Just did a word search on the COTUS itself. “Abortion” isn’t in there. Sorry, 2systrogen.
Biden Is On A Roll
- Thread starter my_2cents
- Start date
Ok, so the new fag law provides ZERO protection should the Obergefell case be overturned. All it does is bring federal law in line with obergefell, as everyone in this thread except 2syskacents has said.
www.npr.org
What does the Respect for Marriage Act do? The answer will vary by state.
The law came about in response to the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, which called other landmark civil liberties cases into question.
www.npr.org
Oh, and the part about mandating states to recognize fag marriages in other states, should Obergefell be righted, is probably unconstitutional.
I'm sorry you can't figure out how to use a simple search feature. Here are the first two results (of many) that came up when I used it . . .
Just as predicted after the Dobbs ruling. This is what many right-wingers want and what they would love the Supreme Court to do next.
Thanks for at least being honest about your intentions. Please make sure you vote for Republicans in the '24 primaries who will be just as honest as you are.
Fox Business tells me US consumer credit card debt is at a 15 year high. Inflation at a 40 year high. The slow try to convince us a record 81 million of us were stupid enough to vote for this.
Still not finding a right to abortion in the constitution. Only in left wing legal contortions, as we already knew.
Anything and anyone who differs from what @my_2cents thinks is right-wing. Haven’t you figured the man out yet? There’s what he thinks and there’s right-wing and there’s nothing in between.
So what is next for you? Advocating for a return to segregation and citing this as a *return to normalcy"? Maybe you want to see the Supreme Court do away with Loving v. Virginia so you can claim a "return to normalcy" there too?
I see I once again hit a nerve with you Dan. One can always tell when this has happened. Sorry that I simply quoted your own words back to you.
But hey, I am proud of you as it relates to finally wising up concerning the non-fascist Trump and his cult following. It was good to see that even you couldn't stand by his call to abandon the Constitution.
RBG agreed the Roe v Wade ruling was flawed even though she supported a woman's right to kill the unborn baby growing in her womb. I'm not even one of those that wants abortion outlawed but I do want the Constitution strictly interpreted and abided by government. The solution is for Congress to create legislation that solves the issue for the majority of the population. With government divided almost on a 50/50 basis it's a great time for both sides to finally create legislation that does solve the issue but they will have to quit listening to the extremist on both sides to do so.
Your typical fallacious argument. Race and sexual perversion are far from analogous. One has nothing to do with the other.
Yeah, you said something similar right after the disastrous Dobbs decision when the right's desire to mentioned. Obergefell was invoked. Now look at you.
Even if one was to accept this claim, the motivation and argument for overturning these cases are the same. "States' rights."
Come on, just be honest.Admit you think that Loving v. Virginia should be overturn. Trust me, you aren't going to shock anyone.
btw, want to talk about the cases related to contraceptive, reproductive freedom, and the right to privacy? Wanna talk about how you also want to overturn Griswold v. Connecticut?
Last edited:
Now you’ve just gone full blown idiot in typical 2syskacents fashion. The argument for overturning Roe has nothing to with states’ rights. It’s about no constitutionally protected right to abortion. Likewise, overturning Obergefell would be based on no constitutional right to have your sodomous relationship blessed with marriage.
Misrepresentation. RBG believed that a woman's right to choose was also found in the Equal Protection Clause. She would never have ruled to overturn Roe though.
As you have been told numerous times now, we had a solution that solved this issue for a majority of Americans. All we need to do is return to that.
We can do that by either codifying Roe (legislation), overturning Dobbs and returning to Roe's precedent, or both. Take your pick.
Incorrect. The argument for overturning Roe was that there is not a constitutional protected right for a woman to choose an abortion at certain points during a pregnancy and therefore states have the ability to restrict this activity during all phases of a pregnancy. Dobbs placed the primary authority over pregnancies back with the states. A states' rights position.
By placing the primary authority over marriages back with the states. Again, a states' rights position. And the same states' rights argument can be used to overturn Loving v. Virginia.
Two simple questions for you. Do you believe Loving v. Virginia should be overturned? Do you believe Griswold v. Connecticut should be overturned?
Today's Waco Tribune-Herald tells me new single home building permits fell off the cliff in October with 18. October was the 5th straight month with new car sales falling month over month. Texas has been enjoying a hot economy with so many people moving in from sewers such as Kalifornia, NY and Illinoise.
Loving. No.
Griswold. No.
Not seeing what either of those have to do with letting mothers kill their unborn babies or blessing sodomite couples with marriage.
You’re walking back your previous post. The argument was not about states rights, it was about whether or not there is a constitutionally protected right to abortion. There is none. All it did was overturn the poorly reasoned (devoid of reason, actually) Roe decision. Now, the effect is to throw that decision back to the states. But I can see how some high school kid with a shoe size IQ such as yourself might miss this nuance.
