Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights per draft opinion (Update: Dobbs opinion official) (2 Viewers)

[Brennan77]

Forgive me for posting this given that I'm not a regular participant.

Exclusive: Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows

“We hold that Roe and Casey must be overruled,” Justice Alito writes in an initial majority draft circulated inside the court.

www.politico.com

Read Justice Alito's initial draft abortion opinion which would overturn Roe v. Wade

Read the full 98-page initial draft majority opinion.

www.politico.com

 

[superchuck500]

I didn't say it was, obviously. I'm just giving you a little peek into how others feel so perhaps you'll realize how far off you are in this case.

How others feel also isn’t law. And how can I be “far off” when I’m stating what the law actually is? When what you’re saying is what the law isn’t?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The idea that an American lawmaker cannot cite religion as a basis for his or her support of a law or policy is nonsense. And when they do, it doesn’t involve citizens being subjected to religion against their will. The case you cite involved a nativity scene at a courthouse (and a dissent isn’t law).

Are you aware that the Supreme Court has in modern times ruled that towns can open meetings with prayer as long as they don’t exclude anyone who wishes to lead the “prayer” time slot? Or that a public high school coach did not violate the establishment clause by conducting prayers on the 50 yard line after games?

If you really want me to expound - with case citation - to explain to you what I think it well settled and beyond dispute, I will. But really? You’re grossly expanding the meaning is the establishment clause and suggesting it requires the complete divorce of religion from all aspects of governing - when both the text of the clause and the Supreme Court say no such thing.

They botched that one big time.

 

[DaveXA]

Dave - I do think that the states who have passed these very restrictive abortion laws have crossed the line between church and state. That’s why there are several suits against these states right now by Jewish people and people of other faiths, saying that the restrictions are contrary to their own religious beliefs and that they are forcing them to live by fundamentalist Christian and Catholic beliefs.

I don't disagree, but being what it is now, people in those states will have to make their own decisions about what their abortion laws are. Granted there probably will come a time when those limits are revisited at the federal level. I'm not sure how that would happen. The best way to resolve it imo is for Congress to codify something approaching what Roe was for 50 years.

I still contend that a lot of politicians are pro-life or pro-choice because it's their party's position and not so much a real personal or religious red line. It's politically driven, although there's no doubt some religious influence, particularly in the Republican Party. If not for the party's duplicity in all things Trump, I might still be a Republican today. As things sit now, I can't see myself returning.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

How others feel also isn’t law. And how can I be “far off” when I’m stating what the law actually is? When what you’re saying is what the law isn’t?

Nonsense again. No one is saying that religion can't play a part in a voter's mind or a law makers mind. What's being said by those of us who can think is that religion can't be THE reason behind a law or position. Right now when it comes to abortion we have religion as THE reason the Supreme Court, and states, are pushing pro-life.

 

[DaveXA]

That sounds good, but we know the real reason why the SC pushed back abortion to the States, and that reason is giving red States the ability to ban abortions for residents of that State, and not because it makes sense constitutionally. And that decision was based on religious zealousness and interpretation of a religious book.

Fair point. But I maintain that we're in this spot more because of the hyper-politicization of the nomination process for SCOTUS justices than because of religion. The anti-abortion stance as a political position has been around since well before the religious right in politics was a thing.

 

[DaveXA]

Nonsense again. No one is saying that religion can't play a part in a voter's mind or a law makers mind. What's being said by those of us who can think is that religion can't be THE reason behind a law or position. Right now when it comes to abortion we have religion as THE reason the Supreme Court, and states, are pushing pro-life.

Implying a lawyer can't think is pretty comical.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Implying a lawyer can't think is pretty comical.

Stewart Rhodes
Richard Nixon

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Fair point. But I maintain that we're in this spot more because of the hyper-politicization of the nomination process for SCOTUS justices than because of religion. The anti-abortion stance as a political position has been around since well before the religious right in politics was a thing.

It is the hyper-political that are following the hyper-religious lead not the other way around.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

If not for the party's duplicity in all things Trump, I might still be a Republican today. As things sit now, I can't see myself returning.

The Republican party is morally bankrupt Trump or not Trump.

 

[DaveXA]

Stewart Rhodes
Richard Nixon

Lol, you do realize Chuck is a lawyer, right? And knowing his posting history, one of the more reasonable ones I've read over the years.

It is the hyper-political that are following the hyper-religious lead.

There's some of that. But again, I think it's the other way around for the most part.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Lol, you do realize Chuck is a lawyer, right?

So isn't Stewart Rhodes. So wasn't Richard Nixon. Neither one could think worth a damn.

There's some of that. But again, I think it's the other way around for the most part.

I don't know what would make you think that.

 

[DaveXA]

The Republican party is morally bankrupt Trump or not Trump.

Probably. But we're better off as a country without Trump. I thought the party was redeemable before Trump. Not so much anymore tho.

 

[DaveXA]

So isn't Stewart Rhodes. So wasn't Richard Nixon. Neither one could think worth a damn.

Well, your comments speak volumes. Lol.

To be clear, if you think insulting the people you're debating with is gonna help your argument...it won't.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Well, your comments speak volumes. Lol.

I would say it's your comments that speak volumes, or more honestly don't speak at all.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Probably. But we're better off as a country without Trump. I thought the party was redeemable before Trump. Not so much anymore tho.

The party made Trump, Trump didn't make the Republican party.

 

[DaveXA]

I would say it's your comments that speak volumes, or more honestly don't speak at all.

Like I said, you insulting people you're debating with isn't gonna win you anything.

 

[BullSheetBuddha]

Like I said, you insulting people you're debating with isn't gonna win you anything.

I'm not insulting anyone. It's you who is drooling at the mouth and has been throughout the last few pages of this thread. I saw it coming dozens of posts ago.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I'm not insulting anyone. It's you who is drooling at the mouth and has been throughout the last few pages of this thread. I saw it coming dozens of posts ago.

You might want to give it a rest. Chuck was trying to patiently explain to you the reality and legality of what you are going on about. He and Dave have been far more patient than your posts have warranted.