Roe vs. Wade wobbling

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

If SCOTUS attempts to do away with contraception...

Peter,

Why would SCOTUS do that?

SCOTUS didn't get rid of abortion.

So why would it get rid of contraception?

Michael

[Peter]

45 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

So why would it get rid of contraception?

I am not sure, but I think that was mainly attributed to Clarence Thomas or his wife.

This is a bit of a repeat, but most doctors and associations involved with prenatal care do not see Rand’s stance as humane or scientific. She totally misses the “time line” they use to judge the situation. At some point the protoplasm begins to think and that is a cornerstone of humanity.

Source: "Ayn Rand and the World She Made" by Anne Heller, p.320-321 , Oct 27, 2009

1968: Abortion is a moral right; an embryo has no rights. Rand spoke plainly and forcefully against state governments' bans on abortion. 'Abortion is a moral right--which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved,' she told an audience of 1,500 people at the Ford Hall Forum, five years before the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973 and in Massachusetts, in which abortion was then illegal. 'An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being,' she declared."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 minutes ago, Peter said:

I am not sure, but I think that was mainly attributed to Clarence Thomas or his wife.

Peter,

Why not attribute it to, say, Nancy Pelosi or Jake Sullivan or Rachel Maddow or Politico or, hell, even someone like Anthony Weiner attributing it to Clarence Thomas or his wife?

Why?

Because that idea is not within the realm of reality. 

I have no doubt whatsoever that neither Clarence Thomas nor his wife would be anything but appalled by a SCOTUS decision to ban contraception.

It's true that he did mention something about SCOTUS and contraception, etc., in his decision, but he was basically saying SCOTUS needs to butt out of contraception, gay marriage and that sort of thing. SCOTUS needs to leave it alone.

Then the intellectual whore-mongering started. The pearl-clutching fake news media started yelling that he wanted to ban contraception, gay marriage, etc.. through SCOTUS.

Clarence Thomas and his wife believe in freedom. Unlike the authoritarians and dictator-wannabes in the establishment.

 

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton thinks Clarence Thomas is, and always has been, the stereotypical angry black man (see here). Why, she even went to school with him, so she knows. She says so. 

What's worse, in trying to tag him with being a conveyor of dog-whistles, she is clueless (or maybe not) at how despicably racist she comes off.

Clarence Thomas should be afforded the same considerations as those given to white people. Hillary Clinton thinks otherwise.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Why not attribute it to, say, Nancy Pelosi or Jake Sullivan or Rachel Maddow or Politico or, hell, even someone like Anthony Weiner attributing it to Clarence Thomas or his wife?

"Don't you know that I heard it through the grape viiiiine..."

[anthony]

"In this essay, I warned that while I was pro-choice, I also recognized that the death of a fetus is a real death, and that an abortion always represents a loss'; that we as feminists risked becoming increasingly hard-hearted and soulless if we continued to embrace a discourse in which a fetus was merely “a clump of cells”, if we persisted in pretending that abortion was spiritually meaningless, and if we continued to posit that a second- or even third trimester abortions were nothing more bloody or catastrophic than “personal choices”."[Wolf]

Trust Naomi to extract the critical nuances. I contested ARI's Ben Bayer ("Abortion should be Legal until Birth") on this very point Naomi Wolf expounds. It's not moral, if it were ever one's right, to dispose of a fully formed, active-brained, "baby in waiting", certainly by a rational ethics and by any other ethics. It is the personal loss of an actual being and value, no more a potential.

Advocating the right to abortions until birth ¬weakened¬ his moral argument for abortion, I maintained. (And his bringing in Rand like some SJW activist, to justify the moral argument for late abortion, on which she said nothing, is taking a great liberty).

A sane woman of self-worth, feminist or no, would be disgusted at the prospect, "spiritually" and selfishly.

Bayer the fanatic, of course praises "Shouting out your abortion!" (Stick it to the conservatives).

[ThatGuy]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

And his bringing in Rand like some SJW activist, to justify the moral argument for late abortion, on which she said nothing, is taking a great liberty).

Rand actually did say something about it: She didn't support it:

As quoted from AYN RAND ANSWERS: THE BEST OF HER Q&A (I'll leave it for others to contest the wording, if need be, per the actual transcripts):

 

Q: "Does an unborn child have any rights with regard to abortion? "

A: No. I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute—when a baby is formed—is a different issue.)

Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 17). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Q: "How do you define a human being? What are your thoughts on the morality of abortion? "

A: A human being is a living entity; life starts at birth. An embryo is a potential human being. You might argue that medically an embryo is alive at six to eight months. I don’t know. But no woman in her right mind would have an abortion that late; it’s very dangerous for her. So nature is consistent with the interests of both.

Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 125). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Q: "When does a human organism become an individual? At conception, at birth, or at some other time? "

A: At birth. And let me answer the unstated context of your question, because it’s obvious. The fact of birth is an absolute—that is, up to that moment, the child is not an independent, living organism. It’s part of the body of its mother. But at birth, a child is an individual, and has the rights inherent in the nature of a human individual. Until the moment of birth, the child is physically the property of the mother. It is debated that at some time before birth the child becomes conscious. I don’t know; this is for science to determine. But what is not debatable is this: a human embryo does not even have the beginnings of a nervous system until a number of months (around three, I believe) into the pregnancy. At that point, the embryo is perhaps potentially conscious. And beyond this time, abortion becomes dangerous to the mother.

Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 126). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[ThatGuy]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Peter,

Why not attribute it to, say, Nancy Pelosi or Jake Sullivan or Rachel Maddow or Politico or, hell, even someone like Anthony Weiner attributing it to Clarence Thomas or his wife?

Why?

Because that idea is not within the realm of reality. 

I have no doubt whatsoever that neither Clarence Thomas nor his wife would be anything but appalled by a SCOTUS decision to ban contraception.

It's true that he did mention something about SCOTUS and contraception, etc., in his decision, but he was basically saying SCOTUS needs to butt out of contraception, gay marriage and that sort of thing. SCOTUS needs to leave it alone.

Then the intellectual whore-mongering started. The pearl-clutching fake news media started yelling that he wanted to ban contraception, gay marriage, etc.. through SCOTUS.

Clarence Thomas and his wife believe in freedom. Unlike the authoritarians and dictator-wannabes in the establishment.

 

Incidentally, Hillary Clinton thinks Clarence Thomas is, and always has been, the stereotypical angry black man (see here). Why, she even went to school with him, so she knows. She says so. 

What's worse, in trying to tag him with being a conveyor of dog-whistles, she is clueless (or maybe not) at how despicably racist she comes off.

Clarence Thomas should be afforded the same considerations as those given to white people. Hillary Clinton thinks otherwise.

Michael

What Thomas actually said (which, to me, is ambiguous enough to be taken either way):
 

"Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider contraception, gay marriage rulings"

"Clarence Thomas mentions Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell as examples of rulings that could be reconsidered"
 

(Exceprt)
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell," Thomas wrote in his concurring opinion. "Because any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous," […] we have a duty to "correct the error" established in those precedents."

Griswold v. Connecticut was a landmark 1965 case which ruled the use of contraception between two married individuals was a matter of privacy and constitutionally protected.

Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 dealt with homosexual sex between consenting parties, and Obergefell v. Hodges treaded the same territory in 2015 to rule gay marriage as a constitutionally protected right to privacy.

Thomas speculated that the overturning of Roe would provide a blueprint for revisiting years' worth of decisions that he says are "demonstrably erroneous."

"After overruling these demonstrably erroneous decisions, the question would remain whether other constitutional provisions guarantee the myriad rights that our substantive due process cases have generated," Thomas wrote.

Clarence Thomas says Supreme Court should reconsider contraception, gay marriage rulings

WWW.FOXNEWS.COM

---

Supreme Court Chief Justice Clarence Thomas in an opinion floated the possibility of reconsidering more landmark decisions after overturning...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

TG,

Quoting Clarence Thomas: "... any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous..."

Another way to say that is SCOTUS should butt out.

There is no due process for SCOTUS to decide on for these issues. Privacy as a right, for example, is not in the Constitution. 

I agree with Clarence Thomas. It's a good idea to fix this stuff. Otherwise, the left will keep trying to invent new "Constitutional rights" based on those rulings.

And we know where that ends, don't we? It doesn't end...

Michael

[ThatGuy]

29 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

TG,

Quoting Clarence Thomas: "... any substantive due process decision is "demonstrably erroneous..."

Another way to say that is SCOTUS should butt out.

There is no due process for SCOTUS to decide on for these issues. Privacy as a right, for example, is not in the Constitution. 

I agree with Clarence Thomas. It's a good idea to fix this stuff. Otherwise, the left will keep trying to invent new "Constitutional rights" based on those rulings.

And we know where that ends, don't we? It doesn't end...

