Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
Wrong.
RedVEVO wrote:adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
Wrong.
The explanation is correct
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to choose to have an abortion.
However Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision.White's dissent, which was issued with Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, argued that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children.
Then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds that the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe.
President Biden is a politician and he is campaigning for his democrats .
Each State can decide if abortion is legal or illegal .
adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
Wrong.
The explanation is correct
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to choose to have an abortion.
However Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision.White's dissent, which was issued with Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, argued that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children.
Then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds that the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe.
President Biden is a politician and he is campaigning for his democrats .
Each State can decide if abortion is legal or illegal .
You don't even know what you just posted. The basis for reversal was the argument of the interpretation of the due process clause only. Where in all of what you wrote is mentioned meddling by the US Federal Government?
You still can't understand that you posted the dissenting opinion of the decision that established abortion rights in the US.RedVEVO wrote:adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
Wrong.
The explanation is correct
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to choose to have an abortion.
However Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision.White's dissent, which was issued with Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, argued that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children.
Then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds that the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe.
President Biden is a politician and he is campaigning for his democrats .
Each State can decide if abortion is legal or illegal .
You don't even know what you just posted. The basis for reversal was the argument of the interpretation of the due process clause only. Where in all of what you wrote is mentioned meddling by the US Federal Government?
Apologies for YOU not following a logical analysis or discussion - You need to do more research .
The Federal Gov't is basically Washington DC , Similar to Trini Parliament .
More precisely the federal government of the United States is the central reigning governmental body of the United States, established by the United States Constitution.
Every other US Citizen in the US hates Washington DC and do not like their agendas - especially in the South US.
They do not like the meddling of their private affairs and rights . Hence the Judges in W vs R saying we will not get involved since the peeps who wrote the US Constitution did not think this feminine movement ( abortion ) will of ever existed . The abortion issue is part of the whole feminine movement in the US. Others are work issues etc.
Now if you were a US citizen this would come natural to your education
Basically the W vs R is an American (feminist ) phenomena and does not really apply in T&T.
Currently it is a political football game played by Biden for his Democrats and he has no powers to right or wrong this issue .
"Dem is the breaks"
adnj wrote:You still can't understand that you posted the dissenting opinion of the decision that established abortion rights in the US.RedVEVO wrote:adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:adnj wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
Wrong.
The explanation is correct
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States conferred the right to choose to have an abortion.
However Justices Byron White and William Rehnquist dissented from the Court's decision.White's dissent, which was issued with Roe's companion case, Doe v. Bolton, argued that the Court had no basis for deciding between the competing values of pregnant women and unborn children.
Then on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court overruled Roe in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization on the grounds that the substantive right to abortion was not "deeply rooted in this Nation's history or tradition", nor considered a right when the Due Process Clause was ratified in 1868, and was unknown in U.S. law until Roe.
President Biden is a politician and he is campaigning for his democrats .
Each State can decide if abortion is legal or illegal .
You don't even know what you just posted. The basis for reversal was the argument of the interpretation of the due process clause only. Where in all of what you wrote is mentioned meddling by the US Federal Government?
Apologies for YOU not following a logical analysis or discussion - You need to do more research .
The Federal Gov't is basically Washington DC , Similar to Trini Parliament .
More precisely the federal government of the United States is the central reigning governmental body of the United States, established by the United States Constitution.
Every other US Citizen in the US hates Washington DC and do not like their agendas - especially in the South US.
They do not like the meddling of their private affairs and rights . Hence the Judges in W vs R saying we will not get involved since the peeps who wrote the US Constitution did not think this feminine movement ( abortion ) will of ever existed . The abortion issue is part of the whole feminine movement in the US. Others are work issues etc.
Now if you were a US citizen this would come natural to your education
Basically the W vs R is an American (feminist ) phenomena and does not really apply in T&T.
Currently it is a political football game played by Biden for his Democrats and he has no powers to right or wrong this issue .
"Dem is the breaks"
RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
redmanjp wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
the court said there is no Constitutional right but the federal govt can create a law that gives that right that overrules all states- but they dont have the votes for it.
RedVEVO wrote:redmanjp wrote:RedVEVO wrote:^^
Biden cannot do anything - it's all politics for the Democrats
The Judges just said this is not a constitutional matter and the Federal Gov't should not meddle .
Each State will now decide on how to handle this matter per it's constituents .
the court said there is no Constitutional right but the federal govt can create a law that gives that right that overrules all states- but they dont have the votes for it.
Correct .
Basically .
