We have been down this "states rights" path before, and it ended badly.
- Thread starter soybean
- Start date
And it was not until The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act Of 1965 that real changes in the law began to appear and Jim Crowe laws were put to an end. In 1970 there were still “White only” restrooms and drink fountains in Birmingham Alabama. Don’t try and bullshit a bullshitter Hawknado...I saw it...I lived through it...and I remember it. You are such a racist piece of shit...a tool...shame on you!
Tfx.....Justice Ginsberg was Jewish so I bet it is safe to assume the answer to your inquiry is “No!”
Of course it is no.
It is interesting though seeing how her beliefs on the law surrounding Roe are exactly why it was overturned and yet we have the modern day lynching of Clarence Thomas going on yet again.
I don't think you are making a very good point in relation to this topic. Gay marriage for example was determined by the states and made legal by states. Once the door opened by the states, Iowa being one of the first, the rest followed and gay marriage became the law of the land. It is exactly how abortion would have developed in this country without roe.
States can ban marriage but God help the politician that tries. It is such a non starter that the politician that said it likely would need to resign. There could be a push to try and ban gay marriage again but in my opinion that ship has sailed. Republicans don't even want to ban gay marriage unless they are religious zealots.
Abortion will be available in most states and likely all states. It will eventually be the law of the land again. Right now zero states have banned abortion.
Abortion is banned in Missouri with no exceptions for rape or incest. Its only exceptions are for medical emergencies that threaten the life of the pregnant person or “create a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman.
But you would support a state that decided that gay marriage was no longer legal and fought to have it overturned as you have with the right for a woman to choose to have an abortion. You are exactly what the far right zealots are counting on.
Thank you for the reply.
Three points:
States were required to allow gay marriage only after the Court issued its Obergefell opinion. Before that, the states could and many states did ban gay marriage.
The marriage question I kept asking shows the fallacy of believing that if a word isn’t in the Constitution, the right doesn’t exist. Marriage isn’t in the Constitution, but the Court would still strike down any state law prohibiting it. Marriage was of course a long standing tradition and the Court would have no problem striking down any state law that tried to eliminate it — which shows that the 10th Amendment argument is simply wrong.
Finally, some states will or have have banned essentially all abortions.
Depends on the political system of that state. Some states allow law-making via referendum other states don't.
However if your state does allow law making via referendum I don't think the politicians can simply overturn that law without another referendum.
I wasn't talking about a formal referendum. Just wanted a measure of popular will that was more "official" than a poll. So we could say that the people and the state were clearly opposed. Then the "or to the people" part of 10A becomes problematic for the anti-democratic folks.
Sorry, but having 50 individual arguments going on about how people want to handle a situation is much better than 5 people deciding it for everybody.
Not if we are 1 nation of equals (in theory) and the situation we're talking about is who gets more or fewer rights.
Because the confusion of 50 diverts the attention and point of the discussion at hand? Your idea of “democracy” is Marx’s idea of chaos.
Yes slavery was Democrats way to control undesirables and those they viewed as “not a person,” sound familiar?
True, but the court does not restrict states from protecting abortion rights. It seems to me that the issue has been given back to the states.
Shouldn’t a woman in Mississippi have the same rights to her body/privacy as a woman in New York or Nevada? Is “the state” going to arrange travel/expenses for their female resident who seeks an abortion but because the state she resides in prohibits it, must go elsewhere?
The state is denying their resident her right to appropriate healthcare. How will the state compensate the woman?
So you are a bullshitter. Stating a historical fact is… racist? Please show me those mental gymnastics. All the things you speak of were rendered unconstitutional as they should have been
So was the abortion prohibition and we see how that has been turned around.
Our country is going backward rapidly.
The unborn should have a right to life. I’m thankful your mother didn’t abort you, I am happy you get to experience life and all the great things in this world.
There are plenty of places you can kill a child up until birth. Sorry it isn’t convenient for everyone anymore. Planned parenthood will be just fine in abortion states, they’ve stated only 3% of their revenue is from abortions.
I am pro choice. Contraception, abstinence, adoption, mother/fatherhood. I don’t agree with the 5th option of abortion and luckily your mother didn’t either.
And in the past few years, their “constitutionality” has been taken back to the Federal Court’s and been over turned. Particularly parts of the 1965 Voting Rights Bill.
I’m just going to make a wild guess and say it was unconstitutional whatever was removed. That is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court.
Extra Extra, read all about it:
Shelby County v. Holder - Wikipedia
Even though previous Court’s said nothing and even refused to hear arguments. THIS Court will go places no man has ever tried before...to fulfill their agenda and move the USA back into the 1950’s.I’m just going to make a wild guess and say it was unconstitutional whatever was removed. That is the entire purpose of the Supreme Court.
Extra Extra, read all about it:
Shelby County v. Holder - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
See, this is because you have become used to judicial activism where they think they are legislators. Plenty of cases where courts said nothing and then overturned years later. I’m also sure quite a few of them you would wholeheartedly agree with.
Judicial activism is a term that defies definition...it is a made up concept of the right wing and evangelical crowd.
That is the term given when anything other than the constitution is used. All you have to do is read the dissenting opinions to see what I am talking about. It’s pages upon pages of nothing but “this is why we should have it.” Nothing in the dissent actually uses the constitution in making their argument. That is judicial activism.
That's a really stupid argument because my mom and dad wanted me and had the means to take care of me. That's not true for everyone. There is much debate over when human life begins - why is it the Christian philosophy is the only one we can have?
I'll be waiting for the efforts to make contraception illegal and your ignorance of that as well.
Again - dumb. The end of Segregation, marriage equality, the right to contraception, the right of women to own property and have their own bank accounts and take out a mortgage without a husband co-signing were all decided by court decisions and were not in the Constitution.
Are you suggesting all of those decisions, and countless more, should be overturned?
I'm sure Trevor Noah the comedian from south Africa is much more knowledgeable than a supreme court justice
Science clearly states life begins at conception, why not go with that? That’s why I had to wear a mask and get a vaccine, the science.
So it seems your parents had a sense of responsibility before they had hot and steamy sex to conceive you, that’s good. We need more of that.
You’ll be disappointed when condoms don’t leave the shelves.
No. Just. No. Stop making shit up.
And you'll be justifying the decision when they do.
Equal protection of the law. Otherwise state laws. I don’t know why this is difficult. The question isn’t “should” it is “could.” You should read a book on civics if you don’t understand how this all works. Local/state/federal, legislature, executive, judicial, they all have their ways of working and have limits on what they can do. I’m not answering anymore of your civics questions.
Because you're incapable. The gibberish you just typed makes no sense in the context of the question asked - many significant decisions have been made that have no direct basis in the Constitution. Are you suggesting these should all be overturned?
Of course you're not. But that's why your argument holds absolutely no water.
Your parents didn’t have hot and steamy sex? I didn’t mean to make it up.
I guess I’ll answer one more civics question. If they were to do anything about contraception at the SCOTUS level that means it would go to theeeeeeee State!
Here is some life science for ya:
You are being redirected...
acpeds.org
