Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

[Rezi]

41 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You don't have an individual right to murder.

Yet you have called yourself pro-death penalty in the past (although you expressed being conflicted on that). Why do you, a self-described libertarian, think that the government has the right to murder?

Edited June 25, 2022 by Rezi

[vcczar]

Looks like Elizabeth Warren has the same idea I’ve had for a few years. That is, place Abortion centers on federal land in red states. 

[pilight]

2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

That is just not based in reality.

There is a reason that a judge draw for a panel at the circuit court level matters in the outcome of a case. Because there are some judges who think one way and there are others who think a completely opposite way. Even if precedent from the circuit court would indicate a certain outcome, it is far from a guarantee because of the varying ways judges go about their decisions. Unless SCOTUS speaks on an issue (like they do on habius cases for instance), it makes things unpredictable at the circuit court level.

I think you're wrong.  You don't want to entertain any different ideas because your party has control of the court.

[ShortKing]

52 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Looks like Elizabeth Warren has the same idea I’ve had for a few years. That is, place Abortion centers on federal land in red states. 

Probably runs afoul of the Hyde Amendment I'd imagine. 

[ShortKing]

3 hours ago, SilentLiberty said:

You know I'm just curious, for the small government folks here, how is this a good thing? I mean abortion being legal doesn't effect anyone but the people getting the abortion, that's their own choice, you know power to the individual. Making it up to the states, where it's entirely possible it becomes illegal, Thomas wants to make gay marriage illegal as well as things like plan B, how is that good for small government or individual rights? To me its the exact opposite.

This has been answered elsewhere, but not only is giving this power back to the voters in the form of letting state governments accountable to their constituents decide, rather than 9 unelected justices, but in Kavanaugh's concurrence, he goes out of his way to mention that he does think a federal ban on abortion would be unconstitutional. A number of pro life advocates who do sincerely see abortion as ending a human life are still willing to let that be a question for voters to decide on a state level rather than legislate a uniform federal standard, like Roe attempted to do which only spawned a decades long movement to undo. 

[Rezi]

I love the new utopia in parts of this country. Where a 16 year old girl who gets raped will end up being forced to carry the child of their rapist to term for 9 months of arduous, dangerous pregnancy in which she will constantly be reminded of the man who raped her, constantly have to deal with the trauma of having been raped, undergoing an immense mental process that would leave many of us emotionally and mentally broken. All while her friends and family around her also have to deal with the consequences of this. Her poor parents just had an unfathomable amount of stress put on them, as now they have to deal with everything that their daughter is dealing with, and any siblings of this poor girl are going to end up neglected because of the attention placed on her. This all adds on to the fact that the odds of this pregnant teenager finding success in life just greatly diminished. Her odds of graduating high school, down. Her odds of making it to college, down. Her odds of finding a stable career which offers her anything more than a lower-middle class life, down. 

 

Then, after this 9 month process, said teenager will be forced to undergo a dangerous process in which she faces nonzero odds of death. Only to then be confronted with a choice: Either she can choose to send the child to foster care, in which they will be likely to grow up dealing with abuse, and face far greater odds of themselves becoming criminals and abusers. Or she can choose to raise the child of her rapist herself, never being able to look at that kid without seeing the man who raped her. The mother may never be able to financially recover and become stable, and the child will have to live without knowing their biological father. Eventually, said child will find out that their biological father was a rapist and that they were unwanted, which will have profound mental effects on them.

 

 

In one fell swoop, the lives of a 16 year old and her close family have been seriously harmed for decades. There's already been states which no longer allow abortion in any circumstances, including rape or the life of the mother. And in the coming month there will be more. There is room to compromise on this issue, but any politician, any person who supports a complete and total ban with no exceptions is actively involved in making this country a worse, more dangerous place to live for everybody. And what? Putting people through hell because of morally grandstanding on "THE SANCTITY OF LIFE" is nothing but harm for all of us. The Supreme Court has enabled this, and vile people are putting it into action.

[Hestia]

For those who are saying that Obergefell, that Griswold, that all of these other cases are completely safe, let me share my thinking on that as well, because I think there are things that some aren't quite getting on that front. Thomas' concurrence was a shot across the bow at the rights that many people in this country have gained over the last twenty years or so. It was a disheartening attack on groups of people that already have to deal with too much prejudice. It is sickening that such a prejudiced person could sit on the Supreme Court. 

