Page 3 of 19 FirstFirst 12345678910111213 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 374

Thread: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

  1. #41

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    What? A woman having an abortion is doing something to herself, i.e. her womb. Unless you're arguing a zygote is a person. Both Roe and Brown are rooted in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. You're a Romanian, so I don't expect you to understand that, but now you know.
    A zygote is a genetically distinct human being at its earliest developmental stage.

    This potential ruling on 1973's Roe v. Wade will undoubtedly lead to similar shenanigans in other Supreme Court case precedents, including on contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), sodomy and homosexual intercourse (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and homosexual marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Both Obergefell and Loving are also rooted in the 14th Amendment. Do you see now why the right-wing is so obsessed with attacking and tearing down Roe first and foremost? Aside from generally despising poor and middle class women who don't belong to their country club and can't afford to travel to the next state to have an abortion.
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 



  2. #42
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,364

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    What? A woman having an abortion is doing something to herself, i.e. her womb. Unless you're arguing a zygote is a person.
    A woman having an abortion is cancelling a person's entire existence. She is not doing something to her womb, she is doing something to future person currently residing in her womb. A person will not exist because of abortion and his/her potential and contribution to mankind is forever negated.

    And yes at 30 or 40 weeks of age that is most definitely a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Both Roe and Brown are rooted in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. You're a Romanian, so I don't expect you to understand that, but now you know.
    Roe is not rooted in the 14th amendment. It has a tenuous rope-bridge tie to the 14th that is at the end of the day nothing but a legal artifice. This is a great opportunity to actually root it in the 14th amendment.

    Brown is rooted in the 14th because the 14th has direct mentions about equal treatment and equal rights. It does not mention abortions at all however, nor the right to do whatever you want to an unborn person.

    No idea why why you are bringing up Brown though considering it's completely unrelated to Roe.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    This potential ruling on 1973's Roe v. Wade will undoubtedly lead to similar shenanigans in other Supreme Court case precedents, including on contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965), interracial marriage (Loving v. Virginia, 1967), sodomy and homosexual intercourse (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003), and homosexual marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges, 2015). Both Obergefell and Loving are also rooted in the 14th Amendment. Do you see now why the right-wing is so obsessed with attacking and tearing down Roe first and foremost? Aside from generally despising poor and middle class women who don't belong to their country club and can't afford to travel to the next state to have an abortion.

    This is a slippery slope fallacy. The ball is in the abortionist camp. The SC stated that they have no intent to alter anything else. The abortionists should have bills and amendments ready to fire for when this goes into effect.

    Though truth be told instead of funding horror shows like Planned Parenthood, the US government would be much better served by spending that money on sex ed and preventing unwanted pregnancies from the get go. This would also have the positive effect of lowering the rampant STD epidemic currently plaguing the US
    Last edited by Sir Adrian; May 04, 2022 at 11:04 AM.
    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  3. #43
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,412

    Default Re: President Biden's first term in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Bande Nere View Post
    ...
    Another thing that makes me wonder about "pro-lifers" is why they have no interest in actually helping the prospective mother to receive decent care and help if she actually WANTS to give birth.
    That's done on purpose, as an abortion ban hits mostly afro-american and hispanic underclass women in the former ex-confederated slave owner states. You will probably not study for a better education and job later, if you have to feed kids and so the huge lot of bad educated workers, which can be hired for a few dollars will never stop.

    Its nothing more than a form of social control.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  4. #44

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    @Cope how are people supposed to believe the underlined part when the same people who wrote it committed perjury in Congress on the matter of Roe Vs. Wade? Haven't Conservatives already proved in more occasions they have zero ethics when it comes to SCOTUS? Remember Lindsey Graham?

    Furthermore some conservative elements have welcomed this decision and stated that in fact the next step is overruling a bunch of those other 14thA. laws. Pretty sure nowhere in the Constitution were gays and interracial marriages mentioned, so I guess they are the next to be criminalized?

    Not saying that's definitely going to happen, but you bet there's a lot of elements in the GOP that want just that.

  5. #45

    Default Re: President Biden's first term in office

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    (polls from CBS, Gallup, Yougov)
    All your polls show that the SC decision to overturn Roe is not very popular. Only between 26-29% in these polls you quote would be happy/support overturning Roe while between 48-53% of those polled oppose this decision. A decision that is only supported by roughly 1/4 of the population (if your polls are actually representative) and actively opposed by around 1/2 the population is not a very popular decision.

