John Oliver Rails Against Supreme Court Change And Death Of Roe V Wade

What claptrap!!!

YES, having a kid one doesn't want and/or can't afford IS inconvenient....especially for the subsequent CHILD who may have to live with someone who can't afford them or just doesn't want them BUT I hardly expect a righty to care about the child AFTER it's born.

NO ONE is justifying killing a child or children...NO one.

Abortion kills a fetus, a fetus that is not BORN so has NO rights.

Did you know that BORN children have rights? Doesn't look like it...

 

More unsubstantiated unprovable hogwash...


Here's the erroneous but oft quoted crap about blacks and abortion:

YOU: ""They are an organization conceived as a way to eliminate or control the growth of the blacks""


SHOW PROOF ….

Unless you can show proof that black women were FORCED to get abortions you haven't a leg to stand on...



Do you think black women should have the same right to their own bodies as white women or not ???????

Whatever Sanger was doesn't matter, she died a long time ago

 

No, you can only speak for yourself....it does take courage..

Uh DUH, it is.....you should try LEARNING about abortion BEFORE commenting...it won't look so silly then...

WTF is "monetizing the action" ?


You mean no one should ever make money off legal medical procedures?


YUP! I agree with that ...heart transplants, any transplants , childbirth, pre-natal checkups...all FREE!!!

 

You are correct....to overturn RvW there needs to be a reason.....the Righties haven't come up with one in almost 50 years..

 

No, the sky isn't falling but Repubs do make getting BC harder.

But that's OK because no one is under any obligation to use BC and can just get an abortion if they have an unwanted pregnancy

 

Yeah cause heck it's just a baby.

 

So effectively it needs to be made illegal for the poor but only a minor inconvenience for women with the money to travel.

 

I just had that conversation with my married surprised pregnant daughter. Effective 98 times out of a hundred and twice a week for fifty weeks is a hundred!

Roe won’t be overturned because it won’t come up; Casey is the center of modern abortion law.

Casey’s refinement of the right judicially manufactured in Roe granted expansive and expanding room to regulate abortion. The validity of those regulations, not the core holding of Roe, is what dominates abortion litigation today. Cases do not grapple with Roe.

The GOP has 50 voting members, so no room for defections, giving Collins an outsized role. In our wayward times a “conservative” judge is one committed to construing the law as it is written, in accordance with what it was commonly understood to mean when adopted. You might think that’s simply what a judge is. But "progressives" rely on robed legislators to block the elected officials who beat them at the polls, and to impose on the nation what they cannot enact democratically. These are known as judges with “empathy.”

Collins wants you to know: She’s not one of those staid old Republicans looking for a staid old by-the-book jurist. She wants empathy!

She wants you to know she will brook no talk of overturning Roe. But in fact, the Supreme Court itself has dismantled much of Roe’s framework. What survives is its narrowing core.

The question of Roe’s vitality seems only to arise when there is a vacancy on the High Court during a Republican administration, because the question is political theater: Democrats eliciting verbal acrobatics from solid nominees who are well aware both that Roe is atrociously reasoned and that saying so will imperil their confirmation chances.

Casey was a triple gut punch for conservatives.

• First, in a bitterly divided 5–4 ruling, the Court upheld the constitutional abortion right it purported to discover in Roe.
• Second, the main opinion, among the most farcical in the Court’s history, was jointly crafted by Reagan appointees Kennedy and Sandra Day O’Connor, along with Bush 41 pick David Souter.
• Third, while paring Roe back in significant ways, the trio reaffirmed a potentially limitless “substantive due process” right to “liberty” in any matter as to which five unelected lawyers decide dignity and privacy warrant it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/supreme-court-unlikely-to-overturn-roe-v-wade/

 

What amendment says that?

 

Born children lack the rights of adults. Born children lack the rights that women had pre them having voting rights included in federal law. Most that claim women had no voting rights lack the education to understand the reasoning at the time anyway and will not tell you that in some states women were voting.

No woman fears the fetus. She as you speak of fears the born child. She knows she carries a child. I recall my two wives during the pregnancies and none of them spoke of a fetus. It was our baby.

