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

[LovesMusic7360]

Not long ago Kari Lake proclaimed Arizona's abortion law was a great law and wanted it the law of the state.

Now that she has gotten her way, she is lobbying for it to be repealed.

As I have been saying since 2022, the overwhelming vast majority of women aren't going to vote for the man who proudly boasts that he got rid of Roe V. Wade. Nor are those women going to vote for a forced birther politician.

Turns out, republican belief in "pro life" was all just lies to get votes. Who is surprised? I sure am not.

How many forced birthers will do the same about face?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/ka ... r-BB1ltx3I.

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake is actively lobbying state lawmakers to overturn a 160-year-old law she once supported that bans abortion in almost all cases, a source with knowledge of her efforts told CNN.

 

[Farb]

I'd call "protected classes" as protecting people who have been historically discriminated against. One has nothing to do with the other.



Why do you need to push back against protected classes unless you're discriminating against them?



None of that is true.



If they are religious, as you are, then you're in a protected class. The the SC has been doing a lot of protecting of religious people lately, so you should feel very protected.



Yes, housing financing, environmental justice, disparities in prosecutions and judgements against people of different races and classes. Employment protections for LGBTQ+ people (in states without explicit protections, people can and have been fired at will for being gay.



I just did.

It is true.
Can you show me a state that allows employers to fire someone for being gay? Can you so also show me the data of housing discrimination currently on the books? Can you also explain what environmental justice is as a blanket term- all these new terms that the left keeps using to confuse the situation are new to me?

Why would I push back against protected classes unless I want to discriminate against them. Strawman much LOL? So the only reason that a person a person doesn't like the idea of a democratic government elevating one class of people because of past wrongs is so that they can discriminate against them? If the list of the protected and not protect was 'not true' then how can someone discriminate against that grouping of citizens? Cant do both. You have to pick one.

Equity is only to sate the need revenge. Much like all of Marxism and their war on the west.

 

[Farb]

@Farb -
can you point to a system or government body, agency with historical policies of discrimination against straight white men (of which I am a member)?

How about a history of violence and domestic terrorism at places where straight white men pray or gather?

Or how about a time white straight white men were not allowed to vote? Or own property?

Hundred thousand brave Americans died to keep the traitor half of this nation from owning humans. Any of em straight white guys?

And then you add “aren’t needed anymore.” Yeah. Sure. I am certain nobody would discriminate if they were allowed to.

Which other laws do you think have done their part and now should just be eliminated?

Presently, or generations in the past? Again, you are looking to satisfy your thirst for revenge. Nothing more.

 

[Farb]

I never said that. Stop being so dishonest.

You didn't say it, you don't have to. It is obvious to all. Nothing specifically to you, I am guilty too. Heck, most of America is the same way. We villainize our political opponents as by design.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You didn't say it, you don't have to. It is obvious to all. Nothing specifically to you, I am guilty too. Heck, most of America is the same way. We villainize our political opponents as by design.

No, you do that. Stop projecting your terrible nature onto others. We're not all you.

 

[Farb]

My argument is that this is your religious stance, which runs directly counter to your claim that you have repeatedly asserted that you "understand this country is built upon religious liberty and that liberty also includes not living by my religion but by yours as long it doesn't break the laws of our society".

When you make any effort to enact and/or repeal laws or overturn rulings that prohibit someone from practicing their religion, you are forcing others to live by your religious rules, period.

I am not making a broad claim, which means I am not strawmanning anyone. Your argument displays either a complete lack of honesty or a complete lack of basic comprehension. Either way, it's pathetic.

This is a silly and blind take. Do you not vote on your moral principles? You do. You think murdering babies in the womb is fine and good but that goes directly against my religious views. What is the solution in your mind? Since my moral are based on religion and yours is based on your ideological beliefs then the only way to have a working democracy is for me to accept your moral code as mine is by it foundation wrong?

So what if I vote by my moral code? Still not seeing how my religious views contradicts what I am saying about living in a free society. I don't think you can explain why you think it does without just admitting that my stance is rooted by a religious belief and you have been conditioned to see all stances that are against your beliefs as wrong, ESPECIALLY a religious stance.

 

[brandon]

Can you show me a state that allows employers to fire someone for being gay?

Until sexual orientation was added to the protected classes, this was a common occurrence. And it was completely legal in every at-will state that didn't have a specific law banning it.

Currently in any at-will state, your employer can fire you for just about any reason whatsoever, so long as it doesn't have to do with race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc (protected classes). Your boss doesn't like the way you tied your shoes today? He can fire you for it.