    It's also a big assumption on your part to assert voters aren't motivated by abortion rights. It's never been tested before and your own poll shows 73% of Democrats polled oppose this decision which very likely could drive meaningful turnout. But we'll see in November. It's definitely going to fire up many Democrats and could depress conservative voters.

    Also, I can't wait to see all these people that allegedly care about babies and struggling moms support much greater access to social welfare in red states with abortion restrictions.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  6. #46

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Bande Nere View Post
    @Cope how are people supposed to believe the underlined part when the same people who wrote it committed perjury in Congress on the matter of Roe Vs. Wade?
    They didn't.

    Haven't Conservatives already proved in more occasions they have zero ethics when it comes to SCOTUS? Remember Lindsey Graham?
    Not sure what's being referred to here, but the SCOTUS is not party political.

    Furthermore some conservative elements have welcomed this decision and stated that in fact the next step is overruling a bunch of those other 14thA. laws. Pretty sure nowhere in the Constitution were gays and interracial marriages mentioned, so I guess they are the next to be criminalized?
    The expected repeal of RvW would not "criminalize" abortion.

    Not saying that's definitely going to happen, but you bet there's a lot of elements in the GOP that want just that.
    Feel free to show evidence of a GOP legislature/governor which has argued in favour of prohibiting interracial marriage.



  7. #47

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Cope View Post
    Feel free to show evidence of a GOP legislature/governor which has argued in favour of prohibiting interracial marriage.
    The whole stupidity of the 'pro-lifers' want the poor, blacks and hispanics to suffer/die is shown by polling which demonstrates that those demographics tend to be more pro-life than pro-choice for income and about 50/50 for race:
    https://news.gallup.com/poll/244709/...ic-tables.aspx

  8. #48
    Sir Adrian's Avatar the Imperishable
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Nehekhara
    Posts
    17,364

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Bande Nere View Post
    Pretty sure nowhere in the Constitution were gays and interracial marriages mentioned, so I guess they are the next to be criminalized?
    Nobody is going to make abortion illegal. Some states did announce some restrictions, mostly relating to maximum week, while some states have announced they would protect or even expand abortion right. Besides there is nothing stopping the "progressives" from coming up with a new amendment that protects abortion. Democrats still have a majority in congress.

    Here is a full map of SUSPECTED intentions


    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!


  9. #49
    Roma_Victrix's Avatar Call me Ishmael
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Virginia, USA
    Posts
    15,244

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    A woman having an abortion is cancelling a person's entire existence. She is not doing something to her womb, she is doing something to future person currently residing in her womb. A person will not exist because of abortion and his/her potential and contribution to mankind is forever negated.

    And yes at 30 or 40 weeks of age that is most definitely a person.
    Republican-controlled states like Texas and Oklahoma have fetal heartbeat laws that ban abortion at 6 weeks, when most women don't even know they're pregnant yet, so spare me the theatrics here. The vast, vast majority of abortions do not take place between 35-40 weeks when it's pretty much a premature baby, and in that case only when the pregnancy is life-threatening to the mother.

    Also, if a fetus is a person, then beating a pregnant woman should also be child abuse, and pregnant women should get to file two different tax incomes and get tax credits, and men should have to pay child support when a pregnancy is confirmed. Oh, and a miscarriage should allow one to file for life insurance claims. And a twin that absorbs the other in the womb should be charged with murder and arrested.

    Oh, but you don't want all of that! Fascinating. I thought a fetus was a person?
    Surely this stance against abortion isn't simply rooted in religious zealotry, gleeful punishment of promiscuous women, misogyny and control? Especially when forcing a woman to give birth to babies of rape and incest, which some states want to do and certainly some insane voters want per polling. We'll soon become like El Salvador where women go to jail for a miscarriage. Abortions for ectopic pregnancies that 100% threaten a mother's life are also on the table for banning.

    Roe is not rooted in the 14th amendment. It has a tenuous rope-bridge tie to the 14th that is at the end of the day nothing but a legal artifice. This is a great opportunity to actually root it in the 14th amendment.

    Brown is rooted in the 14th because the 14th has direct mentions about equal treatment and equal rights. It does not mention abortions at all however, nor the right to do whatever you want to an unborn person.

    No idea why why you are bringing up Brown though considering it's completely unrelated to Roe.
    Like it or not, Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973 based on the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing a right to privacy. Abortion falls under that and people who argue otherwise are being facetious or have a political agenda/crusade that a clear statistical majority of Americans strongly oppose. The 14th Amendment also contains the Equal Protection Clause, which Brown v. Board of Education was based on. We're talking about the same amendment, just different clauses.

    This is a slippery slope fallacy. The ball is in the abortionist camp. The SC stated that they have no intent to alter anything else. The abortionists should have bills and amendments ready to fire for when this goes into effect.
    Again, you're Romanian, so it's excusable that you don't understand how the US Congress works, especially THIS present Congress, but you need a 2/3 majority of the Senate to pass a new amendment to the US Constitution. You need at least a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority to pass a bill unrelated to the basic federal budget or judicial appointments, unless the Dems decide to finally remove the filibuster and use Vice President Kamala Harris as a tie-breaker if necessary. They cannot do that with so-called Democrats Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema currently blocking most legislation in the House, to the glee of Mitch McConnell. He was deathly afraid a child tax credit would make the Dems too popular, an ironic stance for a man and political party that claims to care about children somehow.

    In other words, Roe is the only thing protecting women in GOP-controlled states right now.

    Though truth be told instead of funding horror shows like Planned Parenthood, the US government would be much better served by spending that money on sex ed and preventing unwanted pregnancies from the get go. This would also have the positive effect of lowering the rampant STD epidemic currently plaguing the US
    The problem here is that Republicans hate sexual education, they also want to outlaw birth control and have tried doing so in the past, and they don't mind unwanted pregnancies because that produces more desperate youths joining the military as soldiers and more wage slaves in poverty. Plus it gets to make them feel better about themselves as so-called Christians by limiting sexual intercourse outside of marriage, though even married couples aren't trying to have 50 kids they cannot afford. Your quaint solutions offered here are simply unwelcome in right-wing circles where women are supposed to be brood mares for the state.

    -----
    Also, if abortion is outlawed, then I think a fine compromise would be to have all men undergo vasectomies until they are proven to be responsible adults with a stable fiscal situation. /s

  10. #50

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sir Adrian View Post
    Nobody is going to make abortion illegal. Some states did announce some restrictions, mostly relating to maximum week, while some states have announced they would protect or even expand abortion right. Besides there is nothing stopping the "progressives" from coming up with a new amendment that protects abortion. Democrats still have a majority in congress.

    Here is a full map of SUSPECTED intentions
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 




    There wouldn't need to be a constitutional amendment, just a congressional bill. That said, the Democratic majority doesn't guarantee that all congressional Democrats would support such a bill, and their Senate majority (50+VP) is still well short of overcoming the filibuster. Of course, since our liberal friends are of the view that RvW is overwhelmingly popular and a national priority, it should (in theory) be a simple matter to convince the electorate to empower a supermajority of representatives who will enshrine the ruling legislatively.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roma_Victrix View Post
    Republican-controlled states like Texas and Oklahoma have fetal heartbeat laws that ban abortion at 6 weeks, when most women don't even know they're pregnant yet, so spare me the theatrics here. The vast, vast majority of abortions do not take place between 35-40 weeks when it's pretty much a premature baby, and in that case only when the pregnancy is life-threatening to the mother.
    Not sure how this is a refutation of Sir Adrian's position. Whether the parents are explicitly aware of the fertilization/pregnancy doesn't change the fact that an abortion terminates a human being's existence (whether at six weeks or forty weeks).

    Also, if a fetus is a person, then beating a pregnant woman should also be child abuse, and pregnant women should get to file two different tax incomes and get tax credits, and men should have to pay child support when a pregnancy is confirmed. Oh, and a miscarriage should allow one to file for life insurance claims. And a twin that absorbs the other in the womb should be charged with murder and arrested.

    Oh, but you don't want all of that! Fascinating. I thought a fetus was a person?
    Surely this stance against abortion isn't simply rooted in religious zealotry, gleeful punishment of promiscuous women, misogyny and control? Especially when forcing a woman to give birth to babies of rape and incest, which some states want to do and certainly some insane voters want per polling. We'll soon become like El Salvador where women go to jail for a miscarriage. Abortions for ectopic pregnancies that 100% threaten a mother's life are also on the table for banning.
    An assault against a pregnant woman is also an assault against the child/children she is carrying; both parents should be obliged to support their children from the moment of conception; and insurance firms should cover pregnancies and the unborn.
    Last edited by alhoon; May 04, 2022 at 10:54 PM. Reason: double post



  11. #51
    Morticia Iunia Bruti's Avatar Praeses
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Deep within the dark german forest
    Posts
    8,412

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    both parents should be obliged to support their children from the moment of conception
    They should. But conservative lawmakers are only punishing the single moms.

