DEVELOPING, the US Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade (is it cry havoc?)

_{kairosfocus

June 24, 2022

Defending our Civilization, Ethics, Intelligent Design, News Highlights, Politics, rhetoric}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Having returned from a shopping trip to Junction, Jamaica [here for 4x bereavement reasons], I noticed news as captioned. I clip:

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/06/24/supreme-court-overrules-roe-v-wade-in-dobbs/

Supreme Court Overrules Roe v. Wade in Dobbs Decision – Returns Abortion to State Lawmakers
WASHINGTON, DC – The Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade on Friday, holding in the Dobbs case that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion and returning the issue of abortion laws and regulations to state legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the Supreme Court in Friday’s ~~5-4~~ [–> 6-3] decision:
>>Abortion presents a profound moral question. The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion. Roe and Casey arrogated that authority. We now overrule those decisions and return the authority to the people and their elected representatives.>>
Roe was handed down in 1973 in a 7-2 decision, holding that the U.S. Constitution includes a constitutional right to abortion, despite the fact that abortion is not found in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution, and the nation went more than 180 years without ever noticing it existed. It has been one of the most divisive legal issues in American history.
An early draft of Alito’s opinion leaked in May, the first such leak of a full opinion in the 233-year history of the Supreme Court, leading the left to violent protests, including destroying a pro-life center in Wisconsin, vandalizing churches, and threatening protests at the home of conservatives justices in violation of federal law.
These threats have culminated in what was almost an assassination attempt of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, which went seemingly unnoticed by President Joe Biden – who did not speak out to condemn it – and has led to rapid action on a new federal law to protect the justices. The court majority evidently stood firm against the threats and public pressure, overruling Roe and the later revision of Roe in 1992, Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
With Roe overruled, the issue of abortion now goes back to the states to pass whatever restrictions on abortions the voters of each state choose to adopt.

This is an issue that pivots on life, the first right, and lurking within is, what is law and what may a civil authority legitimately rule as law. DEVELOPING

Comments

This is not the work of conservatives. Liberal-demo(no)crats did that to wake-up their army of zombies for the elections. After elections will be re-reversed .Lieutenant Commander Data_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
04:58 PM
4
04
58
PM
PDT}

Relatd: There is no evidence to support that. “Our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”
Except for Thomas’s words:
In a passage blasting jurisprudence around the 14th Amendment, Thomas said abortion was not a form of “liberty” protected under the due process clause. He then expressly named the cases that guaranteed the rights to contraception, same-sex relations, and same-sex marriage — Griswold v. Connecticut (1965), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), respectively — as being appropriate for the court to “reconsider” given they relied on similar reasoning. “We have a duty to ‘correct the error’ established in those precedents,” Thomas wrote.
I’m sure that KF and others are doing cartwheels. Sad.JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

A black woman commenting on the decision noted that the same people crying out against abortion are also voting to defund public schools. They care much more for the rights of the unborn than they do for the born. Judge Clarence Thomas also let the cat out of the bag by writing that this decision opens the way to overturn rights to contraception, gay rights and gay marriage.
381 U. S. 479 (1965) (right of married persons to obtain contraceptives)*; Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558 (2003) (right to engage in private, consensual sexual acts); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015) (right to same-sex marriage), are not at issue. The Court’s abortion cases are unique, see ante, at 31–32, 66, 71–72, and no party has asked us to decide “whether our entire Fourteenth Amendment jurisprudence must be reserved or revised,” McDonald, 561 U. S., at 813 (opinion of THOMAS, J.). Thus, I agree that “[n]othing in [the Court’s] opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.” Ante, at 66. For that reason, in future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court’s substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Because any substantive due process decision is “demonstrably erroneous,” Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (2020) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment) (slip op., at 7), we have a duty to“correct the error” established in those precedents, Gamble v. United States, 587 U. S. ___, ___ (2019) (THOMAS, J., concurring) (slip op., at 9). 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. For example, we could consider whether any of the rights announced in this Court’s substantive due process cases are “privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Amdt.
In other words this is not just about abortion, this is the first victory for the Christian nationalist right in their long-term campaign to overturn all of those previously approved rights. Those of us on the center and left of the political spectrum should more than ever be aware that we have a fight on our hands and playing nice with the opposition does not - and will not - work. The first objective should be the abolition of the Supreme Court as currently constituted. Clarence Thomas should not have been approved for a seat on the bench in the first place and his wife's involvement in the January 6th insurrection plot further undermines any claim to our respect. The Trump nominees lied under oath when they pretended Roe was settled law. This court is deceitful and corrupt and needs to be re-constituted in a different form that cannot be manipulated by would-be dictators for their own ends. The rallying cry should now be "Scrap SCOTUS!" By this decision they have forfeited any trust we might once have had in the impartiality of their decisions so it is time for them to be replaced. The second objective should be to expose the hypocrisy of those who make outrageous and inflammatory accusations about an abortion "Holocaust" yet excuse their God from any blame for the much larger wastage of unborn human life through miscarriages in a reproductive system designed by that God according to their belief. This is the same Christianity that tolerates a so-called Christian pastor who called for homosexuality to be made a capital crime for which offenders should be executed by being shot in the back of the head. This is the same Christianity that has tried to sweep under the rug the appalling abuse of children in their care by clergy. This is the same Christianity that attempted the "assimilation" of indigenous children in boarding schools where they were abused, forbidden to wear their own clothes, speak their own languages or practice their own religions. It is time for society to review the privileged status of religions in our society and to shore up the wall of separation between church and state so that there is no possibility of militant followers of any faith being able to mount a theocratic insurrection ever again.Seversky_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
03:50 PM
3
03
50
PM
PDT}