 

As I see this you are correct. But you expose something else too. What you expose without saying it is the court took upon itself it's right to create law reflecting on abortion. It did not grant a woman any right. It granted itself the right to regulate abortion. And it regulates it in well known various ways.

It created a bifurcated child. A child later down the line still in the womb.But prior to a named time period, not a child. This is important to understand. The child was always the child, though in a less mature state. That has long been my argument. The fact it matured did not mean it became a human. Not born with rights the left bellows but factually children have far less rights than adults. This ought to disturb the left wingers but they revel in this. They made most of the laws. What slipped through the cracks is the creation of Democrats. They may want to deny they are the party of making laws but if they say this they lied about it. We know that most of today's laws were created after FDR took office. We know that the Democrats were able to own congress much of the time since 1933. No reason for them to deny it. True at times republicans wrested control of congress from democrats but those were few years. Republicans must learn to hold congress. Better than the president, we must hold congress. And in the Senate, we need the numerical number to actually control congress. McConnell is loathe to use the 51 vote rule but this is mandatory or we end back up in Democrats hands.

 

My goodness. Pelosi as majority leader? I shudder.

But, the Dong is softening against the dollar, so for now, all's well!

 

Zorro produced an excellent link to an awesome article.

More of it and the author quote from now forward to end

"Just wondering.

There is so much stunning self-regard and overwrought prose in Casey that it’s easy to miss what, for purposes of confirmation politics, are the most salient parts: the ruling’s demolition of Roe’s capricious trimester construct and some of its post-Roe precedents. While you wouldn’t know it from listening to Senator Collins, the ruling that saved Roe was not exactly a bulwark of stare decisis.

In any event, as moderate Republicans tremble at the studied media-Democrat hysteria over Roe, it is important to bear in mind that Casey — more than Roe — is the law. That means Roe’s core ruling is very likely to survive, no matter who is appointed to the Supreme Court, for two reasons.

First, for all its human-resources-speak about the penumbral right of women to self-actualize in the modern world, Casey’s reaffirmation of Roe is highly qualified. It made clear that the state is free to adhere to a strongly pro-life policy even before “fetal viability.” The emphasis on state interest and viability, moreover, eroded the Roe fortress around first-semester and pre-viability abortions. Regulations discouraging abortion were permissible as long as access to pre-viability abortion was not made burdensome to the point of being practically unavailable. And viability is a dynamic concept, so as evolving technology made it possible to preserve and protect unborn life at earlier stages, states would have commensurate power to restrict or even outlaw abortion throughout more of pregnancy. (See, e.g., our Alexandra DeSanctis’s piece on the progress of federal legislation seeking to outlaw most abortions after 20 weeks, the point at which most unborn children are sufficiently developed to feel pain.)

To be sure, this is far from a perfect state of affairs for pro-lifers. But the national abortion debate should never have been moved to the federal courthouse for resolution, and pro-lifers cannot win it there in any event. It has to be won in the culture, from the ground up. Roe’s survival vel non will be a lagging indicator.

The second point is more problematic for conservatives. Roe is not a one-off. It was a dramatic but foreseeable progression in the Court’s oxymoronic “substantive due process” jurisprudence of the “mystery of human life” realm of “personhood.” The modern phase started with contraception (first rationalized by a theory of marital privacy, then, in fine make-it-up-as-we-go-along contradiction, extended by a conception of equality). It has since moved on to gay rights (including same-sex marriage, endorsed in Justice Kennedy’s Obergefell opinion in 2015), and now we are on to LGBTQ rights, three-partner marriage (and why stop at three?), and who knows what other transgressive erosions of bourgeois culture.

COMMENTS
Regardless of a jurist’s legal position on substantive due process, or of the jurist’s moral or policy positions on what it has wrought, Roe is part of a doctrinal edifice. To reach out and try to overrule it, particularly in a case in which it is not necessary to do so, would be seen as an attack on the entire edifice. The Supreme Court is not going to take that on. A more conservative Court would reject the promiscuous language of Justice Kennedy’s “liberty” musings and admonish that the polling station, not the courthouse, is the place for working out most clashes between the individual and society. It is not going to turn back the cultural clock.