    Nearly 11 million fathers in the United
    States do not live with their children. Twothirds
    of these fathers do not pay formal
    child support.1 Society is rightly concerned
    about the widespread failure of absent
    fathers to contribute to their children’s
    support. And a variety of recent policy initiatives
    are strengthening the enforcement
    tools necessary to ensure that “deadbeat
    dads” are identified and required to fulfill
    their child support responsibilities.
    But what exactly is a deadbeat dad?
    Most people would agree that he is someone
    who shirks his duty for no good reason.
    Our data show that 4.5 million nonresident
    fathers who do not pay child support have
    no apparent financial reason to avoid this
    responsibility.
    None of these fathers are
    poor.
    On the other hand, these data also
    show that 2.5 million nonresident fathers
    who do not pay child support are poor
    themselves.
    Obviously, poverty is not an excuse for
    shirking parental responsibility. Society
    expects poor mothers to work and use
    their earnings to support their children.

    Certainly it expects poor fathers to do no
    less. But society devotes considerably more
    resources to helping poor mothers succeed
    in the labor market than it does to helping
    poor fathers do so. This emphasis on mothers
    is appropriate if they face more labor
    market barriers than do fathers. Its policy
    merits are more dubious if the fathers are
    equally ill-prepared to make it in the world
    of work.

    https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...gQFVqrtOewmqZ-

    I wonder why...

    But as long as its only the mothers duty in first line, it should be her choice.
    Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; May 04, 2022 at 01:48 PM.
    Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
    And tomorrow you'll be on your way
    Don't give a damn about what other people say
    Because tomorrow is a brand-new day


  12. #52

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Bande Nere
    1) Or maybe they expected the GOP would refrain from appeasing the taliban caucus.
    Which, according to your own argument, the Democrats value more than abortion rights and are thus amoral hypocrites.
    2) I'm still waiting for you to quote me saying anything of what you have falsely accused me of.
    “What I’ve accused you of” would only be false if you’ve abandoned your initial position, which is fine by me.
    3) Even before Roe Vs. Wade there were states that legalized abortion
    I assume you are also aware it’s legal for Americans to travel inside the United States, so your assertion that “everyone is doing abortions so it shouldn’t be illegal” is irrelevant.
    4) That must have been what those Trump appointees thought when asked about their position on Roe Vs. Wade, in Congress. Unfortunately it would appear lying to Congress is a federal crime.
    You’ve presented zero evidence any SCOTUS justice is guilty of a federal crime, much less why that means SCOTUS is obligated to uphold RvW.
    Quote Originally Posted by chilon
    All your polls show that the SC decision to overturn Roe is not very popular. Only between 26-29% in these polls you quote would be happy/support overturning Roe while between 48-53% of those polled oppose this decision. A decision that is only supported by roughly 1/4 of the population (if your polls are actually representative) and actively opposed by around 1/2 the population is not a very popular decision.
    Half of people oppose RvW or don’t know/care about it, and half support it, according to those polls.
    It's also a big assumption on your part to assert voters aren't motivated by abortion rights. It's never been tested before and your own poll shows 73% of Democrats polled oppose this decision which very likely could drive meaningful turnout. But we'll see in November. It's definitely going to fire up many Democrats and could depress conservative voters.
    It’s not an assumption lol, it’s what the data says, as you referenced above. Hell, Democrats don’t even care enough about it to pass a law in 50 years. And then there’s this:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 





    So, could the liberal establishment use their dominance of mass media, government institutions and now the backing of Homeland Security to enforce a narrative around the SCOTUS decision to make pro-abortion voting a higher priority for voters than has been? Sure. But that’s the assumption made by the initial copium about backfiring and court packing. The reality, as alluded to by said copium, is the politics around the leak have less to do with abortion per se and more to do with Democrats’ ongoing temper tantrum about how their control of only two branches of government and not all three is morally wrong and a threat to the survival of the country.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  13. #53

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Half of people oppose RvW or don’t know/care about it, and half support it, according to those polls.
    Strange way for you to parse the data.