You don't even know what you just posted. The basis for reversal was the argument of the interpretation of the due process clause only. Where in all of what you wrote is mentioned meddling by the US Federal Government?
matr1x wrote:Roe v wade was a bad decision from the get go
adnj wrote:matr1x wrote:Roe v wade was a bad decision from the get go
Really? Why? I'm going to check back later but I'm sure that you have no idea how to support the statement that you made.
The way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.
Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said. She and her co-author on the biography, Professor Wendy Williams, spent the last 17 years interviewing Justice Ginsburg for the book and, though it initially didn’t have a release date, they are hoping to publish it some time next year, Professor Hartnett said in an interview
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/r ... -wade.html
Thanks but I fully understand the due process argument. I am also well heeled in the circumstances and presumptions necessary to argue in favor of, or against it.Dizzy28 wrote:adnj wrote:matr1x wrote:Roe v wade was a bad decision from the get go
Really? Why? I'm going to check back later but I'm sure that you have no idea how to support the statement that you made.
I really doubt Matrix gonna give you what you looking for. But its instructive that liberal SCOTUS icon Ruth Bader Ginsburg was no fan of RvW. And this goes back to at least the 1980s based on papers written by her. Her 1985 paper at UNC -
https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/vie ... ntext=nclr
As per NYTThe way Justice Ginsburg saw it, Roe v. Wade was focused on the wrong argument — that restricting access to abortion violated a woman’s privacy. What she hoped for instead was a protection of the right to abortion on the basis that restricting it impeded gender equality, said Mary Hartnett, a law professor at Georgetown University who will be a co-writer on the only authorized biography of Justice Ginsburg.
Justice Ginsburg “believed it would have been better to approach it under the equal protection clause” because that would have made Roe v. Wade less vulnerable to attacks in the years after it was decided, Professor Hartnett said. She and her co-author on the biography, Professor Wendy Williams, spent the last 17 years interviewing Justice Ginsburg for the book and, though it initially didn’t have a release date, they are hoping to publish it some time next year, Professor Hartnett said in an interview
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/r ... -wade.html
Other takes -
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... ?gnt-cfr=1
https://www.salon.com/2022/05/06/ruth-b ... oe-v-wade/
https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-gin ... oe-v-wade/
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/21/us/r ... -wade.html
shogun wrote:Supreme Court : States can't regulate guns.
Also Supreme Court : States can regulate uteruses.
Dizzy28 wrote:Right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the bill of rights.
Uteruses are not.shogun wrote:Supreme Court : States can't regulate guns.
Also Supreme Court : States can regulate uteruses.
matr1x wrote:It was a bad judgment based on faulty testimony. She admitted she lied about the conditions of the pregnancy. She even was pro life after.
adnj wrote:Really? Why? I'm going to check back later but I'm sure that you have no idea how to support the statement that you made.
matr1x wrote:Roe v wade was a bad decision from the get go
shogun wrote:Maybe I should have specified, but was specifically talking about New York's conceal and carry without a license policy, eh. And the Supreme courts decision to strike down the states attempt to require a license to do so.
adnj wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the bill of rights.
Uteruses are not.shogun wrote:Supreme Court : States can't regulate guns.
Also Supreme Court : States can regulate uteruses.
Individual states most certainly do regulate the sale and use of firearms in the US.
Dizzy28 wrote:adnj wrote:Dizzy28 wrote:Right to bear arms is explicitly stated in the bill of rights.
Uteruses are not.shogun wrote:Supreme Court : States can't regulate guns.
Also Supreme Court : States can regulate uteruses.
Individual states most certainly do regulate the sale and use of firearms in the US.
Yea my bad.
I know what you meant and meant no disrespect... the recently appointed justices are conservatives - and literalists. You are right: states cannot regulate guns (as before) but can regulate abortions (as never before) BUT;
the current situation is fallout from the prior interpretive decisions that were not explicitly stated by legislation, SO;
you will very likely see the long ignored vagaries of US law examined, such as:
The right to keep and bear arms but with new restrictions on allowable carry environments and ammunition purchase.
The states can outlaw abortion but the states cannot restrict the use of a federally regulated drug that causes termination of pregnancy.
The states can restrict hours and location of voting but must do it so that it is fully equitable.
Some states have legalized marijuana but federal law restricts marijuana possession to licensed medical researchers.
matr1x wrote:https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/jane-roe-from-roe-v-wade-made-a-stunning-deathbed-confession-now-what/2020/05/20/fad9d296-9a09-11ea-89fd-28fb313d1886_story.html
Roe change her story so many times, can we really trust her?
In that light, the foundation on roe v wade was built on was a lie and needed to be overturned. And thankfully it was
adnj wrote:adnj wrote:Really? Why? I'm going to check back later but I'm sure that you have no idea how to support the statement that you made.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 106 guests