Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

The decision of the Roe V Wade yesterday by the SCOTUS should be very welcome to all democrats and activists. I is a milestone in getting exactly what they have been demanding for decades. They want Democracy. SCOTUS yesterday gave the democrats and activists exactly that, democracy.
The decision in no way bans any a******n in the decision. Not once does it say anywhere that a******n is banned as i***ts are trying to say.
What SCOTUS did say is let the majority rule on this topic where they live. Majority rule is the one of many mantras of democrats and activists. Well they got the opportunity to regain that majority rule with this decision.
So they must praise the wisdom and greatness of the SCOTUS for listening to them and returning majority rule to the democrats and activists in all their communities.

anotherview Loc: California

Alternatively, the Court found on review no language in the Constitution supporting a right to a******n.

Apparently, the Court could later find on review no language in the Constitution supporting the right to marriage of two homosexuals of the same g****r.

Strong and persistent views oppose a right to a******n and and to homosexual marriage.

The Court has made a turn more toward the middle, away from the extreme rulings of the past, leaving such to the states to decide on their terms.

This Court position serves the interests of the states over the interests of the central government. That is the central issue here.

This onlooker believes that females should enjoy the option of a******n on demand.

As well, nothing should stand in the way of homosexual marriage, although this condition deviates from the natural norm. This onlooker has adopted this opinion in light of the profound need of humans for companionship, friendship, and a loving relationship, regardless of sexual orientation. Thus, this pairing of homosexuals appeals to our humanity, only this condition does not exist in the Constitution. Hence, the states may decide this matter.

We find ourselves in the domain of a large dynamic: How much diversity can unity tolerate?

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

As stated.
Let the people decide by the democratic process so loved by the democrats as to how much diversity will be tolerated.
Is this not the majority rule that is so craved by democrats?

pendennis

I fail to see how anyone can believe that the reversal of Roe, would somehow invite future reversals of birth control, same-sex marriage, or inter-racial marriage.

Pages 71-72 (quoted above) reference one of three instances where the justices have distinguished between those rights and the pseudo-right of a******n.

We have an attorney general in Michigan who is so rabidly pro-a******n, that she stood up in front of cameras yesterday, and insisted the foregoing privacy rights would be revisited.

alberio Loc: Casa Grande AZ

Roe vs Wade was overturned because it was unconstitutional from it inception, not because it would stop a******ns. The individual states can and should make their own laws regarding a******n rights. Any other law similar to this should be overturned.

anotherview Loc: California

Again, the U.S. Congress could codify the legal right to a******n on demand. This action could outlaw contrary state law.

pendennis

Afraid you just don't get it. The Supreme Court ruled that codification of a******n law lay with the several states, not Congress. The Constitution clearly does not mention a******n in its body. Neither does it mention murder, robbery, assault, etc. Those were intentionally left out, because those torts and crimes are the purview of the states. See the 9th and 10th Amendments. And read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist writings. They explain it very well.

The rantings of Congress people are just that. They know that, and they're trolling for v**es, nothing more.

dougbev3 Loc: Pueblo, Colorado

If you were a child whose mother never wanted you, how do you think your life would be?

pendennis

Non-sequitur.

Evidently your mother didn't believe in a******n.

Jtittsworth Loc: Tampa

The people protesting are the same ones that a few months ago couldn’t identify what a women was.

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Wyantry Loc: SW Colorado

Bingo! You nailed that one!
This sort of decision should have been decide by THE PEOPLE living in the individual states — true democracy at work! Just what the activists, liberals and democrats have been demanding—democracy in action!

Now local and state politicians will be held accountable by their electing populace.
Now THEY will be responsible
— they can no longer blame “The Government”
— they have BECOME the Government!

I predict some interesting changes in the political make-up in several state legislatures.
I doubt the ‘professional politicians’ will be overjoyed by that!

anotherview Loc: California

I found this piece on the Internet: "In simple terms, to codify something means to enshrine a right or a rule into a formal systematic code. It could be done through an act of Congress in the form of a federal law. Similarly, state legislatures can codify rights by enacting laws."

(found at: https://cobbcountycourier.com/2022/06/what-would-it-mean-to-codify-roe-into-law-and-is-there-any-chance-of-that-happening/)

pendennis

The Supreme Court has ruled that a******n is an issue for the states, not the Federal government. Any attempt at codifying a******n rights through Congress would likely be unconstitutional.

And one has to remind one's self. Roe was in place for about fifty years. And in that time, the Dimms have controlled both houses far more than Republicans. So why didn't the Dimms codify it as insurance against reversal by the Supreme Court?

The simple answer is that the Dimms believed in their own infallibility. They never believed that Conservatives would ever control the court. They also got used to activist courts making law from the bench. Schumer and Pelosi can grumble, rant, and rave all they want, but they've been handed a devastating defeat. And there's not likely anything they can do. The state legislatures are usually a bit more conservative; California, New York, and some others are the exception, rather than the rule. Republicans control 30 state legislatures, to the Dimms 18.

Now, if the 17th Amendment were reversed, the Republicans would have a near bullet proof majority in the Senate. The way the Constitution was originally written, the state legislatures appointed the Senators.

anotherview Loc: California

I note that your first two sentences contradict the text of the linked source.

What will happen going forward since the Court ruling? No doubt, some states will simply pass legislation codifying a legal right to a******n on demand. Some states will ban a******n. A legal split will ensue, with heat from both sides not unlike before the ruling.