Sexual orientation was added to the protected classes in 2015. That's not exactly ancient history. Prior to that, if you boss didn't like you being gay, he could fire you for it.

Why would I push back against protected classes unless I want to discriminate against them.

Why, indeed.

 

[superchuck500]

It is true.
Can you show me a state that allows employers to fire someone for being gay? Can you so also show me the data of housing discrimination currently on the books? Can you also explain what environmental justice is as a blanket term- all these new terms that the left keeps using to confuse the situation are new to me?

Why would I push back against protected classes unless I want to discriminate against them. Strawman much LOL? So the only reason that a person a person doesn't like the idea of a democratic government elevating one class of people because of past wrongs is so that they can discriminate against them? If the list of the protected and not protect was 'not true' then how can someone discriminate against that grouping of citizens? Cant do both. You have to pick one.

Equity is only to sate the need revenge. Much like all of Marxism and their war on the west.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2020 that Title VII's prohibition on employment action "based on sex" applied to prohibit employment action (i.e. firing) based on the employee's sexual orientation or transgendered status. This means that no employer covered by federal Title VII (generally any employer with more than 14 employees) can fire someone for being gay . . . it's not state-by-state.

For smaller businesses, it is state by state, and for those employers - to answer your question - the reality is that they can fire someone for being gay in many states (try and guess which ones, I bet you'll get it right).

What's interesting about the Supreme Court's 2020 decision, linked below (it was 6-3 with dissents from, you guessed it, Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh), is that in finding that Title VII's protection of "sex" based action in the workplace included sexual orientation and dynamic gender, rather than a more rudimentary binary definition of male and female. Given that sex and gender have long been considered within the scope of constitutional equal protection, at some point it becomes difficult to square with the idea that the 14th Amendment due process components (same section that provides the basis for equal protection) don't prohibit "sex" based discrimination in state law applicable to aspects of civil life that include marriage (as reflected in Thomas's now infamous concurrence in Dobbs).

BOSTOCK v. CLAYTON COUNTY

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[CoolBrees]

@Farb

So you think the 14th Amendment was a revenge tactic?

That is a bold, albeit ridiculous, stand. Well done!

 

[coldseat]

It is true.
Can you show me a state that allows employers to fire someone for being gay? Can you so also show me the data of housing discrimination currently on the books? Can you also explain what environmental justice is as a blanket term- all these new terms that the left keeps using to confuse the situation are new to me?

No, I'm not going to show you. You can take my word for it or google it.

Why would I push back against protected classes unless I want to discriminate against them. Strawman much LOL? So the only reason that a person a person doesn't like the idea of a democratic government elevating one class of people because of past wrongs is so that they can discriminate against them? If the list of the protected and not protect was 'not true' then how can someone discriminate against that grouping of citizens? Cant do both. You have to pick one.

If protected status is removed from any particular group, what exactly is it that you gain? What would you be able to do against those people that you aren't able to do right now?

Equity is only to sate the need revenge. Much like all of Marxism and their war on the west.

Whatever that means ...

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is a silly and blind take. Do you not vote on your moral principles? You do.

I vote on what I believe to be best for the people of this country.

You think murdering babies in the womb is fine and good but that goes directly against my religious views. What is the solution in your mind? Since my moral are based on religion and yours is based on your ideological beliefs then the only way to have a working democracy is for me to accept your moral code as mine is by it foundation wrong?

No. The solution is that we decide what is best for societal health. What we don't do is strip away rights based on religious opinions.

So what if I vote by my moral code? Still not seeing how my religious views contradicts what I am saying about living in a free society.

Your religious code dictates that you support anti-abortion candidates. Banning abortions restricts the ability of others to freely practice their religion.

I don't think you can explain why you think it does without just admitting that my stance is rooted by a religious belief and you have been conditioned to see all stances that are against your beliefs as wrong, ESPECIALLY a religious stance.

Except... I just explained it. Your inability to understand or acknowledge that is your fault.

 

[MT15]

It is true.
Can you show me a state that allows employers to fire someone for being gay? Can you so also show me the data of housing discrimination currently on the books? Can you also explain what environmental justice is as a blanket term- all these new terms that the left keeps using to confuse the situation are new to me?

Why would I push back against protected classes unless I want to discriminate against them. Strawman much LOL? So the only reason that a person a person doesn't like the idea of a democratic government elevating one class of people because of past wrongs is so that they can discriminate against them? If the list of the protected and not protect was 'not true' then how can someone discriminate against that grouping of citizens? Cant do both. You have to pick one.