Loving. Should not be overturned. (Not seeing what this has to do with sodomites and baby killers)
Griswold. Probably could be overturned but I don’t see any justiciable controversy surfacing which would bring this about. Except perhaps as to birth control methods which take effect after conception.
That's the problem with the leftist approach of circumventing the legislative process in favor of the legal system to implement policy, those that oppose can use the same to overturn what they see as a wrong. IMO something as controversial as abortion should not be resolved by the courts, it should be resolved by legislation supported by the majority of Congress and not by a 51 % for, while 49% oppose, that creates division as we have seen over the last several years of Congressional BS. Yea it's hard, it's tough and each side may not get everything they want but if it's worth doing it's worth doing right. No more half measures where one party imposes it's will on the other. I know the concept of working together to solve issues for the majority of the population may seem foreign to some, but that is our system and is in the best interest of our country.
I'm not walking back anything. Yes, the disastrous Dobbs decision returned the primary authority to regulate abortions back to the states. Which is what those who advocate a states' rights position on abortion always wanted.
Many of them also advocate the same position for marriage (as you do), for contraceptives, etc.
If you want to go the legislative route, I provided you with an option to do just that, which would be acceptable to a majority of Americans. Codify Roe.
Rights can be controversial to some. Just look at the battles that occurred when the courts had to step in and end segregation. We don't (and shouldn't) always turn over to legislatures the ability to infringe upon constitutional protected rights.
Also, make up your mind if you want majority support or super majority support. 51% is majority support.
For the 100th time, we had a solution that solved this issue for a majority of Americans. All we need to do is return to that.
We can do that by either codifying Roe (legislation), overturning Dobbs and returning to Roe's precedent, or both. Take your pick.
There are 330,000,000 people in the USA, so there will be a lot of different “arguments”. The only one that matters is the reasoning set forth in the opinion. This is what a reasonably intelligent person would do. It’s also what I did do, and you did not do.
Perhaps, but again, the states' rights position is closely connected to the disastrous Dobbs decision.
I agree, the reasoning and the effects.
So stop arguing against the obvious and you won't look so foolish.
I read the disastrous opinion the day it was released. And I accurately predicted what would be next for those that think like you do.
I just hope the Texas legislature can keep these folks in check. We're in better hands with Greg rather than that idiot Beto.
It's not up to me tell those in Congress, on both sides, who have been ducking the issue like cowards for decades.
If I had my way, nothing would get passed without a 2/3rds majority. Yea it would be tough in the short term until the politicians felt the pain from the voters and finally started working together for the benefit of the country but we would be better off and not as divided in the long run
Maybe for you but obviously some people disagreed with you, fought against it in court the same way leftist did to pass Roe v Wade and won the case to overturn. Now you are just butt hurt you are not getting what you want. IMO the way to solve the problem is legislation that the overwhelming majority can agree with. Sorry working for the majority and not being able to cram your way of thinking down the throats of people you despise is such a problem for you.
I mentioned supporting Congress codifying Roe. This does exactly what you originally claimed you want. It is the passage of legislation that solves the issue for the majority of Americans. Once you were presented with this, something you refuse to agree to because you are in the minority on it, you have to go change your claim. Hilarious!🤣🤣
So your original claim about what you desire (creating legislation that solves the issue for the majority of Americans) was a lie. Good to know. Thanks.
There is always going to be people who disagree on legislation and court decisions nitwit. Unless 100% of Americans agree on it, there will be people who disagree. That doesn't mean we stop passing legislation, taking away constitutional rights, and/or overturning legal precedents to make everyone happy.
As I've also told you in the past, you sure didn't repeat this nonsense when Republicans were signing legislation into law that had many people disagreeing with it. Nor will you in the future. And there have been many great historical Supreme Court rulings that some people disagreed with at the time or still do. I don't see you advocating overturning all of them simply because some people disagreed.
There it is.🤣🤣
Now you have to change your claim. "Overwhelming" majority. Make up your mind.
Biden really on a roll for American households. Household wealth falls for third consecutive quarter.
🤣🤣
Only response you could come up with after having to change your claim huh?
btw, I'm looking forward to you demanding Republicans in the House only pass legislation that can receive supermajority support from members of the House and the American people.
I cant help it you can't keep up with the conversation and refuse to understand what is said. You might want to read that WSJ piece I posted, it's describes you to perfection.
Oh, I've kept up well with your changing position on this thread.
The first time Republicans in the House pass a bill that doesn't receive supermajority support from members of the House and/or the American people, will you start a thread discussing how you hate what they did and declare they should stop such behavior immediately?
Yeah I know. That will definitely be dIfFeReNt.🤣🤣
Similar threads
