politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Dobbs proves my point, not yours, they are limiting unenumerated rights and returning an issue of morality and healthcare to the states. They would do the same with this statute. You don't need to agree with them, but it's true.
Are you going to base Congressional authority on a tenuous interplay of the 1st and 14th amendment and an unenumerated right to privacy? Because the court already ruled against that. Interstate Commerce? That's laughable at best.
If you want to make your point you're really going to have to state where Congress gets authority, because I assure you, SCOTUS would ask in oral arguments.
Also, Dobbs shouldn't be overturned, Roe was a terribly written decision that wasn't based on law, but tried to settle the issue by being everything to everyone. The next liberal court should rule on bodily autonomy grounds, not privacy.
Lmfao sure bud, keep living in your fairytale world
You strike me as someone with no legal training, who has never read Dobbs, never read Roe, and doesn't have the first clue what they're talking about.
And you strike me as an originalist. Don't go after my legal knowledge like you think you know how much I do or don't know. I've read every majority, minority, and concurring opinions from Griswold, Roe, Lawrence, Planned Parenthood v Casey, Lawrence, Windsor, Obergefell, and, of course, Dobbs.
The arguments presented for Dobbs, were exclusively Christian fundamentalist. It relied on literally 0 actually substantial claims, it was clearly a case that SCOTUS already made up its mind for.
Kavanaugh, Barrett, and even Gorsuch all specifically said they would never vote to overturn the 50 years of precedent of Roe when they were having their confirmation hearings. They swore they would not because the GOP knew of the fallout that would happen if Roe was ever actually overturned. The 2022 and 2023 elections proved them right.
Even Clarence Thomas said he would abstain on cases like this where he has such personal feelings in his own confirmation hearings, yet he did not do so in Roe. The point I'm getting at with this is that at least 4 of the judges that voted for it have already demonstrated they're fucking liars. How much of your word can you even take, even if you agree with them?
Lastly, I suggest you read the concurring opinions of Dobbs. Clarence Thomas' is especially mortifying. There is no legal argument in it, it is strictly pure hatred. If it wasn't, and he was being consistent, he would have mentioned overturning Loving v. Virginia too, but we all know why that's not something he'll do.
Definitely not.
Did you believe them? Never had a doubt they'd vote that way.
Congrats, you and every other 1L.
For a refreshing change of pace?
Roe was terribly reasoned and made for bad law. In the same way Dobbs was the result of starting with a conclusion and then reasoning it, so was Roe.
A better basis for abortion access is bodily autonomy. A constitutional right to say how one's body is used is at the heart of all other rights. That's a much better foundation than privacy.
Refreshing change of place? Motherfucker Thomas' opinion said they should "revisit" other cases like Lawrence. Obviously when he says "revisit" he means overturn. You saying that confirms literally all I need to know about your intent
Stop trying your manipulative, disingenuous arguments here, they mean the same as the shit fascists like DeSantis say
So you have no sense of sarcasm?
I'm sorry, you're too stupid to continue this. Nothing I said was manipulative or fascistic, your reading comprehension is abysmal.
Sure bud