11 minutes ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

To that end...


 

 

Ohhhhhh, now it matters! It really is amazing how in the 25 years that I've followed politics, I can't think of a single prominent Democrat who has every seriously promoted a legislative remedy to this issue, and now that the ship has sailed, they want to ride that train. Too little too late. The only fix is a Constitutional amendment, and that has a snowball's chance in hell in the current climate. The party leadership is one big pile of fail. There's nothing voters can do here but just 

I don’t really see why it would’ve mattered if Roe were codified in legislation. It’s clear that red states were going to find a way around it no matter what (and the current construct of the court was going to allow it).  Roe is a symbol, nothing more, so using it as a political football was exactly how it should’ve been used. 

 

Funny, Dred Scott came to mind when I was thinking about a decision that would have been leaked.

(the Court’s attempt to settle the slavery question)

Am I crazy to think Roberts and Gorsuch ultimately decide against overturning long-established precedent? 

I don't know, I still don't see it happening. Just seems too far out there, but who knows anymore, I guess.

1 hour ago, Paul852 said:

There are plenty of people willing to adopt.

 

Maybe, but the system is still overburdened and inefficient. The numbers are a little hard to come by but according to a couple of sites, there are currently 400,000 kids in foster care and 117,000 of them are waiting to be adopted. Every year, about 20,000 kids age out of the system. Those entering the foster care system after the age of 12 have a 2 in 5 chance of being legally emancipated at the age of 18, so they never find a settled home. More than 20% of the children who are currently in foster care are aged 3 or younger, and more than 40% of the children who reach the age of 18 while in foster care were in the system for more than 3 years. So, even if there are a lot of people willing to adopt, there's still a major shortcoming in finding homes for these kids.

I've long thought that there are too many barriers to adoption. It's very expensive and the amount of red tape one has to go through is often prohibitive, and with red states wanting to restrict adoption to only heterosexual Christian couples, it makes the situation even worse. There are also significant racial disparities: black and Asian children, for example, often wait much longer to be adopted and are much more likely to age out of the system, and for kids with disabilities, it's even higher.

Honestly, from my experience, most parents that probably should adopt won't do it. My brother and his wife spent years and what must've been tens of thousands of dollars on fertility treatments trying to get her to conceive in her 40s. She had a miscarriage and then significant complications with the other two pregnancies. The first kid is severely autistic. The other one seems to be doing ok but was majorly premature. Adoption is the very last option for most people.

4 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Am I crazy to think Roberts and Gorsuch ultimately decide against overturning long-established precedent? 

I don't know, I still don't see it happening. Just seems too far out there, but who knows anymore, I guess.

Maybe Roberts but no way on Gorsuch. I’d say Gorsuch (and obviously Alito) are the most likely to vote to overturn, since they seem more ideology-driven and less politically-driven. 

8 hours ago, mayanh8 said:

Meh. The woke crowd holding their votes in protest over issues nobody cares about need to know what it's truly like to be on the sh** end of the stick. Maybe then we'll have a functional Democratic party with a coherent message and prioritized list of platform issues.

If rewinding the clock back 50 years by undoing minority rights doesn't do the trick, nothing will.

They have a coherent message: welfare state

16 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Am I crazy to think Roberts and Gorsuch ultimately decide against overturning long-established precedent? 

I don't know, I still don't see it happening. Just seems too far out there, but who knows anymore, I guess.

Had a similar reaction. Lets see what the final vote is

I think the leak could be a trap. The opinion is not released. All we have is rumor of one. Even if it does come to pass, it will put the question of abortion into the hands of the states. Abortion in blue states won't change. Red states will be able to pursue whatever further abortion legislation they want without SCOTUS in the way. It hurts the poor and marginalized in those states. But they don't care; they keep putting the same politicians in power. So what really changes?

