Here ya' go --

"Mitch McConnell Says Federal Lawmakers Could Ban Abortion Across The Nation
If the leaked Supreme Court opinion becomes final, federal lawmakers could prohibit abortion everywhere, said McConnell."

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-national-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade_n_62772e80e4b0b7c8f0851155

Hope this clears that up for you.

The purple states have their marching orders.

janeeliot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here ya' go --
>
> "Mitch McConnell Says Federal Lawmakers Could Ban
> Abortion Across The Nation
> If the leaked Supreme Court opinion becomes final,
> federal lawmakers could prohibit abortion
> everywhere, said McConnell."
>
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-nat
> ional-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade_n_62772e80e
> 4b0b7c8f0851155
>
> Hope this clears that up for you.

Yup....congress can pass a bill and the president can sign it.

If the bill bans abortions, its the law of the land.

If the bill permits abortions, it's the law of the land.


What's so hard to understand?

Isn't the rationale for Alito's opinion explicitly states' rights?

Assuming they have your understanding of the legislative process, which I think is a given, doesn't it strike you as disingenuous of the court to suggest that they are returning the abortion question to the states?

https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/1523314628926734337



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2022 08:17PM by Lot's Wife.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't the rationale for Alito's opinion explicitly
> states' rights?
>
> Assuming they have your understanding of the
> legislative process, which I think is a given,
> doesn't it strike you as disingenuous of the court
> to suggest that they are returning the abortion
> question to the states?
>
> https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/15233146289
> 26734337

Exactly. Liar liar pants on fire. Or as my grandmother used to snap, "One excuse is as good as another."

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Isn't the rationale for Alito's opinion explicitly
> states' rights?
>
> Assuming they have your understanding of the
> legislative process, which I think is a given,
> doesn't it strike you as disingenuous of the court
> to suggest that they are returning the abortion
> question to the states?
>
> https://twitter.com/ThisWeekABC/status/15233146289
> 26734337

I don't think disingenuous covers it. They are just lying through their teeth.

tumwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> janeeliot Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Here ya' go --
> >
> > "Mitch McConnell Says Federal Lawmakers Could
> Ban
> > Abortion Across The Nation
> > If the leaked Supreme Court opinion becomes
> final,
> > federal lawmakers could prohibit abortion
> > everywhere, said McConnell."
> >
> >
> https://www.huffpost.com/entry/mitch-mcconnell-nat
>
> >
> ional-abortion-ban-possible-roe-v-wade_n_62772e80e
>
> > 4b0b7c8f0851155
> >
> > Hope this clears that up for you.
>
> Yup....congress can pass a bill and the president
> can sign it.
>
> If the bill bans abortions, its the law of the
> land.
>
> If the bill permits abortions, it's the law of the
> land.
>
>
> What's so hard to understand?


Yyyeeeaaahhh -- good question!

The point is that many here applauded the reversal of Roe as returning abortion to the STATES -- which they claimed were better able to deal with the nuances of the question. Also claims were made that Roe somehow asserted the power of the federal government v. the states' -- which isn't true. Roe asserts the power of the individual v. government, whether local, state, or federal. (And what can better deal with nuanced moral questions than an individual? But that's another question for another time.)

I pointed out that reversing Roe returned the abortion question not to the states, but to the GOVERNMENT -- so that FEDERAL laws could also now govern abortion -- removing it from the jurisdiction of the states. So reversing Roe does NOT affirm states' rights.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Nothing hard to understand....

One hand you are talking about congressional power and the other is that power of the Supreme Court.

They are totally different.

You can't force one arm of the government to do the other arm's bidding.

> You can't force one arm of the government to do
> the other arm's bidding.

Someone's not been paying attention recently.

