I just thought I should throw this out there given that I was going to go to law school at one point.

Overturning Roe v Wade did not outlaw abortion in the United States. It simply meant that SCOTUS could not rule that abortion was a right that is covered in the constitution. All the rights and responsibilities not covered in the constitution are delegated to the state governments under the 10th amendment.

So in other words, protesting in front of SCOTUS and giving them facts to consider makes zero sense. They have performed their duty. Demonstrations should take place at state capitol buildings now. In all likelihood, though, most states will pass some kind of abortion measure which should end up on the ballots in the near future. In my opinion it needs to be a bipartisan effort in each of the states where the end result is a bill that prohibits abortion as a primary means of contraception but includes provisions for the health of the mother, cases of incest and rape, or where the mother can show that other methods of contraception have failed or using them would result in health complications.

This is not a "war on women", just a court doing what a court is supposed to do. No one is coming for gay marriage next, divorce attorneys make too much money off of it and money is what drives this country forward.

This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »

MistyCee

With all due respect, Supreme Court Justices have a great deal of deference I'm terms of carrying out their duties, but a large portion of those folks who have gone to law school feel like the last couple of opinions by these Justices are really pushing the edges of what that deference should allow, or realistically, the value of the oath they swore.

I'm not going to defend protests, and I even get the Dobbs thing, but the rationale they used, a one sided historical analysis, completely devoid of public policy or concerns is really troubling. I think the Bruin decision is far worse, tbh, because I get the States rights thing, but instead of telling people not to protest or telling them where to protest, i'd tell them what they should be protesting about.

This "Originalism" thing was really cute as a method of interpretation, but Thomas just illustrated how taking Scalia's ideas out of context can lead to absurd results.

I like the idea of a Court as a balance to Congress and the Legislature, but an intellectually dishonest court, which this one is, I think, is worth protesting, in a proper place.

TexChik · F

@MistyCee A large portion of those folks who have gone to law school support the opinions of these justices and that they are pushing back against prior judicial activism by liberal courts. Far too many read too much into the constitution that is not there. It is despicable that elected liberal officials threatened Justices by name with violence trying to sway their vote. If we had true law and order, applied equally, those individuals would be in custody awaiting trial. Several of these majority justices were outrageously savaged by the liberals in the senate during their confirmation. And they have not forgotten. I am not saying that played a part in any decision, but any fool knows not to piss off a judge that will deciding a case you have interest in.

MistyCee

Let's break your response into parts:

A large portion of those folks who have gone to law school support the opinions of these justices and that they are pushing back against prior judicial activism by liberal courts. Far too many read too much into the constitution that is not there.

I agree, especially about Judicial activism.

The rest of crap about judges being mistreated and not forgetting about it, I acknowledge you said, and I won't contest.

What bugs me is that Kanavanaugh said it.

TexChik · F

@MistyCee Crap? None other than Chuck Schumer is on record as threatening the Justices. Of course it makes sense that you would never divulge that willingly. Kavanaugh's confirmation and the last minute october surprise of a liberal activist professor that claims he raped her in school. Had that gone to a court of law instead of the kangaroo court , it would have been thrown out or she would have had to perjure herself. And as far as Justice Thomas' inquisition at the hands of Joe Biden, I saw that on you tube.

MistyCee

@TexChik You first saw Thomas Confirmation hearings on YouTube?

TexChik · F

@MistyCee he was confirmed while I was still a kid . So yeah . I saw references to it pointing our how biden treated him . It wasn’t pretty.

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@TexChik I certainly remember the Thomas confirmation hearings. Biden the racist did his best to get Thomas to pull out of the confirmation process. It was beyond ugly all the way to evil. Biden is a vile person that no one should want to have in any elected office anywhere in the land.

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@hippyjoe1955 Hardly -- Biden has been widely criticized for bending over backwards to appease Long Dong, and his supporters.

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@Fukfacewillie Who is Long Dong?

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@hippyjoe1955 Oh, thought you watched the hearings.

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@Fukfacewillie Which hearings?

Fukfacewillie · 56-60, M

@hippyjoe1955 🤔

hippyjoe1955 · 70-79, M

@Fukfacewillie There have been a lot of hearings over the years so which one are you referring to? I still have no idea who Long Dong is. Kinda hard to have a conversation with someone who speaks his own language.

MistyCee

@TexChik It was far uglier for Anita Thomas the way I remember it.