I want my first amendment second amendment rights and my right to due process back.
SCOTUS Getting Shade Over Roe v Wade
- Thread starter The Original Sixth
- Start date
Ixian
Well-known member
Sorry, those don't have anything to do with killing babies so the left isn't interested.
King Arts
Well-known member
I was looking at something. Can't we argue that full faith and credit does not mean that? Since for example cousins marriages are legal in some states, banned in others. And in the banned states are not forced to recognize it under full faith and credit?
Plays sweet home Alabama
It's beyond annoying that people are still pushing this "right" bit, after the decision very carefully explained how that's nonsense, and after the dissent totally failed to offer any sort of substantial rebuttal to that.
Like, fine, you can think it's a right if you what to think that, but if you want to argue it is a right you have to do the legwork and actually construct an arguement to establish that it is one.
Except that they would be if things ever went to the Supreme Court. The US is a patchwork of law on this matter, with some state recognizing them while other state refuse to. As far as I can tell the situation has never come up to the Federal court system, but the Full faith and credit clause it pretty clear in its plain text meaning. I don't see these types of cousin marriage annulment laws surviving the court case.
49ersfootball
Well-known member
I am 100% Pro-Life & proud of it! 😊
IMO, the actual argument runs through the Equal Protection clause, but not as Justice Kennedy did it. Kennedy basically had two parallel arguments, one using substantive due process, the other the Equal Protection clause, neither of which was well thought out but that's sadly normal for cases like this (Brown v Board is correct in outcome but not well reasoned also).
Basically, the proper argument is practically a syllogism using previous cases. Loving v Virginia says that marriage rights are incorporated against the states, Reed v Reed says that the equal protection clause covers government sex discrimination (either at intermediate or strict scrutiny, I forget which), and now Bostock v Clayton says that discriminating based on sexual orientation is sex discrimination. Add up those three, and you get to at least intermediate scrutiny on state same sex marriage bans, even ignoring FF&C. And the states are going to lose on intermediate scrutiny when they were struggling to get to rational basis.
I do have a general worry about what this will do to the voting come November. There's a decent chance the democrats mobilize on this and do well. We'll see from polls, and then the election.
VictortheMonarch
Victor the Crusader
It still is a necessity. Sometimes an Abortion has to occur due to the likelihood of a child killing a mother in birth, rare that it is.
Abortion should be something a hospital does to save a life, not an individual industry with predatory practices.
Fair. So, to be a little more precise, elective abortion should be abolished entirely.
I think that's unlikely. The Dems won't run on "we want our abortion laws to be like the laws in Germany or France", which is the majority position give or take a few weeks. Thier base won't allow a moderate position, they'll drag the dems out to the extremes, and if they run on those they'll lose badly.
Republicans have a similar issue, but the moderate position is much closer to the GOP base position, so they can more easily sell a swing to the middle and they can probably get the base to compromise a bit more.
hoes realizing that its no more creampies from now on
BUT WAIT!
did you see the hint of that smile?
hoe realizes that she can use her baby to generate child support, while using the money on herself!
OH NOs!
Arch Dornan
Oh, lovely. They've sent me a mo-ron.
I was given the impression it would go back to the states to decide as I already shared of one already reinforcing it just as states are deciding the same about their guns or illegal migrants.
No, that isn't even a state issue. That's an individual right to self defense issue. A state can't decide you don't have the right to self defense.
Personally, I'm in favor of an abortion ban at around 8-9 weeks (when I believe life begins), but certainly not later. I do think there needs to be an exception for rape (and incest, as it's almost always rape), as the mother didn't consent to the sex, and thus has no duty towards the child. The obligation to carry the child comes from the mother consenting to sex.
hoes realizing that its no more creampies from now on
BUT WAIT!
did you see the hint of that smile?
hoe realizes that she can use her baby to generate child support, while using the money on herself!
OH NOs!
Ugh
UDIs, condoms, birth control pill, sponges, morning after pill, adoption.
These have been options for decades and in some cases generations by now, if you practice even a modicrum of basic safe sex you will be fine.
Adoption system needs reforms
This position is only valid if you reject the idea that the unborn child is a human life deserving of protection. In that case, why restrict abortion at all?