Hmmm -- are you sure you are following the conversation? Yes -- I know that the Supreme Court and the federal government are not one and the same -- AS WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT which this post was to bolster. Although -- as a matter of fact -- as interpreters of the supreme law of the land -- the Constitution, the Supreme Court can in fact force other branches of the government to do its bidding -- as it did in Brown v. the Board of Education forcing states AND the federal government to void all laws based on separate but equal. And for that matter, Congress can make laws that, as long as they pass constitutional muster, can impose limits on courts and the presidency. And the presidency has power over the courts by way of appointments and over congress by way of the veto. It's called checks and balances. Are you sure you have had basic American Civ at some institution or another? High school will do if it is a good teacher.

Why don't you just drop that smug "I'll show you!" tone for a minute and try to follow what is being said? You might fare better.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 05/08/2022 11:37PM by janeeliot.

janeeliot wrote in part:

"Hmmm -- are you sure you are following the conversation? Yes -- I know that the Supreme Court and the federal government are not one and the same -- AS WAS MY ORIGINAL POINT which this post was to bolster. Although -- as a matter of fact -- as interpreters of the supreme law of the land -- the Constitution, the Supreme Court can in fact force other branches of the government to do its bidding -- as it did in Brown v. the Board of Education forcing states AND the federal government to void all laws based on separate but equal. And for that matter, Congress can make laws that, as long as they pass constitutional muster, can impose limits on courts and the presidency. And the presidency has power over the courts by way of appointments and over congress by way of the veto. It's called checks and balances. Are you sure you have had basic American Civ at some institution or another? High school will do if it is a good teacher."

Not so fast. While it is true that the other branches of the Federal government do their best to carry out decisions made by the U.S. Supreme Court out of respect for that court, it hasn't always. I'm specifically referring to the case in the 1820s where the U.S. Supreme Court told then-U.S. President Andrew Jackson that he couldn't remove the Cherokees from their homelands in what is now the state of Tennessee. Mr. Jackson then ignored the High Court's ruling and went ahead with the forced removals anyway.

As was noted on NPR on a story about a different case, the U.S. Supreme Court has no way to enforce its decisions outside of the Federal structure in which it is housed. If the executive branch doesn't agree with the Court's decision and it controls the U.S. Armed Forces, then it can basically ignore that decision and the SC can't physically do anything about it. The primary reason that the executive branch enforces the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court is not out of fear but out of respect for the Court and the people who sit on it.

With the leak on Justice Alito's statement on Roe vs. Wade plus a leak now appearing in yesterday's Washington Post about a decision paper authored by Chief Justice John Roberts which would have weakened, but not overturned, Roe plus other concerns, what we appear to be witnessing today is the breakdown of respect for the U.S. Supreme Court by the general public, which--despite protests to the contrary--is becoming more divided on what it wants by the day.

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Mississippi-governor-doesn-t-rule-out-banning-17158111.php

"Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, R, on Sunday refused to rule out the possibility that his state would ban certain forms of contraception, sidestepping questions about what would happen next if Roe v. Wade is overturned"

The perennial problem with States' Rights is when not everybody in the state is allowed to vote. In the sixties nearly every voter in the southern states supported segregation. And certain segments of society went to great lengths to make sure it stayed that way. And so it is now with the abortion issue. the legislatures are taking great pains to ensure that their friends are the only citizens permitted to cast ballots or, through gerrymandering, to have their votes counted. No, this isn't about States' Rights. This is about fascism.

It's not about who can vote anymore. It's which group gets to count the vote and how many people non profits can ballot harvest and influence the count for their proposed winner.

The game has changed a lot.

American elections are pathetic.

It's a little too sweet for my taste, the Kool-Aid. But more power to you.

The 10th amendment states that any powers not specifically provided as the province of the federal government are to be reserved for the states. Conservative justices of the SC take this provision seriously as part of their 'strict constructionist' view of Constitutional interpretation.

The Alito draft opinion that rejects Roe v. Wade includes language consistently indicating that this is a state matter, and not a federal matter. (Coupled with his primary argument that the Constitution does not provide for a privacy right to an abortion.) As such, if Congress were to pass either a pro-abortion law, or an anti-abortion law, it would be a usurpation of state rights, and thus would be rejected as unconstitutional.

