Oh we are supremely screwed

[Ransom]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/stephen-colbert-america-%e2%80%9csupremely-screwed%e2%80%9d-as-justice-kennedy-retires-in-donald-trump-era/ar-AAzgiO9?ocid=ientp

Yes you are, Steven. Because you cheered your idiot Majority Leader when he dusted off the filibuster capability by the minority party for judicial appointments, all the majority Republicans need now....is a 1 vote majority.

You then put all your eggs in one basket, Steven Colbert, you were one of the many Clinton sycophants who were telling us all Trump would never be elected President.

You fcked yourselves, Liberals. And thus as Colbert says here because he is correct, you're screwed.

:biglaugh:

We're gonna shove another ultra conservative justice right up your wazoos.

[ripmeister]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/stephen-colbert-america-“supremely-screwed”-as-justice-kennedy-retires-in-donald-trump-era/ar-AAzgiO9?ocid=ientp

Yes you are, Steven. Because you cheered your idiot Majority Leader when he dusted off the filibuster capability by the minority party for judicial appointments, all the majority Republicans need now....is a 1 vote majority.

You then put all your eggs in one basket, Steven Colbert, you were one of the many Clinton sycophants who were telling us all Trump would never be elected President.

You fcked yourselves, Liberals. And thus as Colbert says here because he is correct, you're screwed.

:biglaugh:

We're gonna shove another ultra conservative justice right up your wazoos.

Have you considered anger management sessions? :wink:

[Ransom]

Have you considered anger management sessions? :wink:

Only losers need emotion management, Rip. We're winning. And I'm spiking the football a bit. Deserved don't you think?

[stjames1_53]

Have you considered anger management sessions? :wink:

this is where you prog libs keep failing..............you don't understand your own emotions, therefore you cannot interpret other's emotions accurately.
You often mistake glee for anger. What you must be experiencing is the ultimate joy over Trump

[Admiral Ackbar]

Only losers need emotion management, Rip. We're winning. And I'm spiking the football a bit. Deserved don't you think?

23761

[MrMike]

Ahem...

Just to remind you guys on the Left. It's PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP!

Winning feels so darn good...it's nearly deplorable!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvI5h5VQAEFx6U.jpg

[Admiral Ackbar]

Ahem...

Just to remind you guys on the Left. It's PRESIDENT DONALD J TRUMP!



Dude is a Winner!! Just Win Baby!!!!!

Winning feels so darn good...it's nearly deplorable!

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DgvI5h5VQAEFx6U.jpg

[midcan5]

Compassion, altruism, consideration for others is surely missing in the Trump snowflake conservative, that's kinda expected. American and Christian values elude them. Cheering a potential scotus ideologue makes their hearts beat faster. Think about that for a minute, a conservative scotus will bow to power and hurt the working class, women, the poor and the environment. Does it matter really to Colbert ? No, his concern is empathy look it up sometime. For this liberal it has no impact on our family but I surely would like to see a rational, compassionate judge. The poor will suffer, the cold hearted snowflakes will cheer and life goes on.


Kennedy retiring before the midterms is an act of pure perniciousness. Trump's base pretends to love unborn children while its actions hurt living children. Trump cares nada for either. The rich women will find someone, always have, the poor again will suffer from a conservative scotus - in many ways. "Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

https://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html

[MrMike]

Compassion, altruism, consideration for others is surely missing in the Trump snowflake conservative, that's kinda expected. American and Christian values elude them. Cheering a potential scotus ideologue makes their hearts beat faster. Think about that for a minute, a conservative scotus will bow to power and hurt the working class, women, the poor and the environment. Does it matter really to Colbert ? No, his concern is empathy look it up sometime. For this liberal it has no impact on our family but I surely would like to see a rational, compassionate judge. The poor will suffer, the cold hearted snowflakes will cheer and life goes on.


Kennedy retiring before the midterms is an act of pure perniciousness. Trump's base pretends to love unborn children while its actions hurt living children. Trump cares nada for either. The rich women will find someone, always have, the poor again will suffer from a conservative scotus - in many ways. "Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

https://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html

I know it mus be hard to have latched your hopes and dreams on to that primary cheating two-time loser Hillary and have to sit on the sidelines wearing those dopey pink p-hats. Do you need a hug?

((((hugs))))

[donttread]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/stephen-colbert-america-“supremely-screwed”-as-justice-kennedy-retires-in-donald-trump-era/ar-AAzgiO9?ocid=ientp

Yes you are, Steven. Because you cheered your idiot Majority Leader when he dusted off the filibuster capability by the minority party for judicial appointments, all the majority Republicans need now....is a 1 vote majority.

You then put all your eggs in one basket, Steven Colbert, you were one of the many Clinton sycophants who were telling us all Trump would never be elected President.

You fcked yourselves, Liberals. And thus as Colbert says here because he is correct, you're screwed.

:biglaugh:

We're gonna shove another ultra conservative justice right up your wazoos.



I'd like another textualist who supports the whole BOR's as a package deal

[ripmeister]

Only losers need emotion management, Rip. We're winning. And I'm spiking the football a bit. Deserved don't you think?
Spiking is fine. Perhaps with a little humility though. Trump is having a few successes in the view of many so I don't understand the continued unabated in your face hostility most of the time.

[ripmeister]

this is where you prog libs keep failing..............you don't understand your own emotions, therefore you cannot interpret other's emotions accurately.
You often mistake glee for anger. What you must be experiencing is the ultimate joy over Trump

Perhaps, but I understand my emotions just fine.

[stjames1_53]

Perhaps, but I understand my emotions just fine.

You have nothing to hide with us. You are among friends here. Come on now, admit your angst. We'd be a lot more understanding if you admit your emotions are a wreck. We already know you suffer from cognitive dissonance because you're projecting yourself on others. We understand and only want to help you get past this thing that has your innards in such a mess.

[Captdon]

Compassion, altruism, consideration for others is surely missing in the Trump snowflake conservative, that's kinda expected. American and Christian values elude them. Cheering a potential scotus ideologue makes their hearts beat faster. Think about that for a minute, a conservative scotus will bow to power and hurt the working class, women, the poor and the environment. Does it matter really to Colbert ? No, his concern is empathy look it up sometime. For this liberal it has no impact on our family but I surely would like to see a rational, compassionate judge. The poor will suffer, the cold hearted snowflakes will cheer and life goes on.


Kennedy retiring before the midterms is an act of pure perniciousness. Trump's base pretends to love unborn children while its actions hurt living children. Trump cares nada for either. The rich women will find someone, always have, the poor again will suffer from a conservative scotus - in many ways. "Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

https://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html

You're right. It has no impact on your family so what , exactly, is your concern?

Kennedy retiring now was the honorable thing to do. SCOTUS runs their term from October 1 until June 30. He gave the President and the Senate three months to fill the Court.

[Common]

I never could stand colbert hes a jackass and hes not one bit funny but for once hes right

[donttread]

I never could stand colbert hes a jackass and hes not one bit funny but for once hes right


He's actually brilliant IMO, or at least he was. He was funny in context on Comedy Central. But taking it to mainstream TV on a late show is classless on his part and the Network's part. He's also broken Jon Stewart's rule of not putting the politics ahead of the comedy.

[DGUtley]

The only person that loses more than the Democrats!!:

23762

[Jeb!]

Why are Democrats acting like Roe v. Wade being overturned is the end of the world? Like the issue is so significant that it's worth using authoritarian tactics like expanding the court to protect it from being overturned. Just opposing it to prevent Evangelicals/Catholics/Mormons/whatever from getting what they want?

[Ransom]

I'd like another textualist who supports the whole BOR's as a package deal
I'm not saying it's a done deal because we have some fairly wacky RINOs out there. But these is a possibility this pick here could influence the court for the next 25 years not to mention shift the course of this very nation. I agree with all of their whining about abortion, that law comes into play now. If Trump can squeeze this nomination in by Fall.....and then possibly seat a third.....you're going to see Ros v Wade and that disaster confronted legally. And possibly overturned, the issue would return where it belongs. The states.

[Ransom]

The only person that loses more than the Democrats!!:

23762

How are them Buckeyes looking 2018?

[Tahuyaman]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/tv/news/stephen-colbert-america-“supremely-screwed”-as-justice-kennedy-retires-in-donald-trump-era/ar-AAzgiO9?ocid=ientp

Yes you are, Steven. Because you cheered your idiot Majority Leader when he dusted off the filibuster capability by the minority party for judicial appointments, all the majority Republicans need now....is a 1 vote majority.

You then put all your eggs in one basket, Steven Colbert, you were one of the many Clinton sycophants who were telling us all Trump would never be elected President.

You fcked yourselves, Liberals. And thus as Colbert says here because he is correct, you're screwed.

:biglaugh:

We're gonna shove another ultra conservative justice right up your wazoos.


Have you considered anger management sessions? :wink:

I didn't detect anger in his comment. What made you think that was the case?

[Tahuyaman]

Compassion, altruism, consideration for others is surely missing in the Trump snowflake conservative, that's kinda expected. American and Christian values elude them. Cheering a potential scotus ideologue makes their hearts beat faster. Think about that for a minute, a conservative scotus will bow to power and hurt the working class, women, the poor and the environment. Does it matter really to Colbert ? No, his concern is empathy look it up sometime. For this liberal it has no impact on our family but I surely would like to see a rational, compassionate judge. The poor will suffer, the cold hearted snowflakes will cheer and life goes on.


Kennedy retiring before the midterms is an act of pure perniciousness. Trump's base pretends to love unborn children while its actions hurt living children. Trump cares nada for either. The rich women will find someone, always have, the poor again will suffer from a conservative scotus - in many ways. "Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

https://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html
Whiny nonsense. What do you know about either American or Christian values?

[Tahuyaman]

I'd like another textualist who supports the whole BOR's as a package deal


Could leftists survive if that happens? To them the constitution is just a mindless talking point. It's a word they use by rote.


I can see Thomas retiring and being replaced by another strong, but younger constitutional conservative. That would more than likely drive out Ginsberg.

[NapRover]

Compassion, altruism, consideration for others is surely missing in the Trump snowflake conservative, that's kinda expected. American and Christian values elude them. Cheering a potential scotus ideologue makes their hearts beat faster. Think about that for a minute, a conservative scotus will bow to power and hurt the working class, women, the poor and the environment. Does it matter really to Colbert ? No, his concern is empathy look it up sometime. For this liberal it has no impact on our family but I surely would like to see a rational, compassionate judge. The poor will suffer, the cold hearted snowflakes will cheer and life goes on.


Kennedy retiring before the midterms is an act of pure perniciousness. Trump's base pretends to love unborn children while its actions hurt living children. Trump cares nada for either. The rich women will find someone, always have, the poor again will suffer from a conservative scotus - in many ways. "Few American institutions have inflicted greater suffering on ordinary people than the Supreme Court of the United States. Since its inception, the justices of the Supreme Court have shaped a nation where children toiled in coal mines, where Americans could be forced into camps because of their race, and where a woman could be sterilized against her will by state law."
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22715946-injustices

https://www.feminist.com/resources/ourbodies/abortion.html

"Abolition of a woman's right to abortion, when and if she wants it, amounts to compulsory maternity: a form of rape by the State." Edward Abbey

''God Does Not Regard the Fetus as a Soul,' Conservative evangelicals didn’t always care much about abortion or contraception. The strange story of how they came to be obsessed with them.' By Jamelle Bouie
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/03/hobby_lobby_and_contraception_how_conservative_eva ngelicals_went_from_not.html
People can spin it however they want. We shouldn’t kill unborn children.

[Tahuyaman]

People can spin it however they want. We shouldn’t kill unborn children.
According to midcan5, killing the unborn is an example of American and or Christian values.

[Peter1469]

According to @midcan5 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=765), killing the unborn is an example of American and or Christian values.

Best to avoid nut-cases.

[Tahuyaman]

Best to avoid nut-cases.
I'd rather expose them. Show people who they are and what they stand for.

[Dr. Who]

I'm not saying it's a done deal because we have some fairly wacky RINOs out there. But these is a possibility this pick here could influence the court for the next 25 years not to mention shift the course of this very nation. I agree with all of their whining about abortion, that law comes into play now. If Trump can squeeze this nomination in by Fall.....and then possibly seat a third.....you're going to see Ros v Wade and that disaster confronted legally. And possibly overturned, the issue would return where it belongs. The states.
SCOTUS is loath to overturn its own decisions. Don't hold your breath. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any government power over personal medical decisions. Frankly, it doesn't address abortion at all but it does address liberty and the right to privacy. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. A person has the right to end a pregnancy without undue interference from the government because that right to liberty includes both the right to make decisions about family and the right to bodily integrity.

Roe v Wade did not endorse or legalize abortion. It ruled that laws making it illegal were unconstitutional. The preservation reproductive rights in the context of abortion are no different than the right not to be neutered by a eugenics dominated state government and no different than a state government that would mandate the abortion of any child that carries genetic markers for Down Syndrome or heritable genetic disease.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one but don't try to twist the law to deprive people of their reproductive rights because you are then giving the State the power to dictate whether the child any woman is carrying is economically or socially desirable. The blade always swings both ways.

[Tahuyaman]

Frankly, it doesn't address abortion at all but it does address liberty and the right to privacy.... Where are the words "right to privacy" stated in the US constitution?

why are liberals so loyal to the abomination of killing the unborn?

[Dr. Who]

. Where are the words "right to privacy" stated in the US constitution?

why are liberals so loyal to the abomination of killing the unborn?

The 14th Amendment:
"The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose."

[Tahuyaman]

The 14th Amendment:
"The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose."
No where are the words "right to privacy" stated in the US constitution.

[Dr. Who]

. Where are the words "right to privacy" stated in the US constitution?

why are liberals so loyal to the abomination of killing the unborn?
Would you be equally offended if a state used a SCOTUS decision granting states the right to make these decisions being used to decide who should be born, who should be denied the ability to have children, who should be able to access state medical resources based on age, health and probability of survival or contribution to taxes? Such a precedent would allow the state to decide whether you should be allowed to be born or whether couples should be allowed to have children. The same decision that would allow a state to ban abortion, would also give a state license to force abortion. Do you really want to go there?

[Dr. Who]

No where are the words "right to privacy" stated in the US constitution.

The 4th Amendment is part of the Constitution. It alludes to the right to privacy.

What do you think it means when it says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Tahuyaman]

The 14th Amendment is part of the Constitution. It alludes to the right to privacy.

Incorrect.

[Dr. Who]

No where are the words "right to privacy" stated in the US constitution.

Does this mean that you think that people have no natural right to privacy? Do you think that the government should be able to decide when your existence is surplus to needs or that at any time or any place, it can, without cause, search your home, take your papers, investigate your finances? Should a state be able to arbitrarily decide that everyone over a certain age should be euthanized? Should the state be able to fine you for bad habits, eating things that you shouldn't eat if you want to be healthy or fine you for not exercising?

[Tahuyaman]

The 4th Amendment is part of the Constitution. It alludes to the right to privacy.

What do you think it means when it says:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Your houses, papers and effects are subject to a reasonable search and seizure. No where are the words "right to privacy" used in the US constitution.

You effectively argued against your own position.

[Dr. Who]

Incorrect.

Typo, I meant 4th Amendment.

[Dr. Who]

Your houses, papers and effects are subject to a reasonable search and seizure. No where are the words "right to privacy" used in the US constitution.

You effectively argued against your own position.
Reasonable as defined by whom?

[Tahuyaman]

Typo, I meant 4th Amendment.

you don't know what you mean. You are mimicking left wing talking points.

[Tahuyaman]

Reasonable as defined by whom? Who do you think?

[Dr. Who]

Tahuyaman do you think that the state owns your body?

[Tahuyaman]

Liberals are a strange breed. In some cases they want to be living in an anarchist society where there is no rule of law, no authority at all. Then other times they want government to regulate every aspect of our life. How do you reason with these people?

[Tahuyaman]

@Tahuyaman (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1365) do you think that the state owns your body? That's the proverbial red herring. Do you think abortion is the taking of a human life?

I don't think government should tell you it's your right to take an innocent human life because you find that human life inconvenient.

[Tahuyaman]

I honestly believe that to be a true liberal, one must not have a conscience.

[Dr. Who]

Who do you think?
Usually as defined by the Courts and based in common law, however, that doesn't really cover forcing a competent person to have a life-saving operation or not have one. It doesn't inject itself into a person's dominion over themselves. Do you really want the state to have the power to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body? Should they put you in jail because you refuse to eat healthy food and thus put you on a forced diet? Any SCOTUS decision giving states or the federal government the right to decide reproductive rights will be used by extension to tell you how to live your life and deprive you of the freedom to make your own choices. Consider California or New York state - they could use such a decision to forbid the sales and consumption of any food that is considered bad for you because SCOTUS gave them the right.

SCOTUS cannot decide abortion specifically. It can only decide whether the Constitution protects your rights in terms of your body or it doesn't.

[Dr. Who]

That's the proverbial red herring. Do you think abortion is the taking of a human life?

I don't think government should tell you it's your right to take an innocent human life because you find that human life inconvenient.

You are refusing to see what such a decision entails. Either the state can control your body or you do. There are only two choices because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Roe v Wade stated that the state does not have that right. Even Kennedy agreed because the other choice is that you lose total control over your person. It becomes something that is at the whim of the state and thus popular opinion. You need to really think about how far a government can take that.

[Tahuyaman]

You are refusing to see what such a decision entails. Either the state can control your body or you do. There are only two choices because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Roe v Wade stated that the state does not have that right. Even Kennedy agreed because the other choice is that you lose total control over your person. It becomes something that is at the whim of the state and thus popular opinion. You need to really think about how far a government can take that.

No one is telling anyone that they don't have the right to get pregnant or not get pregnant.


If you think it is right to take an innocent and helpless human life because you find that life inconvenient, you have no conscience. I feel sorry for you. You might be soulless.

[Tahuyaman]

SCOTUS cannot decide abortion specifically. It can only decide whether the Constitution protects your rights in terms of your body or it doesn't.

What About the body or life of the helpless unborn child? Does he or she not count? Is that beating heart irrelevant?

[Dr. Who]

No one is telling anyone that they don't have the right to get pregnant or not get pregnant.


If you think it is right to take an innocent and helpless human life because you find that life inconvenient, you have no conscience. I feel sorry for you. You might be soulless.
You are missing the point. This is not going to be a personhood argument. It's a state's right argument. Nobody wants to touch the personhood argument with a ten-foot pole. The personhood argument would leave women and even men liable for the woman not eating enough, being exposed to stress or being an inattentive driver and thus criminally and civilly responsible for miscarriage. SCOTUS will never touch that argument. It's totally outside of the purview of the Constitution. The only thing that they can address is whether the state has dominion over the bodies of its citizens.

[Dr. Who]

What About the body or life of the helpless unborn child? Does he or she not count? Is that beating heart irrelevant?
We are talking about SCOTUS and the Constitution here. The Constitution does not address abortion. It will not decide personhood and legally no child has any existence until it is born. The Constitution only deals with the rights of people who are born.

[Cletus]

The 14th Amendment:
"The right to privacy is our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, secrets and identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we choose to disclose."
That is not the text of the 14th Amendment.

It doesn't say anything even remotely resembling that.

[Cletus]

Typo, I meant 4th Amendment.

That is also not the text of the 4th Amendment.

[Cletus]

That's the proverbial red herring. Do you think abortion is the taking of a human life?

I don't think government should tell you it's your right to take an innocent human life because you find that human life inconvenient.

Killing for convenience. I am pretty sure the Framers never said that was okay.

[donttread]

What About the body or life of the helpless unborn child? Does he or she not count? Is that beating heart irrelevant?

Being anti-abortion should mean accepting the cost associated with even more babies being born to those who cannot support them.

[Cannons Front]

Typo, I meant 4th Amendment.

Amendment IVThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[NapRover]

Being anti-abortion should mean accepting the cost associated with even more babies being born to those who cannot support them.
Of course, there'd be no other choice. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be incentives to work.

[donttread]

You are missing the point. This is not going to be a personhood argument. It's a state's right argument. Nobody wants to touch the personhood argument with a ten-foot pole. The personhood argument would leave women and even men liable for the woman not eating enough, being exposed to stress or being an inattentive driver and thus criminally and civilly responsible for miscarriage. SCOTUS will never touch that argument. It's totally outside of the purview of the Constitution. The only thing that they can address is whether the state has dominion over the bodies of its citizens.


I think in some states you can be charged with double murder if you kill a pregnant woman , which would be a lead to possible personhood. Slippery slope.

[donttread]

Of course, there'd be no other choice. Doesn't mean there shouldn't be incentives to work.


Workin ain't enough these days, unless you have skills and or education ( not the same thing) you can work all the hours you can get but still need bigdaddy.gov to get buy. Largely because of the insane government sponsored cost of housing .

[Tahuyaman]

Being anti-abortion should mean accepting the cost associated with even more babies being born to those who cannot support them.

Did someone force them to get pregnant?

[Tahuyaman]

We are talking about SCOTUS and the Constitution here. The Constitution does not address abortion...

So then the SCOTUS was wrong when they said it does, right?

Again, the beating heart of the unborn spchild is irrelevant to you?

[Tahuyaman]

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


I don't see the words " right to privacy" anywhere in there.

[Grokmaster]

They are whining about being served the dish that they prepared.

[Ransom]

Workin ain't enough these days, unless you have skills and or education ( not the same thing) you can work all the hours you can get but still need bigdaddy.gov to get buy. Largely because of the insane government sponsored cost of housing .
Just a few more pieces of the donttread puzzle are fitted nicely each week, the picture becomes so clear.

Donttread….you have it exactly backwards as usual. It is bigdaddy.gov that has no job, no skill, nor education. It is bigdaddy.gov who need We the People to "get buy." I reckon there you meant "get by?" It's largely because of the insane taxes on housing in the private sector. No one save for those who have real issues need the government, we can all get 'buy' just fine absent their hand in the pie.

Comrade.

[ripmeister]

Did someone force them to get pregnant?
Rapists did.

[Tahuyaman]

Rapists did.
And that is a regular thing? So then you oppose abortion unless a woman is raped?

[ripmeister]

And that is a regular thing? So then you oppose abortion unless a woman is raped?
You raised a question I answered it. I support a womans right to choose what is right for her and her body.

[Tahuyaman]

You raised a question I answered it. I support a womans right to choose what is right for her and her body.A woman has the right to choose whether or not to become pregnant. Once she chooses to become pregnant she has another life to be responsible for.

[Dr. Who]

I think in some states you can be charged with double murder if you kill a pregnant woman , which would be a lead to possible personhood. Slippery slope.
Which is why SCOTUS will never address it and states tread very carefully.

[Ransom]

You raised a question I answered it. I support a womans right to choose what is right for her and her body.
What say you're married. Your wife pregnant. Your very excited. 5 months in she decides to terminate the pregnancy without your consent. Fair?

[Dr. Who]

So then the SCOTUS was wrong when they said it does, right?Again, the beating heart of the unborn spchild is irrelevant to you?Not irrelevant but legally speaking not, certainly within the first trimester, the business of the state but a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.Summary of Roe v Wade:

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/402/62.html#67)-72.

XI

To summarize and to repeat:1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life[410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html#f67) This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

XII

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.Although the District Court granted appellant Roe declaratory relief, it stopped short of issuing an injunction against enforcement of the Texas statutes. The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 252 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/389/241.html#252)-255 (1967); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/380/479.html)(1965). We are not dealing with a statute that, on its face, appears to abridge free expression, an area of particular concern under Dombrowski and refined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S., at 50 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/37.html#50).We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional.The judgment of the District Court as to intervenor Hallford is reversed, and Dr. Hallford's complaint in intervention is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment [410 U.S. 113, 167] of the District Court is affirmed. Costs are allowed to the appellee.

It is so ordered.
[For concurring opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see post, p. 207.][For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, see post, p. 209.][For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE WHITE, see post, p. 221.]https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

[donttread]

Just a few more pieces of the @donttread (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=922) puzzle are fitted nicely each week, the picture becomes so clear.

Donttread….you have it exactly backwards as usual. It is bigdaddy.gov that has no job, no skill, nor education. It is bigdaddy.gov who need We the People to "get buy." I reckon there you meant "get by?" It's largely because of the insane taxes on housing in the private sector. No one save for those who have real issues need the government, we can all get 'buy' just fine absent their hand in the pie.

Comrade.
Ransom. My comment was about the cycle of government helping pay for housing for a large percentage of the population driving housing cost up , meaning more people need help, etc.
Something i might even think you'd agree with if you weren't so anxious to just be disagreeable.
Either way , I stand behind what I said.

[Captdon]

SCOTUS is loath to overturn its own decisions. Don't hold your breath. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any government power over personal medical decisions. Frankly, it doesn't address abortion at all but it does address liberty and the right to privacy. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. A person has the right to end a pregnancy without undue interference from the government because that right to liberty includes both the right to make decisions about family and the right to bodily integrity.

Roe v Wade did not endorse or legalize abortion. It ruled that laws making it illegal were unconstitutional. The preservation reproductive rights in the context of abortion are no different than the right not to be neutered by a eugenics dominated state government and no different than a state government that would mandate the abortion of any child that carries genetic markers for Down Syndrome or heritable genetic disease.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one but don't try to twist the law to deprive people of their reproductive rights because you are then giving the State the power to dictate whether the child any woman is carrying is economically or socially desirable. The blade always swings both ways.

Murder is a crime. The Constitution doesn't say you can murder an unborn baby either. You can call it whatever suits you but it is murder.

You people never call it a baby for a reason. It's always reproductive rights, privacy rights and fetus'. Odd how it's a baby when you want it to be.

Supporting abortion on demand is a disgrace only slightly less than abortion period.

[Captdon]

SCOTUS is loath to overturn its own decisions. Don't hold your breath. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives any government power over personal medical decisions. Frankly, it doesn't address abortion at all but it does address liberty and the right to privacy. The 14th Amendment prohibits states from depriving a person of liberty without due process of law. A person has the right to end a pregnancy without undue interference from the government because that right to liberty includes both the right to make decisions about family and the right to bodily integrity.

Roe v Wade did not endorse or legalize abortion. It ruled that laws making it illegal were unconstitutional. The preservation reproductive rights in the context of abortion are no different than the right not to be neutered by a eugenics dominated state government and no different than a state government that would mandate the abortion of any child that carries genetic markers for Down Syndrome or heritable genetic disease.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one but don't try to twist the law to deprive people of their reproductive rights because you are then giving the State the power to dictate whether the child any woman is carrying is economically or socially desirable. The blade always swings both ways.

The state doesn't decide anything about a pregnancy and you know it. I think believing abortion is alright is a mental defect.

[barb012]

Murder is a crime. The Constitution doesn't say you can murder an unborn baby either. You can call it whatever suits you but it is murder.

Women should be more responsible with their reproductive system to prevent a unwanted pregnancy to decrease the number that gets an abortion each year.

[Captdon]

Usually as defined by the Courts and based in common law, however, that doesn't really cover forcing a competent person to have a life-saving operation or not have one. It doesn't inject itself into a person's dominion over themselves. Do you really want the state to have the power to dictate what you can and cannot do with your own body? Should they put you in jail because you refuse to eat healthy food and thus put you on a forced diet? Any SCOTUS decision giving states or the federal government the right to decide reproductive rights will be used by extension to tell you how to live your life and deprive you of the freedom to make your own choices. Consider California or New York state - they could use such a decision to forbid the sales and consumption of any food that is considered bad for you because SCOTUS gave them the right.

SCOTUS cannot decide abortion specifically. It can only decide whether the Constitution protects your rights in terms of your body or it doesn't.

Planned Parenthood on steroids. You can't sell an organ and no one says a word. You can't carry a baby for profit and no one say a word.

You support the right to decide what to do with someone else's body and life.

Babble on. I don't usually say anything because there is no middle ground. But, what the hell.

[Captdon]

You are refusing to see what such a decision entails. Either the state can control your body or you do. There are only two choices because abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Roe v Wade stated that the state does not have that right. Even Kennedy agreed because the other choice is that you lose total control over your person. It becomes something that is at the whim of the state and thus popular opinion. You need to really think about how far a government can take that.

Kennedy had nothing to do with Roe v Wade. That was decided by a lie.

[Captdon]

You are missing the point. This is not going to be a personhood argument. It's a state's right argument. Nobody wants to touch the personhood argument with a ten-foot pole. The personhood argument would leave women and even men liable for the woman not eating enough, being exposed to stress or being an inattentive driver and thus criminally and civilly responsible for miscarriage. SCOTUS will never touch that argument. It's totally outside of the purview of the Constitution. The only thing that they can address is whether the state has dominion over the bodies of its citizens.