It could be a boon to Democrats in midterms. But how many times have we seen Dems fail to do anything meaningful to protect women's rights? When do Dem voters just give up trying? The law is not on their side, so they give up with politics and accept their fate. Today we see a bunch of Democrat politicians squawking about what the ramifications of this SCOTUS opinion might be. But how many times have they had the power to affirm abortion rights and didn't?

7 minutes ago, Bacarty2 said:

Even if Roe V Wade gets over turned there's still going to be legal abortions in most states, still funded by the federal government. so really this Is just a shadow dance. 

 

That is nowhere near certain. The door appears to be left open to Congressional abolition.


 

Quote

Republicans Will Try To Ban Abortion Nationwide If Supreme Court Overturns Roe V. Wade, Report Reveals

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2022/05/02/republicans-will-try-to-ban-abortion-nationwide-if-supreme-court-overturns-roe-v-wade-report-reveals/?sh=121556e323ed

 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

That is nowhere near certain. The door appears to be left open to Congressional abolition.


 

 

They'll have to wait at least 6 more years.

4 minutes ago, toolg said:

I think the leak could be a trap. The opinion is not released. All we have is rumor of one. Even if it does come to pass, it will put the question of abortion into the hands of the states. Abortion in blue states won't change. Red states will be able to pursue whatever further abortion legislation they want without SCOTUS in the way. It hurts the poor and marginalized in those states. But they don't care; they keep putting the same politicians in power. So what really changes?

It could be a boon to Democrats in midterms. But how many times have we seen Dems fail to do anything meaningful to protect women's rights? When do Dem voters just give up trying? The law is not on their side, so they give up with politics and accept their fate. Today we see a bunch of Democrat politicians squawking about what the ramifications of this SCOTUS opinion might be. But how many times have they had the power to affirm abortion rights and didn't?

And while i would encourage the concept of forcing legislators to handle it, as much i endorse state differences, this issue and its history is going to create a colossal, inconsistent mess from state to state 

if true

will be a huge boost to dems since suburban women and the key swing voters

Legally, Roe v Wade always stood on poor footing.  There is no right to privacy conferred on a woman which gives her the right to an abortion.  This is a state - not a federal - issue.  Same with the right to gay marriage.  Perfect example of the Supreme Court legislating matters that lies within the purview of the states.

 

Possibility that Roberts was recruiting Kavanaugh to come to his side.

 

The Dumocrats and their liberal media allies should have waited till October to pull this stunt.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

 Same with the right to gay marriage.  Perfect example of the Supreme Court legislating matters that lies within the purview of the states.

Except with gay marriage, there are federal rights/privileges that come with marriage, so it very clearly falls under the purview of Equal Protection.

9 minutes ago, Procus said:

Legally, Roe v Wade always stood on poor footing.  There is no right to privacy conferred on a woman which gives her the right to an abortion.  This is a state - not a federal - issue.  Same with the right to gay marriage.  Perfect example of the Supreme Court legislating matters that lies within the purview of the states.

I disagree that it's the same as gay marriage.  The 14th amendment prohibits states from denying people equal protection of the laws.  There are legal protections that come with marriage.  So IMO banning gay marriage violates the 14th amendment since it denies people equal protection of the laws.  

 

35 minutes ago, Procus said:

Legally, Roe v Wade always stood on poor footing.  There is no right to privacy conferred on a woman which gives her the right to an abortion.  This is a state - not a federal - issue.  Same with the right to gay marriage.  Perfect example of the Supreme Court legislating matters that lies within the purview of the states.

Where did you get your law degree from?

 

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Where did you get your law degree from?

 

This been shared yet?

So many great quotes from such a short video.

"I am NOT a goddamn church mouse for this f***ing [inaudible] decision!"

"Cope and seethe, ma'am, cope and seethe! You lost baby-killer, WOOOOOO!"

 

well, this certainly woke up the left.....and the 70+% of americans who don't think roe v wade should be overturned. 

 

 

 

JrRocker wishes men really could get pregnant just so he could have an abortion.

1 hour ago, Dave Moss said:

 

So the initial Roe ruling was leaked?  Well there goes that talking point.