I believe the conservative justices would all consistently follow this principle in the event of such a law regardless of which way it went. (But maybe not.) However, the liberal justices would not hold themselves to such strict construction and would likely favor a federal law providing for a universal right to abortion, while opposing a federal law that went against the right to choose. Thus, the winner is whoever is in the majority.

What this shows is that the conservative strict constructionist view is a constraint on judicial over-reaching, which means a constraint on non-elected justices legislating social policy. Arguable, that is a good thing. But you can't have it both ways.

So, why are both McConnell and Schumer threatening federal legislative action when both know that such a federal law would be rejected by the conservative Court. The answer is that both are being disingenuous. McConnell presumably wants to arouse the left in order to put pressure on the SC so that Roe will not be overturned. He does not want a voter backlash in November that undermines his political power. Schumer does want this backlash because he wants the riled up left to arouse voters to vote Democratic in November. He too is motivated by power. That is what this is arguably all about politically: Political power. Moral issues and feigned moral outrage by the leaders on both sides are largely secondary to their interest in political power.

Incidentally, this disingenuous power struggle in the guise of moral outrage is what I think Human was alluding to in his informative recent post, which was unfortunately deleted.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> So, why are both McConnell and Schumer threatening
> federal legislative action when both know that
> such a federal law would be rejected by the
> conservative Court. The answer is that both are
> being disingenuous. McConnell presumably wants to
> arouse the left in order to put pressure on the SC
> so that Roe will not be overturned. He does not
> want a voter backlash in November that undermines
> his political power. Schumer does want this
> backlash because he wants the riled up left to
> arouse voters to vote Democratic in November. He
> too is motivated by power. That is what this is
> arguably all about politically: Political power.
> Moral issues and feigned moral outrage by the
> leaders on both sides are largely secondary to
> their interest in political power.

Hear, here!

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Alito draft opinion that rejects Roe v. Wade
> includes language consistently indicating that
> this is a state matter, and not a federal matter...
> (As such, if Congress were to pass
> either a pro-abortion law, or an anti-abortion
> law, it would be a usurpation of state rights, and
> thus would be rejected as unconstitutional.

Henry, that is simply not true. The states rights argument is dicta and has no binding authority.

Didn't you write above:

"Isn't the rationale for Alito's opinion explicitly states' rights?"

COMMENT: If that statement is true, then the 'states' rights' part of the opinion by definition is NOT dicta!
_______________________________________________

Then, as a response to tumwater's misguided suggestion that the Court would be bound by federal legislation (which you apparently mistakenly agree with), you write:

"Assuming they [SC] have your understanding of the legislative process, which I think is a given, doesn't it strike you as disingenuous of the court to suggest that they are returning the abortion question to the states?"

Again, this is a false assumption. Alito believes, and knows full well, that the conservative majority would NOT be bound by federal legislation. (As I have pointed out.) And that is precisely why 'returning the question to the states' is not the least bit disingenuous, as you then insist. Yet, you and others then run with a totally misguided moral outrage.

Henry, this is bizarre. You say you are an attorney and yet you don't understand how precedent works.

The only parts of a decision that are binding are those essential to that decision. In this case that is the observation that abortion rights are not found in the constitution. Once that is decided, nothing else matters.

In a massive opinion like Alito's, there will inevitably be a lot of dicta. In this instance that includes all the states' rights nonsense. What the court apparently intends to do is find that abortion has no special status and hence is a proper subject for normal legislative processes: federal or state. If you google the topic, you aren't going to find reputable sources supporting your opinion that Alito would remove the issue from Congressional authority.

I guess it's a good thing you have your undergraduate degree in microbiology to fall back on.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2022 01:15PM by Lot's Wife.

"I believe the conservative justices would all consistently follow this principle"

There's your mistake, Henry. Alito, along with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, all perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings, lying under oath that they considered Roe to be settled law. There's no reason to believe them now, but if you are so naïve as to simply take their word for it, then you might just have a future career as a U.S. Senator from Maine.

I'd also like to point out how smoothly you slid from "I believe" to "both [McConnell and Schumer] know." That's quite a rhetorical shift, your personal opinion morphing into sure knowledge by top Senate leaders.

"I believe the conservative justices would all consistently follow this principle"

COMMENT: Here is my actual quote, so don't start by misrepresenting, or truncating what I said:

"I believe the conservative justices would all consistently follow this principle in the event of such a law regardless of which way it went. (But maybe not.)"

In any event, that *is* my belief. I think their judicial philosophy protecting states' rights would rule the day. But then, as I said, I may be wrong. Maybe one or more of them *are* motivated not by the application of law, but by their religious beliefs. But then, again, what fundamentally motivates the liberal justices? The application of law, or their own brand of humanistic values?
_____________________________________________

"There's your mistake, Henry. Alito, along with Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett, all perjured themselves during their confirmation hearings, lying under oath that they considered Roe to be settled law. There's no reason to believe them now, but if you are so naïve as to simply take their word for it, then you might just have a future career as a U.S. Senator from Maine."

COMMENT: Every statement they made publicly was literally true (to the best of my recollection.) Roe *was* (and currently is) settled law! The senators apparently forgot to ask them pointedly, "Do you believe that Roe was decided incorrectly?" Now, if confronted with *that* question, and they answered, "No" then you would have a point to complain now about their flip-flop. And if they were presented with *that* question and they dodged it, you would know (or should know) that their answer is most probably 'yes,' and you should then vote accordingly.

I have no excused for Susan Collins. It was quite evident to me from their background statements and testimony that all five candidates thought Roe was wrongly decided, and that the only question remaining was whether stare decisis protected it from being overturned. And none of them gave the latter assurance, although I admit in some cases it seemed to be implied.

Having said that, it may have been nice for the candidates to have expressly volunteered their rejection of Roe, and their commitment to overturn it. And maybe there is an argument that their silence (or dodging) on this point was itself disingenuous. But when *you* are in an interview for a job do you volunteer information that you know would be adverse to your chances of being hired? Or do *you* spin your answers to dodge that fatal bullet.
______________________________________________

"I'd also like to point out how smoothly you slid from "I believe" to "both [McConnell and Schumer] know." That's quite a rhetorical shift, your personal opinion morphing into sure knowledge by top Senate leaders."

COMMENT: You need to quote me verbatim if you have a problem with some statement I made. I have no idea what your point is here.

Apparently Gorsuch and Barrett were asked if they thought it was wrongly decided, and they dodged. But Kavanaugh and Barrett explicitly stated that Roe was entitled to respect under stare decisis.

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/may/05/don-beyer/yes-trump-justices-said-roe-v-wade-was-precedent-c/

Gorsuch

"Casey is settled law," Gorsuch said while adding the qualification, "in the sense that it is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court."

Gorsuch didn't say yes or no when asked if Roe is a super precedent. "It has been reaffirmed many times. I can say that," he said.

Kavanaugh

Kavanaugh… said Roe "is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992."

Kavanaugh called the Casey decision a "precedent on precedent," a reaffirmed status he compared to that of Miranda rights.

Barrett

Barrett said, "precedent is a principle that you're not going to overrule something without good reason or roll up the law without justification for doing so."

She said she did not consider Roe to be a super precedent. "Roe does not fall within that category, but that does not mean that Roe should be overruled," Barrett said. "Roe is a precedent of the Supreme Court entitled to respect under the doctrine of stare decisis."

----

I truncated your first quote in the interest of brevity. It didn't change the meaning or misrepresent it. Your entire argument rests on your belief that the five justices are telling the truth. I don't share that belief although I hope you are right.

Your comparison between the conservative (religious) and liberal (humanistic) justices is a false equivalence. The "humanistic" values result in choice, being empowered to decide for oneself. The religious values result in coercion, choice being forcibly taken away. An equivalent result on the left would be forced abortion, and I don't think anyone is advocating that.

Job interview? There's a world of difference between a 9-to-5 office job and a SCOTUS seat. I've never interviewed for a job where I could decide on the fates of hundreds of millions of people with no oversight or accountability. Lying by omission to get such a job isn't quite the same thing as downplaying a two-year college gap to avoid bringing up a mormon mission.

----

OK, last point. The two statements (in full) are

"I believe the conservative justices would all consistently follow this principle in the event of such a law regardless of which way it went."

You BELIEVE the justices would hold to principle and reject a new federal law criminalizing abortion.

"So, why are both McConnell and Schumer threatening federal legislative action when both know that such a federal law would be rejected by the conservative Court."

And suddenly, both Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer KNOW that the justices would reject the new federal law criminalizing abortion.

That's a speculative stretch that you have no business making. You ascribe certain knowledge to two senators that you concede is merely a belief on your part.

----

Henry, I'm not interested in getting into an extended wall of text debate with you on this. I've spent too much time on it already and I have other things on my schedule. Nor do I much care about "winning" an argument here. I know you like to get the last word in, so have at it. The floor is yours.

https://thehill.com/news/senate/3480725-mcconnell-says-national-abortion-ban-possible/

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in an interview with USA Today that a national abortion ban is “possible” if Roe v. Wade gets overturned this summer.

“If the leaked opinion became the final opinion, legislative bodies — not only at the state level but at the federal level — certainly could legislate in that area,” McConnell told USA Today when asked if a national abortion ban is “worthy of debate.”

“And if this were the final decision, that was the point that it should be resolved one way or another in the legislative process. So yeah, it’s possible,” he concluded.

Once again Henry demonstrates his arrogance in assuming that he knows what McConnell is thinkling better than McConnell does.

Henry's argument is slightly different. He's saying the supremes would reject McConnell's legislation if it came before them.

That said, Henry is way off the mark inasmuch as he confuses dicta--comments by the court that are not essential to the decision--with the binding parts of that decision. He's mistaking the box for the fruit loops. That's why he can cite no support from credible legal analysts in support of his proposition: none of them are warning that McConnell is wrong about federal legislation.

Bottom line: when something ceases to be a constitutional right, it becomes the object of normal legislative processes on both the state and the federal level.

This is one of those rare cases in which we'll soon be able to prove Henry's error, for if some version of the Alito draft is adopted next month the anti-abortion bills will immediately materialize out of the ether and we'll see the reactions from the legal community and then the supremes themselves.

This is the current scenario:

Neither Biden nor any other D president would likely sign a federal anti-abortion bill;

If (when) A Republican succeeds him, it will be an uphill battle to get an anti bill past the Senate filibuster hurdle;

the Wild Card is gerrymandering and other restrictions of voter access And shenanigans counting & reporting results….

Rs know who votes for them, and Guess What: many or most women Don’t.

‘THE BIG LIE’ will be with us until Nephi lops off it’s head.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2022 07:36PM by GNPE.

I wish we could just up vote. I would for the skipper's post and LW's response to Henry.

Henry -- really? The 10th Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or *to the people*." As Roe reserves the power *to the people* it is not in violation of the 10th Amendment. And if your interpretation of the amendment were correct, why can't the states have Jim Crow -- or -- for that matter -- slavery? What's to stop them? *Strictly* speaking. It might be good to keep in mind here *history* -- opposition to Roe came out the same demographic of people who were steamed that the Court had overturned Jim Crow laws -- which they thought they were entitled to under states' rights. Scratch someone who hates Roe and 99% of the time you find someone who hated Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka.

In fact, if you turn to history, it gets really interesting. States' right were born -- to defend slavery. That comes from a *strict* interpretation of the Federalist Papers. States' rights were fought over -- to defend slavery. They were then resurrected as Jim Crow laws. And the people who claim to be interested in them now are also interested in figuring out ways that -- *strictly* speaking -- they can deny people of color the vote and equal access to power in our society.

No matter how *strict* you imagine your interpretation to be, you have to admit that these megatrends cause a conflict with other parts of the constitution that seek to grant life, liberty, and happiness for all, with a bending of the universe toward justice that was obviously the core of the Constitution. Let's take abortion. You can say that as the abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution there is no right to abortion. Easy peasy, right? But the first amendment *specifically* mentions a right to religion -- *and religions don't agree about abortion and even those within one religion don't agree about abortion.* So it raises the question how the Mormon Church can legislate their take on abortion (not that they have come up with anything coherent) on Utah without violating the rights of Jewish, Unitarian, Amish, agnostic, and atheist women to their own religious beliefs? (Added later -- ooops! Not Amish -- Quakers!) How do you work that out, exactly? I mean -- just *strictly* speaking.

So here we see "strict construction" working just the way Bible-thumping does. People rigidly claiming their beliefs about the Constitution (Bible) aren't just their beliefs, but somehow supported by the text -- when actually the text is full of contradictions and ambivalence that must be acknowledged and dealt with.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2022 02:01PM by janeeliot.

P.S. Roe -- which you really should read, by the way -- specifically mentions that as neither scientists nor religions agree about abortion, they refused to rule on its right or wrong but returned that decision to the people. There is plenty in the Constitution to support that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2022 01:09PM by janeeliot.

"P.S. Roe -- which you really should read, by the way -- specifically mentions that as neither scientists nor religions agree about abortion, they refused to rule on its right or wrong but returned that decision to the people. There is plenty in the Constitution to support that."

COMMENT: I read it. AND what is even more important, I understood it! What was 'returned to the people' (states) was what was 'right or wrong' *after* viability of the fetus (after the first trimester)! During the first trimester, the Court took over the decision by establishing a Constitutional right to an abortion. This precluded the states' right (and thus the people's right) to decide the issue during that early term. The question, of course, is whether it is within the appropriate power of the SC to 'legislate' such a right when it is clearly not within the four-corners of the Constitution.

Anything else?

Yes, yes, keep on digging!

"Henry -- really? The 10th Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or *to the people*."

COMMENT: Yes, to the people. So, it is a state matter to be decided by the people of the respective states, through their elected representatives.
__________________________________________

"As Roe reserves the power *to the people* it is not in violation of the 10th Amendment."

COMMENT: The "power" referred to in the 10th Amendment is not the power to make personal choices, it is the power as related to the actions of the federal or state government, as such actions are defined by the Constitution. The Roe decision constituted a *federal* action by the US Supreme Court instituting rights allegedly derived from the federal Constitution. Roe was not a state action, or an action submitted 'to the people' through their state representatives. Quite the contrary, it was designed to avoid just such a popular vote! So, you see, you fundamentally do not understand what this whole discussion is about. All you understand is your outrage.
__________________________________________

"And if your interpretation of the amendment were correct, why can't the states have Jim Crow -- or -- for that matter -- slavery? What's to stop them?

COMMENT: The 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.

Suggestion: Stop talking and start listening. Remember, I am a progressive liberal who believes in free choice. I just don't believe in free outrage.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, yes, keep on digging!
>
> "Henry -- really? The 10th Amendment reads "The
> powers not delegated to the United States by the
> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
> are reserved to the States respectively, or *to
> the people*."
>
> COMMENT: Yes, to the people. So, it is a state
> matter to be decided by the people of the
> respective states, through their elected
> representatives.
> __________________________________________
>
> "As Roe reserves the power *to the people* it is
> not in violation of the 10th Amendment."
>
> COMMENT: The "power" referred to in the 10th
> Amendment is not the power to make personal
> choices, it is the power as related to the actions
> of the federal or state government, as such
> actions are defined by the Constitution. The Roe
> decision constituted a *federal* action by the US
> Supreme Court instituting rights allegedly derived
> from the federal Constitution. Roe was not a
> state action, or an action submitted 'to the
> people' through their state representatives.
> Quite the contrary, it was designed to avoid just
> such a popular vote! So, you see, you
> fundamentally do not understand what this whole
> discussion is about. All you understand is your
> outrage.
> __________________________________________
>
> "And if your interpretation of the amendment were
> correct, why can't the states have Jim Crow -- or
> -- for that matter -- slavery? What's to stop
> them?
>
> COMMENT: The 13th and 14th Amendments to the
> Constitution.
>
> Suggestion: Stop talking and start listening.
> Remember, I am a progressive liberal who believes
> in free choice. I just don't believe in free
> outrage.

Wow -- I didn't realize I was indulging in free outrage. Thanks for letting me know!

That wasn't condescending or judgmental AT ALL. Thanks for mansplaining to me the difference between being a "progressive liberal" and "indulging in free outrage." I LOVE it that you just told a woman to "Stop talking and start listening." Is that because you're such an utterly COOL progressive liberal? Funny how much it sounded like a bishop from my Bountiful 1960's ward. Well -- I can certainly see how you are more progressively liberal than thou, bless your little heart --good to know you can take the boy out of the Mormon Church, but you'll never quite take the bro out of boy.

You are ABSOLUTELY right -- there is just no reason in the world why a super-majority (about 75%) of lawyers support Roe v. Wade. They're probably just indulging in free outrage and aren't "progressively liberal" enough to get the states’ right issue here -- although when you think about it, lawyers aren't all that freaking liberal -- and certainly not in YOUR liberal progressive league. And there is no reason in the world why a super-majority of the profession most impacted, doctors, supports Roe v. Wade, to name yet another demographic that is – well, actually – not all that liberal. In fact, Roe was decided by – I dunno – a court of free outrage? Because most people found it a very center court. The remarkable thing about Roe is that it wasn’t a particularly liberal decision. And it’s funny isn’t it, how someone as rock solid and centered as Sandra Day O’Connor didn’t get the compelling profundity of your states’ right argument. Not to mention how your INDISPUTABLE states’ right points flew over the heads constitutional law scholars across the nation.

But – BROTHER BEMIS – I’m not questioning you! Because wow – you have the priesthood! And how!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2022 03:05PM by janeeliot.

Henry Bemis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, yes, keep on digging!
>
> "Henry -- really? The 10th Amendment reads "The
> powers not delegated to the United States by the
> Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
> are reserved to the States respectively, or *to
> the people*."
>
> COMMENT: Yes, to the people. So, it is a state
> matter to be decided by the people of the
> respective states, through their elected
> representatives.
> __________________________________________
>
> "As Roe reserves the power *to the people* it is
> not in violation of the 10th Amendment."
>
> COMMENT: The "power" referred to in the 10th
> Amendment is not the power to make personal
> choices, it is the power as related to the actions
> of the federal or state government, as such
> actions are defined by the Constitution. The Roe
> decision constituted a *federal* action by the US
> Supreme Court instituting rights allegedly derived
> from the federal Constitution. Roe was not a
> state action, or an action submitted 'to the
> people' through their state representatives.
> Quite the contrary, it was designed to avoid just
> such a popular vote! So, you see, you
> fundamentally do not understand what this whole
> discussion is about. All you understand is your
> outrage.
> __________________________________________
>
> "And if your interpretation of the amendment were
> correct, why can't the states have Jim Crow -- or
> -- for that matter -- slavery? What's to stop
> them?
>
> COMMENT: The 13th and 14th Amendments to the
> Constitution.
>
> Suggestion: Stop talking and start listening.
> Remember, I am a progressive liberal who believes
> in free choice. I just don't believe in free
> outrage.


Your point about the 13th and 14th Amendment is well-taken -- just as long as you remember the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868 -- just as Jim Crow was taking root -- and somehow Jim Crow managed to flourish under the 14th Amendment until 1954 when Brown was decided. So there's that.

And Roe is, by the way, also rooted in the 14th Amendment. So there's that.

Are you sure you want to bring up the 14th Amendment?

What is the 14th Amendment and How is It Connected to Abortion Rights, Roe v. Wade?

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-is-the-14th-amendment-and-how-is-it-connected-to-abortion-rights-roe-v-wade/2823999/

Just one more -- and then I'll stop talking and start listening -- honest!

Wasn't that Ron and Dan Lafferty's motto? "Women! Stop Talking and Start Listening!"

