Are Democrats using Dobbs precedent as a scare tactic?

User avatar
By Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 12:26 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
1 2
User avatar
Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 12:26 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
1,231 posts
We all know that the Dobbs decision overruled the long standing precedent of Roe v. Wade. The strange thing about the decision is that the justices made specific note that the decision applied to abortion only. That raises a lot of interesting questions.
First, does the decision really have a legal basis due to that note? Also, legally the right to privacy also applies to rulings on a number of issues. LGBT rights, contraception, and interracial marriage to name a few. Is this really a slippery slope? Or is this just a tactic being used by the Democrats to bring social progressives to the voting booth? This is an interesting note in the logic of the decision.
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 12:51 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 12:26 pm » wrote: We all know that the Dobbs decision overruled the long standing precedent of Roe v. Wade. The strange thing about the decision is that the justices made specific note that the decision applied to abortion only. That raises a lot of interesting questions.
First, does the decision really have a legal basis due to that note? Also, legally the right to privacy also applies to rulings on a number of issues. LGBT rights, contraception, and interracial marriage to name a few. Is this really a slippery slope? Or is this just a tactic being used by the Democrats to bring social progressives to the voting booth? This is an interesting note in the logic of the decision.
It could be a way of covering up the low pregnancy rates expected from the vax. Letting clinics shut down orgnically would give those calling out the population control measure ammunition. 

But it very likely is what you suggest - a way of keeping the parties from falling apart. And make no mistake - if EITHER party fails, they both fail. They need each other as straw men, since neither party actually represents voters.
 
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Blackvegetable
15 Jul 2022 2:49 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
36,357 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 12:26 pm » wrote: We all know that the Dobbs decision overruled the long standing precedent of Roe v. Wade. The strange thing about the decision is that the justices made specific note that the decision applied to abortion only. That raises a lot of interesting questions.
First, does the decision really have a legal basis due to that note? Also, legally the right to privacy also applies to rulings on a number of issues. LGBT rights, contraception, and interracial marriage to name a few. Is this really a slippery slope? Or is this just a tactic being used by the Democrats to bring social progressives to the voting booth? This is an interesting note in the logic of the decision.
Why would this court stop at Dobbs?


 
User avatar
Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 3:05 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
1,231 posts
Blackvegetable » 15 Jul 2022, 2:49 pm » wrote: Why would this court stop at Dobbs?

That is the question. The legal basis for Roe also set precedent for a number of privacy rights.
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
User avatar
Xavier_Onassis
15 Jul 2022 3:06 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
4,999 posts
Blackvegetable » 15 Jul 2022, 2:49 pm » wrote: Why would this court stop at Dobbs?
I would speculate that they realize that there might be a very serious movement to pull each and every of those that voted for the ability of states to ban contraceptives, same sex marriages and sodomy laws out of their homes, dip them in tar roll them in feathers and run them out of town on a rail.

Image
 
User avatar
Blackvegetable
15 Jul 2022 3:08 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
36,357 posts
Xavier_Onassis » 15 Jul 2022, 3:06 pm » wrote: I would speculate that they realize that there might be a very serious movement to pull each and every of those that voted for the ability of states to ban contraceptives, same sex marriages and sodomy laws out of their homes, dip them in tar roll them in feathers and run them out of town on a rail.

Image
Can we include a 2 week stay at the Mexican Rapist Gulag?

Where they have to carry 3 5lb bags of flour representing triplet innocents.
 
User avatar
Blackvegetable
15 Jul 2022 3:09 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
36,357 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 3:05 pm » wrote: That is the question. The legal basis for Roe also set precedent for a number of privacy rights.
Clarence already suggested they are "on the table"..
User avatar
Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 3:13 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
1,231 posts
Blackvegetable » 15 Jul 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: Clarence already suggested they are "on the table"..
Alito's opinion for the majority of five justices was that abortion is not like other privacy rights. Still, if you can delink abortion from privacy, other decisions can also be removed under that precedent. At least that is the Democratic argument and it has some validity.
 
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
User avatar
*GHETTO BLASTER
15 Jul 2022 3:24 pm
User avatar
      
12,724 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 3:05 pm » wrote: That is the question. The legal basis for Roe also set precedent for a number of privacy rights.
Explain how "privacy" is so essential / sacrificed  here...?
 
User avatar
Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 3:58 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
1,231 posts
GHETTOBLASTER » 15 Jul 2022, 3:24 pm » wrote: Explain how "privacy" is so essential / sacrificed  here...?

