Welcome home, fellow Gator.

The Gator Nation's oldest and most active insider community
Join today!
  1. Hi there... Can you please quickly check to make sure your email address is up to date here? Just in case we need to reach out to you or you lose your password. Muchero thanks!

Roe v Wade Overturned

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by GatorGrowl, Jun 24, 2022.

  1. BULLGATOR

    BULLGATOR Generally unpleasant.

    11,553
    526
    828
    Apr 3, 2007
    Florida
    I hope that women in those backward states that pass the anti-choice laws should now sue for child support upon conception, or whenever the state law indicates that life begins.
     
    • Come On Man Come On Man x 3
    • Like Like x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. oaklandroadie2

    oaklandroadie2 Freshman

    44
    13
    1,768
    Nov 14, 2017
    Thank you Harry Reid for ending the judicial filibuster. Thank you RBG for hanging on to that lifetime appointment until the bitter end. Thank you Hillary Clinton for opting to see Hamilton for a 3rd time on Broadway instead of campaigning in Wisconsin. Thank you Bernie Bros for refusing to pull the lever for Hillary Clinton. Thank you to the clerk that leaked the decision, as it took the wind out of the sails of the announcement and did not serve to change the decision in any meaningful way. And finally, thanks to the left for filling up this board, nay, all of the internet and news broadcasts with your cope and seethe. Have a great weekend all-me, I'm heading to San Diego for some mountain biking and a dip in the ocean!
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
  3. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,248
    1,905
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    Classic lawyer brain
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,814
    808
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    I disagree.

    While the candidates did say Roe v Wade as precedent (duh!), they qualified the precedent as "important", "reaffirmed", "anchor of law", "reaffirmed", "settled law", "reaffirmed", "settled", and "settled". When asked if they would overturn it, they threw up their hands and said the equivalent of "well... never say never".

    Then they overturn it the first chance they get with a majority.

    One may applaud them for their lawyer's dodges, but it's my opinion it was their intent to deceive the American people and our representatives.
     
    • Agree Agree x 5
  5. boligator

    boligator All American

    405
    32
    1,763
    Apr 3, 2007
    A bit of advice...don't feed the troll...
     
    • Agree Agree x 3
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. swampbabe

    swampbabe GC Hall of Fame

    3,716
    931
    2,643
    Apr 8, 2007
    Viera, FL
    I would prefer 18 but it’s certainly better than what these other states are doing. Take a look at Arkansas :eek:

    The Florida legislature is not going to touch this with a ten foot pole right now.
     
    • Fistbump/Thanks! Fistbump/Thanks! x 1
  7. Woollybooger

    Woollybooger VIP Member

    8,036
    2,716
    2,918
    Jul 31, 2018
    I knew we had voted that way, but don't believe it is triggered and not presently law because it would have been considered unconstitutional before today, correct?
     
  8. swampbabe

    swampbabe GC Hall of Fame

    3,716
    931
    2,643
    Apr 8, 2007
    Viera, FL
    Not correct. The 15 weeks wasn’t triggered based on this case. It is the current law and there is no indication that the legislature will revisit in a special session as that would be a problem for DeSantis.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. boligator

    boligator All American

    405
    32
    1,763
    Apr 3, 2007
    I envision a 16 year old smirking giggling wannabe proud boy hunched over a keyboard in his Mom's basement....Don't feed the troll...
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. Nawlens Gator

    Nawlens Gator GC Hall of Fame

    3,908
    61
    253
    Apr 9, 2007
    Kavanaugh's concurrence sums it up nicely:

    quote:
    On the question of abortion, the Constitution is therefore neither pro-life nor pro-choice. The Constitution is neutral and leaves the issue for the people and their elected representatives to resolve through the democratic process in the States or Congress—like the numerous other difficult questions of American social and economic policy that the Constitution does not address.

    quote:
    To be clear, then, the Court’s decision today does not outlaw abortion throughout the United States. On the contrary, the Court’s decision properly leaves the question of abortion for the people and their elected representatives in the democratic process. Through that democratic process, the people and their representatives may decide to allow or limit abortion.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  11. gator10010

    gator10010 VIP Member

    1,696
    141
    333
    Aug 23, 2008
    You sure are making a lot of assumptions in this post....but it makes for good drama so carry on.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 1
  12. pkaib01

    pkaib01 GC Hall of Fame

    3,814
    808
    2,063
    Apr 3, 2007
    He also says states may not bar interstate travel although the constitution is neither pro nor anti interstate travel. Originalism sucks.

