News Roe v. Wade overturned

Page 80 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136

"
It is a central principle of law: Courts are supposed to follow earlier decisions – precedent – to resolve current disputes. But it’s inevitable that sometimes, the precedent has to go, and a court has to overrule another court, or even its own decision from an earlier case.


In its upcoming term, the U.S. Supreme Court faces the question of whether to overrule itself on abortion rights. Recent laws in Texas and Mississippi restrict the right of women to terminate pregnancies in ways that appear to challenge the long-standing precedent of the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade, which allowed women to have abortions in most circumstances.


Over the centuries, courts have stated many reasons they should adhere to precedent. First is the idea of equity or justice, under which “like cases should be decided alike,” as one senior federal judge put it. If a court in the past reviewed a particular set of facts and decided a case in a specific way, fairness dictates it should decide another similar case the same way. Precedent promotes uniformity and consistency in the law."


No lie, just the facts. Too bad you don't like them.
There has to be a legitimate reason to over turn a previous ruling. They did not give a legitimate reason to over turn Roe vs Wade, as their reason, regardless if it's considered a state power or a federal power, voids the 14th amendment which is what Roe vs Wade was ruled based on in 1973. This ruling has basically decided that states can ignore the 14th amendment of the constitution, at the state level. So this ruling has delegitimized the SCOTUS as it's their job to uphold the constitution, which they have just failed to do by granting states the authority to ignore the 14th amendment. What that means is the SCOTUS has ruled as a legislative body, not a judicial body. Congress it he only legislative body who can void the 14th amendment.. NOT the SCOTUS!
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie and DaaQ

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
Have you not read the news recently?
What particular am I supposed to have read? is their a new case that the SCOTUS has ruled on giving state the power to try people for legal activities in another state? If such a case has made it to SCOTUS, and they indeed have ruled in favor, wouldn't that dictate that it's not a state power but a federal power? Because right now, the only ruling being discussed is the over turn of Roe vs Wade.. which has zero to do with states believing they have the authority to try people for legal activities done in another state.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
83,717
47,403
136
What particular am I supposed to have read? is their a new case that the SCOTUS has ruled on giving state the power to try people for legal activities in another state? If such a case has made it to SCOTUS, and they indeed have ruled in favor, wouldn't that dictate that it's not a state power but a federal power? Because right now, the only ruling being discussed is the over turn of Roe vs Wade.. which has zero to do with states believing they have the authority to try people for legal activities done in another state.
My point is they are playing Calvinball
 

[DHT]Osiris

Lifer
Dec 15, 2015
14,004
12,070
146
Basic human autonomy is not a fucking state-by-state right. Its a basic human right and should be codified at the federal level. This isnt something you can equivocate on. Its that simple.
Even worse, it shouldn't have to be codified because it's implied. Once again I'll say it, the Constitution LIMITS THE POWERS OF GOVT. It does NOT, under and circumstances whatsoever, grant rights to citizens. Anything undefined by the Constitution is outside the control of the govt until a law is defined on the matter. How this bullshit has been forgotten by our elected and unelected officials I'll never fathom.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,914
2,359
126
Basic human autonomy is not a fucking state-by-state right. Its a basic human right and should be codified at the federal level. This isnt something you can equivocate on. Its that simple.

You saw where I said this was a bad ruling...right? Whats your point?
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
12,972
7,891
136
What level of development does the soul develop?

Interesting question.

Looking at many of the leading lights of the Republican Party, would allow one to at least set an upper limit to the timescale...For example, how old is Mitch McConnell currently? We can at least say that it sometimes doesn't happen till later than that.
 

nOOky

Platinum Member
Aug 17, 2004
2,826
1,846
136
A friend asked me today what I thought about the decision while we were visiting in the grocery store. I said "I hope you never get raped and have to carry a rapist's baby to term" and she said well that's horrible. I said "so is carrying a rapist's baby to term, but you don't care about that" she is a devout whacko catholic who was baiting me because she was insanely happy about the verdict btw.

Yes, I'm irritated still by it.
 

NWRMidnight

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,922
2,554
136
My point is they are playing Calvinball
You are automatically assuming they will Calvinball everything going forwards. Which is why you can't list any specific examples that support your position that they will allow states to prosecute their residence for legal activities done in another state. Even though you asked me if I have read the news lately, implying there are examples of such, but there is nothing in the news for me to read that supports your position, because it's based off assumptions, nothing else. If you want to be factual: they have also proven such assumptions false in pervious rulings as well. Example, the election lawsuits, Obama care,, etc.. People also assumed they would rule in favor of the right, where they have not. So you are doing exactly what I claimed you are doing, hypothesizing, theorizing and making assumptions without any proven legal standing supporting your positions other than assumptions.
 
Last edited:

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,442
136

MrSquished

Lifer
Jan 14, 2013
21,004
19,442
136
Like any rational person.
Like seriously how we seen what the Republicans have been doing since Obama got elected and then since Trump they are on overdrive. They don't care that they tried to overthrow democracy, The supreme Court is making decisions purely based on their ideology and fragile legalese, Republican party just has become this fascistic pathologically lying group of people with the worst instincts and humanity.

I don't know how some people are so naive still. This is why the Democrats suck, and this is why we are in this position now
 
  • Like
Reactions: DarthKyrie

UNCjigga

Lifer
Dec 12, 2000
24,800
9,002
136
Look. I think this was a terrible ruling. But many people are misunderstood in that it outlaws abortion federally. It doesnt.

What does that matter if you live in a state with an existing ban or a trigger law? I suppose DC residents still have US v. Vuitch and are protected for now, but that can be challenged again too, and we know when the GOP has control of Congress they just love shitting on DC residents with new laws.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
33,381
7,444
136
This ruling has basically decided that states can ignore the 14th amendment of the constitution, at the state level.

Care to explain how the 14th is dragged into this?
Equal protection does not require all state laws to be equal across all states.
So pray tell... what you're even getting at by referencing it.
 

HurleyBird

Platinum Member
Apr 22, 2003
2,670
1,250
136
Care to explain how the 14th is dragged into this?
Equal protection does not require all state laws to be equal across all states.
So pray tell... what you're even getting at by referencing it.

One might think Roe was based on equal protection, because that would make sense, but no, it was actually based on the due process clause of the 14th. Equal protection had absolutely nothing to do with it. Many, including Ginsburg, have argued that Roe would have been stronger had it been derived from the equal protection clause.
 
Jul 9, 2009
10,719
2,064
136
There has to be a legitimate reason to over turn a previous ruling. They did not give a legitimate reason to over turn Roe vs Wade, as their reason, regardless if it's considered a state power or a federal power, voids the 14th amendment which is what Roe vs Wade was ruled based on in 1973. This ruling has basically decided that states can ignore the 14th amendment of the constitution, at the state level. So this ruling has delegitimized the SCOTUS as it's their job to uphold the constitution, which they have just failed to do by granting states the authority to ignore the 14th amendment. What that means is the SCOTUS has ruled as a legislative body, not a judicial body. Congress it he only legislative body who can void the 14th amendment.. NOT the SCOTUS!
"Legitimate" by whose choice or whose definition? This USSC decided the 14th Amendment had nothing to do with the ruling and overturned it. It is well within their purview and power to do so, it's a done deal.