Andrew: Do you do this for other things? I figured if it was out of kindness you wouldn’t limit it to one thing.
Yes. We offer it for other medical procedures that are not offered in their state or country. This part is obviously not used by many employees in the US, but it is used by employees in other countries. Usually for experimental, not scam, treatments.JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

"will cover costs for any employee to travel out of state, or out of country, to..." JH, Do you do this for other things? I figured if it was out of kindness you wouldn't limit it to one thing. Andrewasauber_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
01:53 PM
1
01
53
PM
PDT}

My company has a couple hundred employees in the US. Obviously not a large number. But I have already issued a notification to all US staff, as have many large employers in the US, that we will cover costs for any employee to travel out of state, or out of country, to secure a safe abortion. This includes the expenses of someone (husband, boyfriend, friend) to accompany them. And before any idiot claims that we are doing this for a selfish profit based reason, we also offer 18 month fully paid paternal leave. And, before any other idiot chimes in, our workforce is approximately 70% female. And over 50% in upper management.JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

Relatd: There is no evidence to support that.
Delusion does not become you.JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT}

JH at 11, There is no evidence to support that. “Our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right,” Alito wrote. “Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”relatd_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT}

I suspect this ruling, the Miranda ruling, the public funding of religious schools, and the concealed weapons ruling will have a big impact on the mid-term elections. Court decisions on same sex marriage and transgendered rights will just be the icing on the law-fare cake.JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT}

Another clip: https://www.wnd.com/2022/06/roe-overturned-supremes-call-1973-decision-abuse-judicial-authority/
The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Friday overturned the 1973 abortion precedent set in Roe v. Wade, a move that now will return oversight of the nation's lucrative abortion industry to the individual states. The ruling, which had been leaked apparently by a court insider to reporters several weeks ago, said stare decisis, the doctrine of recognizing previously precedents, "does not compel unending adherence to Roe's abuse of judicial authority." "Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and (related case) Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division." The court majority said, "It is time to heed the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives. 'The permissibility of abortion, and the limitations, upon it, are to be resolved like most important questions in our democracy: by citizens trying to persuade one another and then voting.' … That is what the Constitution and the rule of law demand." The court bluntly said, "The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion: Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives." Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, summarized the years-long battle over Roe succinctly: "Life wins."
KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:58 PM
12
12
58
PM
PDT}

I think people don't realize what was happening in the late 1960s. Radicals formed groups to promote abortion in the U.S. 1969 - The National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws or NARAL, was formed. Today, people are being told that most Americans support permissive abortion. The truth from the late 1960s tells a different story. https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource/55401/an-ex-abortionist-speaksrelatd_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT}

So, the 1973 ruling was the result of interested lawyers bringing lawsuits to get the ruling they wanted from interested judges. It was not the result of a scholarly examination of the Constitution. Andrewasauber_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:50 PM
12
12
50
PM
PDT}

A few comments about the original ruling. The U.S. Supreme Court cited "penumbras" and "emanations" from the Constitution and a vague right to privacy as reasons for their decision. Jane Roe in Roe v. Wade was Norma McCorvey. She never got an abortion and became pro-life.relatd_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:43 PM
12
12
43
PM
PDT}

