RIOT, ahem, Protest Season 2022 in 3, 2, xx

[Pete F.]

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.
The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights. It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.
Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.
All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.
Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.
Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As far as inconsequential goes the cost of a vaginal delivery in America as of 11/21 was $5-$11K. Who foots the bill for that, to say nothing of raising a child, when women are forced to give birth & the places most likely to force them to do so don’t fund medical & related services?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is the federal government responsible for the cost of a vaginal delivery or have the power to determine who foots the bill for it?

Does vaginal delivery fall within the scope of the Interstate Commerce Clause or the Welfare Clause or any other federal enumerated power in the Constitution?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

In the US there have been 41 bombings of abortion clinics, and another 173 arsons.
11 total people have been murdered in 7 separate attacks on abortion clinics. There have also been 17 attempted murders.
To my knowledge, there are zero cases of pro-choice bombings or murders.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The states have the legal power to penalize murder. All 50 states have laws against murder and attempted murder. Murders by pro-life advocates are not exempt from prosecution and punishment. What more do you want?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Many don’t know this.

In 2018, the Government of Ireland put a Woman’s right to abortion up for the National vote. The Catholic Church fought it for years. As a compromise the Government put forward the vote BUT only Irish citizens who were in Ireland on the day of the vote could participate in the election. Sucks right? Well at the time, many of the younger Irish folks were working in Canada, Australia, the European continent and the US. So what happened? Well they got really pissed off that they couldn’t vote at the Irish Embassy.
They planned and coordinated and 1,000s of Irish citizens especially the young, flew back to Ireland from points all over the world just to vote. The referendum passed overwhelmingly and a woman’s right to an abortion was enshrined in law.

Young Americans will do the same here.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Well, that would be the proper way to legalize abortion. The voting will of the majority in the states. State by state. Not by federal fiat or even a federal election since abortion does not fall within any federal enumerated power--notwithstanding the erroneous Roe v. Wade.

He doesn't get, that the right isn't afraid of this, the right wants this, the right knows full well that abortion isn't going to be outlawed everywhere, many states will continue to offer it. CT will probably attempt to turn it into a tourism industry here.

"Come for the abortions, stay for the insurance!"

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The states have the legal power to penalize murder. All 50 states have laws against murder and attempted murder. Murders by pro-life advocates are not exempt from prosecution and punishment. What more do you want?

In the same time, 63,000,000 babies have been slaughtered. How come none of the pro abortion crowd, not here, not in DC, not on TV, not anywhere, can discuss that for ten seconds.

When you willfully ignore the impact to the babies, abortion doesn't seem so bad. Which is like saying if you ignore the iceberg, the maiden voyage of the Titanic doesn't seem so bad.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Altio's draft opinion is policy masquerading as constitutional law. At critical points in the argument, Alito abandons legal analysis for pure policy preference. At other points, his argument relies on weak evidence.

This is opinion masquerading as fact.

The most obvious resort to policy over constitutional analysis in Alito's opinion is where he tries to assure that overturning Roe will not impact other privacy rights, like interracial marriage.
Alito says abortion is different than other privacy rights because there is a fetal life involved. But that isn't a constitutional basis for distinguishing those other rights.

It is not based on history & tradition or the nature of constitutional rights.

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

Many rights have negative consequences on third parties, including most obviously the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

How so? The right to keep and bear arms is not a right to murder.

The unwritten right to contraception can be said to have a similar third-party impact as abortion.

Contraception prevents their being a third party.

All the other privacy rights are clearly in jeopardy, despite Alito's assurance. Contraception, interracial marriage, sexual intimacy -- none of those rights could withstand Alito's history and tradition test that looks only to the law existing before the 14th amendment.

Alito's opinion maintains the constitutional separation of power between federal and local governments. It more consistently maintains the integrity of the Constitution. And it doesn't outlaw abortion, or sexual intimacy, or interracial marriage, or contraception.

All rights are in jeopardy when left to the whim of Progressive interpretation. You, or who you're parroting, sound like a Progressive and would tolerate any SCOTUS decision that allowed whatever you prefer. Those things you listed are less "in jeopardy" by Alito's constitutional opinion than by a Progressive basis for constitutional interpretation regarding any of them when under the scrutiny of Progressive jurors who see the constitution as an ever changing, living and breathing, legal prescription whose main purpose is to uphold the power of the central government's desire to improve the lives of the people depending on what the experts of the day decide is currently considered "good."

Alito also departs from standard constitutional practice by disregarding decades of precedent (over an above Roe) on due process. Obergefell, Lawrence, Harlan in Poe, early incorporation cases -- all said history is a guide but not the only basis for finding of a right.
Yet Alito says that a strictly historical understanding of liberty is the settled way of doing due process analysis. In fact, that approach was explicitly rejected in Obergefell and other cases.
Alito's argument about how the common law treated abortion is also remarkably weak. Nearly all the evidence that he cites shows that *pre-quickening* (about 16 weeks), abortion was not criminalized.
Alito cites one source for saying that person who unlawfully kills a fetus before quickening by giving the woman an elixir would be guilty of murder if the woman dies. Note what is missing: The historical source did NOT say that the delivery of an elixir that kills the fetus would be guilty of murder. No law that Alito cites says that.
Alito offers no history to support pre-quickening illegality, other than a seemingly offhand use of the word "unlawfully" by one source -- who wasn't even discussing abortion by choice.

Progressives like to have it both ways. Precedent (that they approve of) is sacrosanct and must not be overturned (until they deem it as musty remnants of old dead white men). But, on the other hand, the Constitution must constantly change to somehow suit the time.

Perhaps a good decision could be written overturning Roe & Casey, one based on strictly constitutional reasoning rather than hidden policy choices. But Alito hasn't written it. His analysis gives history and tradition a bad name.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The "history and tradition" of constitutional separation of powers that limits the central power and gives more power to the states has had a bad name in the view of Progressives ever since their beginning in this country.

[wdmso]

yep that's about right

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yep that's about right

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

yep that's about right

Yup. Our government has been turning into a carnival of stealing. Stealing elections, the people's money and livellhoods, freedoms and rights--one big Progressive power grab filtering into the megaplex of power and control by the few who enrich themselves while distracting us with cartoonish entertainments to keep us reasonably happy as they pull the phony wool over our eyes.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

why was it stolen? where is it written that a republican senate must confirm the nominee of a democratic president?

ever heard of robert bork?

the american people freely chose to give senate control to republicans. America wanted a republican senate.

and look up “The Biden rule”.

that’s literally, exactly what McCinnell
did. He enacted The Biden Rule.

Why was it ok for biden to say the senate should block SCOTUS nominees late in the term of a potus in the other party? if that was ok, why was what McConnell
did, wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

That’s pretty much what he was saying. Bad reading comprehension is some serious wdmso territory

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you can’t talk to them. can’t.

Thanks TDF.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

i said garland should have had a hearing. and then been rejected.

but, you know what the biden rule is. What McCinnell did, literally and exactly, was to enact the Biden Rule.

if it was swell for biden, please explain why it was bad for McConnell.

Spence here’s a very simple question. Do you think i oppose abortion because i want to enslave women, or because I’m a racist? or because i’d prefer babies be born, to their being slaughtered by the tens of millions?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

It's right there next to "filibuster," after the section where it says the Supreme Court can only have nine Justices.

Before the section that limits the House to 435 members?
Or the section that prohibits DC statehood?
Or the one that says a sitting President is immune from criminal prosecution?

It would also be hard to find abortion in the constitution because it doesn’t mention woman at all nor anyone who wasn’t a white male as having rights so not the best document to look at for words like that.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

can any of the lefties here, please tell us where the constitution says that we the people, through our elected officials in the states, cannot regulate abortion as we wish? some will wish to restrict it, some will wish to provide it at will.

democracy will dictate this, if the draft holds. The left is appalled at the thought of democracy. It horrifies them.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander , they only care about the base voter Aka primary voter .

And are afraid it would pass .. but be sure they would disregarded it ,


McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President
The Republican signals that if his party retakes the Senate, he’ll block Biden’s high court nominees in 2024—and very probably in 2023.

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Jim like I’ve said if red states cared about democracy they would hold a referendum vote on abortion but they won’t their states are super gerrymander "

Please tell us, in a statewide election/referendum, what effect gerrymandering has?

Answer - none. It makes zero difference in a statewide contest, because every vote counts the same, regardless of which district it's in.

Where do you get the idea that democrats don't gerrymander? When CT lost a congressional seat a few years ago, they re-drew the one conservative district (rural) in the state, and re-defined it to include enough of Waterbury (urban) to make it reliably blue.

Gerrymandering helps you win statewide contests. Honest to god...

"McConnell Explains How He’ll Steal Another Supreme Court Pick From Another Democratic President"

Did the democrats in the senate steal Bork's seat when they rejected him?

Why is it OK for senate democrats to block a republican nominee, but "stealing" when senate republicans block a democrat nominee?

The Biden Rule. If it was OK for Biden, it's OK for McConnell. What's good for the goose...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Yep rule of law , court precedent
All forsaken for power vis the minority
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you aware that this is hardly the first time the SCOTUS had overturned precedent?

Look up Plessy V Ferguson. There, the SCOTUS said segregation was legal. Then, 50 years later, SCOTUS reversed that in Brown V Board of Ed.

Decisions sometimes get reversed. It's not a crisis when a decision gets reversed.

[wdmso]

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Question doses anyone honestly think that if Roe is struck down and becomes a State rights issue as suggested by those on the Right ..

That those states or the anti Abortion activists are going to stop ? And go home . They will be after a National ban next

Rubio targets 'woke executives' covering travel for employees to get abortions

Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors

I guess this is how Republicans
respect the privacy and freedoms of companies and their employees Freedom for me not for thee because I disagree

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"They will be after a National ban next "

My good god. The basis of the draft opinion, is that it's not a federal issue, but a state issue.

"Sen. Marco Rubio's new bill wouldn't let employers deduct travel expenses that pay for abortion or trans care for minors"

And if his constituents don't like that, they will vote him out.

"I guess..."

5 minutes ago, you guessed that gerrymandering can rig a statewide election, and you won't concede you were wrong. Maybe think a bit more, before you offer your guesses.

I'll ask you what I asked Spence, and of course he didn't answer...

do you think I'm prolife because I hate women, because I'm racist, or because I have empathy for the baby?

Your side spends 100% of its time talking about the impact to the mothers (and that's a valid point, but it's not the only point), and 0% of your time talking about the baby. Because every single one of you know, that any discussion of that side of this, makes your position look barbaric.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Little Marco is appealing to you guessed the rabid MAGA base not the avg American… just like the SC
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Again, if you could translate that to human english, I'd appreciate it.

Trump got 74,000,000 votes in 2020, which is the second-most any candidate has ever gotten (not enough, obviously). None of those 74M were average Americans?

Maybe your view of what's average, is a tad askew.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bork had a full Senate hearing and was voted down. You’re seriously in wdmso territory,

so you wouldn't be upset, if they gave Garland a hearing and voted him down? That's a sincere question.

[Jim in CT]

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?
Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?
Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Since Detbuch is convinced that a fetus is a human being at conception

If the "fetus" is considered a human being, then it would be a constitutional basis.

If a fetus is a person at 6 weeks pregnant, is that when the child support starts?

As you can see, since you quoted it, I said "human being," not "person." Not sure how you missed that. Probably your usual twisting, lying business.

Is that also when you can't deport the mother because she's carrying a U.S. citizen?

I believe the criteria is that the baby must be "born" in the U.S.

Can I insure a 6 week fetus, and collect for a miscarriage?

Well, first you can identify as a woman, then claim you are pregnant, then work it out with and insurance agency.

Maybe the radical clerics that issued the Fatwa against abortion will clarify it.

So you need clarification?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Here's your reminder that John Cornyn compared Plessy vs. Ferguson to same-sex marriage during Jackson's confirmation vote during the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's pretty clear that's going to be the next thing in the crosshairs.

Various things that have seemed exceedingly clear to you, have not been so.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

wdmso, another question…

you’re upset the court overturned precedent. Well the court has done that before, my favorite example is Plessy V Ferguson which legalized segregation, that was overturned 50 years later.

If you’re ok with that being overturned, that means you’re ok with bad rulings being overturned.

You can’t say “i support the idea of overturning precedent, but only when i like the outcome.”

Either the idea of overturning precedent is ok, or it’s not. it’s not “ok, but only when it moves us to the left. “. which is obviously your position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Did you know when it was overturned white Christians pulled their kids from public school to white only Christian ones ..

Jim like every thing , it’s not the reversal it’s the logic for the reversal

Segregation was discrimination using the current courts logic it should not have been turned over because segregation was a Traditional value in America

yet the logic suddenly changed with 3 holy rollers on the bench.. from what it was 2 years prior to their appointments coincidence? Nope

most rational people see this for what it clearly is . An emotional religious ruling not a legal one..

And if you think a National ban isn’t next .. your not paying attention


Just out Senate Republicans are working with antiabortion activists already to put together a bill banning abortion if they win control of the chamber in November’s midterm elections.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“it’s not the reversal”.

then why are you complaining about the reversal in so many of your posts?

“it’s the logic for the reversal”

have you stated a legal
opinion as to why the reversal is wrong? or is it legally wrong simply because you don’t like it? can you tell me, legally, why Alito draft is wrong on the law?

the leak has resulted in barricades around the scotus building, and calls
for protesting the homes of the judges. but a conservative did that, right?

Alito had to cancel public appearances because of concerns for his safety.

you going to tell us that conservatives threatened him?

last year, Schumer said justices would reap the whirlwind, pay a price, and never know what hit them, if they did things he didn’t like.

but that was ok.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device