2 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Let the troll eat at White Castle and stop feeding it

The biggest **** on the board weighs in, and again, no one cares. 

1 hour ago, Phillyterp85 said:

That is an individual right IMO.  If I am the sole owner of a business, minimum wage laws mandate the minimum that I must pay someone.  So that is affecting my rights.  I also think it's an interesting comparison given that like this ruling, the West Coast Hotel v Parrish ruling was a direct overturning of a previous ruling. 

 

So, this ruling came at the end of a period known as the Lochner Era, in which the Court made many decisions about the right to contract. It's also the period where child labor laws were ruled unconstitutional. This is probably the last time that private behavior was invalidated by SCOTUS. So, then this begs the question of how people feel about basic workplace safety and the laws that guarantee it. This pretty neatly ties into medical practices, like abortion, that are commonly necessary to ensure the health and wellbeing of the mother.

1 hour ago, vikas83 said:

I mean, yes it does. It motivates the base, and puts public pressure on the Court to get these 5 to move. People are going to be harassing them at their homes, work, everywhere. 

I don't know who leaked it. The relationship between one of Sotomayor's clerks and the reporter needs to be investigated. Whoever did leak it needs to be fired, and if it is proven that a justice knew it was being leaked, then impeachment proceedings should begin.

Another possibility, maybe unlikely but not unreasonable, is that given this draft is 2-3 mos old one of the justices flipped (maybe Gorsuch) with the final ruling retaining Roe v. Wade. 

By leaking this early draft with the names attached it makes it clear which justice flipped, which would be pretty egregious.

I do generally agree that the leak of this is a bigger story than the actual ruling. The ruling wouldn't be shocking given this was the goal of the religious right for 50 years, and if they do indeed overturn the precedent then they've given the left a HUGE talking point for November and thereafter. 

5 minutes ago, Gannan said:

The "lefties won't be able to kill babies anymore" argument is hyperbolic and eye-rollingly lame at this point. This doesn't change much of anything. Poor people in red states will have a tougher time doing it...that's about it. 

4 hours ago, EaglesRocker97 said:

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

I'll bite - why don't you elaborate.

4 hours ago, Phillyterp85 said:

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.  

Again, why don't you elaborate

Just now, Procus said:

I'll bite - why don't you elaborate.

 

The easiest example to give you is taxes: You get a tax break for being married by being allowed to combine your incomes and file jointly.

4 hours ago, Dave Moss said:

Where did you get your law degree from?

 

Temple and NYU

Just now, VanHammersly said:

Totally. Its one of the most complex political issues, if not the most politically complex issues of my lifetime. Boiling it down to "killing babies is wrong so it should be outlawed" or "you don't have a constitutional right to an abortion" (aka the TEW  argument) is an oversimplification to the point of embarrassment. 

While I find the practice of abortion abhorrent, I'm looking at the larger political causes and implications. 

1. Republicans can spare me the moral indignation. They support murder all the time. Some of the hardest "pro-life" politicians are the same ones praising Putin who will go down as one of history's greatest monsters. The states where victims of rape are forced to carry their rapists child to term are going way too far. This is a case of "more conservative than thou" that is killing our country. (Yes, I'm aware that liberals do it too, but they lose elections most of the time)

2. Republicans achieved this by nefarious means. They stole at least one, if not 2 seats on the court. 

3. Ultimately this is good for democrats as I mentioned. Which means it's good for anyone who thinks we should still have free and fair elections. The attitude of "Elections have one of 2 outcomes: either I win or it's rigged" is destroying our country and the perpetrators of it need to be stopped if the republic is to survive. 

For me item #3 affects me far more than some woman in Texas or Alabama aborting her pregnancy. Sorry, not sorry. 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

 

The easiest example to give you is taxes: You get a tax break for being married by being allowed to combine your incomes and file jointly.

That's a bad example.  The marriage tax is a penalty for being married - not a benefit.

1 minute ago, Gannan said:

Totally. Its one of the most complex political issues, if not the most politically complex issues of my lifetime. Boiling it down to "killing babies is wrong so it should be outlawed" or "you don't have a constitutional right to an abortion" (aka the TEW  argument) is an oversimplification to the point of embarrassment. 

While I find the practice of abortion abhorrent,

Why do you find it abhorrent?

For 5 Decades women have relied on the Court's repeatedly reaffirmed Constitution affords to abortion, along with the underlying principles of liberty, dignity, equality, and bodily integrity the right reflects.  Not anymore. Women's Liberties are dead.

The Supreme Court recognized that the right to abortion is a fundamental liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. Since Roe the Court has repeatedly reaffirmed the Constitution’s protection for this essential liberty, which guarantees each individual the right to make personal decisions about family and childbearing.

Roe was built on earlier cases in which the Court held that the constitutional right to privacy protected an individual’s rights to reproductive autonomy. In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Court struck down a ban on the use or sale of contraceptives to married couples because it violated the constitutional right to privacy. In another case, Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972), the Court extended this fundamental right to contraception to unmarried people. Eisenstadt elaborated on the right to privacy as "the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child.” Id at 488. Protecting access to abortion effectuates vital constitutional values, including dignity, autonomy, equality, and bodily integrity. In its rulings on abortion, the Court recognized that “[t]he ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives,” Casey, 505 U.S. at 856. It has further acknowledged that “[a]t the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.”

1 minute ago, Procus said:

That's a bad example.  The marriage tax is a penalty for being married - not a benefit.

Huh?

why do they all look like this?

4 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

Huh?

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp

That's a case by case basis and the large amount of people fall under the "marriage bonus" not "marriage penalty"

Soon Contraception will be made illegal. Ah the good old days. 

Beoctch get in the kitchen and cook me some dinner. While you're at it, bring me a beer, chop, chop, then leave me alone, while I sit in the couch with a hand down my pants watching the game. 

Those were the days.

6 minutes ago, Gannan said:

Totally. Its one of the most complex political issues, if not the most politically complex issues of my lifetime. Boiling it down to "killing babies is wrong so it should be outlawed" or "you don't have a constitutional right to an abortion" (aka the TEW  argument) is an oversimplification to the point of embarrassment. 

While I find the practice of abortion abhorrent, I'm looking at the larger political causes and implications. 

1. Republicans can spare me the moral indignation. They support murder all the time. Some of the hardest "pro-life" politicians are the same ones praising Putin who will go down as one of history's greatest monsters. The states where victims of rape are forced to carry their rapists child to term are going way too far. This is a case of "more conservative than thou" that is killing our country. (Yes, I'm aware that liberals do it too, but they lose elections most of the time)

2. Republicans achieved this by nefarious means. They stole at least one, if not 2 seats on the court. 

3. Ultimately this is good for democrats as I mentioned. Which means it's good for anyone who thinks we should still have free and fair elections. The attitude of "Elections have one of 2 outcomes: either I win or it's rigged" is destroying our country and the perpetrators of it need to be stopped if the republic is to survive. 

For me item #3 affects me far more than some woman in Texas or Alabama aborting her pregnancy. Sorry, not sorry. 

The real issue, in my eyes, is that "lefties won't be able to kill babies anymore" isn't even accurate hyperbole.  Anyone will still be able to have an abortion.  They just won't be able to do it safely..

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/lessons-from-before-abortion-was-legal/

Quote

In the 1950s and 1960s between 200,000 and 1.2 million women underwent illegal abortions each year in the U.S., many in unsafe conditions. According to one estimate, extrapolating data from North Carolina to the nation as a whole, 699,000 illegal abortions occurred in the U.S. during 1955, and 829,000 illegal procedures were performed in 1967.

 

2 minutes ago, Paul852 said:

That's a case by case basis and the large amount of people fall under the "marriage bonus" not "marriage penalty"

Alright, you seem to know more than every tax expert in the U.S., so I'll defer to you.

37 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Let the troll eat at White Castle and stop feeding it

Just make sure that when you're eating at White Castle, you do it with a level of nuance, amirite? 

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

Alright, you seem to know more than every tax expert in the U.S., so I'll defer to you.

WTF are you talking about? It says so right in the damn link you posted:

 

 

Quote

 

Marriage Penalty vs. the Marriage Bonus

Not every married couple has to pay a penalty. According to the Tax Foundation, spouses who file jointly can enjoy a 20% bonus on their combined marital income if they have children or a 7% bonus if they are childless. This bonus commonly kicks in when one partner’s income is substantially higher.1

 

As a married couple filing jointly, the lower-earning spouse’s income doesn’t push the couple into a higher tax bracket. Rather, the couple benefits from the wider tax bracket applying to married couples. They may pay taxes at a lower rate as a result. Furthermore, the lower-earning spouse may receive contributions to a spousal IRA, courtesy of the higher-earning spouse.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Procus said:

That's a bad example.  The marriage tax is a penalty for being married - not a benefit.

What? I'm talking about a federal tax return. Filing jointly usually nets you bigger return.

If you want another example, look at medical decisions and how a spouse has certain rights to determine their SO's course of treatment when they're incapacitated.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

Alright, you seem to know more than every tax expert in the U.S., so I'll defer to you.

 Or...he can actually read the link you posted. A "Marriage Penalty" applies to a small group -- married couples with 2 high earners. Either way, the fact that taxes are different for married people is what causes the equal protection violaiton.

 

Quote

 

Marriage Penalty vs. the Marriage Bonus

Not every married couple has to pay a penalty. According to the Tax Foundation, spouses who file jointly can enjoy a 20% bonus on their combined marital income if they have children or a 7% bonus if they are childless. This bonus commonly kicks in when one partner’s income is substantially higher.1

 

As a married couple filing jointly, the lower-earning spouse’s income doesn’t push the couple into a higher tax bracket. Rather, the couple benefits from the wider tax bracket applying to married couples. They may pay taxes at a lower rate as a result. Furthermore, the lower-earning spouse may receive contributions to a spousal IRA, courtesy of the higher-earning spouse.

 

 

 

5 minutes ago, mikemack8 said:

Just make sure that when you're eating at White Castle, you do it with a level of nuance, amirite? 

Indeed

15 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said:

Soon Contraception will be made illegal. Ah the good old days. 

Beoctch get in the kitchen and cook me some dinner. While you're at it, bring me a beer, chop, chop, then leave me alone, while I sit in the couch with a hand down my pants watching the game. 

Those were the days.