    Justice Kavanaugh Says States May Not Bar Travel to Obtain an Abortion
     
  13. gatormike51

    gatormike51 Premium Member

    193
    10
    238
    Apr 3, 2007
    Congress had almost 50 years to codify Roe vs. Wade into Federal law. It is very unlikely that the Supremes would overturn a law passed by the House and Senate, signed by the President. Pro-choice legislators allowed that boat to sail.

    Gun rights are protected by the Constitution, as opposed to abortion rights. This concealed carry ruling is no big deal. How many murders are committed by concealed carry gun owners? I don't know the answer, but we should know it. Every murder should be entered into a Federal database. Data can be extracted in all manner way shape and form to reach sound conclusions supported by evidence. Until this happens we are pissing in the wind.
     
    • Off-topic Off-topic x 1
  14. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,248
    1,905
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    • Agree Agree x 3
  15. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,865
    1,002
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    The majority goes out of its way to say that abortion is a unique issue based upon the life/potential life of the fetus. Okay, I actually think that's a fair distinction. But rather than analyzing or weighing the states' interests in protecting that life/potential life vis a vis the reproductive rights of women, it simply rules that women have zero constitutional interests when it comes to abortion. None. So it's just going to use a rational basis test from here on out.

    Its finding of a wholesale absence of any constitutional right in the context of abortion is based upon its textual and historical arguments. Given its analysis, how could the majority not overrule cases which found constitutional rights to contraceptives, to consensual sexual activity, or to same sex marriage? None of those rights are expressly enumerated in the Constitution either ("Hey, where is the word 'sodomy' in the Constitution!??"), and those cases were even more recent. Perhaps they could - because another life is not implicated with those issues - decide to uphold those rights under stare decisis. But that would make little sense if those purported "rights" were just invented by the Court, unlawfully usurping the rights of the people. To be clear, that is what Alito said of the same sex marriage Opinion in Obergefell.

    Yet, despite all that, Alito suggests in this case that the dissent is stoking "unfounded fear" that this decision will impact those other rights/cases. This really seems like gaslighting to me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  16. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    18,421
    1,612
    1,308
    Aug 24, 2009
    Ocala
    Great day for the most innocent.

    We will be judged for legally allowing the killing of the most innocent the Pat 50 years. And the states that continue to allow the legal killing of the most innocent will continue to be judged.

    This was a good correct step.
     
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 6
    • Dislike Dislike x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Best Post Ever Best Post Ever x 1
  17. wgbgator

    wgbgator Premium Member

    30,248
    1,905
    2,218
    Apr 19, 2007
    I sure hope so, hell has to be an improvement on this damn country and the insufferable fools who inhabit it
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2022
  18. QGator2414

    QGator2414 VIP Member

    18,421
    1,612
    1,308
    Aug 24, 2009
    Ocala
    Possible after 50 years of killing the most innocent legally for convenience.

    And states can continue to do so. Hopefully all will not. But…
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2022
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 3
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. Orange_and_Bluke

    Orange_and_Bluke Premium Member

    10,309
    2,542
    3,288
    Dec 16, 2015
    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 24, 2022
    • Disagree Bacon! Disagree Bacon! x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. mrhansduck

    mrhansduck GC Hall of Fame

    4,865
    1,002
    1,788
    Nov 23, 2021
    I'm not discounting your observations or criticisms or suggesting this is what you're proposing. But as human and imperfect as the Court is, I'm concerned about a scenario where the Court is viewed as so illegitimate that its rulings are ignored. What happens in cases like Bush v. Gore or the Trump election cases, for example? Are we just going to fight it out in the streets? What if liberal states or cities decide to ignore the 2nd Amendment rulings and start taking guns or locking up gun owners? What if conservative states or cities decide they're going to start prosecuting gay sex again or doing whatever else they're fired up about that day? And if SCOTUS is illegitimate, is there reason to believe we won't start ignoring lowering courts or even state supreme courts? Not sure where that ends.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1