Pelsoi to codify Roe vs. Wade

[Crepitus]

Ok, by your logic, Congress can outlaw abortion, across the board. See the slippery slope Pelosi is creating?

Go back, read the link instead of just the title,.and try again.

 

[basquebromance]

 

[Crepitus]

.

Conservatives are in no position to whine and complain – indeed, this is what conservatives claim they support: elected representatives addressing the issue reflecting the will of the people, not the courts.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

If it wasn't for double standards they wouldn't have any standards at all.

 

[basquebromance]

if dems once again opt to cite filibuster rules they have the power to change or if they manufacture some other fake reason for inaction ... then they are willfully choosing to take the side of the anti-abortion extremists.

Since the Roe decision in 1973, Democrats in Washington have never bothered to codify the precedent as a federal law, even when they have held both houses of Congress and the presidency. (Though some Democratic states have passed their own abortion protections.)

 

[basquebromance]

There is already legislation introduced in Congress to do this. It is called the Women’s Health Protection Act, it already has 48 sponsors in the Senate, and its core precepts are wildly popular according to survey data.

Actions - S.1975 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021

Actions on S.1975 - 117th Congress (2021-2022): Women’s Health Protection Act of 2021

www.congress.gov

Americans Still Oppose Overturning <em>Roe v. Wade</em>

Nearly six in 10 Americans oppose overturning Roe v. Wade, similar to their stance since 1989. Laws banning abortion after 18 weeks, in the case of fetal disability or once a heartbeat is detected, also spark majority opposition.

news.gallup.com

This bill doesn’t have to sit in a committee. Democrats can pass it — not next week, not next month, but today. Right now. And they could seek help from Republican senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, who have both said they support Roe and who have both humiliated themselves by previously insisting that the Republican Supreme Court nominees they’ve approved would not overturn Roe.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Go back, read the link instead of just the title,.and try again.

I did...lol

 

[hadit]

No, it doesn't.

It means that greater legal minds than you have decided not to hear the challenge to it, thus making it, for now, Constitutional. Can you point out in the Constitution where this law is forbidden?

 

[Crepitus]

It means that greater legal minds than you have decided not to hear the challenge to it, thus making it, for now, Constitutional. Can you point out in the Constitution where this law is forbidden?

A. It's a defacto ban on abortion, which is a garanteed right under Roe V Wade. Precedent means something.
B. It's and end-run around Our whole system of adjudication, giving the power of enforcement to people with no standing. Imagine if that starts to apply to other things? A lawyer friend and I are writing a few experimental suits against prominent Republicans just to see what happens.

 

[hadit]

A. It's a defacto ban on abortion, which is a garanteed right under Roe V Wade. Precedent means something.
B. It's and end-run around Our whole system of adjudication, giving the power of enforcement to people with no standing. Imagine if that starts to apply to other things? A lawyer friend and I are writing a few experimental suits against prominent Republicans just to see what happens.

So, IOW, you might not like it, and it might be an infringement on something you hold dear, and you may think it's not Constitutional, but there's nothing in the Constitution to forbid a state from taking this step or the Court would have heard the challenge. Obviously the Court didn't think it rose to the level that needed to be heard, so it stands. Since the Court has final say on what is Constitutional and what is not, the law for now is Constitutional and wailing from anonymous internet keyboard jockeys doesn't impact it all.

 

[hadit]

Nonsense, we have people in power that make laws that impact other people all the time. Claiming men shouldn't have anything to say about abortion is no more authoritative than women writing laws about how insurance companies should handle testicular cancer. IOW, not at all.

 

[Crepitus]

So, IOW, you might not like it, and it might be an infringement on something you hold dear, and you may think it's not Constitutional, but there's nothing in the Constitution to forbid a state from taking this step or the Court would have heard the challenge. Obviously the Court didn't think it rose to the level that needed to be heard, so it stands. Since the Court has final say on what is Constitutional and what is not, the law for now is Constitutional and wailing from anonymous internet keyboard jockeys doesn't impact it all.

You have no idea how any of this works do you? This Wasn't a legal challenge, it was a request for an emergency injunction while legal challenges proceed.

I wish at least a few of you conservative kids had passed your highschool civics class. It would be easier to argue with you if you understood half of what you're trying to talk about.

 

[MadChemist]

Yer buddy Dershowitless Says it is.

Dershowitz Says SCOTUS Will Strike Down 'Unconstitutional' TX Abortion Law

Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the law was deliberately written in a way to prevent people from suing the state to block its enforcement.

www.newsweek.com

He has questions about the enforcement mechanism.

His appeal to Star Decisis is worthless. When SCOTUS jumped in the fray in 1973, they essentially overturned 200 years of history.

No application here.

 

[MadChemist]

You have no idea how any of this works do you? This Wasn't a legal challenge, it was a request for an emergency injunction while legal challenges proceed.

I wish at least a few of you conservative kids had passed your highschool civics class. It would be easier to argue with you if you understood half of what you're trying to talk about.

Funny.

You lecturing others about passing high school when you've not even started yet.

 

[MadChemist]

Yup. They really pooed the scrooch popularity wise.

Not a chance.

 

[MadChemist]

A. It's a defacto ban on abortion, which is a garanteed right under Roe V Wade. Precedent means something.
B. It's and end-run around Our whole system of adjudication, giving the power of enforcement to people with no standing. Imagine if that starts to apply to other things? A lawyer friend and I are writing a few experimental suits against prominent Republicans just to see what happens.

There is no such thing as a guaranteed right.

What happened to the 200 years of precedent the SCOTUS threw aside to jump into the fray. There were already states where it was legal when Roe was pulled out of the lefts ass ?

Part B is a huge issue. I have no idea why Texas would do something that stupid.

 

[MadChemist]

‘Earlier Thursday, President Biden called the law "an unprecedented assault on a woman’s constitutional rights," and vowed to launch a "whole-of-government" effort to protect access to safe and legal abortion in the state.’

President Biden is correct.

Biden hasn't been correct in 50 years.

And now he gets something right ?

You are too stupid.

 

[MadChemist]

Conservatives are in no position to whine and complain – indeed, this is what conservatives claim they support: elected representatives addressing the issue reflecting the will of the people, not the courts.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Looks like that is what the STATE of Texas did.

Seems to me you have an issue with people when they don't do what you want.

Of course, you've always been a liar.

 

[MadChemist]

It was a winner for Republicans, until they screwed up and actually banned abortion.

For nearly 50 years conservatives have used ‘abortion’ as a wedge issue, a partisan weapon against opponents and as red meat to the base to keep them angry and going to the polls.

Now, with the Supreme Court set to overturn Roe, conservatives have lost that partisan weapon and given the advantage to Democrats.

We'll see you in 2022.

Already, Biden is greasing the skids for another GOP wipeout of the left.

 

[Crepitus]

There is no such thing as a guaranteed right.

Don't tell the second amendment guys that.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Don't tell the second amendment guys that.

Trust me, with over 20,000 gun laws on the books, we're well aware. We don't need to be "told" anything.