Most of the problem that the Democrats face is that they can no longer rely on the Supreme court to get things done instead of having to pass bills through Congress.
Even if it is overturned (it should be), it will then be up to each state whether they allow abortion. So abortion won't go away if it's overturned. They're just whiny faggots.
It depends on how you look at Roe vs Wade. Have you read it?
I guess most people have not, as it is somewhat tedious. Really, there are some real gems to see.
1. **Abortion is a natural right, acknowledged in common law. A right, though not enumerated, reserved by the people **
2. Statutory law supersedes common law due to state interest growing dominant as the foetus grows to viability
3. Medical advances bear upon the question of viability so, we have a slippery slope.
4. The state has in interest in protection of life. So it must provide for a standard of sound medical procedures.
5. The state can proscribe an abortion
5. It leaves it to each state to do their thing.
When I read it, I was glad to see the acknowledgement of abortion being a personal decision rooted in the right belonging to the people. This is the basic principle upon which Liberty rests.
I was glad, the court held, that state interest in protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should warrant a state to facilitate, by offering standards of sound medical procedure. That does not infringe upon the enjoyment of liberty, it helps to exercise it.
What I found disgusting was that out of nowhere it is unchallenged that the state has a dominant interest in pre born fetuses where the cutoff is viability, base on technical issues.
And because of this interest, that simply is inserted into the conversation and never challenged, just accepted as a given, the woman, being a citizen enjoying the full rights, suddenly becoming a ward of the state, incapacitated to make up her own mind.
That laws restricting abortion may have medical background, is not in dispute. The reason restriction of abortion are put into place are usually religiously fuelled. It is a legislating of morals. That is not being argued at all.
This should not be.
Those pro life, like me, are perfectly content to live the way we see fit. And should a pregnancy occur that was not planned on, well we have to live with it, right? We are not forced into an abortion, we discuss with our family and together we get through it (with the help of God)
For those pro choice, like me, we want the same thing. We are perfectly content to live the way we want, dispose of our own property as we see fit and not have the state turn us into slaves. And, we are perfectly happy to reach out to those who want to help us with private money, as long as the procedure is medically sound and clean.
Why did the court make a monstrosity of this? It was the perfect case to put liberty and the preservation of liberty first. The court did not do that. It muddied the water.
And I find it incomprehensible that people fear this decision will be overturned. The right to abortion cannot be overturned, as that is a natural / common law thing. If you overturn that, the court would essentially say: you only have rights when enumerated. Away with the 9, 10 and 14th Amendment.
What should be overturned is the notion that a state can proscribe on the basis of a imaginary interest in prenatal fetuses and thus may set time frames when a foetus is viable based on new technology and thereby depriving a citizen without warrant of reserved rights.
But you don't hear those SJW on that. They fear something that is not there. But overlook the actual insult to injury: All of a sudden it becomes women's rights. Bullshit. It is about a reserved right of all citizens. So much for inclusiveness of those SJW-types.
The people who think this are the same people who don't understand that there are 2 Senators from each state for a reason and the national popular vote has never mattered. They don't understand the basics of how our government or our court system functions so they don't understand how the Supreme Court's power is limited.
Because they are not educated but most importantly because MSM/Left instill fear as a way to get what they want. Planned ABORTION HOOD- uses it to ensure they will continue to get federal funds. They (LEFT) are more afraid of the second amendment but their use of school shootings and that little jerk David Hooag ( ? last name) didn't create enough "emotional outrage" to go against JUSTICE Kavanaugh. So what other tactic? Sex= Metoo and Abortion rights. Between those 2 there are surely enough uneducated, unmediated, lack of male influence women out there that will riot and cause a ruckus. I am a woman by the way and not all of us are uneducated or need to be medicated. We are called Republican Sisters who believe in our Republic and constitution.
The only reason it was never overturned is due to the makeup of the Supreme Court. Now that it's mostly conservative and Trump has a couple of years left to appoint more justices there's a chance of overturning it. The Roe decision was total crap. It needs to be overturned. All they have to do is one lawsuit and get it up there and have the court vote to hear it or not. The real issue is whether the justices have the guts to do so. Liberals are in a panic because they can't give up abortion, it's their sacred cow. A lot depends on it in the pharmaceutical industry. 3000 or more babies are killed in surgical abortions a day. That is not including silent abortions. This is the issue of our time. Abortion has only been legal here for 44 years and we act like that will never change. For most of history people actually looked down on infanticide.
For one: They evidently don't understand that, while doing a keg stand in one's youth is not disqualifying for the Supreme Court, discussing how one will rule on the court -- based on their own personal beliefs -- very much is disqualifying. They took justice Kavanaugh's staunch resistance to address how he'd rule on cases involving Roe v. Wade as meaning that he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which... it doesn't mean that. At all.
For second: The subject of abortion has long been oversimplified in our public discourse, with the reason being its value as a political weapon when it's oversimplified. The truth is that abortions -- all of them -- pale in comparison to the amount of cruelty involved in cases like these, which often involved staunch anti-abortion parents elected to let their disabled -- often with down syndrome -- children to be born and then starve to death*, because they didn't want them.
Abortion is something that needs to stop being a political issue. It's one of those very difficult conversations the nation needs to have, rather than maintain it as a convenient political card to play.
I don't think Kav will overturn Roe v Wade (the actual precedent now is Casey v Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania but I don't want to be pedantic). However, there is precedent for overturns like this to happen. For example, Brown v Board happened 50+ years after Plessy v Ferguson. Additionally, Roe v Wade was nearly overturned with Casey v PP of Pennsylvania, but a couple justices flipped last minute. While I think it is unlikely, abortion becoming illegal (in some states) is a very real possibility in my opinion.
it appears that the ruling was 7 - 2. with dissenting opinions stating that there is no constitutional provision for abortion. and laws already on the books against it as far back as the revolutionary war meant it was clear states did not want it legal. but the majority opinion seems to be 'advisory' which seems to imply that states keep the right to regulate abortion or implying that a state can retain the right to terminate a pregnancy. there were also two judges that retired during the review so it's possible that it could have not passed
the sections Dissents and Justiciability seem to be where the pivot point is whether it could be argued against or argued for continuation as is. this is just from a cursory reading of the facts. i'm mostly against abortion so that's my filter. but it is also apparent that the women involved as plaintiff both complained later that they were mislead and were not in fact, for abortion but rather against it as it is so easily obtainable today. according to the articles, arguments by people on both sides of the aisle have complained about how it was done and a variety of judges have expressed their feeling that it should be looked at again. with a variety of ideas of how it should be worked over. i think they used the words strict scrutiny. no one seems to want to tackle the issue though trump and company did take a step in that direction, something about the helms amendment
Because they're screaming their weakness. If women have to bear the children that result from sex, they'll have to live a traditional life dependent on men. If they have license to kill, they can wear pants and play independent while getting fucked five nights a week by five different guys who buy dinner and drinks for the privilege to share her STIs, and buy all their dinner clothes and travel expenses on credit.
Because the left is always projecting. Uprooting the status quo is what the rootless cosmopolitan do, so they assume we do the same.
Also, their power base loves to abdicate personal responsibility, to the state if possible, and must have as little family as possible to remain juvenile in mind as long as possible.
Roe v Wade can be overturned but not suddenly... it will take at least a decade if not longer and it will and should start at late-term abortions and hopefully stop there. Contraception is a delicate and important matter.
According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, an abortion-rights research group that conducts surveys of the nation's abortion doctors, about 15,000 abortions were performed in the year 2000 on women 20 weeks or more along in their pregnancies; the vast majority were between the 20th and 24th week. Of those, only about 2,200 D&X abortions were performed, or about 0.2 percent of the 1.3 million abortions believed to be performed that year.
We should get rid of all forms of abortion and contraceptives, castrate those unfit for reproduction and encourage the successful to reproduce via larger tax deductions.
It's not a thought, it's a fear. They know there's no basis for it. They pulled it out of their ass as much as they did for gay marriage. Unless you can tell me what this has to do with abortion you're forced to admit there is no basis for a nationwide ruling on abortion and states should be free to enforce penalties for manslaughter on their own terms.
Because it wouldn't mean anything except lucrative abortion tourism to New York and California, and letting the right have a fake victory would reduce its political capital. Actually, the only reason it still stands is just spiking the football against religious traditionalists who have no influence against the elites.