Michael

Fair enough. (And I did see you mention this earlier.)
It did prompt me to look up, via Wikipedia, his history on the subject of gay marriage, to see what kind of stance he's taken in the past, and it does gel with what you're saying. One example, via Wiki:
 

In Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Thomas issued a one-page dissent in which he called the Texas statute prohibiting sodomy "uncommonly silly", a phrase originally used by Justice Potter Stewart. He then said that if he were a member of the Texas legislature he would vote to repeal the law, as it was not a worthwhile use of "law enforcement resources" to police private sexual behavior. But Thomas opined that the Constitution does not contain a right to privacy and therefore did not vote to strike the statute down. He saw the issue as a matter for states to decide for themselves.^[240]
 

 

Clarence Thomas - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

(Of course, the Rand/Objectivist position would oppose the "states rights" punt, as well, in favor of individual rights. So he'd be considered a "mixed bag" in that regard...

From Q&A: Rand on the individual vs. "states rights" re abortion:

Q: "Why do you support abortion?"

A: "Because I support individual rights, and no state, community, or individual has any right to tell a woman what to do with her life."

Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 126). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

and

Now, in the presidential race—just so you don’t think I’m evading—I am shamefully aware that President Ford compromised on this issue. Still, we have no choice. Mr. What’s-His-Name—Carter (I’m sorry, that wasn’t intentional)—isn’t better. He is so dangerous a power luster that one can only hope Ford will not carry out his mixed attitude on abortion. (It’s mixed because he says he recognizes the right of states to pass laws on abortion; but he is wrong: the right to abortion is in fact a fundamental constitutional right.) But Buckley is not mixed on this issue.

Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 67). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

[ThatGuy]

Incidentally, here's Rand on the Supreme Court and precendent:

Q: "What is the justification of judicial decisions based on precedents?"

A: The maintenance of a degree of continuity, and thus stability, among the country’s laws. But once a bad precedent is set, or an indefensible law is introduced, it is moral—particularly for the Supreme Court—to repeal it. Judges are not omniscient. [FHF 73]

Mayhew, Robert. Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q & A (p. 44). Penguin Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

TG,

Rand's legal outlook on rights was based on her definition of human being. She did not consider the unborn as a human being.

I heard somewhere, and I cannot remember where, that there is a fundamental difference between an issue like abortion and an issue like gay marriage.

With gay marriage, there are no victims. There are only consenting adults. But with abortion, there is a victim, even if one does not consider it human. There is death involved.

(And, for the life of me, I don't understand how one can consider the unborn as mere protoplasm, even in the early stages. Biology just doesn't allow for a change of species in the middle of a pregnancy.)

Rand said in your quote: "... just so you don’t think I’m evading." Well, as regards the life of the unborn, I do think she was evading.

I don't wish to repeat or perpetrate her mistake just because she was Ayn Rand. I have my own mind and my own evasions to deal with, thank you very much. I don't need to add hers to the mix. 

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

btw - Just look at the arguments Rand made about late term abortions being dangerous, about when consciousness appears and so on.

Does that sound like the correct identification of a human being or does that sound like pragmatism? Especially when she says science has to decide?

Sorry. I don't want to do this with Rand, but she is all over the place in her justification.

A human being is an entity with a specific nature. That nature is determined by biology, not by someone deciding whatever based on opinion at root...

Michael

[ThatGuy]

Hmmm...

George Soros: Supreme Court Justices Are ‘Enemies of Democracy’
 

Quote

 

Radical billionaire George Soros has issued a statement attacking the Supreme Court, the Republican Party, and President Trump, declaring them to be “domestic enemies of democracy.”

Soros blasted his opponents in a scathing July 4th op-ed on his propaganda site Project Syndicate.

“The American public has been alarmed and aroused by the US Supreme Court’s growing extremism,” Soros claims.

“But voters need to recognize the Court’s radical majority for what it is: part of a carefully laid plan to turn the US into a repressive regime.”

Since founding his influence-peddling organization “Open Society Foundations” in 1993, Soros has leveraged $32 billion in “donations.”

 

George Soros: Supreme Court Justices Are 'Enemies of Democracy'

SLAYNEWS.COM

---

Radical billionaire George Soros has issued a statement attacking the Supreme Court, the Republican Party, and President Trump, declaring...

 

[Peter]

Wow. And he’s from Texas too. Does he still identify as libertarian or conservative? Ted Cruz from Business Insider:  . . . Cruz also said there could be issues if the Supreme Court did overturn Obergefell with couples that have legally entered into same-sex marriages. "You've got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages, and it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages that had been entered into in accordance with the law," he said, adding that would be a factor that may prompt restraint from the court.

In a blurb I saw where Ben and Jennifer Lopez “might have” tied the knot. She apparently identified herself as Jennifer Affleck.  

[william.scherk]

21 hours ago, Peter said:

Ted Cruz from Business Insider:  . . . Cruz also said there could be issues if the Supreme Court did overturn Obergefell with couples that have legally entered into same-sex marriages. "You've got a ton of people who have entered into gay marriages, and it would be more than a little chaotic for the court to do something that somehow disrupted those marriages that had been entered into in accordance with the law," he said, adding that would be a factor that may prompt restraint from the court.

I caught part of a video via Gateway Pundit:

The notable part of Cruz's argument was him saying the Supreme Court decision was "clearly wrong." Well, okay, who is going to make sure the current court knows just how wrong they were and force a fresh decision that would then be "clearly right"?

The best part of gay marriage in Canada is that it is as intrinsically boring as non-gay marriage. Or Indian Weddings. Or full on charismatic Dominionist diet cult weddings, like Gwen and Joe's.  "All happy families are happy in the same way" is how I'd paraphrase it.  Like ... all the ingredients that make a bad Tennessee Romanichal wedding can be had for any wedding, at least in imagination. From experience I will tell you, Gay Weddings Are Sappy And Boring. Few screaming mothers or fisticuffs in the parking lots between maids of honour. 

 

Of course, the laugh will be on me if some suit presently pending inches up the docket and results in striking down Obergefell v Hodges. In which case the present justices will have an opinion that explains. 

What I want explained is "outside of religion, which can decide who gets its marriage blessings, and outside of moralistic frameworks, just who is harmed by gay marriage?" 

Up in socially-libertarian Canada, it's hard to see how those who care not for gay marriage could convince any party to add fresh laws against gay marriage as a plank. It's like 'fresh' abortion legislation. No law could pass out of the House.

And an additional problem with our version of "Obergefell" is that the Supreme Court decision up here was a legislation-trap.  Any attempt to side-run the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms meets the same kind of court, and forcing legislation "notwithstanding" the constitution means tearing a hole in the part of the constitution that people have become most fond of.

So up here, it's a case of Who Does That?  Who would why and how'd they campaign for futile legislation and social exclusion? Who would agitate about a right to a rite that a majority is no longer agitated about?

 

Edited July 18, 2022 by william.scherk
Style and scansion. Cruz mouthing off

[Peter]

4 hours ago, william.scherk said:

I caught part of a video via Gateway Pundit:

I took Ted Cruz's saying he did not want to overturn gay marriages at face value. 

Interestingly, here in Maryland, I just got several emails from conservative Dan Cox who is running for governor, and I told him something along the lines of my Ted Cruz quote. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

12 hours ago, william.scherk said:

The notable part of Cruz's argument was him saying the Supreme Court decision was "clearly wrong." Well, okay, who is going to make sure the current court knows just how wrong they were and force a fresh decision that would then be "clearly right"?

William,

The gist of your post is clearly wrong. That's what's wrong.

The Supreme Court does not rule by DECREE.

That's the issue Ted Cruz is addressing.

Sometimes in its judicial appreciation of cases, a DECREE from the high court sneaks in. Then later, the same SCOTUS overturns the DECREE and gets back to deciding what is in alignment with the Constitution or not.

Think of the following example, which should be able to be understood from your perspective. When SCOTUS determined by DECREE that a black person was not a citizen of the USA, as in the Dred Scott decision, due to the 3/5ths compromise and all kinds of things floating around at the time (ones we find weird today) due to slavery, the issue of black people being full citizens with right to vote finally got resolved by the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the Constitution.

Had the content of those Amendments only been a SCOTUS decision, a different set of SCOTUS Justices could have later reinstitute the 3/5ths compromise. Now they can't. To repeat, SCOTUS does not rule by DECREE. It rules on what is in alignment with the Constitution or not.

 

The issue with Cruz is not gay marriage per se (although I don't ever see him being a fan of it). It's the institution of gay marriage at the federal level by DECREE. There is no Constitutional basis for any federal ruling on same-sex marriage. I don't even think that concept was imaginable by the Founding Fathers to be able to put it into the Constitution. But SCOTUS essentially pulled Constitutional alignment out of their asses and made a DECREE dressed up as a court ruling (Obergefell v. Hodges).

If the US population wants gay marriage at the federal level, they need to make a gay marriage bill in Congress, have it pass and signed into law by the President. And even then, there might be court objections, so at that point, the law itself will be judged by SCOTUS as to whether it is in alignment with the Constitution. And if SCOTUS determines that it is not, then an Amendment to the Constitution needs to happen.

That's how it's done long-term.

Until that point, gay marriage is a states issue. And that is according to clear language in the constitution saying whatever is not enumerated as a federal power in the Constitution will be decided at the state level.

 

When SCOTUS makes decisions outside of the Constitution and tries to offer blah blah blah as the reasons something not in alignment with the Constitution is, that is essentially ruling by DECREE.

Notice that those DECREES get overturned over time.

Notice, also, that this does not have anything to do with whether gay marriage is good or bad. Frankly, I agree with you that it harms no one. But pretending this is the issue in American law does not make it so.

The issue is the push by certain kinds of people (those with an authoritarian or authoritarian-friendly bent) to use the USA government to rule by DECREE and not by law sanctioned by the citizens according to due process.

 

Finally, notice that all this legal stuff moves slowly, as programmed by the Founding Fathers. They knew tyrants can usurp the power of the Constitution quickly if they are allowed to do so. But they also knew people demand short-term solutions when they get ginned up.

So they made things flexible. Some rulings by DECREE are able to happen short-term, even when a President (or even SCOTUS) has a tyrannical side, but in order for such rulings to take effect long-term, there is a different process. Not DECREE. 

All short-term things can be overturned short-term when the opposite political persuasion gets power. Not so the long-term things. And the underlying standard for the long-term things is the Constitution, which has it's own standard for defining government powers--individual rights.

People who like democratic republics know this concept and thank their lucky stars for it. People who like kings have trouble with it.

Michael

[ThatGuy]

Democrats AOC, Omar, and others arrested during a pro-life protest.
You know, the same AOC that "feared for her life" during the 1/6 "Insurrection"...
 

Democrats including Pressley, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib arrested at abortion rights rally outside Supreme Court

THEHILL.COM

---

Multiple Democratic lawmakers were arrested at an abortion rights rally near the Capitol on Tuesday, less than one month after the Supreme...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

On 7/18/2022 at 7:37 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The Supreme Court does not rule by DECREE.

The assholes in the ruling class know this 100%, but still try to rule by DECREE. That's the only way they will expand their power to finally get rid of a democratic republic and move toward the authoritarian rule they so love.

Want proof?

Here's proof.

Here's how you're supposed to do it.

House Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill, Backed by 47 Republicans

House Passes Same-Sex Marriage Bill, Backed by 47 Republicans

WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM

---

The U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill to codify same-sex marriage into law. The Democrat-controlled lower ...

They're going about it this way, the right way, finally, and not seeking a legal technicality or other way to game the system.

They're doing this because that's the way they are supposed to do this. They've known all along. They just preferred to rule outside the law up to now. Then those bogus ways finally got blocked by the system.

 

As to the bill, will it pass or will it die. If it passes, will there be SCOTUS challenges making a Constitutional Amendment required?

Who knows?

But at least that's the way the law is supposed to happen. So the ruling class assholes, instead of focusing all their efforts on cheating, if they find this issue compelling, they should devote their efforts to doing it right.

Had they done that before, I believe this law would already be on the books. Now it's complicated by all the cheating that needs to be undone...

Michael

[ThatGuy]

3 hours ago, ThatGuy said:

Democrats AOC, Omar, and others arrested during a pro-life protest.
You know, the same AOC that "feared for her life" during the 1/6 "Insurrection"...
 

Democrats including Pressley, Omar, Ocasio-Cortez, Tlaib arrested at abortion rights rally outside Supreme Court

THEHILL.COM

---

Multiple Democratic lawmakers were arrested at an abortion rights rally near the Capitol on Tuesday, less than one month after the Supreme...

 

"Next, on AS THE WORM TURNS...the clot thickens..."
 

AOC fakes being handcuffed after arrest at abortion rights protest

NYPOST.COM

---

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was escorted away by a Capitol Police officer — along with fellow city Rep. Carolyn...

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And now an important message from the United States Ministry of Truth.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Everybody's getting in on this one.

AOC Sits In Invisible Police Car Awaiting Transport To Invisible Jail

AOC Sits In Invisible Police Car Awaiting Transport To Invisible Jail

BABYLONBEE.COM

---

WASHINGTON, D.C. — After a heroic protest at the Supreme Court, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spent the better part of three hours sitting in an invisible police car with her wrists bound by...

 

 

LOL...

Michael