[I wrote] "As Roe reserves the power *to the people* it is not in violation of the 10th Amendment."

[You added] "COMMENT: The "power" referred to in the 10th Amendment is not the power to make personal choices, it is the power as related to the actions of the federal or state government, as such actions are defined by the Constitution. The Roe decision constituted a *federal* action by the US Supreme Court instituting rights allegedly derived from the federal Constitution. Roe was not a state action, or an action submitted 'to the people' through their state representatives. Quite the contrary, it was designed to avoid just such a popular vote! So, you see, you fundamentally do not understand what this whole discussion is about. All you understand is your outrage."

Uhm -- actually the rights of the individual v. government is a thing. I didn't make it up -- out my "outrage" which you in your greater wisdom discern when I cannot. But isn't the the very specialness of the priesthood -- that you get to tell people what they really think and feel?



Here: "...According to William Galston, some justices are more concerned with federal power vs. state power than they are government power vs. individual rights.

"“[J]ustices have different dominant concerns. For Anthony Kennedy, it’s individual liberty, an issue to which he returned repeatedly as he grilled Solicitor General Donald Verrilli on Tuesday. Early in that day’s proceeding he asked, “When you are changing the relation of the individual to the government in this … unique way, do you not have a heavy burden of justification to show authorization under the Constitution?” Later on he expressed his worry that the individual mandate “changes the relationship of the federal government to the individual in a very fundamental way.” By contrast, Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Roberts appeared more concerned about the distinction between the federal government’s enumerated powers under the Constitution as contrasted with the broader police power of the states."

https://nypost.com/2012/03/29/individual-rights-vs-states-rights/

And here:

"Another important area of constitutional law is individual rights that should be protected from government interference. While the Constitution limits and diffuses powers of the federal and state governments to check government power, it also expressly protects certain rights and liberties for individuals from government interference.1"

Intro.7.2.4 The Constitution's Basic Principles: Individual Rights

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/intro.7-2-4/ALDE_00000033/

And I'll offer you a few tips.

1. As I have said to ssssoooooo the many defenders of the faith that have shown up on these boards from time to time -- Google is your friend. Just check the date of the 14th Amendment. Then check the dates of the rise of the Klan and Jim Crow. Voila. You figure out the Klan was born and ran riot -- for almost a 100 years -- under the 14th Amendment -- until the Supreme Court stepped in and called on the federal government to enforce the Constitution.

You can avoid a lot of hassle by checking the basics.

2. Women who know more than you do about something are not "outraged." They just know than you do about something.

What year is it?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/10/2022 01:31AM by janeeliot.

This is good --

ISSUE BRIEF: Reproductive Originalism: Why the Fourteenth Amendment’s Original Meaning Protects the Right to Abortion

https://www.theusconstitution.org/think_tank/issue-brief-reproductive-originalism-why-the-fourteenth-amendments-original-meaning-protects-the-right-to-abortion/

if you don't want to make a baby be careful where you fire your gun



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/09/2022 01:02PM by thedesertrat1.

Americans are so easily distracted and the politicians play them like a fiddle. So much red herring it stinks to high heaven.

Rubicon,

Are you suggesting that women's bodily autonomy, the right of gay people to marry, the right to use contraception, and freedom for people to marry outside of their races are unimportant?

It sounds as if you are.

Nailed it.

I'd be tempted to add some colorful language but I think you're more in the mood than I am tonight!

‘Religious People’, especially Mormons, are masters at distracting away from core, basic stuff, every day they get better at it…

just sayin’

The old crusty law makers in D.C. better yake down their prepared bill from 40 plus years ago, add a few revisions and start the legislative process.

I don't think the D.C. elite even care if ladies can get abortions. Action speak louder than these weathered selfish inside traders.

‘ States Rights’ :

Little more than a Dog Whistle

With Utah, Idaho, & many Arizona members being so goody-goody …

why haven’t they outlawed tobacco, coffee, porn, strapless & spaghetti string dresses along with weed & their control of liquor?

asking for a friend