Explain it to me like I'm five (Roe vs Wade overturned)

7,298 Views | 86 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by agracer
BMX Bandit
How long do you want to ignore this user?
He asked a question regarding who can bring suit (standing). "Anyone can bring suit" even if not literally anyone, gives a wrong answer to his question
Burpelson
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Abortion is states rights and all others fall either anumeratated or unenumerated. Really only 1 judge believes in states rights.
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BMX Bandit said:

He asked a question regarding who can bring suit (standing). "Anyone can bring suit" even if not literally anyone, gives a wrong answer to his question
LOL, lawyers!!!

The point is that while states have the right to define/legislate abortions, when that infringes on individual rights, the law can be challenged.

A baby that's actually born has individual rights. Killing that baby that has already been born is very much infringing on that child's rights. Since that child can't defend himself, I would think that there would be quite a large leeway given to prove standing.

Whatever. I'm not getting bogged down into semantics.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.

Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChoppinDs40 said:

It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.

Time to invest in more privatized prisons!


Lol, there is the concept out there thats kind of new, so you may not be aware.

It's called adoption.

Might want to google it.
ChoppinDs40
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Science Denier said:

ChoppinDs40 said:

It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.

Time to invest in more privatized prisons!


Lol, there is the concept out there thats kind of new, so you may not be aware.

It's called adoption.

Might want to google it.


lol yeah because you're first in line right now to start adopting crack and meth babies.
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChoppinDs40 said:

It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.

Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
18 years? Try 13 years. Inner cities gonna be like Central America. Ghettos are gonna start cranking out them babies.
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChoppinDs40 said:

It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.

Time to invest in more privatized prisons!
Oh and also people will point out some that became business moguls, athletes or famous musicians. But that's like 1 outta 10. 6 outta 10 of 'em gonna be gangbangers/crime.
Science Denier
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
ChoppinDs40 said:

Science Denier said:

ChoppinDs40 said:

It means 18 years from now we're going to have lots of fatherless heathens roaming the streets, uneducated and committing crimes. If their mothers didn't want to have them, probably don't know who their father is/was, I highly doubt they'll be raised to be productive members of society.

Time to invest in more privatized prisons!


Lol, there is the concept out there thats kind of new, so you may not be aware.

It's called adoption.

Might want to google it.


lol yeah because you're first in line right now to start adopting crack and meth babies.
How many of the babies killed are crack and meth babies? Curious as I've not seen that count.
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.
Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.
www.valuethemboth.com.

In 2019 the KS Supreme court ruled that an unlimited right to abortion was written into the 1869 State of Kansas Constitution which basically means any and all laws currently in effect limiting abortion in KS could potentially be ruled null and void.
B-1 83
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
GeorgiAg said:

NY, CA, OR, WA, C0 - abortions still legal

Basically SEC states - abortion will be illegal.


It's all a fiendish plot by SEC schools to create more 5* athletes.
5 star athletes with guns.
Being in TexAgs jail changes a man……..no, not really
GeorgiAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
B-1 83 said:

GeorgiAg said:

NY, CA, OR, WA, C0 - abortions still legal

Basically SEC states - abortion will be illegal.


It's all a fiendish plot by SEC schools to create more 5* athletes.
5 star athletes with guns.
I was looking for another gif, but his will do.

BTHOB
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.
Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.
www.valuethemboth.com.

In 2019 the KS Supreme court ruled that an unlimited right to abortion was written into the 1869 State of Kansas Constitution which basically means any and all laws currently in effect limiting abortion in KS could potentially be ruled null and void.


I think hawg was referring to federal laws and US Constitution…. Not state law and/or state constitution. In fact, that's what the latest SCOTUS ruling does: it gives states the ability to regulate it themselves, through legislation (including state constitutions).
Rattler12
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The inconvenience of raising a child that was eliminated by the convenience of having an abortion is still an available procedure but said person seeking said convenience may be inconvenienced by having to go to another state for said abortion as the SC put it back in the lap of the states. Therein lies the horror for those who inconveniently got pregnant because they conveniently never thought about birth control before the fact in order to not get pregnant in the first place
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BTHOB said:

agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

agracer said:

aggiehawg said:

_mpaul said:

aggiehawg said:

javajaws said:

Urban Ag said:

It simply means that the legality of performing an abortion is sent back to the states.
Well, the feds could pass legislation as well. But the key point here being that elected representatives get to decide if abortion is legal or not from now on...not SCOTUS.
I don't think a federal law attempting to protect abortion as a constitutional right would stand, under Dobbs.

They are free to try but it would be quickly challenged, fast tracked and struck down.
What part of Dobbs makes you think that?

10th Amendment part. Not in the Constitution itself? Goes back to the states. Not within the purview of the federal government.

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.
Yet the KS Supreme Court did just that in 2019.
Link? Context? No idea to which case you are referring.
www.valuethemboth.com.

In 2019 the KS Supreme court ruled that an unlimited right to abortion was written into the 1869 State of Kansas Constitution which basically means any and all laws currently in effect limiting abortion in KS could potentially be ruled null and void.


I think hawg was referring to federal laws and US Constitution…. Not state law and/or state constitution. In fact, that's what the latest SCOTUS ruling does: it gives states the ability to regulate it themselves, through legislation (including state constitutions).
From Hawg..
Quote:

Besides, separation of powers. Neither the legislative branch nor the Executive Branch (nor the judiciary for that matter) can create a Constitutional right out of thin air. Need to amend the Constitution itself.


I was referring to the KS Supreme court basically inventing a right to abortion in the State of KS out of thin air in their 2019 ruling.

But I get what you mean and I likely took hawg's post wrong.
aggiehawg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

I was referring to the KS Supreme court basically inventing a right to abortion in the State of KS out of thin air in their 2019 ruling.
The thing about thin air as a support for a legal ruling, it can go away with a puff.
agracer
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
aggiehawg said:

Quote:

I was referring to the KS Supreme court basically inventing a right to abortion in the State of KS out of thin air in their 2019 ruling.
The thing about thin air as a support for a legal ruling, it can go away with a puff.
no, KS has to pass a constitutional amendment to allow all current laws limiting abortion in KS legal again.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.