You can always challenge such a decision and it's currently making it's way throught he courts and may eventually make it to the supreme court once again where Kavanaugh will have a vote on it.
No one seriously thinks that. It's a meme to piss women off. The reality is that if Roe vs Wade is ever called into question, Kavanaugh who is pro-life has replaced the strongest pro-infanticide justice (Kennedy). Trump is pro-life, and Republicans are pro-life by default. There are three issues in which Republicans always differ from Democrats on, and that's God, guns, and abortion, even when they're identical in every other respect. So if Republicans win the mid-terms, it's POSSIBLE (though unlikely) that Roe vs Wade will be overturned on a federal level. That would mean a ban of abortion in red states, basically.
I tend to agree with you. I thought it was a cover because “they” are worried about military prosecution for enemies of the state. Since we are legally still in a state of war. I thought this summed it up pretty well. Hraham and Kavanaugh discussing the law-https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gmOsnjrZw
RvW won't be overturned, at least not immediately. The two results I expect are: (1) abortion sent back for the states to legislate on and (2) abortion rights chipped away over time. A lot of time still needs to pass before RvW can be overturned, and this is due to public opinion -- even though most of the country favors restrictions on abortion, they would probably balk if the supreme court immediately overturned RvW. But public opinion is influenced by court decisions, so the more abortion rights are chipped away the easier it becomes to overturn RvW.
This is the correct plan to go after abortion if the goal is to eliminate it all together. I'm against doing away with it completely, but I'm okay if the states decide for themselves.
Does the supreme court make a routine of going through old cases and just reversing them or something?
No. They usually leave precedents stand.
This doesn't make any sense, why are libs freaking out about this?
They need the courts, specifically SCOTUS, to get most of their agenda passed. How many decisions are there, set by SCOTUS, that should be a states' issue and not a federal one?
They can certainly reverse it. A conservative state might look at the makeup of the court and take it as a green light to criminalize abortion that would be protected under Roe v. Wade. If that law made its way up to the Supreme Court, they would have the option to overturn the previous precedent.
The point that needs to be made though, is that an outright reversal of Roe v. Wade is unlikely, and even if it happened, the Supreme Court can't force States to criminalize abortion just by overturning Roe v. Wade. What may happen, is that the Supreme Court allows states to criminalize abortion after viability, and the conservative states then outlaw abortion after 20 weeks or something like that. But abortion on demand will remain legal in NY, CA and the other liberal shitholes right up until the baby is completely out of the womb no matter what happens. The most likely result is some sort of chipping away at Roe v. Wade with the result being that there are some more restrictions placed on abortion but not a complete overturning as if it had never happened.
However, there are definitely other scenarios that could play out. A constitutional amendment codifying the right to privacy set forth in Griswold v. Connecticut could short-circuit any challenge to Roe v. Wade, as the faulty logic in Griswold that invented that right to privacy out of thin air is the entire basis for Roe v. Wade, and it might actually hold water if Griswold became black-letter law through a constitutional amendment. Obviously the process for amendment is complicated and its unlikely to happen, but my point is only that there are certainly other options that may play out.
Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for so long that it is unlikely to be quickly and entirely overturned. Some incremental changes might occur going the other direction, and eventually the tide might turn completely, but anyone thinking that Roe v. Wade is just going to disappear is being ridiculous. Nothing in this country ever happens that fast. The system was designed that way.
I never even cared before but I want it overturned now because fuck them
I always was in support of leftists not contaminating tye gene pool anyway but now I think about it I want them to have back alley abortions get sepsis and die
Because they falsely believe that Kavanaugh is like their faggot activist judges and will rule based on his feelings rather than the law and the constitution.
No, they are worried because Roe v. Wade is plainly incorrect, and a ruling based on law would instantly overturn it.
The basis of Roe v. Wade is that banning abortion violates the woman's right to due process of law. Basically, she has the right to do anything unless convicted of doing it before it is done. It is yet another case where the Supreme Court tied the law to a chair and beat it with a rubber hose until it gave in and started meaning what they wanted it to mean.
Brought to you by the same people who decided that gun sales have to be registered because threshing wheat is an interstate activity. No, that's not a joke.
It's actually Griswold v. Connecticut that is plainly incorrect. Roe v. Wade, relying on the precedent set forth in Griswold, is legally defensible. Still doesn't change the fact that a case relying on a case that is plainly incorrect is wrongly decided, but it does follow the applicable precedent.
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that precedent should be non-binding. For one thing, it isn't really binding on the supreme court. What we need is a greater movement to undo the improperly decided cases. We really only need to roll back about 10-20 cases out of hundreds that have been decided over the last 100 years. There aren't that many that are that wrong.
Stare Decisis is a valuable concept and the marketplace requires certainty of legal outcomes.
Who decides which cases are improper? Who decides which should be rolled back?
I do not trust any central committee to decide such matters. That's what we have now with the Supreme Court handing down Holy Precedents.
I disagree that the marketplace requires certainty of outcome. Commerce is ruled by tort law. Reach for the electrical gadget nearest you, assuming you are in the U.S.A. It was almost certainly tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratories, a private company created by the insurance industry to reduce tort losses. Or think about the cable/DSL modem you probably use to communicate with me: it functions because of open source collaborations and the fear of class action lawsuits. Not because of emanations of penumbras discovered by Supreme Court judges.
Traditionally most of America functioned by muddling through. We did not look to court priests to interpret the holy writ of Precedent. The people on the scene worked out their own local compromises. The average of these compromises over time became the tradition for how things were done.
I increasingly think juries should decide matters of law. If you disagree with precedent, you should be able to get a jury of your peers to decide disputes of law. The current system dumps it on the appeals courts. They get a clear set of facts and an insane Supreme Court precedent, and often just give up because re-trying the case would be too tedious.
You have missed my point entirely. The Supreme Court does not have an army. They cannot force anyone to do anything. The people are ultimately the ones who control the government, not the other way around. The last 100 years or so in this country we have forgotten this.
You've done nothing at all to support your contention that the marketplace does not require certainty of outcomes. If anything, you've explained exactly why it does need such certainty, and merely argued that the outcome should be determined by "the average of these compromises...[that] became the tradition for how things were done." I have no disagreement with the sentiment that the Supreme Court should not be the ones setting forth what the rules are, but rather merely determining what the "tradition" is and enforcing that rule. Don't disagreements need a neutral arbiter, whether or not you think the current Court system fulfills that role?
Your statement that "Commerce is ruled by tort law" and the following paragraph show a decent understanding of that body of law, but the statement itself is plainly untrue. Commerce is ruled by Contract law, first and foremost, and US and most of the world has substantially adopted the Uniform Commercial Code for the sale of goods. Common law controls contracts for services in the US. Tort law obviously affects commerce, but its effects on commerce are negligible compared to contract law, which is at the heart of literally every transaction. I suggest you look into the UCC and common law of contracts if you want to make the argument that the marketplace does not require certainty, as there is actually much uncertainty that results from the blend of the UCC and common law, but ultimately there is a "certainty of uncertainty" that allows the system to function quite well almost exactly as you describe.
As for allowing juries to decide matters of law, they have that power already in our system if they know how to use it. In a criminal context they have an absolute right of nullification in order to reach a not-guilty verdict, and in a civil case they can do much the same thing as long as they don't explicitly say so. Most people are completely ignorant about how the system works so when they are on a jury they don't understand what they can and cannot do.
I think you've demonstrated that you've done a fair amount of research and have some interest in this topic, but you clearly lack any significant first-hand experience with the system. I think you'll find that in practice it operates much more closely to how you think it should if you were to look into it.
The real point is, the system is well-designed, it worked well for over 100 years. It's only since the people have become complacent that it has started to falter. The people should never stand for precedents that defy the constitution, but the need to clarify ambiguity and enshrine that clarification through stare decisis is a valuable feature of the system.
What certainty of outcomes? Stare decisis can be used to manufacture any outcome the prosecutor desires. Any controversy can be rhetorically warped until it fits a chosen precedent.
The U.S. federal courts are not neutral arbiters. A vicious cycle has taken hold. First the Progressives trick the courts into establishing a precedent that benefits them. The precedent is used to grind down the economy so that people will vote for more Progressivism out of desperation. Then the increased number of Progressive in Congress install a greater numbers of Progressive judges. Who establish even more Progressive precedents. Etc.
The challenge we face is that the Progressives don't have any goals besides power. They would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. It is not a negotiation between parties of good faith who have differing opinions. It is them tricking everyone else into a series of retreats.
