Acceptable registrations in the queue through March 16 at 11:00a ET have now been activated. Enjoy! -M.W.

Terms of Use have been amended effective October 6, 2019. Make sure you are aware of the new rules! Please visit this thread for details: https://www.mibuzzboard.com/phpBB3/view ... 16&t=48619

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Debate and discussion of current events and political issues across the U.S. and throughout the World. Be forewarned -- this forum is NOT for the intellectually weak or those of you with thin skins. Don't come crying to me if you become the subject of ridicule. **Board Administrator reserves the right to revoke posting privileges based on my sole discretion**
User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:14 am

Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)
The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, and Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, are overruled; the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 2_6j37.pdf


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11871
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by MWmetalhead » Fri Jun 24, 2022 10:56 am

I agree with today's ruling. Roe was ruled wrongly from the start.

That said, the legal quagmire in Michigan needs to be resolved ASAP. The early 1930s law, for which a Court of Claims injunction presently exists, is written too simplistically.

The election implications at the county, state and federal levels will be very interesting, to say the least.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:11 am

Well stated MW.

I have read some of the decision. I'd say it is solid.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:17 am

The Roe Court took sides on a consequential moral and policy issue that this Court had no constitutional authority to decide. By taking sides, the Roe Court distorted the Nation’s understanding of this Court’s proper role in the American constitutional system and thereby damaged the Court as an institution.

As Justice Scalia explained, Roe “destroyed the compromises of the past, rendered compromise impossible for the future, and required the entire issue to be resolved uniformly, at the national level.” Casey, 505 U. S., at 995 (opinion concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part).

The Court’s decision today properly returns the Court to a position of judicial neutrality on the issue of abortion, and properly restores the people’s authority to resolve the issue of abortion through the processes of democratic self-government established by the Constitution.

To be sure, many Americans will disagree with the Court’s decision today. That would be true no matter how the Court decided this case. Both sides on the abortion issue believe sincerely and passionately in the rightness of their cause. Especially in those difficult and fraught circumstances, the Court must scrupulously adhere to the Constitution’s neutral position on the issue of abortion.
Whether agree or disagree with abortion, overall, it's good day for America when the constitution wins, and the power is returned to the people.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:31 am

Roberts concurred but only wanted to change the line of viability to include 15 weeks. I'm not sure it really would make a difference in outcome, other than it seemed like a more moderate approach.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

km1125
Posts: 3570
Joined: Thu Mar 14, 2019 3:09 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by km1125 » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:42 am

Haven't had time to dig into it, but I'm curious about the wording in the dissenting opinions.



User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Bryce » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:47 am

And man if you think the Lefty meltdown over the New York concealed Carry decision was big, wait till you see this one.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

zzand
Posts: 1709
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 9:16 am
Location: right here

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by zzand » Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:51 am

I believe we are about to see how fast Congress can move. I think there will be legislation passed and signed into law well before the midterms. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the work on it started shortly after the leak.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:01 pm

km1125 wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:42 am
Haven't had time to dig into it, but I'm curious about the wording in the dissenting opinions.
A bunch a tripe. Not constitutional legal arguments.

They claim Roe/Casey is fair because it protected the unborn after viability. That has not been enforceable, if it was the Mississippi case would not even been take up by Supreme Court.
Last edited by audiophile on Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Bryce » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:08 pm

Reading some of the outrage coming from the Lefty pundits, it's interesting to note that all of a sudden they can define what a woman is.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

Matt
Posts: 9845
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2004 12:18 pm
Location: Where Ben Zonia couldn't cut it

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Matt » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:09 pm

Bryce wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:08 pm
Reading some of the outrage coming from the Lefty pundits, it's interesting to note that all of a sudden they can define what a woman is.
Not our dipshit governor: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/michig ... ls-respond


What's more pathetic: harassing an old man who is paying to do a radio show or supporting a grifter like Trump?

User avatar
Bryce
Posts: 7141
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:04 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Bryce » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:13 pm

audiophile wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:01 pm
km1125 wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 11:42 am
Haven't had time to dig into it, but I'm curious about the wording in the dissenting opinions.
A bunch a tripe. Not legal arguments.
Which was point by point completely taken apart, in great detail, by the majority.


New York and Chicago were all in with respect to their sanctuary status — until they were hit with the challenge of actually providing sanctuary. In other words, typical liberal hypocrisy.

User avatar
MWmetalhead
Site Admin
Posts: 11871
Joined: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:23 am

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by MWmetalhead » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:20 pm

I disagree, zzand. Pro-abortion legislation would never be able to get past a filibuster in the Senate.

That raises another question: will Dems try to pass legislation to eradicate the filibuster? I think Manchin would vote no.



User avatar
audiophile
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2004 9:21 pm
Location: Between 88 and 108 MHz.

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by audiophile » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:29 pm

MWmetalhead wrote:
Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:20 pm
I disagree, zzand. Pro-abortion legislation would never be able to get past a filibuster in the Senate.

That raises another question: will Dems try to pass legislation to eradicate the filibuster? I think Manchin would vote no.
I concur MW.


Ask not what your country can do FOR you; ask what they are about to do TO YOU!!

Chrocket87
Posts: 435
Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2015 1:46 pm

Re: Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (19-1392)

Post by Chrocket87 » Fri Jun 24, 2022 12:52 pm

There is no legislation that will clear the Senate regarding this, as Sinema and Manchin have indicated they will not get rid of the filibuster. The question here is how far will/can Biden go without the legislative branch? He’s already stated he will issue executive orders if Senate does not act on his wishes. Or, will he try to act with one of his departments to bypass Congress, like he did with the vaccine mandate?
Last edited by Chrocket87 on Fri Jun 24, 2022 1:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Post Reply Previous topicNext topic