "reasoning" used in Roe.

Roe: "There's a right to privacy in the constitution somewhere, or there probably is anyway, and part of privacy is being able to kill babies as much as you want, obviously".

Obergfell: "The state has said marriage exists, and extended certain privilege's toward married couples. Having done this, it cannot then go back arbitrary say which couples count as married and which ones can't".

Obergefell absolutely should be overturned. It's legal reasoning is a mess.

Gay marriage should be allowed though, and that is a decently strong constitutional argument for it; it's just not the one made in Obergefell.

Roe was the wrong outcome reached with bad reasoning. Obergefell was (probably) the right outcome reached with bad reasoning.