Contract law by itself can only get you specific performance, often too late to do any good. Tort law provides liquidated damages, incidental damages, punitive damages, etc. Contact law is the wolf - tort law is the teeth.
I think you'll find that in practice it operates much more closely to how you think it should if you were to look into it.
I have looked into it. The monstrous Wickard v. Filburn precedent rides the economy like it is a horse. Everything is interstate commerce and therefore regulated by communist central committees in Washington, D.C. They have established a nationwide real estate zoning system under the guise of protecting airplanes from danger, on the theory that the Constitution gives Congress power over the waters of the United States, and the founders simply forgot to write down the word air. An unborn baby was recently beaten to death with a baseball bat under the auspices of Roe v. Wade. The hideous Obamacare cases found that doing nothing is an event and therefore an excise tax can be levied on it, and that the District of Columbia is a state.
In criminal law the federal system has entirely ceased to function. The prosecutors write down what they wish was illegal, sprinkle the magic pixie dust of precedent over it, and the judges rubber stamp whatever indictment is placed before them. Most U.S. court criminal defendants plead guilty just to avoid the risk that a jury will find them guilty of 10,000 years of Wickard v. Filburn violations. A federal judge recently resigned in disgust over the manufacturing of fake crimes.
It’s hard to take you seriously when you continue to conflate contract law and tort law with statements like “contract law can only get you to specific performance.” This is plainly untrue. There are remedies for breach under contract law. There are not under tort unless it is a “tortious breach” which I have seen alleged often but never proven.
You don't see it much because of the deterrent effect.
Suppose ABC Construction builds a house for XYZ Developers using intentionally substandard concrete. Under contract law, their liability is no greater than the cost to jack the house up and pour a new foundation. If the probability that the breach will be discovered multiplied by the cost of repairs is smaller than the cost savings, they do it and turn a profit. It's called strategic breach of contract.
But they don't do it. Because getting caught brings a blizzard of tort claims down upon them: XYZ Developers, their officers' acts and omissions insurance, their shareholders, the home owner, the home owner's insurance, the mortgage insurance, the bank, the insurance for the mortgaged-backed securities, the mortgage investors which includes every pension plan in the world, etc.
You're looking at just the first layer of law. I'm looking at the whole legal and cultural system, which in the U.S. is ruled by tort law.
Consider paying a fare to ride a bus. The buses in Somalia regularly kill people because breaching the contract of carriage is cheaper than the bus fare. The buses in the U.S. are safe and pleasant because everyone at the bus company lives in fear of the trial lawyers. Avoidance of tort liability pervades the whole system.
"Under contract law, their liability is no greater than the cost to jack the house up and pour a new foundation."
This is simply incorrect. You're digging yourself deeper. I wasn't disagreeing with your last comment per se. But it literally is difficult to take you seriously when you double down on incorrect claims.
A "strategic breach" is not a per se "tortious breach as you imply. That's the entire basis of your argument along with your incorrect assertion regarding the damages available under contract.
If we just had laws that remained within the boundaries of the Constitution, that would take a lot of guess work out of the whole thing.
Even a small child understands that a baby in the womb is a living human being. That baby has Constitutional Rights and has a right to live, no matter how inconvenient that baby is. Period.
And as harsh as it seems...far less humans would die if abortions stopped being legal even if a few women accidently killed themselves trying to do it themselves. Most women have more sense than that.
Small children understand what they're told, they cannot make judgements like you suggest. Otherwise you wouldn't have these 'trans toddlers' or bullshit like that. The idea that a day-old embryo and a 3-month fetus and a delivered baby are all exactly identical is an opinion. And you don't get to use the state to enforce your religious feefees.
You can believe exactly as you please but there is such a thing as right and wrong. And God says that a baby is a human being at the time of conception. And He is the Creator. He knows what He's talking about. He says that He knew us BEFORE we were even formed in our mothers womb. That we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Whether that baby is in the womb 1 week or 8 months, it's God's creation and abortion equals nothing short of cold blooded murder.
Women are lied to and told it's just a lump of tissue. Women who abort their babies suffer with clinical depression and a sense of deep loss that cloaks their entire life that they can't explain. There is healing for those who want it.
.far less humans would die if abortions stopped being legal even if a few women accidently killed themselves trying to do it themselves. Most women have more sense than that.
That doesn't sound harsh, but the factor you are forgetting about is who is getting the abortions and the interracial murder rates... so yeah, a lot more women would die, but not for any reason that the left or jews wll admit.
the certainty I spoke of necessitates that decisions stay within the text and intent of the constitution. As long as a decision falls within those parameters, stare decisis is a valuable tradition.
I think what they are really scared about is the fact that the 2nd amendment rights are protected for the next 30 years.
They being politicians? Agreed. But the followers of that party are scared about roe v wade because Trump made it clear that it's against the values of conservatives and that he's stacking the SC with conservatives where this would be the likely outcome "over time". I think Trump and Pence said they're personally against it and the only way to see if they can replace it is to stack the court with conservatives and see how it turns out.
People are scared because they blindly follow orders and think judges do as well.
I agree. They're scared shitless that not only will "white supremacists" have weapons for the foreseeable future, but that the Supreme Court will allow them to have even more weapons, and more effective weapons at that.
Their entire game plan relied on Hillary becoming president and repealing the 2nd, to disarm us all, so that all the other amendments could be shat upon without retribution. But that isn't going to happen now, and not only is the 2nd not going to repealed, but all of us paranoid assholes have purchased a shit-ton of guns and even more ammo - we're all decked out for civil war 2.0, and our enemy is pretty much defenseless. Now, all they have to rely on is that the Army and the Marines will obey a Jew-dick-sucking president (I like Trump - a lot - but he still fellates Jews, no matter how you divert the narrative) and we all know that the vast majority of the Army - and especially the Marines - will never obey a president who fights for Zionist filth over his own people.....
we all know that the vast majority of the Army - and especially the Marines - will never obey a president who fights for Zionist filth over his own people
Learn history. The founding fathers did not want to include the 2nd amendment ~ noting that it was a right and such a law would suggest that the gov't could regulate this right.
Magazine size doesn't affect rate of fire. You can be just as combat effective with three ten round magazines as you can with one 30 round mag. Bump stocks are essentially a gimmick and don't have much use outside of the range.
Personally I the national firearms act should be repealed or overturned. We should be able to keep and bear the same arms that a regular infantryman would carry.
I'm surprised the founders did not specify such a right in the 2nd amendment. Unless citizen militias were supposed to be national constitutional carry.
Because they never intended for individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. People who quote the 2nd Amendment rarely quote the whole text, for a reason.
States shouldn't have the ability to overpower federal law according to the Constitution. It just takes a lawsuit against CA making it to the Supreme Court with the right judges.
Thoroughly true. I can't find the actual quote, but I've seen it said here before: the government still never teach you what you need to know to overthrow it.
Yeah, if you search on youtube it gives you a ton of them. Of course they're great parody fodder, but when the libs start getting preachy with them it just makes you want to puke.
So much this. The amount of distraction was mind-goggling. Wait, is Kavanaugh on trial for something? Look over there! I kept wanting someone to say "hellooo, can we focus please".
You don't know enough liberals. Especially female ones. All I am hearing from them is how they have to vote to protect women from the evil men who want to take away their right to their own bodies. Complaining about how Trump and the Supreme Court will now allow them to be raped and force them to carry the babies to term. They know nothing about logic or how any of this works at all.
They 100% believe rape is about power alone and sex is just the method used to display that power. So it just makes sense that the patriarchy would use it to subjugate women.
A few states have recently tried limiting availability or number of Planned Parenthood centers. A challenge to such efforts could make it up through the courts.
I think they are talking about "surgically excising" certain parts of the ruling. There was recent discussion that from Susan Collins, right? Roe V Wade included elements that made human trafficking easier - moving minors across borders, or so I read. It had a nefarious purpose that those of us (recovering Democrats) didn't see. I also see that the next nominee to be cued up is "unapologetically pro-life" - so THAT will be interesting.
Sorry. I was thinking with my old liberal democrat mindset. What I mean is that at the top of the swamp - they don't care about fetuses at any age - they care about trafficking human beings to make money off of them. Through fetal tissue in research or cosmetics or food, etc. Supplying the pedophile elite. THAT is a little bit more nefarious than a young woman who found herself pregnant and needs a legal protection to retain her right to do with it what she wants. Its going to remain a complex issue. But it needs to be included in the overall dark swamp of human slavery, trafficking, and murder.