Equity is only to sate the need revenge. Much like all of Marxism and their war on the west.

Every state that is a “right to work” state. Employers don’t have to state their reason, they don’t even have to acknowledge they have a reason to fire someone. I don’t think you’re stupid enough to not know how this is gamed in the real world.

You keep twisting words around - protected classes don’t elevate people - they try to give them a level playing field in a world that holds them down.

Housing is still being gamed in the real world. Even though it’s against the law. We see stories every few months about it. Nothing ever happens to the people who are discriminatory though because the laws have no teeth and are difficult to enforce.

You know all this. You just don’t want to admit it because it makes you look bad. It’s like saying that speeding doesn’t exist because there are laws against it everywhere. You’re not this stupid.

 

[Optimus Prime]

This is pretty amazing

South Carolina Supreme Court strikes down state abortion ban

The South Carolina Supreme Court has struck down a ban on abortion once cardiac activity is detected — typically around six weeks.

apnews.com

The South Carolina Supreme Court’s ruling that the state’s ban on abortion after six weeks violates the right to privacy contained in the state constitution represents a phenomenal achievement.

Who would have imagined that conservative South Carolina, where the Republican-controlled legislature selects the justices and only one of the five is a Democrat, would be the first state whose high court would strike down an abortion law in the aftermath of federal protection?


On a purely practical level, the ruling makes South Carolina an oasis for abortion rights in the otherwise hostile territory of the Deep South. It means that abortions will be more accessible not only for women in South Carolina but for those in nearby states who would otherwise have to travel hundreds of miles farther.


And it offers a model for other state courts navigating the post-Roe legal landscape, especially the nine others whose constitutions explicitly protect abortion rights.

“It’s a monumental victory for the entire region,” said Genevieve Scott of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
While it lasts. There is ample reason to fear that the victory could be fleeting.

As the addition of three Trump-nominated justices to the U.S. Supreme Court demonstrated, one way to deal with a ruling you don’t like is to change the composition of the court, and that’s far easier to do on the state level, where justices are often elected and face term limits.


This happened in Iowa after its Supreme Court in 2018 found that the state constitution protected abortion rights. In 2019, the governor was given greater power to stack the court nominating commission.

Last year, the process reached its intended conclusion: A transformed Iowa Supreme Court overturned the 2018 ruling protecting abortion rights……..

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/01/08/south-carolina-abortion-ruling-model-temporary/

 

[SaintForLife]

This statement says nothing about “conservative” being the reason for lack of objectivity. As I said, the court has been conservative for many, many years.

If you cannot acknowledge that having a justice whose wife is active in planning to overthrow an election makes the case for a lack of objectivity, then that says a lot more about you than anything else. Also, said justice refused to recuse himself and was the lone vote against releasing records to the Jan. 6 committee. Clear conflict of interest, IMO.

Roberts is remiss in not holding Thomas to account and not pushing for the accountability for the person who leaked the Dobbs decision. Saying that one hopes to get rid of these two says nothing except that they are both not upholding their oaths of office.

You see everything in partisan terms, really.

She was supposedly involved in planning to overthrow an election, but the January 6th committee's report never mentioned her. Why do you think that is?

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

She was supposedly involved in planning to overthrow an election, but the January 6th committee's report never mentioned her. Why do you think that is?

Regardless of whether she was directly involved or not there is clear evidence she was obsessed with it and probably barking into her husband's ear about it non-stop. The reasonable appearance of bias would be enough of a reason for a Louisiana Supreme Court Justice to recuse (and I can point you directly to the statutes if need be) but because the US Supreme Court has no such restrictions... and Thomas is a partisan hack... he won't recuse.

 

[Optimus Prime]

She was supposedly involved in planning to overthrow an election, but the January 6th committee's report never mentioned her. Why do you think that is?

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

She was supposedly involved in planning to overthrow an election, but the January 6th committee's report never mentioned her. Why do you think that is?

She admitted to it.

 

[MT15]

She was supposedly involved in planning to overthrow an election, but the January 6th committee's report never mentioned her. Why do you think that is?

There isn’t any doubt that she was heavily involved. We have the texts, letters and emails. She even admitted during her interview with the committee that when she said she had discussed the fake electors scheme with her “best friend” that she meant Clarence Thomas.

An ethical justice would have recused. He did not.

 

[SaintForLife]

She admitted to it.

I don't agree with her opinion on the election, but her talking to people about the election being stolen or that there was fraud isn't planning to overthrow the election.