News Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 83 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,009
53,277
136
No AR15 back in the 1800’s. So ban them now!!!!
Amusingly enough and actually to my point as to why SCOTUS does not give a shit as to logic or consistency as part of their opinion invalidating NYS's century old concealed carry law is that because that law was passed after the 2nd amendment it cannot inform the analysis of what those who wrote the 2nd amendment intended. Then when it came to abortion they turned around and used laws banning abortion passed after the 14th amendment to inform their analysis.

It's all pure Calvinball - anyone who says 'the court won't do X because it's clearly unconstitutional or against established precedent' must have been asleep this term. They do not give a single solitary shit.
 

JD50

Lifer
Sep 4, 2005
11,857
2,673
136
A bullet hole in the head seems a well defined condition. Or are you referring to abortion? Sorry if I've missed understood your point.

And how would the police go about determining if the miscarriage was "natural" or the cause of some action from the Mother?
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,427
7,946
136
I wonder aloud if this defeat of Roe v Wade by the conservatives on the SCOTUS is a distraction that is part of a larger plan. I thought of this because in overturning a law of which the clear majority of the nation was in favor of, the GOP is further distancing itself from the current mindset of the majority of the nation, thus lessening their chances for winning elections in purple states.

It seems so illogical that a party whose problems are self-inflicted would hazard themselves with a single issue that works against them. So too with their stance on the 2A. It's like in order to have their way on certain issues, they're willing to commit political suicide to do it.
 
Reactions: hal2kilo

vi edit

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 28, 1999
62,484
8,344
126
I wonder aloud if this defeat of Roe v Wade by the conservatives on the SCOTUS is a distraction that is part of a larger plan. I thought of this because in overturning a law of which the clear majority of the nation was in favor of, the GOP is further distancing itself from the current mindset of the majority of the nation, thus lessening their chances for winning elections in purple states.

It seems so illogical that a party whose problems are self-inflicted would hazard themselves with a single issue that works against them. So too with their stance on the 2A. It's like in order to have their way on certain issues, they're willing to commit political suicide to do it.

I think they may give up a short term loss for a long term win. Something the GOP has sustained patience with over decades. They may give up a few seats this fall. But long term we'll just speed up the sort. People with means will leave shithole states and erode any political shifts happening.
 

dlerious

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2004
2,029
851
136
That is false. It is true that if Washington passes a law that says 'no one can be punished for having an abortion in Washington' then that could be the true but simply because a state has declined to criminalize something itself does not mean that it is not bound by the full faith and credit clause if another state has.
So this doesn't exist?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,009
53,277
136
There are specific states that have passed these sorts of laws in response to the anticipated overturn of Roe v. Wade but most do not have them. Regardless, your original point was that states do not enforce other states' laws and that is very clearly false as they almost always do and have for the entirety of the history of this country.
 

SteveGrabowski

Diamond Member
Oct 20, 2014
8,501
7,142
136
I wonder aloud if this defeat of Roe v Wade by the conservatives on the SCOTUS is a distraction that is part of a larger plan. I thought of this because in overturning a law of which the clear majority of the nation was in favor of, the GOP is further distancing itself from the current mindset of the majority of the nation, thus lessening their chances for winning elections in purple states.

It seems so illogical that a party whose problems are self-inflicted would hazard themselves with a single issue that works against them. So too with their stance on the 2A. It's like in order to have their way on certain issues, they're willing to commit political suicide to do it.

Minority rule is guaranteed by the constitution because of the senate. All the GOP has to do is push right when they have the presidency, which assures them the senate and house for at least two years too, and then hold the line using the filibuster any other time. They don't care what the people want, they're not put in power by the people but by the map.
 

dlerious

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2004
2,029
851
136
There are specific states that have passed these sorts of laws in response to the anticipated overturn of Roe v. Wade but most do not have them. Regardless, your original point was that states do not enforce other states' laws and that is very clearly false as they almost always do and have for the entirety of the history of this country.
They have? When has a state with a drinking age of 18 ever prosecuted an 18 year old from a state with an age of 21 for drinking within their state? How about a case involving marijuana laws? How about any case where the activity is legal in the jurisdiction where the activity takes place?
 

trenchfoot

Lifer
Aug 5, 2000
15,427
7,946
136
Minority rule is guaranteed by the constitution because of the senate. All the GOP has to do is push right when they have the presidency, which assures them the senate and house for at least two years too, and then hold the line using the filibuster any other time.


Now that you mention it, I see how the Repubs have been exploiting that tool of theirs. As far as the Dems are concerned, Manchin and Sinema have been the bane of their party, having blocked any and all attempts by their Dem party leadership toward getting around the filibuster to forward the party's agenda.
 
Reactions: hal2kilo

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,059
10,365
136
They have? When has a state with a drinking age of 18 ever prosecuted an 18 year old from a state with an age of 21 for drinking within their state? How about a case involving marijuana laws? How about any case where the activity is legal in the jurisdiction where the activity takes place?

First, there are no states with 18yr old drinking laws. Second, you've got the pattern backwards. It would (in the scenario of the person you're quoting) be as if someone smoked pot in a state where it was illegal, charged for that illegal act, subsequently found in a 2nd state where it is legal, but the 2nd state refused to extradite.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,009
53,277
136
They have? When has a state with a drinking age of 18 ever prosecuted an 18 year old from a state with an age of 21 for drinking within their state? How about a case involving marijuana laws? How about any case where the activity is legal in the jurisdiction where the activity takes place?
The entire reason the Defense of Marriage Act was passed was because states would otherwise have to recognize same sex marriages that took place in other states.
 
