September 26, 20242 yr 16 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It prohibits sex discrimination. How about them apples. Ok counselor, why don't you reach out to the Justices who wrote the Roe v Wade opinion because even they didn't use the "sex discrimination" clause of the 14th amendment to justify their ruling.
September 26, 20242 yr 19 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It prohibits sex discrimination. How about them apples. This SCOTUS has already ruled that the 14th Amendment is to be taken more or less with a grain of salt.
September 26, 20242 yr Just now, Procus said: Ok counselor, why don't you reach out to the Justices who wrote the Roe v Wade opinion because even they didn't use the "sex discrimination" clause of the 14th amendment to justify their ruling. restricting the right to terminate pregnancies," Justice blackmun wrote, ··the State conscripts women's bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care."¹⁵ And rather than "compensate women for their services," Blackmun wrote, the government "assumes that they owe this duty as a matter of course."¹⁶ Blackmun observed that "[t]his assumption-that women can simply be forced to accept the 'natural' status and incidents of motherhood appears to rest upon a conception of women's role that has triggered the pro tection of the Equal Protection Clause."¹⁷ chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5554&context=faculty_scholarship
September 26, 20242 yr Jeez it's only September. The levels of MAGA butt hurt over the next few months are going to be off the charts. If we could harness it, it could power the country for decades.
September 26, 20242 yr 54 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: Uhm, why isn't more said about the fact that EVERY time I see an excerpt of a Trump rally they are hawking some bogus money scheme tied to him on the split screen?
September 26, 20242 yr 29 minutes ago, Kz! said: They are literally laughing at Trump's obsession over it, just like we all are at home.
September 26, 20242 yr 58 minutes ago, DaEagles4Life said: there are almost certainly posters here who think this sounds like a good idea.
September 26, 20242 yr 44 minutes ago, Alphagrand said: This SCOTUS has already ruled that the 14th Amendment is to be taken more or less with a grain of salt. no it hasn't
September 26, 20242 yr 46 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: restricting the right to terminate pregnancies," Justice blackmun wrote, ··the State conscripts women's bodies into its service, forcing women to continue their pregnancies, suffer the pains of childbirth, and in most instances, provide years of maternal care."¹⁵ And rather than "compensate women for their services," Blackmun wrote, the government "assumes that they owe this duty as a matter of course."¹⁶ Blackmun observed that "[t]his assumption-that women can simply be forced to accept the 'natural' status and incidents of motherhood appears to rest upon a conception of women's role that has triggered the pro tection of the Equal Protection Clause."¹⁷ chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarship.law.duke.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5554&context=faculty_scholarship The Equal Protection Clause is not the "sex discrimination" clause. There is no such clause. Roe was decided based upon an invented "right of privacy" in the 14th amendment. It has been panned, even among liberals, as being poorly reasoned. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among those who thought who was poorly reasoned.
September 26, 20242 yr 9 minutes ago, Procus said: The Equal Protection Clause is not the "sex discrimination" clause. There is no such clause. Roe was decided based upon an invented "right of privacy" in the 14th amendment. It has been panned, even among liberals, as being poorly reasoned. Ruth Bader Ginsburg was among those who thought who was poorly reasoned. Duh, It should have been decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Sex is a protected class. It's a far better argument.
September 26, 20242 yr 2 minutes ago, jsdarkstar said: Duh, It should have been decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. Sex is a protected class. It's a far better argument. That's what Ginsburg said. Still dubious interpretation - but better than an implied (but non-existent) right of privacy in the 14h amendment.
September 26, 20242 yr 11 minutes ago, Procus said: It has been panned, even among liberals, as being poorly reasoned. Trump talking point. Saying it over and over again doesn't make it true. Americans are guaranteed a fundamental right to privacy in the constitution. I know you fascists want big daddy government to crawl up our bowels and control every aspect of our lives, but it isn't what the country was founded on. Please move to Russia or Iran where you can live under the kind of totalitarian regime you desperately want.
September 26, 20242 yr 42 minutes ago, dawkins4prez said: They are literally laughing at Trump's obsession over it, just like we all are at home. Sure, if that's what you want to call it when a very serious journalist asks the hard-hitting questions.
September 26, 20242 yr Well, never mind that you could make a 9th Amendment argument about abortion since it was common when the bill of rights came out. One of my pet peeves is how the 9th just gets ignored.
September 26, 20242 yr 1 hour ago, Bill said: Yeah, but a chamber of 435 people representing 330,000,000 people is a little out of whack to me. Plus with so few you get a higher percentage of bozos. The senate at 100 makes sense, because they are not representing 330,000,000 people, but rather 50 states. I ran the math the other day when I made the post, doing a few scenarios. Let's just say then that you capped the ratio at 1:250k, that gives the house 1320 members. A lot more than there are now, but certainly not unmanageable. Also, with 435 reps, Harris needs to get 47% of the EVs in tossup states to be elected, but with 1320, she would need 43%. (42% with 1:100k, 41% with 1:30k, but the house would have 11k members lol). WY would go from 3 to 5 EVs, PA would go from 19 to 54 EVs, and CA would go from 54 to 160 EVs. Plus, with more reps, each district becomes less politically valuable, so you would probably see less gerrymandering. Did you know? The founding fathers in the 1st US Congress came up with a solution. LINK Quote After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons. If the proportion continued to be adjusted at every 100 representatives... With a population of around 331.5 million according to the 2020 census, we could have 1,745 Representatives. One for every 190,000 people. The Congressional Apportionment Amendment was the first article submitted to the states in the original Bill of Rights, before freedom of speech.... It has not been ratified.
September 26, 20242 yr Just now, Kz! said: Sure, if that's what you want to call it when a very serious journalist asks the hard-hitting questions. You are correct, it is demeaning to journalism and the presidential race that your Bozo spends so much energy on Ohio cat souffle and Kamala's french fries.
Create an account or sign in to comment