Roe vs Wade Overturned

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, ChiGoose said:

It’s not an inalienable right if a legislature can take it away. 

I did t say it was an inalienable right. Look, I’m sure everyone could come up with something they would prefer be specified in the Constitution. There is a procedure for amendment, and that’s as it should be. We can’t go down the slippery slope of having judges get loosy goosey with the rules for obvious reasons. We are the government , and there’s no push to get the law into our bedrooms. It’s worrying over nothing. That whole example you gave was a simple case of someone who should have let a sleeping dog lie. They decided to get the law involved where they didn’t belong. The result was the officials said “ you want us involved with this nonsense we will get very involved ! “ Pretty amusing stuff but not something most people should be concerned about. 

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, LeviF said:

Expound on this. Many rights that people consider inalienable are taken away by various legislatures throughout the world every year. 

 

By definition, it's not an inalienable right if it can be taken away.

 

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

I did t say it was an inalienable right. Look, I’m sure everyone could come up with something they would prefer be specified in the Constitution. There is a procedure for amendment, and that’s as it should be. We can’t go down the slippery slope of having judges get loosy goosey with the rules for obvious reasons. We are the government , and there’s no push to get the law into our bedrooms. It’s worrying over nothing. That whole example you gave was a simple case of someone who should have let a sleeping dog lie. They decided to get the law involved where they didn’t belong. The result was the officials said “ you want us involved with this nonsense we will get very involved ! “ Pretty amusing stuff but not something most people should be concerned about. 

 

Part of the purpose of the constitution and the judiciary is to provide a check on the tyranny of the majority. If absolutely everything was left to popular vote, we could usher in some truly terrible things. Where exactly to draw the line between what a legislature can do and what it cannot is a place where reasonable people can (and do) disagree. But to say that everything not explicitly stated in the constitution should be up to the whims of the public means that we do not have a right to privacy. We just have privacy at the leisure of the current government.

 

Also, to say that "nobody is currently advocating for X, therefore people who can be harmed by X shouldn't worry" right after the Supreme Court says "there are no protections against X" is of little comfort to people who could be harmed by it.

 

Not only does Clarence Thomas think that Obergefell should be overturned, but half of the current conservative majority on SCOTUS dissented on that case (the other half were not yet on the Court). There is also a push by some conservative activists to undo gay marriage. Do you think it's unreasonable for married gay couples in red states to be concerned for the legal status of their relationship?

[DrW]

As somebody who is not a US citizen, I have questions regarding the legislative process. Let us assume that the House and Senate turn Republican in the November elections, and they pass a bill outlawing abortions. 

Case 1: Biden is still president and he does not sign the law. What can congress do to force him?

Case 2: Forward to 2024. The Republican candidate wins and becomes president. He (she) is presented with the bill outlawing abortions and signs it into law. The 2028 election is a complete blue sweep. Can the Democrats (congress/president) overrule the abortion ban? How does the legislative procedure work?   

 

I am aware that some of the scenarios are very unlikely. I just would like to know how the legislative process works.

 

Thanks 

Edited July 17, 2022 by DrW

[ChiGoose]

17 minutes ago, DrW said:

As somebody who is not a US citizen, I have questions regarding the legislative process. Let us assume that the House and Senate turn Republican in the November elections, and they pass a bill outlawing abortions. 

Case 1: Biden is still president and he does not sign the law. What can congress do to force him?

Case 2: Forward to 2024. The Republican candidate wins and becomes president. He (she) is presented with the bill outlawing abortions and signs it into law. The 2028 election is a complete blue sweep. Can the Democrats (congress/president) overrule the abortion ban? How does the legislative procedure work?   

 

I am aware that some of the scenarios are very unlikely. I just would like to know how the legislative process works.

 

Thanks 

Case 1: Congress would need a 2/3rds majority to override the veto. Both in the House and Senate. Otherwise, the bill fails and does not become law.

 

Case 2: Yes. If the GOP enacts an abortion ban in 2024, the Dems can override it in 2028. All the same legislative caveats apply to both laws: majority vote in the House, 60 votes in the senate (or filibuster override and 50 votes), and the president signs it into law.

 

Essentially, for a bill to become law, it needs to pass both the Senate and the House, and then be signed by the president. Currently, the Senate requires a 60% threshold to pass most legislation. 

[LeviF]

4 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

By definition, it's not an inalienable right if it can be taken away.

 

And when governments break that social contract? What then? Is it suddenly no longer “inalienable?” Or does the breaking of the social contract delegitimize the government in any meaningful way?

[BillStime]

7 minutes ago, LeviF said:

And when governments break that social contract? What then? Is it suddenly no longer “inalienable?” Or does the breaking of the social contract delegitimize the government in any meaningful way?

Why do you hate contraception?

[BillStime]

🎯😅😅😅

 

 

[Tiberius]

So Texas is sueing to stop doctors from giving abortions if the women's life is in danger? Well that pretty much says it all 

 

 

[SoCal Deek]

4 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So Texas is sueing to stop doctors from giving abortions if the women's life is in danger? Well that pretty much says it all 

 

 

I literally guarantee you that is not what they’re discussing….but then again I’m sure someone with ‘pro-privacy’ in her Twitter handle has no agenda….not. 

[Tiberius]

2 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

I literally guarantee you that is not what they’re discussing….but then again I’m sure someone with ‘pro-privacy’ in her Twitter handle has no agenda….not. 

Not discussing what? 

The Post reports that the Republican state attorney general “sued the Biden administration over federal rules that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies to save the life of the mother, even in states with near-total bans.”

 

[SoCal Deek]

15 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

 

By definition, it's not an inalienable right if it can be taken away.

 

 

Not exactly. The underlying concept is  that these rights don’t come from people; so neither people nor government can try to take them away. The were given to people by the Creator and will always find a way to rise to the surface. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Not exactly. The underlying concept is  that these rights don’t come from people; so neither people nor government can try to take them away. The were given to people by the Creator and will always find a way to rise to the surface. 

Ha ha, who? 

[SoCal Deek]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Not discussing what? 

The Post reports that the Republican state attorney general “sued the Biden administration over federal rules that require abortions be provided in medical emergencies to save the life of the mother, even in states with near-total bans.”

 

Did you ever think that anyone could walk into a clinic and claim their life was in danger? Or that a planned parenthood center wouldn’t just start writing that in every record? No….that would never happen! Just like every death was suddenly from Covid for the last two years. Follow the money!

1 minute ago, Tiberius said:

Ha ha, who? 

You know… the line that Uncle Joe can’t remember. The part about all men being CREATED equal. That part! 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

Did you ever think that anyone could walk into a clinic and claim their life was in danger? Or that a planned parenthood center wouldn’t just start writing that in every record? No….that would never happen! Just like every death was suddenly from Covid for the last two years. Follow the money!

So maybe she is lying, so let her die. And anyway, if Jesus wanted her to live, he'd save her, right? 

[SoCal Deek]

2 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

So maybe she is lying, so let her die. And anyway, if Jesus wanted her to live, he'd save her, right? 

There are already medical practice laws in place to take care of such things. Keep your blouse on. 

[Tiberius]

1 minute ago, SoCal Deek said:

There are already medical practice laws in place to take care of such things. Keep your blouse on. 

Jesus wore a dress, didn't he? 

 

Was it's God will that Trump lost in 2020? 

 

And what medical laws are in place? Why did Texas have to sue to make women's live less safe? 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

Jesus wore a dress, didn't he? 

 

Was it's God will that Trump lost in 2020? 

 

And what medical laws are in place? Why did Texas have to sue to make women's live less safe? 

And now you want to get into theology? There are medical practice laws in place for all sorts of things, such as assisted suicide, to make sure doctors aren’t just killing people under their care. The process will work itself out, through the legislative branch, where they’ll decide what unique statements need to be made surrounding abortion. Relax! Trust the process. 

[Tiberius]

Just now, SoCal Deek said:

And now you want to get into theology? There are medical practice laws in place for all sorts of things, such as assisted suicide, to make sure doctors aren’t just killing people under their care. The process will work itself out, through the legislative branch, where they’ll decide what unique statements need to be made surrounding abortion. Relax! Trust the process. 

So Texas shouldn't have sued then 

[BillStime]

12 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:

Did you ever think that anyone could walk into a clinic and claim their life was in danger? Or that a planned parenthood center wouldn’t just start writing that in every record? No….that would never happen! Just like every death was suddenly from Covid for the last two years. Follow the money!

You know… the line that Uncle Joe can’t remember. The part about all men being CREATED equal. That part! 

 

CREATED EQUAL?

 

[SoCal Deek]

Just now, Tiberius said:

So Texas shouldn't have sued then 

Maybe, and maybe not. I’m pretty sure that there'll be dozens of challenges to the progress made by the Court’s recent correction. Were you thinking there wouldn’t be? Relax! Trust the process.