Yes it can, it did it with slavery. I think it also did it with the Death Penalty too, but I'm not sure. There's several times where the court changed its previous precedent.
Nope. The big SCOTUS decision on slavery (Dredd Scott v. Sandford) wasn't overturned Supreme Court itself. It was abrogated by constitutional amendment. Difference being, in the former case the supreme court just changes the practical application and interpretation of the law. In the latter case, changes to the law itself make the earlier decision inapplicable.
You're literally correct but they can definitely overturn things. The sticking point is that a case has to make its way up to the Supreme Court that can overturn the case. But people can openly defy a previous ruling if they think the Court will agree with them. The other thing is that existing cases can be re-framed to implicate Roe v. Wade more directly if they don't already.
For instance there are currently cases throughout the court system that are arguing for some kind of extension of the rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. So if that case makes it to the Supreme Court, they can say : "Not only do we decline to extend Roe v. Wade but we feel that the case was improperly decided and should be completely overturned." Doing so would be somewhat unprecedented depending on how tangential the relationship between the issues is. But they are within their power to do so.
You aren't wrong and people don't understand how law works. Even if Roe vs Wade was repealed, abortion would just go back to being a state level law. I'm guessing you'd have a few of the bible states who would enact stricter abortion laws , but most states would still have it legal and worse case scenario you might have to travel a little further to have an abortion. Also, I don't know what all this screaming about taking away birth control, that has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade, unless your choice of birth control is abortion. The Dems were using all this as fearmongering to rile women up - well the really dumb ones anyway. The real reason they were against Kavanaugh is because Repubs now have the swing vote...as anyone with a working brain already knew at the beginning of all this madness.
Most women have become convinced that their greatest duty to society is to have a career and to be "sexually liberated", and if they don't, they are betraying all women and their entire civilization. As such, children are an impediment to their duty, and they've been convinced that a baby isn't a baby until is born, so they generally consider abortion to be little worse than birth control.
Basically, women are generally brainwashed and insulated from truths that would induce them to behave appropriately. Women are easily led by social norms, so college bubbles, and television and other media that can create a false sense of social consensus have been devastatingly effective.
Women don't want to go around committing infanticide as they're biologically driven to take care of their offpsring. That said they consider a child a huge investment and therefor an unwanted or unplanned one a huge fucking mistake on their part that needs to be dealt with. It used to be a case of sucking it up and knowing there's no way out but with the advent of easy access to safe abortions they harped on about it being their body, their choice and made it entirely an issue about their personal freedoms completely ignoring the oppositions arguments about it being medicinal murder. They've since convinced themselves that it's merely a clump of cells that even in the later allowable stages can't possibly have feeling so now we're the ones who have lost our moral compass for wanting them to take responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. They truly see is as such a morally reprehensible issue to go against that it's akin to making women collectively go back to being property controlled by men or even worse a faceless government that now considers them nothing more than baby making factories.
So to women repealing easy access to abortion is the same as making them slaves and they will literally fight to the bitter end to retain what they see as their hard earned right to kill their unwanted babies. I can see where they're coming from but since we can't easily put an end to it if it were up to me we'd make the only access they have to abortions funded wholly by the tax payer but it comes at the cost of irreversible sterilization. Baby killers, by their own admission no less, have no place in being parents and it would make those on the wall most likely keep their kid instead of completely destroying their future. Also the niggers would eat that shit up and decimate themselves.
Disgusting beyond words that they justify murder of babies and actually have the gall to think they have the moral high ground. Society is sick, sick, sick in the collective head.
They can overturn decision, yes, but they can't just spontaneously come together to start overturning things. They need to have a relevant case brought in front of them first. Until a case relevant to Roe v. Wade reaches the supreme court, they can't really do anything about it.
Sure they can. They can have a parking ticket case and then overturn Roe if they wanted to. Now, its not done. But nothing precludes them from doing so.
Not only that, but if you read the decisions the laws had shifted or other precedents had been set since the first decisions that influenced the overturns. It's not like they happened in a vacuum, the legal situation had changed.
SparklingWiggle ago
Some states have the right to open carry but most don't .
OneTrueCube ago
Most of the problem that the Democrats face is that they can no longer rely on the Supreme court to get things done instead of having to pass bills through Congress.
Derpfroot ago
Even if it is overturned (it should be), it will then be up to each state whether they allow abortion. So abortion won't go away if it's overturned. They're just whiny faggots.
redtoe_skipper ago
It depends on how you look at Roe vs Wade. Have you read it? I guess most people have not, as it is somewhat tedious. Really, there are some real gems to see. 1. **Abortion is a natural right, acknowledged in common law. A right, though not enumerated, reserved by the people ** 2. Statutory law supersedes common law due to state interest growing dominant as the foetus grows to viability 3. Medical advances bear upon the question of viability so, we have a slippery slope. 4. The state has in interest in protection of life. So it must provide for a standard of sound medical procedures. 5. The state can proscribe an abortion 5. It leaves it to each state to do their thing.
When I read it, I was glad to see the acknowledgement of abortion being a personal decision rooted in the right belonging to the people. This is the basic principle upon which Liberty rests. I was glad, the court held, that state interest in protection of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, should warrant a state to facilitate, by offering standards of sound medical procedure. That does not infringe upon the enjoyment of liberty, it helps to exercise it.
What I found disgusting was that out of nowhere it is unchallenged that the state has a dominant interest in pre born fetuses where the cutoff is viability, base on technical issues.
And because of this interest, that simply is inserted into the conversation and never challenged, just accepted as a given, the woman, being a citizen enjoying the full rights, suddenly becoming a ward of the state, incapacitated to make up her own mind.
That laws restricting abortion may have medical background, is not in dispute. The reason restriction of abortion are put into place are usually religiously fuelled. It is a legislating of morals. That is not being argued at all. This should not be.
Those pro life, like me, are perfectly content to live the way we see fit. And should a pregnancy occur that was not planned on, well we have to live with it, right? We are not forced into an abortion, we discuss with our family and together we get through it (with the help of God)
For those pro choice, like me, we want the same thing. We are perfectly content to live the way we want, dispose of our own property as we see fit and not have the state turn us into slaves. And, we are perfectly happy to reach out to those who want to help us with private money, as long as the procedure is medically sound and clean.
Why did the court make a monstrosity of this? It was the perfect case to put liberty and the preservation of liberty first. The court did not do that. It muddied the water.
And I find it incomprehensible that people fear this decision will be overturned. The right to abortion cannot be overturned, as that is a natural / common law thing. If you overturn that, the court would essentially say: you only have rights when enumerated. Away with the 9, 10 and 14th Amendment.
What should be overturned is the notion that a state can proscribe on the basis of a imaginary interest in prenatal fetuses and thus may set time frames when a foetus is viable based on new technology and thereby depriving a citizen without warrant of reserved rights.
But you don't hear those SJW on that. They fear something that is not there. But overlook the actual insult to injury: All of a sudden it becomes women's rights. Bullshit. It is about a reserved right of all citizens. So much for inclusiveness of those SJW-types.
z-vap ago
because the fuck-all communist left keep telling them it will.
Tallest_Skil ago
Because they’re retarded faggots who believe jewish propagnada.
Antifa_Hivemind ago
Fearmongering used as political strategy. Engineered by the Democrats, distributed by the MSM, and happily gobbled up by the ignorant masses.
ThisWeirdWeirdWorld ago
The people who think this are the same people who don't understand that there are 2 Senators from each state for a reason and the national popular vote has never mattered. They don't understand the basics of how our government or our court system functions so they don't understand how the Supreme Court's power is limited.
Savage_Thundercock ago
Projection. It's what was going to happen to the 2nd if bill Clinton's wife won.
Psquared_4_Q ago
Because they are not educated but most importantly because MSM/Left instill fear as a way to get what they want. Planned ABORTION HOOD- uses it to ensure they will continue to get federal funds. They (LEFT) are more afraid of the second amendment but their use of school shootings and that little jerk David Hooag ( ? last name) didn't create enough "emotional outrage" to go against JUSTICE Kavanaugh. So what other tactic? Sex= Metoo and Abortion rights. Between those 2 there are surely enough uneducated, unmediated, lack of male influence women out there that will riot and cause a ruckus. I am a woman by the way and not all of us are uneducated or need to be medicated. We are called Republican Sisters who believe in our Republic and constitution.
friendshipistragic ago
Straw man.
EffYouJohnPodesta ago
The only reason it was never overturned is due to the makeup of the Supreme Court. Now that it's mostly conservative and Trump has a couple of years left to appoint more justices there's a chance of overturning it. The Roe decision was total crap. It needs to be overturned. All they have to do is one lawsuit and get it up there and have the court vote to hear it or not. The real issue is whether the justices have the guts to do so. Liberals are in a panic because they can't give up abortion, it's their sacred cow. A lot depends on it in the pharmaceutical industry. 3000 or more babies are killed in surgical abortions a day. That is not including silent abortions. This is the issue of our time. Abortion has only been legal here for 44 years and we act like that will never change. For most of history people actually looked down on infanticide.
TheRaoulDuke ago
For one: They evidently don't understand that, while doing a keg stand in one's youth is not disqualifying for the Supreme Court, discussing how one will rule on the court -- based on their own personal beliefs -- very much is disqualifying. They took justice Kavanaugh's staunch resistance to address how he'd rule on cases involving Roe v. Wade as meaning that he wanted to overturn Roe v. Wade, which... it doesn't mean that. At all.
For second: The subject of abortion has long been oversimplified in our public discourse, with the reason being its value as a political weapon when it's oversimplified. The truth is that abortions -- all of them -- pale in comparison to the amount of cruelty involved in cases like these, which often involved staunch anti-abortion parents elected to let their disabled -- often with down syndrome -- children to be born and then starve to death*, because they didn't want them.
Abortion is something that needs to stop being a political issue. It's one of those very difficult conversations the nation needs to have, rather than maintain it as a convenient political card to play.
StanTheTRex ago
Because it's what the Dems always use to get their people to the polls. It's their bat signal.
geekpuk2 ago
We should pray that more little niglets and Jose will be saved from the cruel fate of abortion. Each life is precious
BIGDBALLERHOLA ago
I don't think Kav will overturn Roe v Wade (the actual precedent now is Casey v Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania but I don't want to be pedantic). However, there is precedent for overturns like this to happen. For example, Brown v Board happened 50+ years after Plessy v Ferguson. Additionally, Roe v Wade was nearly overturned with Casey v PP of Pennsylvania, but a couple justices flipped last minute. While I think it is unlikely, abortion becoming illegal (in some states) is a very real possibility in my opinion.
woadowl ago
it appears that the ruling was 7 - 2. with dissenting opinions stating that there is no constitutional provision for abortion. and laws already on the books against it as far back as the revolutionary war meant it was clear states did not want it legal. but the majority opinion seems to be 'advisory' which seems to imply that states keep the right to regulate abortion or implying that a state can retain the right to terminate a pregnancy. there were also two judges that retired during the review so it's possible that it could have not passed
https://infogalactic.com/info/Roe_v._Wade
https://infogalactic.com/info/Doe_v._Bolton
the sections Dissents and Justiciability seem to be where the pivot point is whether it could be argued against or argued for continuation as is. this is just from a cursory reading of the facts. i'm mostly against abortion so that's my filter. but it is also apparent that the women involved as plaintiff both complained later that they were mislead and were not in fact, for abortion but rather against it as it is so easily obtainable today. according to the articles, arguments by people on both sides of the aisle have complained about how it was done and a variety of judges have expressed their feeling that it should be looked at again. with a variety of ideas of how it should be worked over. i think they used the words strict scrutiny. no one seems to want to tackle the issue though trump and company did take a step in that direction, something about the helms amendment
https://infogalactic.com/info/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions#Constitutional
BlackSheepBrouhaha ago
Because they're screaming their weakness. If women have to bear the children that result from sex, they'll have to live a traditional life dependent on men. If they have license to kill, they can wear pants and play independent while getting fucked five nights a week by five different guys who buy dinner and drinks for the privilege to share her STIs, and buy all their dinner clothes and travel expenses on credit.
phoenix883 ago
Because the left is always projecting. Uprooting the status quo is what the rootless cosmopolitan do, so they assume we do the same.
Also, their power base loves to abdicate personal responsibility, to the state if possible, and must have as little family as possible to remain juvenile in mind as long as possible.
45274952 ago
What they are really scared off is that the gov or insurance companies will not provide women contraceptives to continue their whoring.
14341070? ago
Netflix?
Elbower_of_Quants ago
Roe v Wade can be overturned but not suddenly... it will take at least a decade if not longer and it will and should start at late-term abortions and hopefully stop there. Contraception is a delicate and important matter.
TheRaoulDuke ago
This is a good article on late-term abortions. The part with the statistic:
Soyboy69 ago
We should get rid of all forms of abortion and contraceptives, castrate those unfit for reproduction and encourage the successful to reproduce via larger tax deductions.
Swibble ago
It's not a thought, it's a fear. They know there's no basis for it. They pulled it out of their ass as much as they did for gay marriage. Unless you can tell me what this has to do with abortion you're forced to admit there is no basis for a nationwide ruling on abortion and states should be free to enforce penalties for manslaughter on their own terms.
Scald85 ago
Because it wouldn't mean anything except lucrative abortion tourism to New York and California, and letting the right have a fake victory would reduce its political capital. Actually, the only reason it still stands is just spiking the football against religious traditionalists who have no influence against the elites.
TheFool ago
You can always challenge such a decision and it's currently making it's way throught he courts and may eventually make it to the supreme court once again where Kavanaugh will have a vote on it.
Gandi ago
Because we are going to see a drastic reduction in population and people will see it as their duty.
Deplorable_J_Covfefe ago
It's very important for the Satan worshipers to have legal child sacrifice.
riffwraff ago
No one seriously thinks that. It's a meme to piss women off. The reality is that if Roe vs Wade is ever called into question, Kavanaugh who is pro-life has replaced the strongest pro-infanticide justice (Kennedy). Trump is pro-life, and Republicans are pro-life by default. There are three issues in which Republicans always differ from Democrats on, and that's God, guns, and abortion, even when they're identical in every other respect. So if Republicans win the mid-terms, it's POSSIBLE (though unlikely) that Roe vs Wade will be overturned on a federal level. That would mean a ban of abortion in red states, basically.
newoldwave ago
The Roe v Wade scare tactic is just that. A straw man
Voateringforlife ago
I tend to agree with you. I thought it was a cover because “they” are worried about military prosecution for enemies of the state. Since we are legally still in a state of war. I thought this summed it up pretty well. Hraham and Kavanaugh discussing the law-https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3_gmOsnjrZw
Cut_more_trees ago
RvW won't be overturned, at least not immediately. The two results I expect are: (1) abortion sent back for the states to legislate on and (2) abortion rights chipped away over time. A lot of time still needs to pass before RvW can be overturned, and this is due to public opinion -- even though most of the country favors restrictions on abortion, they would probably balk if the supreme court immediately overturned RvW. But public opinion is influenced by court decisions, so the more abortion rights are chipped away the easier it becomes to overturn RvW.
thelma ago
I dunno...when it was created out of thin air, medical science did not have the information that we have today.
slwsnowman40 ago
This is the correct plan to go after abortion if the goal is to eliminate it all together. I'm against doing away with it completely, but I'm okay if the states decide for themselves.
slwsnowman40 ago
No. They usually leave precedents stand.
They need the courts, specifically SCOTUS, to get most of their agenda passed. How many decisions are there, set by SCOTUS, that should be a states' issue and not a federal one?
MaxVieuxlieu ago
They can certainly reverse it. A conservative state might look at the makeup of the court and take it as a green light to criminalize abortion that would be protected under Roe v. Wade. If that law made its way up to the Supreme Court, they would have the option to overturn the previous precedent.
The point that needs to be made though, is that an outright reversal of Roe v. Wade is unlikely, and even if it happened, the Supreme Court can't force States to criminalize abortion just by overturning Roe v. Wade. What may happen, is that the Supreme Court allows states to criminalize abortion after viability, and the conservative states then outlaw abortion after 20 weeks or something like that. But abortion on demand will remain legal in NY, CA and the other liberal shitholes right up until the baby is completely out of the womb no matter what happens. The most likely result is some sort of chipping away at Roe v. Wade with the result being that there are some more restrictions placed on abortion but not a complete overturning as if it had never happened.
