Well said. It’s a wildly unpopular decision, and with good reason. Unfortunately, that’s the Right’s MO in this country. They couldn’t legitimately win the game, so they got a few unelected judges to change the rules instead. It would be almost impossible for the extremists here to win the Senate or the Presidency if those institutions were constituted properly. The parts of the country that actually contribute more tax dollars than they take are against this. We’ll see how that goes.
Except the Court didn't say those words. In fact, the Opinion of the Court expressly and emphatically states the opposite: "[T]he dissent suggests that our decision calls into question Griswold, Eisenstadt, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Post, at 4–5, 26–27, n. 8. But we have stated unequivocally that “[n]othing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Supra, at 66. We have also explained why that is so: rights regarding contraception and same-sex relationships are inherently different from the right to abortion because the latter (as we have stressed) uniquely involves what Roe and Casey termed “potential life.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 150 (emphasis deleted); Casey, 505 U. S., at 852. Therefore, a right to abortion cannot be justified by a purported analogy to the rights recognized in those other cases or by “appeals to a broader right to autonomy.” Supra, at 32. It is hard to see how we could be clearer. Moreover, even putting aside that these cases are distinguishable, there is a further point that the dissent ignores: Each precedent is subject to its own stare decisis analysis, and the factors that our doctrine instructs us to consider like reliance and workability are different for these cases than for our abortion jurisprudence." Justice Thomas joined this opinion and agrees with this statement. He expressly reiterates this point in his concurrence: "The Court today declines to disturb substantive due process jurisprudence generally or the doctrine’s application in other, specific contexts. Cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives); Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be preserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66." To borrow Alito's phrase, it is hard to see how he could be clearer... unless someone is to twist their words and misrepresent their findings. One doesn't have to resort to such demeaning tactics when one has they truth on his side and it really destroys any credibility he or his argument otherwise may have had.
Oh please. From the same people who testified under oath that Roe was “settled law”. And BTW you apparently didn’t read this as carefully as you thought: For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, includ- ing Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any sub- stantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to “correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., con- curring) (slip op., at 9). After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions… Next time do your homework before accusing someone else of dishonesty. It’s hard to see why anyone would think God had anything to do with this. There is no biblical prohibition of abortion, and there are some circumstances where in the interest of saving a life, performing one would be morally obligatory. Fanaticism that has nothing to do with what our scriptures actually say only serves to discredit Christianity further and align it in the public mind with an extremist ideology that has no interest in pursuing a genuinely Christian vision.
Yeah, it's actually not. At all. Also, I find it amazing that all these "my body my choice" people are the same ones lecturing us on how important it was for the government to force us to put untested vaccines into our bodies over the last two years. It's surprising that they don't spontaneously combust from the sheer cognitive dissonance. I also find it hilarious that a bunch of people who couldn't define what a woman is last week all of sudden have no doubt at all what a woman is.
Do you think Australians don't get the news here? Most countries aren't as insular as the US is as far as world news goes.
That is circular reasoning. Murder is never defined to include the unborn, nor are instances of the death of the unborn treated as homicides. There is no biblical prohibition of abortion.
This somehow managed to contain not a single accurate statement. Amazing. And you managed to throw in anti-vaxxer nonsense as well. There is no cognitive dissonance, BTW. You see, requiring vaccines is a matter of public safety; respecting a woman’s right to control when and how she has children, on the other hand, harms no one. It’s ok to use slogans at the popular level. To attempt to argue on the basis of them is a rookie mistake. It’s really not that difficult to reason through these things.
I see you’re promoting mob rule, oligarchy and rule by coastal elites. I see you’re opposing the Anglican principles of judicial review, subsidiarity, due process of law, and strict constitutionalism.
Gay "marriage" should be the next golden calf on the chopping block. Onwards and upwards! p.s. I love to see all of our euro and Australian friends react in horror, even though, in many instances, their abortion laws are more restrictive than Mississippi's current law.
As I’ve already explained, there is no cognitive dissonance. The kind of confusion you’re displaying is what happens when you commit circular reasoning and argue by slogan, rather than by careful analysis.
Point 1: None of the Trump nominees said that Roe was "settled law" or implied in any way that it was beyond reconsideration. To have done so would have been wholly dissengenuous. Gorsuch, in his testimony before the senate, acknowledged that Roe was precedent but specifically denied that it was "super-precedent". Kavanaugh said Roe was "settled as precedent" but declined to say whether the Court opined correctly in it, and, when asked by Sen. Graham how he would handle the question if Roe were ever revisited, he specifically said he would be open minded and listen to all arguments. Similarly, Barrett declined to say that Roe was super-precedent or whether Roe was decided rightly or wrongly. She stated she would apply the rules of stare decisis to the facts and that she had no agenda of overturning Casey. So, despite the media's and politicians' claims to the contrary, no justice said Roe was unapproachable nor did they promise to protect abortion as a constitutional right from all assaults. They stated in their respective confirmation hearings just what was stated in their opinion, Roe was indeed precedent but was clearly erroneous and the court has a duty to correct the error. Which it did, just as the court has done many times before and will no doubt do again in the future. See https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/w...rett-said-about-roe-at-confirmation-hearings/ Point 2: I did read it closely. Thomas is requesting that the court reconsider any case that relied on substantive due process in its determination because he believes that all substantive due process decisions are demonstrably erroneous. In this, he is merely repeating things he has said previous concurrences which no other justice has elected to join. This logic was not relied upon in the majority opinion. In fact, the only justices who reference substantive due process at all are Thomas and the dissenting justices, who seized upon his statement as evidence that this decision would likely erode women's rights. That's why it is deceitful and dishonest for the MSM and disgruntled politicians to take this one paragraph from a 213 page document without context and give it top billing. It had no bearing on the majority opinion and it has no precedential impact. It's less authoritative than dicta (which is informative but not authoritative), it's merely one man's opinion...no more legally enforceable than our opinions on this forum. Point 3: My apologies @Invictus if my words made you feel as if your credibility was attacked. They were not meant for you. I was speaking of those in the media and politicians who know better but are deliberately misrepresenting what the Dobbs decision says and what it means. If my only information on the matter came from the media, I would be similarly concerned about this turn of events.
You’ve described your party quite accurately. I was in fact criticizing those things, as you are well aware, Stalwart.
Real “pro-family” attitude you got there, kid. Do you have any idea how many households would be upended if what you’re perversely hoping for were to happen? Amazing how quickly all these limited government “conservatives” suddenly want a powerful central government to force their values on a majority that doesn’t agree. “States’ rights” went right out the window. Hypocrites.
What are you even talking about? You're getting this exactly backwards. Obergefell, like Roe, was a judicial power-grab over an issue traditionally held by the states. Roe was an unconstitutional power-grab by the federal government. Reversing Roe means that states are now free to make their own abortion laws. As they did for the 200 years before Roe was enacted. This is not a "positive" ruling that arrogates more power to the federal government; this ruling specifically strips away power that was unconstitutionally taken by the federal government. As a US citizen who actually believes in the federal system of sovereign states, this decision pleases me completely apart from the moral issue of abortion. Our federal government has arrogated far too much power to itself and needs to be brought to heel. This decision simply returns the issue to the States, where it rightfully belongs (since it is not specifically enumerated to the Federal government in the Constitution). Reversing Obergefell would also simply revert the issue back to the states -- which I actually doubt will happen, given that Gorsuch and Roberts would certainly vote with the liberals. Also, it's weird to me that even though Alito wrote the majority opinion in Dobbs, Thomas is getting most of the hate from the left.
Others may be limited government conservatives, but I certainly am not. Even if I were, overturning roe v wade and obergefell would just kick the can down to the state level which is what a limited government conservative would want, kid.
How a historic Christian would always view abortion It exegetes God’s teaching on life, and shows the views historic Christians testifying to it throughout the centuries Progressive Christianity is not long to stay, it is but a blip on the radar…. Faithful traditional Christians have always known their view on this whole topic
At last, an intelligent and well-considered response to something I said, and one which addresses what I actually wrote. I was beginning to doubt that was possible here. 1. In the strictest sense, you are correct. What they should’ve been asked is whether they considered Roe to be “binding precedent”; “settled law” is so squishy as to be meaningless. Everything is settled, until it’s unsettled. Every judicial decision is a precedent, but not every precedent is a binding precedent. That being said, their statements were worded in typical Washington-speak, in that they were technically true but potentially misleading, in part to allow the Senators to save face. Collins was either being naive or disingenuous (I strongly suspect the latter). To be a Supreme Court Justice is an exercise in raw power. It is an institution that will be as arbitrary as it is allowed to be. Roe actually was binding precedent - it bore directly upon the case before the Court - and they chose, on the basis of their own intentions, to set it aside, as we all knew they would eventually do. Alito’s reasoning was so atrociously bad it was embarrassing to read it. This was a power play, no more, no less. 2. Thomas’ comments should be treated the same way, viz., as technically true but misleading. A blind man can that the current majority on the Court has every intention of eroding the secularism of our Constitutional system as much as they can, and they’ve made it clear that they will honor neither binding precedent nor the clear wishes of the majority of the American people. That attitude will almost certainly come back to haunt the Court, in terms of its loss of legitimacy, potential future action by Congress, left-leaning States borrowing right-wing arguments to advance backdoor nullification schemes, etc. None of this is a good thing. But I would absolutely expect this Court to erode other rights that don’t agree with extremist Roman Catholic dogma endorsed by the majority on the Court (e.g., marriage equality, contraception, etc.). That’s a reasonable expectation. 3. Apology accepted. I generally rely on original documents as much as possible, rather than media accounts of them. I appreciate your thoughtful response.