I have no intentions of baiting to rustle. I am genuinely trying to understand why the Supreme Court overturned roe v. wade. I have three questions:

1. was roe v. wade overturned because the supreme court thought abortion rights should be up to states and federally forcing all states to comply is overstepping state power?

2. religion/christianity is important to republicans so was this decision simply a "hey guys, were all republicans so we have to do republican things"?

3. was this decision made to cool down promiscuity to align with the traditional values of republicans?

4. The Supreme Court is def heavy with judges appointed by republican presidents... is this case a example of "packing the courts"?

all in all, my response to those who are in uproar about the overturning is that if you really are passionate, you have should get involved politically in your state to create change instead of going on the internet... thoughts about this response?

kick rocks if you want to come at me with negativity, just trying to understand srs

Because the Constitution is not there to guarantee you the right to abortion.

All powers not specifically mentioned, are reserved to the States and the People. It's black and white. We have the power to govern ourselves, and federal mandates like that are unconstitutional.


Furthermore, abortion is a controversial practice, that millions of americans find highly immoral. Our tax dollars should NOT be going to such a thing. Murdering your unborn child to avoid responsibility of a family is anathema to millions of us. We want no part of it.


Roe v Wade was wrong from the start.

Now the states can go decide for themselves. But a federal mandate was wrong.


and now the people can pay for it themselves if they live in a state that allows it.

1. Yes
2. No
3. No
4. Yes

I understand your first two points, makes sense.

I partly am with your third sentence. What's the counter argument when someone brings up what I mentioned about a mother's life being in danger? Is it morally acceptable to abort the baby?

I poked around on the internet and found pew research center. this site is known to be in the middle. apparently 62% of americans think abortions should be legal..https://www.pewresearch.org/politics...rn-roe-v-wade/

Seems like the main argument is that this is about "powers not specifically mentioned are reserved to the state and the people". So if people really want change, they gotta buck up and create it themselves...?

women are mad because they see that other women are mad and are mad at men who don't agree with them

das it mane

sloots gonna sloot.

To number one, yes. That's really what it all boils down to.

The next 2, not so much.

And 4th, no. Court packing does not refer to which side or party has more judges appointed by Presidents from either party. Court packing is not accepting the political balance of the court and choosing to add a bunch of new menbers to achieve the ideological result you desire. Replacing one judge for another may shift the ideological balance but that comes down to luck basically. The party in power gets to chose. (the President and the senate either approves or rejects). We've had 9 judges for a long time. If Biden decided to add 3 more judges to make it 12....that's Court packing.

/thread

There are no other answers

It's not complicated. Abortion isn't in the Constitution, so it's up to the states. That's the end of it. Make an exception for abortion, people will want exceptions for everything else. States will have to make new laws, and many have already done so or are in the process of doing so.

Hoes mad [x24]

Responses above in CAPS. I'm not a constitutional lawyer or scholar (few ppl actually are, and i'm sure none of them misc), so the above is just my uneducated take on things.

All in all, I think maybe the supreme court was technically correct from a purely academic perspective, but I think it was the wrong thing for them to do.This is important. The dems in control of congress could come up with federal abortion legislation if THEY ACTUALLY CARED. But they actually don't. They will use abortion as a tool to fire up their base for elections, and villanize evil republicans for getting rid of abortion rights, BUT, if they actually cared, they could legislate abortion right now. JFL at liberals.

To answer number two, there is a strong connection between conservative republican views and Christian religious views, and how they intertwine to create law. That's why some make a conscious effort toward separating church and state. That's just another case of traditionalists versus progressives.

If you take religion out of the equation, the stats are pretty staggering.
"Similarly, a large majority of religiously unaffiliated adults (77%) disapprove of the court’s decision, with 63% saying they strongly disapprove. About two-in-ten (22%) approve."

The last study I saw, showed that over 90% of women getting abortions were doing it for convenience.

Elective abortions.

No medical necessity.


I am sure we could figure something out for those very rare cases where the mother could die. But there's no point to bringing that up in the discussion, because it's irrelevant. Most abortions were done to avoid responsibility.

But it was right for them to do because checks & balances. The federal government has no legal right to enact abortion laws like that, obviously.

Op when asked the newest judges said it was "settled law" so most people assumed that we were done with this old ass subject and could move on to newer topics.
The decision was made in 1972, so why deal with "settled law in 2022?
Then these same newly appointed judges said Psych, we were just playing/fkng with you we were going to reverse it all along.
I kept wondering why all the roe vs wade repeated questions by congress to these judges in their confirmation hearings....... if it is settled law.
That made no logical sense.

And #2 +#4 are factors in this.
The reason so many women are pissed is because the country is seemingly going backwards on some subjects.

How is it backwards to give power to the states, as it should be?

Because it was "settled law"

Nevermind that the original Roe v Wade decision was essentially pushing legislation through the Judicial Branch (or at the very least, a strong argument can be made that this is what happened).

Type out your full explanation to OP( he asked for it ); there is no need to focus on my specific opinion.
Let's hear what you got ?
If you can explain it better we will all listen?
Go!

Why not?

This is going to be kind of long.

The logic behind Roe began with a case called Griswold where we established the penumbra law. The court found that if you extrapolate the intention behind a bunch of the constitutional amendments you can find an implied right to privacy. The penumbra argument was later replaced with the 14th amendment. This right to privacy was used in a bunch of cases, Roe being the most famous.