However, there are definitely other scenarios that could play out. A constitutional amendment codifying the right to privacy set forth in Griswold v. Connecticut could short-circuit any challenge to Roe v. Wade, as the faulty logic in Griswold that invented that right to privacy out of thin air is the entire basis for Roe v. Wade, and it might actually hold water if Griswold became black-letter law through a constitutional amendment. Obviously the process for amendment is complicated and its unlikely to happen, but my point is only that there are certainly other options that may play out.
Roe v. Wade has been the law of the land for so long that it is unlikely to be quickly and entirely overturned. Some incremental changes might occur going the other direction, and eventually the tide might turn completely, but anyone thinking that Roe v. Wade is just going to disappear is being ridiculous. Nothing in this country ever happens that fast. The system was designed that way.
goatboy ago
It's more of a dream than an expectation.
lord_nougat ago
Because they are faggots who are simultaneously also retarded?
watts2db ago
I never even cared before but I want it overturned now because fuck them
I always was in support of leftists not contaminating tye gene pool anyway but now I think about it I want them to have back alley abortions get sepsis and die
RedditSureDoesSuck ago
Spite's a helluva drug. Fuck them indeed.
Alopix ago
Because they falsely believe that Kavanaugh is like their faggot activist judges and will rule based on his feelings rather than the law and the constitution.
Commie_Meta ago
No, they are worried because Roe v. Wade is plainly incorrect, and a ruling based on law would instantly overturn it.
The basis of Roe v. Wade is that banning abortion violates the woman's right to due process of law. Basically, she has the right to do anything unless convicted of doing it before it is done. It is yet another case where the Supreme Court tied the law to a chair and beat it with a rubber hose until it gave in and started meaning what they wanted it to mean.
Brought to you by the same people who decided that gun sales have to be registered because threshing wheat is an interstate activity. No, that's not a joke.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
It's actually Griswold v. Connecticut that is plainly incorrect. Roe v. Wade, relying on the precedent set forth in Griswold, is legally defensible. Still doesn't change the fact that a case relying on a case that is plainly incorrect is wrongly decided, but it does follow the applicable precedent.
Commie_Meta ago
Thanks for the for correction.
We need to make precedent non-binding. It is nothing but a tool that judges use to write tyrannical legislation.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
I'm not sure I agree with the notion that precedent should be non-binding. For one thing, it isn't really binding on the supreme court. What we need is a greater movement to undo the improperly decided cases. We really only need to roll back about 10-20 cases out of hundreds that have been decided over the last 100 years. There aren't that many that are that wrong.
Stare Decisis is a valuable concept and the marketplace requires certainty of legal outcomes.
Commie_Meta ago
Who decides which cases are improper? Who decides which should be rolled back?
I do not trust any central committee to decide such matters. That's what we have now with the Supreme Court handing down Holy Precedents.
I disagree that the marketplace requires certainty of outcome. Commerce is ruled by tort law. Reach for the electrical gadget nearest you, assuming you are in the U.S.A. It was almost certainly tested for safety by Underwriters Laboratories, a private company created by the insurance industry to reduce tort losses. Or think about the cable/DSL modem you probably use to communicate with me: it functions because of open source collaborations and the fear of class action lawsuits. Not because of emanations of penumbras discovered by Supreme Court judges.
Traditionally most of America functioned by muddling through. We did not look to court priests to interpret the holy writ of Precedent. The people on the scene worked out their own local compromises. The average of these compromises over time became the tradition for how things were done.
I increasingly think juries should decide matters of law. If you disagree with precedent, you should be able to get a jury of your peers to decide disputes of law. The current system dumps it on the appeals courts. They get a clear set of facts and an insane Supreme Court precedent, and often just give up because re-trying the case would be too tedious.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
You have missed my point entirely. The Supreme Court does not have an army. They cannot force anyone to do anything. The people are ultimately the ones who control the government, not the other way around. The last 100 years or so in this country we have forgotten this.
You've done nothing at all to support your contention that the marketplace does not require certainty of outcomes. If anything, you've explained exactly why it does need such certainty, and merely argued that the outcome should be determined by "the average of these compromises...[that] became the tradition for how things were done." I have no disagreement with the sentiment that the Supreme Court should not be the ones setting forth what the rules are, but rather merely determining what the "tradition" is and enforcing that rule. Don't disagreements need a neutral arbiter, whether or not you think the current Court system fulfills that role?
Your statement that "Commerce is ruled by tort law" and the following paragraph show a decent understanding of that body of law, but the statement itself is plainly untrue. Commerce is ruled by Contract law, first and foremost, and US and most of the world has substantially adopted the Uniform Commercial Code for the sale of goods. Common law controls contracts for services in the US. Tort law obviously affects commerce, but its effects on commerce are negligible compared to contract law, which is at the heart of literally every transaction. I suggest you look into the UCC and common law of contracts if you want to make the argument that the marketplace does not require certainty, as there is actually much uncertainty that results from the blend of the UCC and common law, but ultimately there is a "certainty of uncertainty" that allows the system to function quite well almost exactly as you describe.
As for allowing juries to decide matters of law, they have that power already in our system if they know how to use it. In a criminal context they have an absolute right of nullification in order to reach a not-guilty verdict, and in a civil case they can do much the same thing as long as they don't explicitly say so. Most people are completely ignorant about how the system works so when they are on a jury they don't understand what they can and cannot do.
I think you've demonstrated that you've done a fair amount of research and have some interest in this topic, but you clearly lack any significant first-hand experience with the system. I think you'll find that in practice it operates much more closely to how you think it should if you were to look into it.
The real point is, the system is well-designed, it worked well for over 100 years. It's only since the people have become complacent that it has started to falter. The people should never stand for precedents that defy the constitution, but the need to clarify ambiguity and enshrine that clarification through stare decisis is a valuable feature of the system.
Commie_Meta ago
What certainty of outcomes? Stare decisis can be used to manufacture any outcome the prosecutor desires. Any controversy can be rhetorically warped until it fits a chosen precedent.
The U.S. federal courts are not neutral arbiters. A vicious cycle has taken hold. First the Progressives trick the courts into establishing a precedent that benefits them. The precedent is used to grind down the economy so that people will vote for more Progressivism out of desperation. Then the increased number of Progressive in Congress install a greater numbers of Progressive judges. Who establish even more Progressive precedents. Etc.
The challenge we face is that the Progressives don't have any goals besides power. They would rather rule in Hell than serve in Heaven. It is not a negotiation between parties of good faith who have differing opinions. It is them tricking everyone else into a series of retreats.
Contract law by itself can only get you specific performance, often too late to do any good. Tort law provides liquidated damages, incidental damages, punitive damages, etc. Contact law is the wolf - tort law is the teeth.
I have looked into it. The monstrous Wickard v. Filburn precedent rides the economy like it is a horse. Everything is interstate commerce and therefore regulated by communist central committees in Washington, D.C. They have established a nationwide real estate zoning system under the guise of protecting airplanes from danger, on the theory that the Constitution gives Congress power over the waters of the United States, and the founders simply forgot to write down the word air. An unborn baby was recently beaten to death with a baseball bat under the auspices of Roe v. Wade. The hideous Obamacare cases found that doing nothing is an event and therefore an excise tax can be levied on it, and that the District of Columbia is a state.
In criminal law the federal system has entirely ceased to function. The prosecutors write down what they wish was illegal, sprinkle the magic pixie dust of precedent over it, and the judges rubber stamp whatever indictment is placed before them. Most U.S. court criminal defendants plead guilty just to avoid the risk that a jury will find them guilty of 10,000 years of Wickard v. Filburn violations. A federal judge recently resigned in disgust over the manufacturing of fake crimes.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
It’s hard to take you seriously when you continue to conflate contract law and tort law with statements like “contract law can only get you to specific performance.” This is plainly untrue. There are remedies for breach under contract law. There are not under tort unless it is a “tortious breach” which I have seen alleged often but never proven.
Commie_Meta ago
You don't see it much because of the deterrent effect.
Suppose ABC Construction builds a house for XYZ Developers using intentionally substandard concrete. Under contract law, their liability is no greater than the cost to jack the house up and pour a new foundation. If the probability that the breach will be discovered multiplied by the cost of repairs is smaller than the cost savings, they do it and turn a profit. It's called strategic breach of contract.
But they don't do it. Because getting caught brings a blizzard of tort claims down upon them: XYZ Developers, their officers' acts and omissions insurance, their shareholders, the home owner, the home owner's insurance, the mortgage insurance, the bank, the insurance for the mortgaged-backed securities, the mortgage investors which includes every pension plan in the world, etc.
You're looking at just the first layer of law. I'm looking at the whole legal and cultural system, which in the U.S. is ruled by tort law.
Consider paying a fare to ride a bus. The buses in Somalia regularly kill people because breaching the contract of carriage is cheaper than the bus fare. The buses in the U.S. are safe and pleasant because everyone at the bus company lives in fear of the trial lawyers. Avoidance of tort liability pervades the whole system.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
"Under contract law, their liability is no greater than the cost to jack the house up and pour a new foundation."
This is simply incorrect. You're digging yourself deeper. I wasn't disagreeing with your last comment per se. But it literally is difficult to take you seriously when you double down on incorrect claims.
A "strategic breach" is not a per se "tortious breach as you imply. That's the entire basis of your argument along with your incorrect assertion regarding the damages available under contract.
truth_lurker ago
If we just had laws that remained within the boundaries of the Constitution, that would take a lot of guess work out of the whole thing.
Even a small child understands that a baby in the womb is a living human being. That baby has Constitutional Rights and has a right to live, no matter how inconvenient that baby is. Period.
And as harsh as it seems...far less humans would die if abortions stopped being legal even if a few women accidently killed themselves trying to do it themselves. Most women have more sense than that.
Alopix ago
Small children understand what they're told, they cannot make judgements like you suggest. Otherwise you wouldn't have these 'trans toddlers' or bullshit like that. The idea that a day-old embryo and a 3-month fetus and a delivered baby are all exactly identical is an opinion. And you don't get to use the state to enforce your religious feefees.
truth_lurker ago
You can believe exactly as you please but there is such a thing as right and wrong. And God says that a baby is a human being at the time of conception. And He is the Creator. He knows what He's talking about. He says that He knew us BEFORE we were even formed in our mothers womb. That we are fearfully and wonderfully made.
Whether that baby is in the womb 1 week or 8 months, it's God's creation and abortion equals nothing short of cold blooded murder.
Women are lied to and told it's just a lump of tissue. Women who abort their babies suffer with clinical depression and a sense of deep loss that cloaks their entire life that they can't explain. There is healing for those who want it.
Soyboy69 ago
That doesn't sound harsh, but the factor you are forgetting about is who is getting the abortions and the interracial murder rates... so yeah, a lot more women would die, but not for any reason that the left or jews wll admit.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
the certainty I spoke of necessitates that decisions stay within the text and intent of the constitution. As long as a decision falls within those parameters, stare decisis is a valuable tradition.
Super_Cooper ago
I think what they are really scared about is the fact that the 2nd amendment rights are protected for the next 30 years.
BLATBLAT4muhGAT ago
They are protected by WE, the people. So long as we dont allow our future to cuck itself into handing shit over to tyrants, WE will exercise our 2A.
Super_Cooper ago
Right
Tallest_Skil ago
Except Kavanaugh is on record saying that people don’t have the right to automatic weapons, directly violating the US constitution.
Escape_From_Reddit ago
Considering the Assault Weapons Ban was upheld as Constitutional numerous times, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
The Constitution has no 'automatic weapons' clause.
Tallest_Skil ago
eronburr ago
They being politicians? Agreed. But the followers of that party are scared about roe v wade because Trump made it clear that it's against the values of conservatives and that he's stacking the SC with conservatives where this would be the likely outcome "over time". I think Trump and Pence said they're personally against it and the only way to see if they can replace it is to stack the court with conservatives and see how it turns out.
People are scared because they blindly follow orders and think judges do as well.
maxoverdrive ago
I agree. They're scared shitless that not only will "white supremacists" have weapons for the foreseeable future, but that the Supreme Court will allow them to have even more weapons, and more effective weapons at that.
Their entire game plan relied on Hillary becoming president and repealing the 2nd, to disarm us all, so that all the other amendments could be shat upon without retribution. But that isn't going to happen now, and not only is the 2nd not going to repealed, but all of us paranoid assholes have purchased a shit-ton of guns and even more ammo - we're all decked out for civil war 2.0, and our enemy is pretty much defenseless. Now, all they have to rely on is that the Army and the Marines will obey a Jew-dick-sucking president (I like Trump - a lot - but he still fellates Jews, no matter how you divert the narrative) and we all know that the vast majority of the Army - and especially the Marines - will never obey a president who fights for Zionist filth over his own people.....
Derpfroot ago
/s, right?
Tallest_Skil ago
Except Kavanaugh explicitly says that people don’t have the right to automatic weapons, in direct violation of the constitution.
QXQ ago
We'll be able to cheaply print good 3D guns within the next 5-10 years anyway. We can already do it now, but they aren't that good.
Plavonica ago
As if that wouldn't lead directly into a civil war.
thelma ago
Learn history. The founding fathers did not want to include the 2nd amendment ~ noting that it was a right and such a law would suggest that the gov't could regulate this right.
They were correct.
Rights are not able to be regulated.
ViperCarbz ago
Can't have that bump stock or 15 round mag in NJ currently. Yeah, sure, protected.
Super_Cooper ago
Magazine size doesn't affect rate of fire. You can be just as combat effective with three ten round magazines as you can with one 30 round mag. Bump stocks are essentially a gimmick and don't have much use outside of the range.
Personally I the national firearms act should be repealed or overturned. We should be able to keep and bear the same arms that a regular infantryman would carry.
thelma ago
Yes you can. What's to stop you?
No pussy answers allowed.
Escape_From_Reddit ago
A complete lack of any reason to need a bump stock?
thelma ago
I need one.
l_voated_today ago
Can't wait for national constitutional carry.
Pluviou5 ago
I'm surprised the founders did not specify such a right in the 2nd amendment. Unless citizen militias were supposed to be national constitutional carry.
Escape_From_Reddit ago
Because they never intended for individual gun ownership outside the context of a militia. People who quote the 2nd Amendment rarely quote the whole text, for a reason.
Tallest_Skil ago
They did specifiy it, you fucking idiot.
THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
SparklingWiggle ago
The 9th circuit ruled Hawaii cannot deny the right to open carry. I think we are getting close.
Tallest_Skil ago
There’s no ‘close’; we already HAVE that right.
l_voated_today ago
"can not be infringed"
Doesn't get a lot clearer than that.
QXQ ago
They did.
States shouldn't have the ability to overpower federal law according to the Constitution. It just takes a lawsuit against CA making it to the Supreme Court with the right judges.
Plavonica ago
Ain't gonna happen. But a man can dream...
Jimbosprinkles ago
it's alright bro jesus is gonna come back and we're all gonna go to heaven LOL
watts2db ago
indeed this is what the real issue is
Tallest_Skil ago
No, white genocide is the only real issue. Kavanaugh supports it explicitly through rulings and his own hiring processes.
watts2db ago
interesting... but whats the alternative?
Tallest_Skil ago
Literally grabbing your literal guns and literally killing these people. Do it or you will always lose.
Salicaz ago
The tv told them.
KikesDidJFK ago
Talmud Vision?
YoHomie ago
Because Twinkies motherfucker.
gh0sth4ck3d ago
Cause the average American has no clue how their own government works, let alone the SCOTUS.
NoTrueScotsman ago
Funny how they weren't taught that in their government-run schools...
gh0sth4ck3d ago
Well a significant part of the government's power is the people's ignorance of it's workings.
NoTrueScotsman ago
Thoroughly true. I can't find the actual quote, but I've seen it said here before: the government still never teach you what you need to know to overthrow it.
Sublumoc ago
They need some Schoolhouse Rock.
RedditSureDoesSuck ago
Well now the faggots make shit like this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6LZ8G992pA
Sublumoc ago
Ugh... The cringe... I think SNL had one a few years ago that was actually somewhat decent called "I'm just an Executive Order".
RedditSureDoesSuck ago
Yeah, if you search on youtube it gives you a ton of them. Of course they're great parody fodder, but when the libs start getting preachy with them it just makes you want to puke.
SurfinMindWaves ago
The same reason people believed that Trump was sending minions to gather up brown people and throw them into cages.
xenoPsychologist ago
those democrats are so optimistic. i simply dont have the faith in humanity left over to think something so beneficial to society could ever happen.
harry_nash ago
It's just one of several red herrings to thwart Justice Kavanaugh's confirmation.
RedditSureDoesSuck ago
So much this. The amount of distraction was mind-goggling. Wait, is Kavanaugh on trial for something? Look over there! I kept wanting someone to say "hellooo, can we focus please".
dan_k ago
It's dems gaslighting their minions.
You have to believe irrational things to do irrational acts.
Kannibal ago
every demagogue gaslights their minions.
Fjord ago
Because they want people who don't understand how the courts work to be afraid enough to vote for them
BlackRifleCoffeeCo ago
Because people are gullible, and all they want is hope.
KosherHiveKicker ago
Because ((( The Media )) tells Americans it for months on a daily basis.
Which is the exact same way like ((( They ))) told us supporting "The Patriot Act" was patriotic.
Plavonica ago
Jesus what a shit-show that was.
Deplorable_J_Covfefe ago
It's more important that Planned Parenthood gets no more $$$ from the taxpayers.
lord_nougat ago
Hope?!
KikesDidJFK ago
Hope 卐
elitch2 ago
They're projecting. It's what they most care about.
Makes you wonder why, eh?
SquarebobSpongebutt ago
Gotta get people worked up to vote somehow. When you have no useful ideas lies and outrage will work fine.
oddjob ago
It's worked for the democrats and the republicans in the past, why not now?
VoutGuy ago
I don't see it as working at all.
SquarebobSpongebutt ago
You don't know enough liberals. Especially female ones. All I am hearing from them is how they have to vote to protect women from the evil men who want to take away their right to their own bodies. Complaining about how Trump and the Supreme Court will now allow them to be raped and force them to carry the babies to term. They know nothing about logic or how any of this works at all.
truth_lurker ago
Doesn't it seem somewhat irrational that all these women think every man wants to rape them? I've never heard something so insane.
SquarebobSpongebutt ago
They 100% believe rape is about power alone and sex is just the method used to display that power. So it just makes sense that the patriarchy would use it to subjugate women.
truth_lurker ago
I must be too sheltered. Lol
Deplorable_J_Covfefe ago
When gash acts up this way, I see the wisdom in denying them the vote. All emotion and no reason. Repeal Amendment 19!
SquarebobSpongebutt ago
And the men who say the same kind of shit? Should we take the vote away from all men because of them?
SukkhaMadiqqa ago
A few states have recently tried limiting availability or number of Planned Parenthood centers. A challenge to such efforts could make it up through the courts.
somethingsgottagive ago
If only they were just killing babies people might not be so quick to shutting them down.
http://magaimg.net/img/6dy3.png
middle_path ago
I get that, but the supreme Court (correct me if I'm wrong) can't just undo previous rulings.
thelma ago
Sure they can. Why do you think that they cannot ?
Where did you go to school ? Stupidtown USA ?
SusiAngelArtist ago
I think they are talking about "surgically excising" certain parts of the ruling. There was recent discussion that from Susan Collins, right? Roe V Wade included elements that made human trafficking easier - moving minors across borders, or so I read. It had a nefarious purpose that those of us (recovering Democrats) didn't see. I also see that the next nominee to be cued up is "unapologetically pro-life" - so THAT will be interesting.
laserpewpewpewpew ago
Wait baby murdering had a nefarious consequence? Hold the phone
SusiAngelArtist ago
Sorry. I was thinking with my old liberal democrat mindset. What I mean is that at the top of the swamp - they don't care about fetuses at any age - they care about trafficking human beings to make money off of them. Through fetal tissue in research or cosmetics or food, etc. Supplying the pedophile elite. THAT is a little bit more nefarious than a young woman who found herself pregnant and needs a legal protection to retain her right to do with it what she wants. Its going to remain a complex issue. But it needs to be included in the overall dark swamp of human slavery, trafficking, and murder.
slwsnowman40 ago
Yes it can, it did it with slavery. I think it also did it with the Death Penalty too, but I'm not sure. There's several times where the court changed its previous precedent.
Martenzo ago
Nope. The big SCOTUS decision on slavery (Dredd Scott v. Sandford) wasn't overturned Supreme Court itself. It was abrogated by constitutional amendment. Difference being, in the former case the supreme court just changes the practical application and interpretation of the law. In the latter case, changes to the law itself make the earlier decision inapplicable.
MaxVieuxlieu ago
You're literally correct but they can definitely overturn things. The sticking point is that a case has to make its way up to the Supreme Court that can overturn the case. But people can openly defy a previous ruling if they think the Court will agree with them. The other thing is that existing cases can be re-framed to implicate Roe v. Wade more directly if they don't already.
For instance there are currently cases throughout the court system that are arguing for some kind of extension of the rights set forth in Roe v. Wade. So if that case makes it to the Supreme Court, they can say : "Not only do we decline to extend Roe v. Wade but we feel that the case was improperly decided and should be completely overturned." Doing so would be somewhat unprecedented depending on how tangential the relationship between the issues is. But they are within their power to do so.
NakedWarrior ago
You aren't wrong and people don't understand how law works. Even if Roe vs Wade was repealed, abortion would just go back to being a state level law. I'm guessing you'd have a few of the bible states who would enact stricter abortion laws , but most states would still have it legal and worse case scenario you might have to travel a little further to have an abortion. Also, I don't know what all this screaming about taking away birth control, that has nothing to do with Roe vs Wade, unless your choice of birth control is abortion. The Dems were using all this as fearmongering to rile women up - well the really dumb ones anyway. The real reason they were against Kavanaugh is because Repubs now have the swing vote...as anyone with a working brain already knew at the beginning of all this madness.
NINJA26DARK ago
I don't understand why women want to murder their children so badly. (Monsters)
NoTrueScotsman ago
Most women have become convinced that their greatest duty to society is to have a career and to be "sexually liberated", and if they don't, they are betraying all women and their entire civilization. As such, children are an impediment to their duty, and they've been convinced that a baby isn't a baby until is born, so they generally consider abortion to be little worse than birth control.
Basically, women are generally brainwashed and insulated from truths that would induce them to behave appropriately. Women are easily led by social norms, so college bubbles, and television and other media that can create a false sense of social consensus have been devastatingly effective.
475677 ago
Women don't want to go around committing infanticide as they're biologically driven to take care of their offpsring. That said they consider a child a huge investment and therefor an unwanted or unplanned one a huge fucking mistake on their part that needs to be dealt with. It used to be a case of sucking it up and knowing there's no way out but with the advent of easy access to safe abortions they harped on about it being their body, their choice and made it entirely an issue about their personal freedoms completely ignoring the oppositions arguments about it being medicinal murder. They've since convinced themselves that it's merely a clump of cells that even in the later allowable stages can't possibly have feeling so now we're the ones who have lost our moral compass for wanting them to take responsibility for getting pregnant in the first place. They truly see is as such a morally reprehensible issue to go against that it's akin to making women collectively go back to being property controlled by men or even worse a faceless government that now considers them nothing more than baby making factories.
So to women repealing easy access to abortion is the same as making them slaves and they will literally fight to the bitter end to retain what they see as their hard earned right to kill their unwanted babies. I can see where they're coming from but since we can't easily put an end to it if it were up to me we'd make the only access they have to abortions funded wholly by the tax payer but it comes at the cost of irreversible sterilization. Baby killers, by their own admission no less, have no place in being parents and it would make those on the wall most likely keep their kid instead of completely destroying their future. Also the niggers would eat that shit up and decimate themselves.
laserpewpewpewpew ago
Disgusting beyond words that they justify murder of babies and actually have the gall to think they have the moral high ground. Society is sick, sick, sick in the collective head.
riffwraff ago
Women are hysterical and stupid, and they only get motivated to vote when the "right" to murder their babies is on the line.
SukkhaMadiqqa ago
They can. A lot of times it's due to times changing, different circumstances, etc. Here's a listing of overturned rulings.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions
Martenzo ago
They can overturn decision, yes, but they can't just spontaneously come together to start overturning things. They need to have a relevant case brought in front of them first. Until a case relevant to Roe v. Wade reaches the supreme court, they can't really do anything about it.
thelma ago
Sure they can. They can have a parking ticket case and then overturn Roe if they wanted to. Now, its not done. But nothing precludes them from doing so.
ThisWeirdWeirdWorld ago
Not only that, but if you read the decisions the laws had shifted or other precedents had been set since the first decisions that influenced the overturns. It's not like they happened in a vacuum, the legal situation had changed.
middle_path ago
Wow, TIL.
Skeeterherd ago
It's on page 3 of their stale playbook