Reactions: nakedfrog
Jul 9, 2009
10,757
2,086
136
To rule that it has nothing to do with the 14th amendment means they have to ignore what it says.. Thank you for confirming what I said.
So i can listen and believe your narrow and obvious incorrect interpretation or i can listen to and read the ruling by the USSC which is the standing law of the land. One is an opinion by a guy posting in a tech forum and the other is the actual Supreme Court ruling. Tough choice for some people, but not for me. The USSC wins!
 

Pens1566

Lifer
Oct 11, 2005
13,059
10,365
136
So i can listen and believe your narrow and obvious incorrect interpretation or i can listen to and read the ruling by the USSC which is the standing law of the land. One is an opinion by a guy posting in a tech forum and the other is the actual Supreme Court ruling. Tough choice for some people, but not for me. The USSC wins!

... all while completely ignoring the concurrence from Thomas that states the exact same thing the person you're quoting is saying.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
37,943
30,657
136
So i can listen and believe your narrow and obvious incorrect interpretation or i can listen to and read the ruling by the USSC which is the standing law of the land. One is an opinion by a guy posting in a tech forum and the other is the actual Supreme Court ruling. Tough choice for some people, but not for me. The USSC wins!
Since you have such an undying belief of the USSC and read the ruling you noticed Alito admitted life does not begin at conception. In that ruling he said he was protecting...

"POTENTIAL LIFE"

Hate to burst your bubble. In case you will argue the meaning of potential let me save you the trouble...

Potential Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
70,598
6,145
126
So i can listen and believe your narrow and obvious incorrect interpretation or i can listen to and read the ruling by the USSC which is the standing law of the land. One is an opinion by a guy posting in a tech forum and the other is the actual Supreme Court ruling. Tough choice for some people, but not for me. The USSC wins!

Funny, you weren't saying this a few months ago.
 
Reactions: DarthKyrie

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
14,493
9,344
136
Minority rule is guaranteed by the constitution because of the senate. All the GOP has to do is push right when they have the presidency, which assures them the senate and house for at least two years too, and then hold the line using the filibuster any other time. They don't care what the people want, they're not put in power by the people but by the map.

Having control of the Senate (within 20 years 2/3 of which will be elected by less than 1/3 of the population) means they get to gate-keep appointments to the Supreme Court, which in turn can block any attempt to fix the Senate or any other aspect of the oligarchic US system. Then there's the electoral college, and the gerrymandering at the State level.

It's a beautiful system, if your aim is to ensure the rule of a privileged minority in perpetuity. I think that was the whole purpose of it from the start.

Over here, I'm quite nervous what will happen when the pretentious nincompoop Charles becomes monarch. Given his bottomless self-regard and lack of inhibitions about exploiting his unelected power, he could well reveal the fundamental weaknesses of our system in much the same way.

Just as the weaknesses in the US system were concealed for a long time by the relatively moral nature of the accidental incumbents in the Supreme Court, we've been lulled into complacency by the (relative) good sense of our Lizzie.
 
Last edited:

dlerious

Platinum Member
Mar 4, 2004
2,029
851
136
First, there are no states with 18yr old drinking laws. Second, you've got the pattern backwards. It would (in the scenario of the person you're quoting) be as if someone smoked pot in a state where it was illegal, charged for that illegal act, subsequently found in a 2nd state where it is legal, but the 2nd state refused to extradite.
I didn't have to worry about drinking age by the time federal law raised it in 1984, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the ability of a state to force another state to enforce a conflicting law within their jurisdiction. i.e. making it a crime to have an abortion within a state where it's legal. I thought a person was only subject to the laws in the jurisdiction they were in, not that they followed you wherever you went.
 
Reactions: Pens1566

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,009
53,277
136
I didn't have to worry about drinking age by the time federal law raised it in 1984, my mistake. I thought we were talking about the ability of a state to force another state to enforce a conflicting law within their jurisdiction. i.e. making it a crime to have an abortion within a state where it's legal. I thought a person was only subject to the laws in the jurisdiction they were in, not that they followed you wherever you went.
Laws don't follow you wherever you go, but they aren't following you in this case either. State A is making it illegal to leave their borders for the purposes of having an abortion so the crime takes place while you are within State A's jurisdiction.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,287
11,708
136
we ain't seen nothing yet. theocracy inbound, with whatever distorted fucked up version the conservatives choose

If anyone thinks the conservatives aren't looking to ban abortion nationwide, they're fooling themselves
More fodder for Dems to get elected.
 

ivwshane

Lifer
May 15, 2000
33,179
16,412
136
So what's going to be the plan for when a woman is forced to work while pregnant, is on an hourly job and can't afford to travel to another state to have an abortion and ends up with a miscarriage because she was working too hard? Because that's the world we're heading too. Is that punishable? The state is far more culpable here than the woman.

I for one can’t wait till we have a barrage of lawsuits against the states that banned abortion for creating an undue burden on the woman.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
25,287
11,708
136
Why are Democrats so stupid they don't call out the GOP policies that are anti-life - such as no help for people/s healthcare, childcare, housing, wages, etc... Including for the newborn baby and unprepared mother they are forcing to have a baby?

It's not that hard to do. Just keep asking them and let them look stupid when they deflect.
Dems don't have ONE CHANNEL to watch!!!!!
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |