What's new
By:

Roe v. Wade is going down

The Thriller said:
What would be wrong with expanding the court to 15 or 21 justices, creating term limits (maybe 10 years? or 15? I'm not set on any particular number), and drawing names out of a hat (or doing some random 9 or 11 selection from the pool of justices)? What would be wrong with this? I think it solves a lot of problems and it diminishes that incentive that Republicans currently enjoy via legislating through the Judicial Branch.

As far as winning back the courts, that's one hell of an uphill battle. As you stated, Voters may not care. Also, the Federalist Society is so well funded and organized. The left doesn't have anything close to that. Then, there are the built-in advantages of the EC and Senate that Republicans currently enjoy.
Click to expand...
Expanding the courts doesn't solve any long-term problems. It's short-sighted, at best. Term limits just makes things swingier. At any point in court history, having a 6-3 division among left-right lines has not been unusual, and it goes back and forth.

Left-leaning jurists can easily build their own version of a Federalist society if it's needed. but I don't think it is. The natural bend of law interpretation is left-leaning (AFAICT), and the Federalist society was constructed to fight that bend.
 
The Thriller said:
Isn't that the entire point of Obergefell? The rights and privileges of straight marriage must be recognized by all 50 states to those of same-sex marriage? If this is returned to the states then wouldn't red states move to what they were doing prior to the 2015 ruling? I could be mistaken here but we almost had several types of civil unions and marriages going on prior to the 2015 ruling.
Click to expand...
Obergefell required states to allow same-sex marriages to be performed in their state. From what I can tell, that could be overturned without violating full faith and credit. However, that's a different matter from saying a marriage performed in another state is invalid.
 
LogGrad98 said:
I think the debate for most non-rabid extremists begins with the question of whether the baby owns its body or not? When do rights begin for the infant? That is the crux of it. Some believe it doesn't carry any human rights until it is actually born. Others believe it has rights as soon as it is deemed to be "alive", but then that threshold is endlessly debated as well.
Click to expand...
I think the fetus has the rights of full personhood from conception. However, I also think there is no right to use the body of another person for your own benefit.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
Correct and thank you for summing up the decision today. There is no individual freedom to abortion granted by the Constitution and so it is subject to popular vote.
Click to expand...
Women don't have a right to self-defense? That's a pretty radical interpretation of rights. Will you also forbid women to carry guns, since the right to self-defense is a key part of their @nd Amendment rights?
 
One Brow said:
I think the fetus has the rights of full personhood from conception. However, I also think there is no right to use the body of another person for your own benefit.
Click to expand...
Yeah, what's the saying, your rights end at the tip of my nose?
 
Gameface said:
I highly doubt anyone is going to be investigated for having a miscarriage.
Click to expand...

Abortion in El Salvador - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
According to Amnesty International, low-income women who have a miscarriage or a stillbirth are often prosecuted. Often they are reported by medical personnel to the police and subsequently arrested in the hospital. They are wrongly accused of abortion or homicide and sentenced up to 40 years in prison.
Click to expand...

Gameface said:
I think the anti-abortionists are happy enough to make it illegal so that a woman can't easily walk into a clinic and have an abortion.
Click to expand...
There are clinics set up to fool women into not having abortions. There are waiting periods, required ultrasounds, required speeches, etc. that have long been in place. In the places where abortion is about to be banned, no one could easily walk into a clinic and get an abortion.
 
One Brow said:
I think the fetus has the rights of full personhood from conception. However, I also think there is no right to use the body of another person for your own benefit.
Click to expand...
What right does the mother have to force the fetus to be in her womb? Or to end its life? So her right to not be used by the fetus outweighs the fetus' right to not be killed, even while the fetus never made that choice? Yeah this is a circular argument that has no end and no solution. This is really where the discussion completely breaks down for most people and why it is best to leave this kind of decision up to the mother since there is no way to settle these issues.
 
Gameface said:
So gay marriage has been permitted for several years now. What would opponents point to as the negative effects that has had?
Click to expand...
It offends there sensitive sensibilities! They have enough to do disowning their young women for having the seks and getting pregnunt.
 
Gameface said:
So gay marriage has been permitted for several years now. What would opponents point to as the negative effects that has had?
Click to expand...
That conservatives and their Republican justices don’t like it. Alito said this:


View: https://youtu.be/8FnJsXHyQSY


They’re not using any form of philosophy other than voicing their cultural grievances through their now majority rulings.

Elections have consequences…
 
USA is becoming more and more appalling as a country. Sorry for all good folks living there. Come to Canada. We may not be perfect but it would be major improvement over what you have in USA now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top