Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
JohnSnowsHair

Supreme Court Rulings

Recommended Posts

Abortion is a matter that should be decided on a state level.  The reasoning in Roe is flawed.  The way the country stands right now, I suspect that even if Roe were overturned, abortion would be available in most states.   

There is plenty of precedent for overturning poorly decided opinions from the Supreme Court.  It happens frequently.   I ran across a case in 2019 - Knick v. Twshp of Scott that overturned long standing Supreme Court precedent.  Otherwise, Dred v. Scott would still be good law today.

That being said, there are practical considerations.  Overturning Roe would be very divisive and could possibly result in civil disorder.  But again, it is a poorly reasoned opinion, and its reversal would not mean an end to abortion in the U.S. by any stretch of the matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Procus said:

ran across a case in 2019 - Knick v. Twshp of Scott that overturned long standing Supreme Court precedent.  Otherwise, Dred v. Scott would still be good law today.

???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

???

There was an old settled case known as Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank decided by the Supreme Court in 1985.  Basically, it provided that if the state or local government took your property and didn't properly compensate you for the taking, you had to first exhaust all your remedies in state court before suing in federal court.  The Knick case, also decided by the Supreme Court in 2019, overruled Williamson County and held that if a state or municipality takes your private property without compensating you properly for it, you can go straight to federal court and sue.

I mentioned these cases as an example of the Supreme Court reversing itself.  It's not uncommon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberals: we can't change precedent on abortion it's been this way for 50 years.

Also liberals: the Constitution is outdated and we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment. 

:lol:

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Procus said:

There was an old settled case known as Williamson County v. Hamilton Bank decided by the Supreme Court in 1985.  Basically, it provided that if the state or local government took your property and didn't properly compensate you for the taking, you had to first exhaust all your remedies in state court before suing in federal court.  The Knick case, also decided by the Supreme Court in 2019, overruled Williamson County and held that if a state or municipality takes your private property without compensating you properly for it, you can go straight to federal court and sue.

I mentioned these cases as an example of the Supreme Court reversing itself.  It's not uncommon.

What does that have to do with the Dred Scott decision in 1857 though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade was a retarded ruling made by retarded judges that retarded people retardedly believe is a right.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, toolg said:

I already addressed this. This would be induced labor resulting in birth. Not an abortion.  Is abortion even medically possible at this late stage of pregnancy? Is there a doctor that can answer this? 

If you want to have a serious discussion, let's stop with the false arguments.

:lol: 

Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure one day before birth babies don't become immortal so it's "possible."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, TEW said:

:lol: 

Uh, yeah, I'm pretty sure one day before birth babies don't become immortal so it's "possible."

 

Good luck finding a doctor to attempt abortion at 39 weeks.... For the third time, what will happen instead is induced labor resulting in birth. Abortion at this late stage is illogical.

Anybody else want to take up this absurd argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, toolg said:

Good luck finding a doctor to attempt abortion at 39 weeks.... For the third time, what will happen instead is induced labor resulting in birth. Abortion at this late stage is illogical.

Anybody else want to take up this absurd argument?

This goes back to the outrage over Northam's comments on "late abortion" awhile back.  An "abortion" at that stage would be delivering an infant and, instead of resuscitating them, keeping them comfortable and letting them pass.  With viable infants this isn't really an option cause well, they don't need a ventilator or epinephrine or central lines etc. It only applies to kids with severe abnormalities that aren't compatible with life outside of significant intervention.

As someone who has resuscitated a 400 gram newborn and a newborn with holoprocencephaly only to watch them die horribly weeks to months later, it 100% should be an option for parents and doctors to make without fear of legal repercussions.  

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, TEW said:

Roe v Wade was a retarded ruling made by retarded judges that retarded people retardedly believe is a right.

 

What, in your esteemed legal mind, would have qualified as a "non-retarded" ruling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

This goes back to the outrage over Northam's comments on "late abortion" awhile back.  An "abortion" at that stage would be delivering an infant and, instead of resuscitating them, keeping them comfortable and letting them pass.  With viable infants this isn't really an option cause well, they don't need a ventilator or epinephrine or central lines etc. It only applies to kids with severe abnormalities that aren't compatible with life outside of significant intervention.

As someone who has resuscitated a 400 gram newborn and a newborn with holoprocencephaly only to watch them die horribly weeks to months later, it 100% should be an option for parents and doctors to make without fear of legal repercussions.  

Oh, like your opinion on this carries more weight because you've delivered babies.  What a pompous arse you are.

"Delivering an infant and letting them pass"  -  You mean letting the infant die, or worse, killing the infant as some abortionists would do notwithstanding what you said afterward.

You seriously need to turn in your medical license.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

What, in your esteemed legal mind, would have qualified as a "non-retarded" ruling?

I would have said it differently, but the ruling has a very poor legal foundation and is reasoned poorly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, toolg said:

Good luck finding a doctor to attempt abortion at 39 weeks.... For the third time, what will happen instead is induced labor resulting in birth. Abortion at this late stage is illogical.

Anybody else want to take up this absurd argument?

Acting like zero doctors will perform ultra late term abortions is absurd. You can always find someone who will do something for a buck, and even more so when they have some kind of demented ideological crusader fantasy. You won't need "luck" - the left is ghoulish enough to not only do it, but celebrate it and advertise it as a service.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, toolg said:

Good luck finding a doctor to attempt abortion at 39 weeks....

Philadelphia Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Opens - The New York Times

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

What does that have to do with the Dred Scott decision in 1857 though?

It was a horrible decision where, if the Supreme Court was unable to reverse itself, could stand today absent the 13th amendment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

What, in your esteemed legal mind, would have qualified as a "non-retarded" ruling?

Kicking it back to the states, since there is no legal right to an abortion or anything about abortion anywhere in the constitution and the US constitution clearly states that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Procus said:

I would have said it differently, but the ruling has a very poor legal foundation and is reasoned poorly.

Nobody cares how you would've said it.

13 minutes ago, Procus said:

Oh, like your opinion on this carries more weight because you've delivered babies.  What a pompous arse you are.

"Delivering an infant and letting them pass"  -  You mean letting the infant die, or worse, killing the infant as some abortionists would do notwithstanding what you said afterward.

You seriously need to turn in your medical license.

Providing palliative care for an infant with a terminal medical condition is cause to lose one's license, but a doctor advocating against vaccines and instead prescribing an unproven anti-parasatic off-label is perfectly reasonable in your demented and deranged mind? Sounds about right for a cultist.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, TEW said:

Kicking it back to the states, since there is no legal right to an abortion or anything about abortion anywhere in the constitution and the US constitution clearly states that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.

Exactly.  Reversing Roe will not mean a woman cannot get an abortion in the U.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, we_gotta_believe said:

Providing palliative care for an infant with a terminal medical condition is cause to lose one's license, but a doctor advocating against vaccines and instead prescribing an unproven anti-parasatic off-label is perfectly reasonable in your demented and deranged mind? Sounds about right for a cultist.

You're ranting again, and no, this has nothing to do with treating corona.   Pretty clear you haven't taken your meds this morning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Procus said:

You're ranting again, and no, this has nothing to do with treating corona.   Pretty clear you haven't taken your meds this morning.

"Take your meds", says the illiterate cultist with an undiagnosed mental illness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Procus said:

Oh, like your opinion on this carries more weight because you've delivered babies.  What a pompous arse you are.

"Delivering an infant and letting them pass"  -  You mean letting the infant die, or worse, killing the infant as some abortionists would do notwithstanding what you said afterward.

You seriously need to turn in your medical license.

I'm a trained pediatrician with certifications in palliative care married to an OBGYN. Considering I know how this actually works instead of just reacting to fear mongering propaganda, yes my opinion and understanding carries more weight than the moron still struggling with the concept that horse paste doesn't treat viruses.

No one is euthanizing recently delivered infants you dolt. They're letting infants with severe illnesses pass away comfortably as a decision between a family and their doctor.  Cut the "slippery slope" BS.  

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TEW said:

Kicking it back to the states, since there is no legal right to an abortion or anything about abortion anywhere in the constitution and the US constitution clearly states that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.

Take it a step further, kick it back to the patient and their doctor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

INo one is euthanizing recently delivered infants you dolt. They're letting infants with severe illnesses pass away comfortably as a decision between a family and their doctor.  Cut the "slippery slope" BS.  

BS.  There are some very shady abortionists out there.  I commend the years of education and hard work you and your wife underwent.  But your eyes are closed if you refuse to see the underbelly of this aspect of the "practice" of medicine. 

As I said before, your medical degree doesn't confer extra qualifications on you to opine on this issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Take it a step further, kick it back to the patient and their doctor.

Doctors and patients don't make laws. Governments do. Legally, in this case, state governments. If some state governments want to then say it's a free for all, that's their legal right as morally reprehensible as it might be.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TEW said:

Doctors and patients don't make laws. Governments do. Legally, in this case, state governments. If some state governments want to then say it's a free for all, that's their legal right as morally reprehensible as it might be.

This guy seriously thinks he's superior to the rest of us mere mortals because we're not doctors.  Very full of himself - he has to brag about his degree and specialty and that of his wife in a football forum.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...