That is for us to do, or not. What we need from judges is to remember that our law is a reflection of who we are, not a tool to shape us into something else. What we need from confirmation hearings is to ensure that we get judges of that kind.


ANDREW C. MCCARTHY — Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review. @andrewcmccarthy"

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
What claptrap!!!

YES, having a kid one doesn't want and/or can't afford IS inconvenient....especially for the subsequent CHILD who may have to live with someone who can't afford them or just doesn't want them BUT I hardly expect a righty to care about the child AFTER it's born.

NO ONE is justifying killing a child or children...NO one.

Abortion kills a fetus, a fetus that is not BORN so has NO rights.

Did you know that BORN children have rights? Doesn't look like it...

BORN children have the same right to live, the right to their own bodies, that any BORN person has.

We are not talking about driving or voting rights , we are talking about the basic right to life which only BORN people have.


BTW, women ALWAYS had the right to vote but men forbid them to vote...a law had to be passed allowing women to do what EVERY American should've already had the right to do..

And, as usual , you were NOT able to refute a word of my post nor show why what your multiple wives did or said, or their little stories, should have any influence on the rest of the world or women's right to their own bodies ...their stories have no meaning for anyone but them.....and BORINGLY repeating it doesn't change a thing...

 

I have no idea what this has to do with me saying people freaking out over an 81 year old retiring is general nonsense.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
You are correct....to overturn RvW there needs to be a reason.....the Righties haven't come up with one in almost 50 years..

And I agreed...because it does NOT mean RvW will be overturned.....no reason to panic...

 

They have the full right not to be killed...or did you think they could be???

 

This nation was conceived that the body that makes law is called congress. There was no intent that men in robes crafted laws.

 

Believe it, there are men on your side that want the parents to have full rights to kill their children up to the age of 5. This is a discussion in universities.

 

For the record I do think Roe will be overturned eventually, not that it will mean what everyone seems to think it will. All that will happen is the issue will go back to the states. As a matter of law, Roe isn't very sound, and only exist now because of the idea of "precedent", an idea that multiple sides of the legal argument aren't valuing as much anymore.

 

If it isn't sound , how did it last almost 50 years?

It'll be a sad and UN-American day if women only have the same rights men have in some states and NOT in others...

To prohibit abortion is turning women into nothing more than cattle, 3/5 a human, just like slaves....that level of misogyny is staggering....I wonder why some men fear and loathe women so much....

 

If the woman you love kills off your son, maybe you could capture the drift.

 

Well for starters 1973 wasn't 50 years ago, and as I said it's largely because of the idea of precedents. Which neither side no longer believes ideologically, which eventually will catch up with the legal system. If they did the left would never again challenge the idea that corporations are people as is precedent now.

The end of Roe wouldn't lead to women not having the "same rights" as men.

What nonsense. Women's right to vote has nothing to do with the ability to kill children, if you didn't know women have the right to vote because of a Constitutional Amendment. And "3/5 a human" what the hell are you talking about? Slaves? Women weren't slaves in 1972. Stop acting so emotional if you want to talk honestly with your fellow citizens. It doesn't do anyone any good.

 

Why is using the morning after pill isn't murder. Please explain.

 

I didn't say 50 years , I said almost 50 years...look up "almost "...did that confuse you or was that really the only point you had....oh, ya, I just read the rest of your post and that IS the only point you had and it, too, was erroneous.

Maybe not but righties want it to..they do NOT want women to have the same rights as men, the right to their own bodies...that is a fact, you can't deny it...it's the whole point behind banning abortion..

I never said it did...

.


I never said that either...your imagination seems to be running away with you.

YES, if women have the right to their own bodies taken away it makes slaves of them....what would you call it ?, "protecting delicate stupid little wimmen folk" ? Bet you would...that's what men said when women weren't allowed to vote or earn their own money, or run a business or tell their husbands "No"......

You're the one who seems quite emotional with all that wild imagining things I said that I hadn't...calm down...


To prohibit abortion is turning women into nothing more than cattle, 3/5 a human, just like slaves....that level of misogyny is staggering....I wonder why some men fear and loathe women so much....