    1/4 support the decision
    1/4 answered they don't know or care
    1/2 oppose

    1/4 is not a lot of popular support for such a momentous decision. Only ~1/4 of the population support this decision and twice that many oppose.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    It’s not an assumption lol, it’s what the data says, as you referenced above. Hell, Democrats don’t even care enough about it to pass a law in 50 years. And then there’s this:

    So, could the liberal establishment use their dominance of mass media, government institutions and now the backing of Homeland Security to enforce a narrative around the SCOTUS decision to make pro-abortion voting a higher priority for voters than has been? Sure. But that’s the assumption made by the initial copium about backfiring and court packing. The reality, as alluded to by said copium, is the politics around the leak have less to do with abortion per se and more to do with Democrats’ ongoing temper tantrum about how their control of only two branches of government and not all three is morally wrong and a threat to the survival of the country.
    First, we have no data on how pro-choice issues might motivate Democrat voters because its never been relevant until now. We'll see in November if it motivates increased turnout or not. It's a fallacy for you to state that because the Dem politicians didn't pass a law in Congress protecting a women's right to choose that somehow that automatically means Dem voters don't care. They've needed to care because Roe never seemed like it would realistically even be challenged until recently. We'll see in November if it motivates more turnout but until then you can't act like it something established when it isn't.

    And we don't know where the leak came from. Personally, I think its most likely coming from Ginny Thomas' camp but we'll see if it ever comes out.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  14. #54

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Strange way for you to parse the data.

    1/4 support the decision
    1/4 answered they don't know or care
    1/2 oppose

    1/4 is not a lot of popular support for such a momentous decision. Only ~1/4 of the population support this decision and twice that many oppose.
    You’ve got it backwards. The assertion was the popularity of Roe v Wade will be a huge motivator for voters to back Democrats, which isn’t consistent with the fact half of people either oppose or don’t know/care about it and the Dems were already projected to lose the House and maybe even the Senate.
    First, we have no data on how pro-choice issues might motivate Democrat voters because its never been relevant until now.
    Lolwut
    We'll see in November if it motivates increased turnout or not.
    As I said.
    It's a fallacy for you to state that because the Dem politicians didn't pass a law in Congress protecting a women's right to choose that somehow that automatically means Dem voters don't care.
    Good thing I didn’t say that. The polling already supports what I did say. I also said the party that claims protecting abortion is vitally important to them has nonetheless been content to rely on activist legal precedent for 50 years rather than put the “everyone loves abortion” theory to the test.
    And we don't know where the leak came from. Personally, I think its most likely coming from Ginny Thomas' camp but we'll see if it ever comes out.
    Seems like the court is handling it internally for now. I’m sure if anyone is arrested and charged they will be martyred in any case. Book deals, interviews, etc.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  15. #55

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    You’ve got it backwards. The assertion was the popularity of Roe v Wade will be a huge motivator for voters to back Democrats, which isn’t consistent with the fact half of people either oppose or don’t know/care about it and the Dems were already projected to lose the House and maybe even the Senate.
    Your two assumptions aren't valid. The repeal of Roe v Wade could very be a huge motivator to Dem and Independent voters. You quoting polling about the full population but that doesn't change the fact that 73% of the Dems in one of your polls oppose this repeal. So, while we won't know for sure until November, your own polling does not support your claims. If anything, 73% of Dem leaning voters opposing very much supports a claim that it might be a huge motivator for Dem voters.

    Clearly if the Dems are supposed to lose the House by a lot and Senate then if they don't, it might very well be down to Roe v. Wade.

    What's clear is that this decision isn't popular with a majority of the population and only about 1/4 actively support it so it certainly isn't going to help GOP turnout.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Good thing I didn’t say that. The polling already supports what I did say. I also said the party that claims protecting abortion is vitally important to them has nonetheless been content to rely on activist legal precedent for 50 years rather than put the “everyone loves abortion” theory to the test.
    You can believe that of course, you're entitled to your opinion but none of the polling you posted supports what you claim. First, the polling wasn't conducted under the conditions that Nov 2022 midterms will happen under (namely the actual repeal of Roe). Second, 73% of Democrats by your own polling sources oppose the decision as mentioned above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    Seems like the court is handling it internally for now. I’m sure if anyone is arrested and charged they will be martyred in any case. Book deals, interviews, etc.
    If it turns out the leak comes from Ginny Thomas or other conservatives, I hope you stick to your claims that you want the person arrested and prosecuted.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  16. #56

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    Your two assumptions aren't valid. The repeal of Roe v Wade could very be a huge motivator to Dem and Independent voters. You quoting polling about the full population but that doesn't change the fact that 73% of the Dems in one of your polls oppose this repeal. So, while we won't know for sure until November, your own polling does not support your claims. If anything, 73% of Dem leaning voters opposing very much supports a claim that it might be a huge motivator for Dem voters.