The reason originalists do not like this there is no explicit right to privacy in the constitution. If we want to add new laws, we need to go through the constitutional amendment process. The idea you can find an implied right allows justices to circumvent the constitutional amendment process thus undermining the will of the people.

For Roe v Wade specifically, there was a case called Gluckenberg which tested the boundaries of the 14th amendment. This case was about assisted suicide. The determination of whether or not it applies under the 14th amendment was a test to determine whether assisted suicide is deeply rooted in the history and culture of America. It was not. This same logic was applied to Roe for abortion and the court found it was not.

Roe, in particular, is a really invasive case because it goes so far beyond just determining the constitutionality. It not only overrode most existing laws at the time but also read a lot more like legislation by establishing a trimester framework. From an originalist point of view, this is undermining the will of the people as the supreme court is not accountable in the same way legislatures are.

Here is how most right-wing people view this. There is no federal right to abortion. As it is not a federal issue, it should be up to the states. The reason it should be allowed to the states is that we want to have a vigorous debate where people try to win over the will of the people. In Roe, a bunch of old people decided and that was the law for 50+ years. In the states, if the decision is stupid we vote them out and create a new law. That's the democratic way of handling this.

1. No. This is a response to bad legal logic (to them) under the Warren and Burger courts.
2. No. This is a really stupid opinion to have. The justices are picked because they're originalists. It is clear Roe is a bad decision from an originalist point of view. Roe was bad from a non-originalist point of view as well. The court wrote a long secular explanation for why they did what they did. It's beyond stupid to just say "CUZ JESUS" when there is literally nothing to support this.
3. No. Sates can determine whatever they want. You can allow later abortion in some states if that's what they desire.
4. No, packing the courts is adding new justices.

All in all, if you're that upset with Roe being overturned you shouldn't become politically active. You should become politically informed. Roe was already overturned by Casey. Casey was made because Roe had notable critics on both sides of the aisle as it was a god-awful decision. Unfortunately, Roe is fundamentally flawed and they couldn't fix it in Casey which was also bad. To put this into perspective, the smartest left-leaning legal minds (and Sotomayor) based their defense primarily around precedent. That is not good when you're debating the merits of a case.

This was never settled law. From the day of the decision Republicans were outspoken about it being a poorly decided case. It's also why the issues has literally come up in every Supreme Court hearing from that day forward. The court has been left leaning since then up until this point in time. Even Ruth B.G. said the decision was based on a rocky legal argument. (even though she was pro-choice).

What issues are we ACTUALLY moving backwards on? I know some lunatics on the left are actually saying other issues, like segregation, interracial marriages, and other issues (all left wing scare tactics) were now in question.

It'd ABSOLUTE nonsense! In my years of following politics I've never hear a Republican say, "you know what we really need. Segregation. Big mistake doing away with that. Interracial marriage! That's where things went wrong!"

This stuff is so juvenile it's hard to engage in a serious way. RVW is EXTREMELY unique. It's had pushback and criticism from day one. No matter what anyone's personal view is on the matter, it involves the taking of a third parties life.

It has never been settled law. The liberal court took a case and essentially created a law which was never their place to do. The legislature creates law, the court decides if it is or isn't constitutional.

Even if you're 100% pro-choice, the court was wrong in this case and over stepped their role.

Meh this country is already ruined beyond repair, repeal the immigration act of 1965, dual citizenship the 15th and 19th amendments then maybe it has a chance. Thats a hard maybe.

Because you are "smarter" than all of us at the DOD, so bring it strong, break it down for us little people.
I know that you have a few brilliant paragraphs for us to take copious notes from so let's have it.
Go! #2

great explanation, thanks!

Besides, two people above already gave a more lengthy explanation of what I said earlier - the original Roe v Wade decision was essentially using the Judicial branch to push legislation. You want an amendment to the Constitution? That's what the legislative branch is for.

He probably just felt stupid saying backwards not realizing that it was just an opposing viewpoint to his own and didnt want to defend that.

im sure this is a solid explanation but too many big words and concepts. need to water it down a bit so the internet will understand =)

What no one is talking about and why the whole “conservative justices did this because of Christianity” is wrong, is that while abortion may be heavily restricted or outright banned in some states, it will now also be legal right up to before birth in others. All the talking heads on TV just want to rile people up with talk about how women cannot get abortions now and blah blah blah, knowing that 99% of the general population won’t go on and read the synopsis of the new ruling at the very least. When rendering a decision, the justices look at tons of possible outcomes and implications of their ruling, and knew full well that this decision would mean late term abortions would be legal in some states, completely going against any idea that it was made for religious reasons.

Some good responses itt, especially the one talking about how if it isn’t specifically stated in the constitution as a basic right, then it’s up to the states.

let's see. Liberals prefer a more open reading of the constitution. Republicans prefer a more closed reading. So, liberals will read the constitution and find additional rights that conservatives do not. The conservatives are in power so their view is the dominant view right now.

it's not an issue of do you like abortion or not, it's an issue of how the law should be interpreted. in the opinion of republicans, there is far too much power vested in the supreme court so it's vital that use more concise definitions or they can basically create legislation from the bench. the difference is a supreme court decision is very hard to fix and if they do things you don't like the people can't vote them out.