Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
Political Chat Rooms
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Are Democrats using Dobbs precedent as a scare tactic?
Are Democrats using Dobbs precedent as a scare tactic?
By Monderegal
15 Jul 2022 12:26 pm in No Holds Barred Political Forum
15 Jul 2022 12:26 pm
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.
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.
15 Jul 2022 12:51 pm
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.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.
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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 2:49 pm
Why would this court stop at Dobbs?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.
15 Jul 2022 3:05 pm
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.
15 Jul 2022 3:06 pm
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.
15 Jul 2022 3:08 pm
Can we include a 2 week stay at the Mexican Rapist Gulag?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.
Where they have to carry 3 5lb bags of flour representing triplet innocents.
15 Jul 2022 3:09 pm
Clarence already suggested they are "on the table"..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.
15 Jul 2022 3:13 pm
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.Blackvegetable » 15 Jul 2022, 3:09 pm » wrote: ↑ Clarence already suggested they are "on the table"..
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
15 Jul 2022 3:24 pm
Explain how "privacy" is so essential / sacrificed here...?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.
15 Jul 2022 3:58 pm
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.
15 Jul 2022 4:01 pm
Oh. I thought you would be capable of telling me right off the cuff what you are so worried about.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.
Or maybe not...?
15 Jul 2022 4:31 pm
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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 4:33 pm
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.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.
"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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 4:33 pm
No questions, dick sucker.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.
"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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 4:34 pm
Next thing ya know, they will try to forcibly vax people.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.
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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 4:35 pm
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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 4:38 pm
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.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.
Nothing is easier than defending the status quo.
15 Jul 2022 4:44 pm
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?
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?
15 Jul 2022 8:11 pm
Why would I bother? You are a nobody and you have nothing to offer, other than constantly changing names and stupid rightwing blather.Cucurbitaceaeophobia » 15 Jul 2022, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑ I want you to come to my home and attempt it.. Yes you!
16 Jul 2022 12:32 am
Which bridge do you have your tent set up under this week?Cucurbitaceaeophobia » 15 Jul 2022, 3:10 pm » wrote: ↑ I want you to come to my home and attempt it.. Yes you!
Who is online
In total there are 2750 users online :: 8 registered, 13 bots, and 2729 guests
Registered users: Johnny You, righteous, Chiseler151, jerra b, murdock, Blackvegetable., LowIQTrash, Cannonpointer
Bots: app.hypefactors.com, CriteoBot, Mediapartners-Google, proximic, ADmantX, Moblie Safari, Applebot, YandexBot, semantic-visions.com, linkfluence.com, bingbot, Googlebot, curl/7