"Have you ever taken your daughter to an abortion clinic to abort a fetus “fathered” by a violent rapist?" No. But what you really mean is abort a human child. The child is innocent, yet it's the child whose life is destroyed. Do you really think that's where the justice should be administered? On the baby? I suspect you really don't think that's fair to the baby. Better to pretend it's not a baby, right. Makes you feel better? Andrewasauber_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT}

Andrew: I don’t think you even realize what you are saying.
No. I assure you, I know exactly what I am saying. Have you ever taken a 15 year old daughter to an abortion clinic to abort a fetus “fathered” by a violent rapist?JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:30 PM
12
12
30
PM
PDT}

"I am so glad that myself, our daughters and grandkids don’t live in the US." JH, This is a little funny, because abortion destroys daughters and grandkids, among other varieties of innocent people. I don't think you even realize what you are saying. Andrewasauber_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:20 PM
12
12
20
PM
PDT}

Be prepared for a gearing up of an illegal abortion industry and an increased death rate due to botched abortions. I am so glad that myself, our daughters and grandkids don’t live in the US.JHolo_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:14 PM
12
12
14
PM
PDT}

F/N: I believe we need to refocus on one of those ~~"obscure"~~ [--> foundational, historic] references, here Cicero on law:
—Marcus [in de Legibus, introductory remarks,. C1 BC, being Cicero himself]: . . . the subject of our present discussion . . . comprehends the universal principles of equity and law. In such a discussion therefore on the great moral law of nature, the practice of the civil law can occupy but an insignificant and subordinate station. For according to our idea, we shall have to explain the true nature of moral justice, which is congenial and correspondent [36]with the true nature of man.
[--> Note, how justice and our built in nature as a morally governed class of creatures are highlighted; thus framing the natural law frame: recognising built-in law that we do not create nor can we repeal, which then frames a sound understanding of justice. Without such an anchor, law inevitably reduces to the sort of ruthless, nihilistic might- and- manipulation- make- "right,"- "truth,"- "knowledge,"- "law"- and- "justice"- etc power struggle and chaos Plato warned against in The Laws Bk X.]
We shall have to examine those principles of legislation by which all political states should be governed. And last of all, shall we have to speak of those laws and customs which are framed for the use and convenience of particular peoples, which regulate the civic and municipal affairs of the citizens, and which are known by the title of civil laws. Quintus [his real-life brother]. —You take a noble view of the subject, my brother, and go to the fountain–head of moral truth, in order to throw light on the whole science of jurisprudence: while those who confine their legal studies to the civil law too often grow less familiar with the arts of justice than with those of litigation. Marcus. —Your observation, my Quintus, is not quite correct. It is not so much the science of law that produces litigation, as the ignorance of it, (potius ignoratio juris litigiosa est quam scientia) . . . . With respect to the true principle of justice, many learned men have maintained that it springs from Law. I hardly know if their opinion be not correct, at least, according to their own definition; for “Law (say they) is the highest reason [--> centrality of reason], implanted in [--> esp. our rational, responsible] nature, which prescribes those things which ought to be done, and forbids the contrary.” [--> core of justice] This, they think, is apparent from the converse of the proposition; because this same reason, when it [37]is confirmed and established in men’s minds, is the law of all their actions. [--> a pervasive so self evident (as, undeniable) first principle] They therefore conceive that the voice of [--> sound!] conscience is a law, that moral prudence[--> including, warrant on right reason] is a law, whose operation is to urge us to good actions, and restrain us from evil ones. They think, too, that the Greek name for law (NOMOS), which is derived from NEMO, to distribute, implies the very nature of the thing, that is, to give every man his due. [--> this implies a definition of justice as the due balance of rights, freedoms and responsibilities] For my part, I imagine that the moral essence of law is better expressed by its Latin name, (lex), which conveys the idea of selection or discrimination. According to the Greeks, therefore, the name of law implies an equitable distribution of goods: according to the Romans, an equitable discrimination between good and evil. The true definition of law should, however, include both these characteristics. And this being granted as an almost self–evident proposition, the origin of justice is to be sought in the divine law of eternal and immutable morality. This indeed is the true energy of nature, the very soul and essence of wisdom, the test of virtue and vice.
KFkairosfocus_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

DEVELOPING, the US Supreme Court reverses Roe v Wade (is it cry havoc?)kairosfocus_{June 24, 2022
June
06
Jun
24
24
2022
12:06 PM
12
12
06
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 15 16 17

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply