- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Roe v Wade officially overturned
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:02 pm to gaetti15
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:02 pm to gaetti15
quote:
no but you better hope that the current justices can figure out a more logical way to connect them to rights enumerated to the Federal government than did the other courts that ruled in those decisions. If not, then it falls to the States.
that's how our government works.
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right by the SC for hundreds of years. I guess that needs to be thrown out as it is no where mentioned in the Constitution right?
1
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:05 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Marriage has been ruled a constitutionally protected right by the SC for hundreds of years.
marriage between a man and woman has been recognized for alooooooong time.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:06 pm to gaetti15
quote:
marriage between a man and woman has been recognized for alooooooong time.
Where is the right to marry in the Constitution?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:07 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Where is the right to marry in the Constitution?
Just before the right to an abortion.
So you agree there is no right to marriage or abortion, correct?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:09 pm to Centinel
quote:
So you agree there is no right to marriage or abortion, correct?
niceeeeeee
ETA: got'em
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 11:10 pm
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:10 pm to Cosmo
The South with its massive poor minority communities just declared suicide.Let the parades commence.
if you think the crime rate in bad now “ you ain’t seen nothing yet” (playing in the background)
Mark this post, by by 2035-37 (12-15 years from now) the cities will not be livable, crime will be 10-20 times what it is now. Middle class women will have to go in groups with armed security to the grocery store in big cities and people will be fleeing to the Midwest and Northwest, (states like Utah, the Dakotas etc, without hordes of murdering gangs. )
Not sure if it will be more robot cop, Judge Dredd, etc, but it will not be good, I fear.
Invest in blackwater, security stocks, etc so you can afford to live in gated community with personal full time security
if you think the crime rate in bad now “ you ain’t seen nothing yet” (playing in the background)
Mark this post, by by 2035-37 (12-15 years from now) the cities will not be livable, crime will be 10-20 times what it is now. Middle class women will have to go in groups with armed security to the grocery store in big cities and people will be fleeing to the Midwest and Northwest, (states like Utah, the Dakotas etc, without hordes of murdering gangs. )
Not sure if it will be more robot cop, Judge Dredd, etc, but it will not be good, I fear.
Invest in blackwater, security stocks, etc so you can afford to live in gated community with personal full time security
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:11 pm to Centinel
quote:
Just before the right to an abortion.
So you agree there is no right to marriage or abortion, correct?
My argument is that just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:12 pm to SoonerK
quote:
My argument is that just because a right is not specifically listed in the Constitution does not mean it does not exist.
ok. See dissents of Scalia, Roberts, alito in Obergefell.
we follow common law at federal level. that involves history fyi
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 11:18 pm
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:12 pm to gaetti15
quote:
niceeeeeee
ETA: got'em
Except that is not my point at all. Are you going to answer my question on whether the right to marry exists?
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:14 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Except that is not my point at all. Are you going to answer my question on whether the right to marry exists?
historically between a man and a woman, see dissents of Robert's, Scalia and alito.
This post was edited on 6/24/22 at 11:15 pm
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:15 pm to SoonerK
quote:
Except that is not my point at all. Are you going to answer my question on whether the right to marry exists?
Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in a marriage, any marriage.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:15 pm to gaetti15
quote:
ok. See dissents of Scalia, Roberts, Thomas in Obergefell.
we follow common law at federal level. that involves history fy
So we only believe rights exist if they are specifically listed in the Constitution or umm I guess Common Law basis works too.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:15 pm to Centinel
quote:It will probably start with civil suits related to aiding and abetting which I believe several states have been considering. I would not be surprised to see it criminalized to leave the state with an unborn child and return without. If you do that with a born child someone would have some questions for you, so if life is life what's the difference? Again, a sizable chunk of pro-lifers equate abortion with murder, and state borders are not going to stop them from pushing the limits of the system. There are many ways to innovate here.
List them.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:16 pm to SoonerK
quote:
umm I guess Common Law basis works too.
particularly with the 14th amendment since there is no universally accepted definition of liberty.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:17 pm to LegendInMyMind
quote:
Personally, I don't think the government should be involved in a marriage, any marriage.
100% my opinion
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:18 pm to Korkstand
quote:
It will probably
So you just have opinions. Check.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:26 pm to Centinel
quote:What do you want from me on day fricking 1 of the circus? The laws and punishments don't exist yet, all we can talk about is the possible avenues. I don't know what's possible in every state nor what the lawmakers in every state have been working on, but I can absolutely guarantee that some of them are working on interstate enforcement. That part is easy to find examples of (Missouri jumps out).
So you just have opinions. Check.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:28 pm to Korkstand
quote:
but I can absolutely guarantee that some of them are working on interstate enforcement. That part is easy to find examples of (Missouri jumps out).
commerce clause is expansive (thanks wickard *sigh*).
unless the court decides to limit wickard further, then heeeeeelllllllll yes
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:30 pm to Korkstand
quote:
That part is easy to find examples of (Missouri jumps out).
Then share it.
Posted on 6/24/22 at 11:40 pm to Centinel
quote:Rep. Coleman of Missouri pushing for civil suits for aiding and abetting.
Then share it.
And that was long before today's go-ahead. There will be lots more where that came from. I don't know what the avenues are yet, or which ones will hold up, but it's almost a certainty that lawmakers will find them. Do you disagree?
Page 60 of 64
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News