I'm not a lawyer but apparently it is an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. It still is a little controversial as a legal theory.
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
User avatar
*GHETTO BLASTER
15 Jul 2022 4:01 pm
User avatar
      
12,724 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 3:58 pm » wrote: I'm not a lawyer but apparently it is an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. It still is a little controversial as a legal theory.
Oh. I thought you would be capable of telling me right off the cuff what you are so worried about.
Or maybe not...? :rolleyes:  
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 4:31 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Blackvegetable » 15 Jul 2022, 2:49 pm » wrote: Why would this court stop at Dobbs?

No questions, dick sucker.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 4:33 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Xavier_Onassis » 15 Jul 2022, 3:06 pm » wrote: I would speculate that they realize that there might be a very serious movement to pull each and every of those that voted for the ability of states to ban contraceptives, same sex marriages and sodomy laws out of their homes, dip them in tar roll them in feathers and run them out of town on a rail.
 
Nah. If you dick suckers didn't start a rebellion with your tranny story hour, pedophile, there's no fight left in the American public. 
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 4:33 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Blackvegetable » 15 Jul 2022, 3:08 pm » wrote: Can we include a 2 week stay at the Mexican Rapist Gulag?

Where they have to carry 3 5lb bags of flour representing triplet innocents.
No questions, dick sucker.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 4:34 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 3:13 pm » wrote: Alito's opinion for the majority of five justices was that abortion is not like other privacy rights. Still, if you can delink abortion from privacy, other decisions can also be removed under that precedent. At least that is the Democratic argument and it has some validity.
Next thing ya know, they will try to forcibly vax people. 


Oh, wait. The queers who are crying about privacy just did that.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 4:35 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 3:58 pm » wrote: I'm not a lawyer but apparently it is an interpretation of the fourteenth amendment to the constitution. It still is a little controversial as a legal theory.

If it's privacy, it's the fourth. The fourteenth is more of a catch-all. It says that any right one has, all have. 
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 4:38 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
1,231 posts
Cannonpointer » 15 Jul 2022, 4:35 pm » wrote: If it's privacy, it's the fourth. The fourteenth is more of a catch-all. It says that any right one has, all have.
I think you might be right about that.However, I think some lawyers would argue the fourteenth when it comes to abortion. I think that was the amendment behind the original Roe decision but I don't really have time to do endless internet research right now.
 
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
User avatar
Cannonpointer
15 Jul 2022 4:44 pm
User avatar
98% Macho Man
98% Macho Man
35,998 posts
Monderegal » 15 Jul 2022, 4:38 pm » wrote: I think you might be right about that.However, I think some lawyers would argue the fourteenth when it comes to abortion. I think that was the amendment behind the original Roe decision but I don't really have time to do endless internet research right now.

It's moot now, anyway. Roe ain't a thing.
"Because I SAY I am" is fallacy, not science

You cannot betray me - only yourself, to me.

Who cuts off your dick is not your friend

An opinion you won't defend is not yours. It's someone else's.

Humanity's Law of the Jungle: Survival NOT of the fittest, but of the tribe.

When peeing in the pool, stand on the edge.

Only religions declare heresy; only lies require protection.


If gender is not sex, why should a gender claim change what sex you shower with?
User avatar
Xavier_Onassis
15 Jul 2022 8:11 pm
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
4,999 posts
Cucurbitaceaeophobia » 15 Jul 2022, 3:10 pm » wrote: I want you to come to my home and attempt it.. Yes you!
Why would I bother? You are a nobody and you have nothing to offer, other than constantly changing names and stupid rightwing blather.
User avatar
Squatchman
16 Jul 2022 12:32 am
User avatar
Child Groomer, Sexual Predator
7,022 posts
Cucurbitaceaeophobia » 15 Jul 2022, 3:10 pm » wrote: I want you to come to my home and attempt it.. Yes you!
  Which bridge do you have your tent set up under this week?
 
1 2

Who is online

In total there are 2750 users online :: 8 registered, 13 bots, and 2729 guests
Bots: app.hypefactors.com, CriteoBot, Mediapartners-Google, proximic, ADmantX, Moblie Safari, Applebot, YandexBot, semantic-visions.com, linkfluence.com, bingbot, Googlebot, curl/7
Updated 3 minutes ago
© 2012-2025 Liberal Forum