It all boils down to: why should we trust you? Precedent was supposed to be supreme, stare decisis the backbone of our judicial system. Now, after Roe and Casey are overturned in one fell swoop by a segment of five justices who threw aside even Roberts' compromise, that doesn't seem to be the case anymore - at least for those five justices. If they feel free to throw aside precedent for Roe, why should we feel that Obergefell is safe? I get the differences. The 14th amendment offers more protection to Obergefell than what Roe and Casey were afforded. But if these five justices feel free to throw aside precedent now, who knows what future courts and indeed, even this court, would feel free to do? The ground has shaken. Even beyond Obergefell, the right to contraception feels extremely tenuous right now. 

What about all these Republicans who want to force these women to have babies they don't want, will they increase funding for foster care? Hell no, because that's not what they do. There are over 400,000 children in the foster care system right now. It's overloaded. Republicans aren't going to increase funding to it. So who's going to be the one picking up the pieces of the mess? Democrats, as always.

Are you going to force a woman to carry a stillborn child to term and force her to live through that horrific cycle? A lot of states will have no exceptions for rape, incest or for the life of the mother. People are going to die. The uncomfortable truth is that abortion isn't banned. Safe abortion is banned. The clothes hangers will be coming back out, that I can promise you. Both the child and the mother will die. It doesn't seem like that's being acknowledged very much in discourse right now. It's uncomfortable to talk about, sure. But it's going to happen. 

We're setting the clocks back in many more respects than one, but does anyone seem to realize what kind of division this is going to create? States bordering each other are going to have different rights than one another. The federal government can try to use the commerce clause to force states to back down from creating laws that would punish a woman traveling to another state to have an abortion, but that isn't guaranteed to work. States could be fighting one another to extradite their own citizens for aiding or having an abortion in another state. They could be sending extradition requests across state boundaries that get refused. If the Supreme Court rules that the DOJ can't intervene in those cases, it will get very nasty very fast. Or even if the Presidency changes. Our democracy is already fraying. Now we're throwing a fundamental right to half the states and the other half won't have them? The longer it goes on, the bigger the gulf between states will be. Pro-choice states will continue to prosper and grow. Pro-life states will buckle under the pressure of foster care systems and the amount of children that the state can't support due to a combined pressure of additional children and less mothers. 

Quote

States that restricted abortion based on gestational limits saw a steep rise in the maternal mortality rate by 38%, according to a 2020 study in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine. A 20% reduction in Planned Parenthood clinics in a state between 2007-2015 resulted, on average, in an increase in the state's maternal mortality rates by 8%.
 

 

[jvikings1]

17 hours ago, Rezi said:

Yet you have called yourself pro-death penalty in the past (although you expressed being conflicted on that). Why do you, a self-described libertarian, think that the government has the right to murder?

In the case of the death penalty, due process is present. Philosophically, if one commits an offense so egregious, then they've forfeited their right to life as long as die process is followed (unanimous jury verdict with no reasonable doubt followed by unanimous jury sentencing for the death penalty).

I have no philosophical issue with the death penalty. I do have an issue with giving government power over life and death (so I wouldn't say it has a "right to murder").

[jvikings1]

15 hours ago, pilight said:

I think you're wrong.  You don't want to entertain any different ideas because your party has control of the court.

As someone who is gaining experience within the legal field, I can tell you that your idea would not be well received. Like I said, there is a reason lawyers want specific judges on circuit court panels (because they will rule differently than other panels even on the same circuit). Introduce that at the Supreme Court level and there is no level of stability.

[Cal]

39 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

As someone who is gaining experience within the legal field, I can tell you that your idea would not be well received. Like I said, there is a reason lawyers want specific judges on circuit court panels (because they will rule differently than other panels even on the same circuit). Introduce that at the Supreme Court level and there is no level of stability.

While I sharply disagree with a few of your other takes (which I might respond to later, I’m currently writing this on my phone at work) you’re absolutely right here. 

The Supreme Court reigns, well, “supreme” when it comes to consistency and stability in its decisions compared to that of lower appellate courts or district courts. The reason why is simple: lower courts are split based on geography. There’s something called a circuit court split that occurs when two different circuit courts, directly under the Supreme Court too, reach different answers for the same question. This is an incredibly common phenomenon, and often the more rotating seats of the lower courts can find a circuit court reversing its own decision in just a matter of years, or often creating splits that don’t respect decisions of other courts, sometimes even higher courts (District courts have done this before). 

A rotating panel of judges introduces a constantly changing group of talented judges who quite frankly will differ on important issues often. For example: even justice Gorsuch is known for his Native American friendly decisions, which isn’t shared necessarily by a fellow conservative. If he were replaced, even by someone who SHOULD be ideologically similar, many cases could turn out far different. 

I apologize for the brevity — mobile.

[Cal]

39 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

As someone who is gaining experience within the legal field, I can tell you that your idea would not be well received. Like I said, there is a reason lawyers want specific judges on circuit court panels (because they will rule differently than other panels even on the same circuit). Introduce that at the Supreme Court level and there is no level of stability.

While I sharply disagree with a few of your other takes (which I might respond to later, I’m currently writing this on my phone at work) you’re absolutely right here. 

The Supreme Court reigns, well, “supreme” when it comes to consistency and stability in its decisions compared to that of lower appellate courts or district courts. The reason why is simple: lower courts are split based on geography. There’s something called a circuit court split that occurs when two different circuit courts, directly under the Supreme Court too, reach different answers for the same question. This is an incredibly common phenomenon, and often the more rotating seats of the lower courts can find a circuit court reversing its own decision in just a matter of years, or often creating splits that don’t respect decisions of other courts, sometimes even higher courts (District courts have done this before). 

A rotating panel of judges introduces a constantly changing group of talented judges who quite frankly will differ on important issues often. For example: even justice Gorsuch is known for his Native American friendly decisions, which isn’t shared necessarily by a fellow conservative. If he were replaced, even by someone who SHOULD be ideologically similar, many cases could turn out far different. 

I apologize for the brevity — mobile.

[Cal]

39 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

As someone who is gaining experience within the legal field, I can tell you that your idea would not be well received. Like I said, there is a reason lawyers want specific judges on circuit court panels (because they will rule differently than other panels even on the same circuit). Introduce that at the Supreme Court level and there is no level of stability.

While I sharply disagree with a few of your other takes (which I might respond to later, I’m currently writing this on my phone at work) you’re absolutely right here. 

The Supreme Court reigns, well, “supreme” when it comes to consistency and stability in its decisions compared to that of lower appellate courts or district courts. The reason why is simple: lower courts are split based on geography. There’s something called a circuit court split that occurs when two different circuit courts, directly under the Supreme Court too, reach different answers for the same question. This is an incredibly common phenomenon, and often the more rotating seats of the lower courts can find a circuit court reversing its own decision in just a matter of years, or often creating splits that don’t respect decisions of other courts, sometimes even higher courts (District courts have done this before). 

A rotating panel of judges introduces a constantly changing group of talented judges who quite frankly will differ on important issues often. For example: even justice Gorsuch is known for his Native American friendly decisions, which isn’t shared necessarily by a fellow conservative. If he were replaced, even by someone who SHOULD be ideologically similar, many cases could turn out far different. 

I apologize for the brevity — mobile.

[Cal]

1 hour ago, jvikings1 said:

As someone who is gaining experience within the legal field, I can tell you that your idea would not be well received. Like I said, there is a reason lawyers want specific judges on circuit court panels (because they will rule differently than other panels even on the same circuit). Introduce that at the Supreme Court level and there is no level of stability.

You’re absolutely right, but I’m at work currently and can’t expound upon it. When I get off, I’ll write something up (I had before and it didn’t post). I do disagree with most all of your other takes in this thread, though.

[pilight]

In two years the GOP will sweep the White House and both houses of Congress.  Then they will pass a national abortion ban.

[jvikings1]

42 minutes ago, Patine said:

Ideologically, and ideally, perhaps. But law-enforcement, the judiciary, the prosecution, and the executioner - as humans, FLAWED humans and humans beholden to their own moral conduct - are still participating in murder. And it is still murder by definition of a human being killed by one or more other humans, by some mechanism, which is THE definition of murder, properly with no qualifiers. The State is not doing it in any sort of automation by a process above reproach and beyond error. And, even so, State crimes are HIGHLY under-addressed and under-recognized in the United States. Which brings this other issue to mind.

Can you tackle these ones?

I have never said that I was completely behind the boys in blue lol. In fact, I am a proponent of police reform (especially when it comes to search and seizure). Some police shootings are justified (see Michael Brown). Others are not (George Floyd -> not a shooting but unjustified death at the hands of an officer).

I have also stood against drone attacks without justification. That’s an area those associated with Senator Paul have made an issue. In fact, it’s that issue that got him national attention when he launched a filibuster because of it.

 

And I won’t even bother giving a response to your ridiculous last one.

[Cal]

36 minutes ago, Cal said:

You’re absolutely right, but I’m at work currently and can’t expound upon it. When I get off, I’ll write something up (I had before and it didn’t post). I do disagree with most all of your other takes in this thread, though.

I see now it definitely didn’t not post…

[ShortKing]

1 hour ago, pilight said:

In two years the GOP will sweep the White House and both houses of Congress.  Then they will pass a national abortion ban.

Worth noting that not only would it be difficult to see the GOP having enough votes for a national abortion ban when they've never been able to succeed in defunding Planned Parenthood under their last trifecta, but also Roberts voted against overturning a right to an abortion and Kavanaugh said in his concurrence that a federal ban would be unconstitutional. Unless KBJ turns out to be to the right of both Roberts and Kavanaugh on this issue, I struggle to see where they get 5 Justices to uphold a federal ban.

[jvikings1]

1 hour ago, ShortKing said:

Worth noting that not only would it be difficult to see the GOP having enough votes for a national abortion ban when they've never been able to succeed in defunding Planned Parenthood under their last trifecta, but also Roberts voted against overturning a right to an abortion and Kavanaugh said in his concurrence that a federal ban would be unconstitutional. Unless KBJ turns out to be to the right of both Roberts and Kavanaugh on this issue, I struggle to see where they get 5 Justices to uphold a federal ban.

It’s hard to argue for a nationwide law either way under the ruling (which is correct constitutionally). The federal government has very little criminal power to do such a thing outside of using interstate commerce to govern the crossing of state lines for that purpose.

[jvikings1]

30 minutes ago, Patine said:

And, even going beyond Government legality, on a moral and even faith-based level, you seem to come from, by your own statement on these affairs, a denomination of Christianity which believes that certain kinds of killing (like abortion and others) are unforgiveable, others are forgivable, and certain are even to the degree of, "righteous,", just like certain sinful lifestyles (homosexuality, for instance) are unforgiveable, while others (assumably, straight fornication and adultery) are forgivable. And, again, from this view of theology your church seems to hold to, judging, again, on your posts on the issue, believes those who have committed these arbitrarily committed unforgivable sins must never be allowed in the church community again (in complete contravention of the Ministry of Christ, where all who seek repentance must be welcome), and must even be specifically avoided in terms of doing business with, or otherwise dealing with.

Here's the kicker on that level. ALL killing, ALL stealing and other property crimes, ALL crimes involving sex and intimacy, and all other such crimes, are SINS AGAINST MAN, and thus of equal weight and forgivable. Yes, that means an abortion doctor, a serial killer, and a, "battlefield butcher," are equal to someone who kills to defend themselves and their home. A flamboyant, performative celebrity who will literally sleep with anything with two legs and a heartbeat and boast about it is equal to someone who has a quiet affair to escape an unloving marriage.

Who says those sins are unforgivable? You are just making stuff up at this point.

 

I agree that most of those sins are equal. Though killing in self defense is not a sin.

[jvikings1]

17 minutes ago, Patine said:

"THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

There are no qualifiers, exceptions, or loopholes in that verse in Exodus, before it moves on to the next Commandment.

And, the other rule, further down, doesn't say, "in self defense," in general, but defending one's own home (not even the home of a family member, or a business you owned, or even yourself if you're away from home, interestingly enough.

“Thou shall not murder” is a more accurate translation based on the original Hebrew. And the Hebrew word that was used referred to unlawful/unjust killing. Proper self defense does not fall under it.

[Timur]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

"THOU SHALT NOT KILL."

Actually...

"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." - Genesis 9:6

Edited June 26, 2022 by Timur

[DakotaHale]

🍿

[jvikings1]

21 minutes ago, Patine said:

@jvikings1 Well, since you can't posit a view of whom, within Christiandom, is empowered, authorized, of invested to judge which killings are, "lawful," or, "righteous," at least prior to Judgement Day and the Perfect Judgement of the Father, and which aren't, and there seems to be stated that Christ and the Apostles appointed no such office, or created a methodology for it's selection, wouldn't you agree it would be safest, for one's Salvation, to view EVERY killing as a sin, and show penetance and seek forgiveness, sincerely, and CERTAINLY NOT show pride or a sense of moral rectitude in such acts?

If someone breaks into a family's house in the middle of the night and gets shot by the dad protecting his family, no I am not going to say that should be viewed as a sin. For the most part, self-defense is pretty straight forward. And if it is on the line, I will leave it up to the person who did it to decide if forgiveness is something they need to seek.

With that being said, taking a human life should not be done lightly and there certainly should not be pride in doing so.

[Timur]

7 hours ago, Patine said:

So, do you, or the one who liked your post, have an answer to the theological issue I pointed out below it of a lack of actual, empowered, by Scripture or Apostolic Investment, jurisprudence to adjudicate whether or not a killing is supposedly, "lawful," or, "unlawful," in Christiandom?

Romans 13:4 - For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

[vcczar]

In one week the Supreme Court has made me feel worse about the future of American than the entire 4 years of Trump's presidency had.