Can someone answer this for me? (Page 1/1)
82-T/A [At Work] MAY 03, 10:13 AM
With the potential overturning of Rowe v. Wade... I've gotten so many e-mails from my friends, many of whom have been losing their mind.

I'm somewhat of the impression that this has much less to do with the law being overturned, and much more to do with a "side" perceiving a loss.

Is anyone else noticing this? Half the people who seem to be up in arms would never be affected by this and never expressed concern before, but are losing their **** because (at least in my opinion) it seems like their "side" is losing.


Obviously, the Supreme Court isn't saying here in this draft that they think abortion is right or wrong, they are simply stating that the Supreme Court does not have the authority to make laws, and that there is no law respecting the right for or against abortion. Literally, Rowe V. Wade passed on the concept of "right of privacy," ... it was literally the catalyst for the Privacy Act of 1974, which Nixon pushed for in his State of the Union address following the supreme court decision (ironically enough). But all this means is that it goes back to the states, because there's no existing Federal law for or against.
ray b MAY 03, 10:32 AM
the majority does not like it when the nut -con cult trys to CON-TROLL OUR NATION

the dark side is so sure and impressed with it's self that it does not notice
it is a shrinking and shrieking cult that makes far more noise then the real numbers of votes

they are less then 30% of our citizens who are going to get beat down bad in nov 22
they just gave the MAJORITY A NEW CAUSE to throw out the nut con

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

82-T/A [At Work] MAY 03, 10:34 AM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

the majority does not like it when the nut -con cult trys to CON-TROLL OUR NATION




But this draft decision is the exact opposite of that. They are not trying to control the population, they are literally saying there's no law establishing the precedence. That... it goes back to the states, so the states can now determine the laws for themselves ... BECAUSE there's no Federal law upholding or banning abortion.
MidEngineManiac MAY 03, 10:47 AM
From what I've read this morning, it seems the left is butt-hurt because they feel like some kind of protection has been removed.

They have no interest in individual states deciding anything, they wanted global protection with all the force of the United States Government, and are now

[This message has been edited by MidEngineManiac (edited 05-03-2022).]

olejoedad MAY 03, 11:53 AM
Molly Hemingway has a good article about this in the Federalist.
You can read it at Real Clear Politics.

https://thefederalist.com/2...nsurrection-attempt/

rayb, I agree with you to some extent - the Warren Court overreached when they decided Roe v Wade.
A classic case of the courts making laws instead of interpreting laws passed by the Legislative Branch.

But, you may not understand the comparison.
ray b MAY 03, 12:16 PM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:


But this draft decision is the exact opposite of that. They are not trying to control the population, they are literally saying there's no law establishing the precedence. That... it goes back to the states, so the states can now determine the laws for themselves ... BECAUSE there's no Federal law upholding or banning abortion.



AGREE IT WAS A BACKWARD WAY TO DO IT

but allowing the religious right to make the rules will never produce a good result long term

and while each state being allowed to make very different laws was ok in 1800 when few could or would travel
vs today where one can be a 5 states in 5 days each with insanely different rules laws and customs is for a time gone by
we need sane laws based on facts nor fairytails far more uniform and less arbitrary in the UNITED states OF AMERICA

------------------
Question wonder and be wierd
are you kind?

Jake_Dragon MAY 03, 12:39 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:


AGREE IT WAS A BACKWARD WAY TO DO IT

but allowing the religious right to make the rules will never produce a good result long term

and while each state being allowed to make very different laws was ok in 1800 when few could or would travel
vs today where one can be a 5 states in 5 days each with insanely different rules laws and customs is for a time gone by
we need sane laws based on facts nor fairytails far more uniform and less arbitrary in the UNITED states OF AMERICA




Once everyone is driving electric cars there wont be so many people going to other states
82-T/A [At Work] MAY 03, 03:55 PM

quote
Originally posted by ray b:

...while each state being allowed to make very different laws was ok in 1800 when few could or would travel
vs today where one can be a 5 states in 5 days each with insanely different rules laws and customs is for a time gone by...





I will never be able to agree with you on this.

The whole foundation of our Constitution is as a Republic... that California can't force Nebraska to do what it wants, any more than Florida can force Maine to do what it wants. There is a reason why this system of Government was set up, and it's AS valuable today, as it was in 1800. I could not disagree with you more on this Ray.
Zeb MAY 05, 10:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]:
.
.
.
The whole foundation of our Constitution is as a Republic... that California can't force Nebraska to do what it wants, any more than Florida can force Maine to do what it wants. There is a reason why this system of Government was set up, and it's AS valuable today, as it was in 1800. I could not disagree with you more on this Ray.



We had a whole war over this. It was "preserve the Union" versus "states rights." If I recall, the Union won.

IF this will be the Court's decision, it just means they're tired of dealing with this, and want to kick the ball out of their court.
olejoedad MAY 05, 11:28 AM

quote
Originally posted by Zeb:


We had a whole war over this. It was "preserve the Union" versus "states rights." If I recall, the Union won.

IF this will be the Court's decision, it just means they're tired of dealing with this, and want to kick the ball out of their court.



There was much more to the Civil War than just States v Federalism.