    Clearly if the Dems are supposed to lose the House by a lot and Senate then if they don't, it might very well be down to Roe v. Wade.

    What's clear is that this decision isn't popular with a majority of the population and only about 1/4 actively support it so it certainly isn't going to help GOP turnout.



    You can believe that of course, you're entitled to your opinion but none of the polling you posted supports what you claim. First, the polling wasn't conducted under the conditions that Nov 2022 midterms will happen under (namely the actual repeal of Roe). Second, 73% of Democrats by your own polling sources oppose the decision as mentioned above.



    If it turns out the leak comes from Ginny Thomas or other conservatives, I hope you stick to your claims that you want the person arrested and prosecuted.
    It’s not true that the polling doesn’t support my position. The only basis you have for saying it is invalid is that you believe, contrary to the evidence presented and in the absence of evidence you’ve just said doesn’t exist in the first place, that Roe v Wade is likely to “backfire” on Republicans and boost Democrats for years to come, as was claimed in the post I responded to.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

  17. #57

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Thesaurian View Post
    It’s not true that the polling doesn’t support my position. The only basis you have for saying it is invalid is that you believe, contrary to the evidence presented and in the absence of evidence you’ve just said doesn’t exist in the first place, that Roe v Wade is likely to “backfire” on Republicans and boost Democrats for years to come, as was claimed in the post I responded to.
    You can believe whatever you want, of course, but the polls you posted, taken under different conditions, simply don't support an assertion that this won't impact the midterms. If anything, the fact that 73% of Democrats oppose a repeal indicates it could very well influence the midterms.
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs," I said. "We have a protractor."

    Under Patronage of: Captain Blackadder

  18. #58
    antaeus's Avatar Cool and normal
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cool and normal
    Posts
    5,419

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Democrats on the Hill are unlikely to bring anything forward because some of them likely agree with the ruling, or are representing communities who broadly agree with the ruling. So that's never going to happen.

    Also, I think it will have less an impact on the midterms than some might suggest. Sure it will galvanise progressives. But they're already in a minority in states where local legislation might change because of the ruling, and already in a majority in states more liberal with abortion.

    Great timing with the leak tho. What I would love... if the leak was determined to come from within the SCOTUS panel themselves. that would be some fun. I'm not a fan of political appointee judiciary. It should have an independent process. But hey. What happens when a SC Justice breaches their own bubble?
    IN PATROCINIVM SVB MARENOSTRUM

  19. #59
    Praeses
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    8,355

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    You can believe whatever you want, of course, but the polls you posted, taken under different conditions, simply don't support an assertion that this won't impact the midterms. If anything, the fact that 73% of Democrats oppose a repeal indicates it could very well influence the midterms.
    Looks like you're having trouble being understood, maybe post some dictionary definitions, that'll help them understand.

    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus View Post
    . What happens when a SC Justice breaches their own bubble?
    They have forsaken reason for folly.


    In parliamentary monarchies we rely on an apolitical judicial "priesthood" but the US has muddied that tradition with elected and politically selected judges. We get less (but still some) legislation from the bench as a result. We usually get the best judges in the top jobs though.
    Jatte lambastes Calico Rat

  20. #60

    Default Re: Supreme court to overturn Roe vs Wade

    Quote Originally Posted by chilon View Post
    You can believe whatever you want, of course, but the polls you posted, taken under different conditions, simply don't support an assertion that this won't impact the midterms. If anything, the fact that 73% of Democrats oppose a repeal indicates it could very well influence the midterms.
    Good thing no one in this thread has said it won’t have any impact on the midterms.
    Quote Originally Posted by antaeus
    Also, I think it will have less an impact on the midterms than some might suggest. Sure it will galvanise progressives. But they're already in a minority in states where local legislation might change because of the ruling, and already in a majority in states more liberal with abortion.
    I agree. This has largely been fought out at the state level over the years already, and it’s not an issue voters care alot about. Since both parties are more than capable of fear mongering on this issue, it’s free real estate now. The Democrats have a much larger microphone, and I think that’s what the abortion impact may come down to.
    Last edited by Lord Thesaurian; May 04, 2022 at 11:50 PM.
    Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •