SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
The deed is done.
The next few years should make for some interesting observations as our privacy based rights are torn asunder.
The next few years should make for some interesting observations as our privacy based rights are torn asunder.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Nobody cares, I gather.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
-
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Personally, I find lots of metaphorical truths revealed to Betty Bowers (America's Best Christian) in the post above. I also like her distinction between 'activists judges' and 'strict constructionists'
Current events remind me of the often reviled by outsiders Jewish prayer ". . . . I thank you that you have not made me a . . . woman or a boor"
Men have a lot to be thankful for and to repent for. I am afraid that many have made themselves a boor or worse.
snailgate.
Current events remind me of the often reviled by outsiders Jewish prayer ". . . . I thank you that you have not made me a . . . woman or a boor"
Men have a lot to be thankful for and to repent for. I am afraid that many have made themselves a boor or worse.
snailgate.
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Religion is a scourge which should be eradicated from the pubic space. We need total separation of church and state and instead we are sliding down a slippery slope into theocracy thanks to a bunch of conservative Catholic nuts on the court. They’ve just fucked stare decisis.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
I care, but I don't know that there is anything more I can say than when the opinion was leaked.
The 13th Amendment no longer applies to pregnant women. They are now officially slaves of the fetus that commandeered their bodies.
And forget about preserving same-sex marriage; Thomas as much as said that it is now DOA. LGBTQ people can expect to be tattooed and herded into extermination camps.
The 13th Amendment no longer applies to pregnant women. They are now officially slaves of the fetus that commandeered their bodies.
And forget about preserving same-sex marriage; Thomas as much as said that it is now DOA. LGBTQ people can expect to be tattooed and herded into extermination camps.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
- Sue U
- Posts: 8570
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
"But her emails."
I hope this is a wake-up call to all those (especially white suburban women) who "just couldn't" vote for Hillary Clinton: elections have consequences. Abortion rights must be central in the Democrats' election campaigns this year. Even conservative women (and their daughters and granddaughters) may need abortion services at some point, and that decision should be made solely by that woman in consultation with her physician -- not by radical GOP extremists in the statehouse.
And because the Court's decision is so far out of step with super-majority opinion in this country, it is probably a good time to introduce the Judiciary Reform Act of 2022, which among other things should expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices (one for each federal appellate court) and include an enforceable code of ethics for them.
I hope this is a wake-up call to all those (especially white suburban women) who "just couldn't" vote for Hillary Clinton: elections have consequences. Abortion rights must be central in the Democrats' election campaigns this year. Even conservative women (and their daughters and granddaughters) may need abortion services at some point, and that decision should be made solely by that woman in consultation with her physician -- not by radical GOP extremists in the statehouse.
And because the Court's decision is so far out of step with super-majority opinion in this country, it is probably a good time to introduce the Judiciary Reform Act of 2022, which among other things should expand the Supreme Court to 13 justices (one for each federal appellate court) and include an enforceable code of ethics for them.
GAH!
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
While I understand the attraction, I do think that court packing could backfire if the next presidential election goes the way I think it will.
- Sue U
- Posts: 8570
- Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
- Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
It is far, far, far too early to say anything meaningful at all about the next presidential election. In June 2014 (and as late as June 2016) no sane person would have thought Donald Fucking Trump would be the next president.
GAH!
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
True, but if it does go the way I still think it will (although I earnestly hope not), packing the court that way could have disastrous effects--imagine a 10-3 split with a number of young justices chosen not for their legal prowess, but for the politics and age. It be a disaster.
-
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
I have head some speculation that the Dobbs v Jackson ruling has some strong indications that the right to same gender marriage is endangered. Whoa! If that can be overturned, then is Loving v Virginia far behind? That would make Justice Thomas and Ginny illegal.
Actually I am more concerned about what Dobbs implies about the 9th and 10th and section one of the 14th. It turns us away from a limited government to a people of limited freedoms granted by the government.
snailgate.
Actually I am more concerned about what Dobbs implies about the 9th and 10th and section one of the 14th. It turns us away from a limited government to a people of limited freedoms granted by the government.
snailgate.
-
- Posts: 5442
- Joined: Sat Dec 19, 2015 4:16 am
- Location: Louisville KY as of July 2018
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
In 'Justice' Thomas' concurring opinion he says: "For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. " (It's about halfway down Page 3.) I.e., he's saying that the same absence of constitutional mention of abortion applies equally to those cases.
Well now. Griswold was the 1965 case in which SC said it was OK for married people to have access to contraception. Lawrence (2003) said it was unconstitutional to punish those who do sodomy which is a type of sexual practice in which many engage, harmlessly. And Obergefell was a 2015 decision which required that all states recognize the marriage procedures of other states which includes same-sex marriages. While he's at it, maybe Thomas should revisit Loving (1967) which was all about ending miscegenation laws. I'm guessing Ginni might not be too happy about that one . . .
Be afraid.
Well now. Griswold was the 1965 case in which SC said it was OK for married people to have access to contraception. Lawrence (2003) said it was unconstitutional to punish those who do sodomy which is a type of sexual practice in which many engage, harmlessly. And Obergefell was a 2015 decision which required that all states recognize the marriage procedures of other states which includes same-sex marriages. While he's at it, maybe Thomas should revisit Loving (1967) which was all about ending miscegenation laws. I'm guessing Ginni might not be too happy about that one . . .
Be afraid.
-
- Posts: 4094
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Or even back to Brown v Topeka Board of Education. Where does the constitution mention education?
snailgate
snailgate
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Welcome to Gilead.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
- Econoline
- Posts: 9566
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
I agree: eliminate the DOE.Burning Petard wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:33 pmOr even back to Brown v Topeka Board of Education. Where does the constitution mention education?
snailgate
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."
-- Author unknown
-- Author unknown
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
Fuck you. Just FUCK YOU!
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
that's what really scares me--that they may do that. Goodbye privacy.e should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.
Re: SCOTUS to women: You have no rights to autonomy and security of your person
That's like being 100% for free speech but saying it's really not important. Sure.I'm 100% pro-abortion, but it's just not that important to me.
So you're 100% for saying you're pro abortion, but you don't give a damn what they do. BFD.