SCOTUS can define abortion any way it wants. It already has. They won't overturn it. They'll take the easy way and chip away at it.

[Captdon]

That is also not the text of the 4th Amendment.

But there has to be something there to absolve them.

[Captdon]

Being anti-abortion should mean accepting the cost associated with even more babies being born to those who cannot support them.

Why? Killing a baby is killing a baby. Your excuse is tiresome and stupid.

[Captdon]

Workin ain't enough these days, unless you have skills and or education ( not the same thing) you can work all the hours you can get but still need bigdaddy.gov to get buy. Largely because of the insane government sponsored cost of housing .

So, then, let's kill the one who is innocent.

[Captdon]

Did someone force them to get pregnant?

Sometimes they are. I don't have an answer for them but that's not the reason for abortion on demand.

[Captdon]

Which is why SCOTUS will never address it and states tread very carefully.

Nope. The liberal states will do nothing. The red states will push against it as hard and a fast as possible. That's how it was until Blackmun stuck his nose into state rights.

[Captdon]

What say you're married. Your wife pregnant. Your very excited. 5 months in she decides to terminate the pregnancy without your consent. Fair?

According to pro-abortionists- irrelevant.

[Captdon]

Not irrelevant but legally speaking not, certainly within the first trimester, the business of the state but a medical issue between a woman and her doctor.Summary of Roe v Wade:

X

In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester. This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth. It follows that, from and after this point, a State may regulate the abortion procedure to the extent that the regulation reasonably relates to the preservation and protection of maternal health. Examples of permissible state regulation in this area are requirements as to the qualifications of the person who is to perform the abortion; as to the licensure of that person; as to the facility in which the procedure is to be performed, that is, whether it must be a hospital or may be a clinic or some other place of less-than-hospital status; as to the licensing of the facility; and the like.This means, on the other hand, that, for the period of pregnancy prior to this "compelling" point, the attending physician, in consultation with his patient, is free to determine, without regulation by the State, that, in his medical judgment, the patient's pregnancy should be terminated. If that decision is reached, the judgment may be effectuated by an abortion free of interference by the State.With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion [410 U.S. 113, 164] during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those "procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother," sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, "saving" the mother's life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here.This conclusion makes it unnecessary for us to consider the additional challenge to the Texas statute asserted on grounds of vagueness. See United States v. Vuitch, 402 U.S., at 67 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/402/62.html#67)-72.

XI

To summarize and to repeat:1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a life-saving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life[410 U.S. 113, 165] may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together. 67 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html#f67) This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important [410 U.S. 113, 166] state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

XII

Our conclusion that Art. 1196 is unconstitutional means, of course, that the Texas abortion statutes, as a unit, must fall. The exception of Art. 1196 cannot be struck down separately, for then the State would be left with a statute proscribing all abortion procedures no matter how medically urgent the case.Although the District Court granted appellant Roe declaratory relief, it stopped short of issuing an injunction against enforcement of the Texas statutes. The Court has recognized that different considerations enter into a federal court's decision as to declaratory relief, on the one hand, and injunctive relief, on the other. Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U.S. 241, 252 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/389/241.html#252)-255 (1967); Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/380/479.html)(1965). We are not dealing with a statute that, on its face, appears to abridge free expression, an area of particular concern under Dombrowski and refined in Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S., at 50 (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/401/37.html#50).We find it unnecessary to decide whether the District Court erred in withholding injunctive relief, for we assume the Texas prosecutorial authorities will give full credence to this decision that the present criminal abortion statutes of that State are unconstitutional.The judgment of the District Court as to intervenor Hallford is reversed, and Dr. Hallford's complaint in intervention is dismissed. In all other respects, the judgment [410 U.S. 113, 167] of the District Court is affirmed. Costs are allowed to the appellee.

It is so ordered.
[For concurring opinion of MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BURGER, see post, p. 207.][For concurring opinion of MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, see post, p. 209.][For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE WHITE, see post, p. 221.]https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/410/113.html

A load of bullshit and you know it. The only abortion restriction the Court has allowed is no partial birth abortions. Pro- abortionists even opposed that.

[Dr. Who]

A load of bullshit and you know it. The only abortion restriction the Court has allowed is no partial birth abortions. Pro- abortionists even opposed that.
What I posted was copied directly from the decision.