USA Roe, the evangelicals and the war on choice

Remove this Banner Ad

Sir_Loin

🏆🏆🏆
Oct 20, 2015
30,787
76,104
AFL Club
Richmond
Roe has been overturned by the RWNJs. Stacked courts and slim minorities by activated evangelicals are now dictating our lives. Is it an assault on free expression when religion informs our way of life? Discuss.

 

yebiga

LETS GO BRANDON
Aug 1, 2008
15,102
25,516
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Roe has been overturned by the RWNJs. Stacked courts and slim minorities by activated evangelicals are now dictating our lives. Is it an assault on free expression when religion informs our way of life? Discuss.
RWNJ V TDS
This is what you get when your dehumanise
 

Contra Mundum

To Know Nothing is the Happiest Life
Aug 1, 2002
22,826
10,712
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
There is no way Roberts would have chosen Alito to write the majority opinion. My sense is that Roberts is in the minority 4 - so Thomas, as the Senior judge in the majority decided who would write it. Alito has been described as the "drunk fox news uncle" of the SCOTUS. - but Thomas wanted the most bat s**t, activist, crazy opinion he could get to "own the Libs"

One thing it shows the Mont Perelin society, the moral majority and the Federalist society knew how to play the long game - I mean it would have been unthinkable during the period of the Warren Court that such as thing was possible.

Props to the associate who leaked it - boss level political move.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Sir_Loin

🏆🏆🏆
Oct 20, 2015
30,787
76,104
AFL Club
Richmond
There is no way Roberts would have chosen Alito to write the majority opinion. My sense is that Roberts is in the minority 4 - so Thomas, as the Senior judge in the majority decided who would write it. Alito has been described as the "drunk fox news uncle" of the SCOTUS. - but Thomas wanted the most bat s**t, activist, crazy opinion he could get to "own the Libs"

One thing it shows the Mont Perelin society, the moral majority and the Federalist society knew how to play the long game - I mean it would have been unthinkable during the period of the Warren Court that such as thing was possible.

Props to the associate who leaked it - boss level political move.

Outstanding point
 

yebiga

LETS GO BRANDON
Aug 1, 2008
15,102
25,516
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Some would argue removing a woman’s choice is dehumanising. Expand on your argument please
Political debate has become an infantilised slanging match - each side of the political divide treats the other with outright contempt
This atmosphere means that mature discourse is not even on anyone's radar. In short - no body is listening to anyone
The current crop of political leaders through much of the western world has reached what appears to be an irredeemable state.

Thus, we can expect more and more insane decisions.

Revoking Roe v Wade is but one exemplar
 

Contra Mundum

To Know Nothing is the Happiest Life
Aug 1, 2002
22,826
10,712
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
NMFC
They'll be after gay marriage soon.

Apparently the argument Alito used to argue against the constitutional protection of abortion is very similar to his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Its not hard - just think of the batshit Conservative Catholic position
 

Sir_Loin

🏆🏆🏆
Oct 20, 2015
30,787
76,104
AFL Club
Richmond
Political debate has become an infantilised slanging match - each side of the political divide treats the other with outright contempt
This atmosphere means that mature discourse is not even on anyone's radar. In short - no body is listening to anyone
The current crop of political leaders through much of the western world has reached what appears to be an irredeemable state.

Thus, we can expect more and more insane decisions.

Revoking Roe v Wade is but one exemplar

But it’s not a political debate. Is it? Should a woman have the right to choose what they do with their body? Please address this in your next response.
 

yebiga

LETS GO BRANDON
Aug 1, 2008
15,102
25,516
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
But it’s not a political debate. Is it? Should a woman have the right to choose what they do with their body? Please address this in your next response.
You are on the SRP the part of the site that is intrinsically political
This is an issue which will always have people on opposing camps - terminating the life of a foetus and obtaining widespread agreement at what point of its development this is acceptable is intrinsically contentious - and how we decide something contentious is the very purpose of politics. My perception is that we appear to be increasingly incapable of doing this in any mature fashion. We no longer listen to opposing views or treat people with different opinions with any respect.

Your move here - to suggest the question is not even political - serves to strengthen this perception
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Chief

Chugging Adrenochrome
Dec 1, 1999
112,265
94,215
Gates' Payroll
AFL Club
Carlton
Apparently the argument Alito used to argue against the constitutional protection of abortion is very similar to his dissent in Obergefell v. Hodges. Its not hard - just think of the batshit Conservative Catholic position
Curious, I looked it up on the Wikis:

Justice Samuel Alito wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Scalia and Thomas. Invoking Washington v. Glucksberg, in which the Court stated the Due Process Clause protects only rights and liberties that are "deeply rooted in this Nation's history and tradition", Alito claimed any "right" to same-sex marriage would not meet this definition; he chided the justices in the majority for going against judicial precedent and long-held tradition.[152] Alito defended the rationale of the states, accepting the premise that same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment.[153] Alito expressed concern that the majority's opinion would be used to attack the beliefs of those who disagree with same-sex marriage, who "will risk being labeled as bigots and treated as such by governments, employers, and schools", leading to "bitter and lasting wounds".[154] Expressing concern for judicial abuse, Alito concluded, "Most Americans—understandably—will cheer or lament today's decision because of their views on the issue of same-sex marriage. But all Americans, whatever their thinking on that issue, should worry about what the majority's claim of power portends."[155]

"same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment"

WTF? How? A gay bloke is going to switch teams, get married to a woman and have kids?

