SCOTUS and whatnot

[gehringer_2]

25 minutes ago, oblong said:

 

but he's deeply rooted in history!

[ewsieg]

20 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

"they won't do that"

they are already doing that

So, back to serious, but this does bring up a question that I honestly think isn't just something the right asks.  My wife and I wanted our kids and let's say she was robbed and assaulted and we lost our baby over it, I know personally I would want murder charges.  Is that right?  I don't know.  

I know there are some states that do charge like that though.  Sounds like Alabama is one of them.  If the pregnant mother was the one committing the felony, from a law stance, I think it opens up to the fact that she would be responsible.   I can only assume she wanted to have this baby and likely any charge pales in comparison to what she is already going through, so i'm not going to say it serves the greater good of the community, but it doesn't seem as far fetched as Reason makes it out to be IMO.

[gehringer_2]

18 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

 Is that right?  I don't know.  

 

That may be true, But that's why we establish law under cool headed distance and don't leave it to the vengeance of aggrieved parties.

OTOH, I would challenge those on the Christian fundamentalist Bible infallibility side to read their Torah and see that even there, the penalty for causing a miscarriage was money damages.

Edited May 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[mtutiger]

6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I know there are some states that do charge like that though.  Sounds like Alabama is one of them.  If the pregnant mother was the one committing the felony, from a law stance, I think it opens up to the fact that she would be responsible.   I can only assume she wanted to have this baby and likely any charge pales in comparison to what she is already going through, so i'm not going to say it serves the greater good of the community, but it doesn't seem as far fetched as Reason makes it out to be IMO.

Reason takes that stand (correctly IMO) because it presents a whole bunch of other questions about the kind of power that the legal system has in holding pregnant women accountable for an unsuccessful pregnancy.

Put another way, if you hold a pregnant woman accountable for this, what stops the legal system for holding them accountable for a miscarriage because they took a specific medication or drank alcohol (for all we know, before they ever knew they were pregnant)?

I don't know about you, but I really don't want to live in a world where women who have miscarriages (which I'm guessing almost everyone knows someone who has had one, btw) could be held criminally liable for it.

[mtutiger]

 

[CMRivdogs]

My views go back to pre Rowe when having a child out of wedlock still carried a severe stigma. I know girls around 16, 17 or so who were forced to drop out of school. Get involved in "shotgun" marriages, that usually failed in the end. Or if older had to give up promising careers that they later regretted. Even if the child was given up for adoption, the stigma remained. Not that the "guilt" of having an abortion wouldn't be there as well.

I think of the 20 something college educated woman who would have probably lost her job, had her family abandon her (there was a family history there). Even if she gave the child up she was already screwed...

[RatkoVarda]

7 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

 

yep. cannot let Roe stand as it is a state issue.

also, here is the federal ban.

Edited May 5, 2022 by RatkoVarda

[gehringer_2]

11 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said:

yep. cannot let Roe stand as it is a state issue.

also, here is the federal ban.

TBF, if all they do is state that abortion is not a fundamental right - say instead of deciding a more expansive question like that a fertilized egg has civil rights - that does not preclude the Federal government from legislating about it. In fact if the Federal gov were to come under more complete control by pro-choice forces I'm sure there would be as much pressure to pass nationwide legalization that would trump state law, as there is pressure on anti-abortion forces in the current Federal gov to pass nationwide anti-abortion laws. So you are left with potential ping-pong politics. That is one reason the court stepped in in the first place. It's bad for law to be so fundamentally at variance between the states, and it's also bad for such a big question to be re-litigated with every election. 

I tend to think John Roberts understands all these issues quite well, but probably can't do much about it right now.

Edited May 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[oblong]

A constitutional amendment

[Edman85]

Federal law allowing abortion in the case of rape, incest, or mother's health would seem to have enough support to happen, and could be used against anybody who opposes it.

[Motown Bombers]

 

[gehringer_2]

35 minutes ago, oblong said:

A constitutional amendment

Seems unlikely there is any proposition 38 states would agree on either way.

Edited May 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

19 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

if she were a guy, she'd be a putz.

[oblong]

2 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Seems unlikely there is any proposition 38 states would agree on either way.

I don't think we'll ever see another constitutional amendment passed.

 

 

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don't think we'll ever see another constitutional amendment passed.

 

 

which is in itself prima facie evidence that the original system has broken down. And again, to my reading this obsessive deification of the 'original text' of the document on the right is aimed at protecting the ascendency of a minority that can't pledge itself to the spirit and aspirations of the document any more.

Edited May 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

2 hours ago, oblong said:

 

I remember learning about when his writings were ratified at the constitutional convention.

[gehringer_2]

34 minutes ago, pfife said:

I remember learning about when his writings were ratified at the constitutional convention.

and they knew because they saw the white smoke from the chimney!

[Tigerbomb13]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

 

“Kavanaugh and Gorsuch have learned their lesson”

Edited May 5, 2022 by Tigerbomb13

[gehringer_2]

Not that it matters, but I think there are three possible scenarios to this leak.

1)The most obvious is someone in one of the liberal judges chambers leaked it to help the Dems kickstart and fund raise for the 2022 Election campaign.

2) Alito leaked it because Kavanaugh or Barrett was having second thoughts and by showing the conservative world where they 'should/could' be, bringing maximum pressure not to be branded the conservative that torpedoed everything a generation had worked for. 

3) Roberts leaked it. This is the most subtle possibility - That Robert's doesn't want this decision because of the damage to the court institutionally, and that by letting a Kavanaugh see the demons ready to be let loose, he thinks he maybe be able pull him or Barrett back into a less controversial and more incremental ruling.

My money remains on 1, but 2 and 3 are intriguing.

And of course this is assuming 5-4. If the Chief is with the majority, then only #1 remains.

Edited May 5, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Motown Bombers]

Not sure how reliable this source is, but sadly I find it believable. 

[mtutiger]

 

[chasfh]

2 hours ago, Motown Bombers said:

Not sure how reliable this source is, but sadly I find it believable. 

And if they both die he gets a twofer!

[chasfh]

 

[1984Echoes]

7 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

if she were a guy, she'd be a putz.

I can think of worse words than that, and more accurate.

How about a lying hypocritical MF'er (if she were a guy that is...)?

[mtutiger]