Cosmo Kramer Mind Blown GIF
 

Good Horse

That pony had it coming
Sep 21, 2019
2,042
8,340
AFL Club
Collingwood
They'll be after gay marriage soon.

Alito's opinion expressly referred to Obergefell as equally unsupported (amongst others). He was basically baiting the hook for them to come bring it to him
 

yebiga

LETS GO BRANDON
Aug 1, 2008
15,102
25,516
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Curious, I looked it up on the Wikis:



"same-sex marriage bans serve to promote procreation and the optimal childrearing environment"

WTF? How? A gay bloke is going to switch teams, get married to a woman and have kids?

Cosmo Kramer Mind Blown GIF
If we are to validate the trans-sexual argument, that gender is merely a cultural phenomena - then there is some logical power to the belief that culture can be used to persuade a gay person to fulfil his or her biological reproductive potential.
 

yebiga

LETS GO BRANDON
Aug 1, 2008
15,102
25,516
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
I am so f***ing sick of religion being engrained in politics.
Where is the religion in this argument? It's perfectly rational for a secular person to hold an ethical belief which rejects the legal right to terminate a the life of human foetus - that this position appears to anecdotally be held more-often by someone of a religious disposition does not preclude the possibility that this religious factor is over-stated. It is equal plausible that secular people choose to buttress their objection to abortion by citing religious authority.
 

Werewolf

Underminer
Feb 12, 2010
11,777
16,307
Adelaide
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Other Teams
Footscray
As unpleasant as abortion is (very glad I'm not a doctor who has to perform them), there are legitimate reasons for having one - in the first trimester at least - and outlawing it will only make people look to other means. This can only be a worse alternative as abortion requires a medical professional.

IMO it will also be a bad precedent if the government has the power to enforce on people how to manage their own health/bodies.
 

Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 1, 2006
6,163
9,752
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
As unpleasant as abortion is (very glad I'm not a doctor who has to perform them), there are legitimate reasons for having one - in the first trimester at least - and outlawing it will only make people look to other means. This can only be a worse alternative as abortion requires a medical professional.

IMO it will also be a bad precedent if the government has the power to enforce on people how to manage their own health/bodies.
Studies have shown that bans on abortion only kill more pregnant women, the number of abortions rarely moves. It's the unsafe methods which go through the roof.
 

Saint

Norm Smith Medallist
Feb 1, 2006
6,163
9,752
Victoria
AFL Club
Essendon
Poor old America- it’s stuffed. They made an enormous mistake putting trump in.
THeir mistake is worse than that. Their constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Politicisation of every branch of Government, states and federal Govt at loggerheads over almost everything (poor states refuse to provide federal health-care assistance on principle!), religious zealotry having more influence than democracy.the two party oligopoly and Citizens United giving more rights to corporations than people, Presidents declaring wars without congressional approval, the list of problems with the constitution is longer than the list of successes.

The US Constitution is no longer fit for purpose, but it's the one thing that both sides think is un-touchable. Or perhaps it just entrenches the political class's power and wealth so they don't want to do anything about it.

It wouldn't actually too hard to write a new one, but you couldn't trust the corporations who run the Government to stay out of it.
 

yebiga

LETS GO BRANDON
Aug 1, 2008
15,102
25,516
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
THeir mistake is worse than that. Their constitution is no longer fit for purpose. Politicisation of every branch of Government, states and federal Govt at loggerheads over almost everything (poor states refuse to provide federal health-care assistance on principle!), religious zealotry having more influence than democracy.the two party oligopoly and Citizens United giving more rights to corporations than people, Presidents declaring wars without congressional approval, the list of problems with the constitution is longer than the list of successes.

The US Constitution is no longer fit for purpose, but it's the one thing that both sides think is un-touchable. Or perhaps it just entrenches the political class's power and wealth so they don't want to do anything about it.

It wouldn't actually too hard to write a new one, but you couldn't trust the corporations who run the Government to stay out of it.
You can write whatever constitution you like - if people wilfully ignore it and there are no consequences when it is repeatedly breached - there is no constitution that will make a blind bit of difference.
 

Remove this Banner Ad