Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, June 30, 2022

Jonathan Cohn: [T]he court has gutted limits on gun possession, severely weakened the wall between church and state, and taken away a right that has existed for nearly 50 years (the right to privacy) - reinterpreting the First, Second, Fifth, Ninth and 14th Amendments in the process. And it's not done yet.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

The final batch of opinions due out Thursday includes a case about the Environmental Protection Agency and climate change that could, as HuffPost's Paul Blumenthal wrote earlier this year, "crush the ability" of the federal government to regulate everything from toxins in the water to the safety of consumer products.

About the only major issue on which the court isn't writing new doctrine is race. And that will likely happen next year, when the justices take up cases that could end affirmative action and eviscerate what's left of the Voting Rights Act.

One way of looking at this string of cases is that they are an effort to tether constitutional law to a much older way of thinking - one that prevailed when the public thought very differently about, say, the rights of women. "All these cases are designed with a goal of rolling back legal developments that reflected cultural changes, societal changes over the last 50 to 100 years," Leah Litman, a University of Michigan law professor and co-host of the Strict Scrutiny podcast, told HuffPost earlier this week.

Decades of hard-won rights fought for since this nation was founded, gone in less than 2 weeks time. Just what other rights do you think this Court is going to further erode or erase given years and years of opportunity?

#1 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 08:18 AM | Reply

I like how allowing a dude to say a silent prayer after a football game and not forcing people to have to justify to the government being able to carry personal protection is an erosion of rights.

You keep using that word. I do think it means what you think it means.

#2 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 08:58 AM | Reply

As for the right to slaughter the unborn, Roe was terribly adjudicated and Dobbs corrected that all the while leaving a legislative remedy in place.

#3 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 09:00 AM | Reply

As for the right to slaughter the unborn, Roe was terribly adjudicated and Dobbs corrected that all the while leaving a legislative remedy in place.

POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-06-30 09:00 AM | REPLY

You lie.

#4 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 09:01 AM | Reply

Take it up with the dissent. Congress can enact a federal abortion law. They flat out stated it.

#5 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 09:57 AM | Reply

Take it up with the dissent. Congress can enact a federal abortion law. They flat out stated it.

#5 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

can you post the language that does what you says it does?

#6 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 09:58 AM | Reply

As for the right to slaughter the unborn, Roe was terribly adjudicated and Dobbs corrected that all the while leaving a legislative remedy in place.
#3 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Think about what you're saying.

Why don't the unborn deserve Constitutional protection from slaughter?

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 10:17 AM | Reply

#6 from the dissent:

Most threatening of all, no language in today's decision stops the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or ------.

#8 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 10:21 AM | Reply

TH...

The SCOTUS struck down Roe v. Wade because they claim the Constitution contains no expressed Right to Privacy within the 14th Amendment - which was the basis for the original ruling. The ruling itself was not per se about abortion, it was about the Court's historical perspective that at the time the amendment was originally codified there were anti-abortion laws on the books which were not then deemed unlawful, ergo the 1972 Court erred in its interpretation unilaterally finding abortion indeed was a protected right. Of course, I disagree with this finding as it ignores the expressed text of the 9th Amendment's charge that not all held rights are expressly enumerated within the laws and language of our legal texts.

However, laws either codifying or banning abortion would be entirely legal if passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. This one of the main arguments against the Court's 1972 ruling: At any time Congress could pass a law making abortion legal and the Courts would be constitutionally bound to support such a law.

#9 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 10:21 AM | Reply

So, IOW, the decision and dissent say the OPPOSITE of what you claim it says, because the legislature can outlaw abortion is vastly different from saying the legislature can protect abortion, especially given the current SC

#10 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:24 AM | Reply

However, laws either codifying or banning abortion would be entirely legal if passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. This one of the main arguments against the Court's 1972 ruling: At any time Congress could pass a law making abortion legal and the Courts would be constitutionally bound to support such a law.

#9 | POSTED BY TONYROMA A

Again, Congress can pass laws within their power. What listed power within the Constitution could permit nationwide protection of abortion?

Especially given this courts findings.

#11 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:26 AM | Reply

Example of my point, Congress could pass a law requiring Medicare to include abortion as a medical necessity. That would result in the states/individuals suing that it isnt and this court clearly would side with it.

#12 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:29 AM | Reply

TH

Tony Roma explained it perfectly.

I've seen nothing in the Dobbs opinion that prohibits a federal abortion law.

#13 | Posted by BellRinger at 2022-06-30 10:30 AM | Reply

Many nationwide criminal statutes are based on interstate actions (ie commerce clause) or civil liberties (14th Amendment=equal protection). This court found that abortion is not a right protected as a civil liberty. Therefore, abortion doesn't have a basis to be protected nationwide.

#14 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:32 AM | Reply

TH
Tony Roma explained it perfectly.
I've seen nothing in the Dobbs opinion that prohibits a federal abortion law.

#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Under what power would Congress pass a law that this SC would be bound to recognize?

#15 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:33 AM | Reply

Congress has specific powers that they use to pass laws including (broadly speaking):

Interstate commerce
taxation and spending
protection of rights
War powers
appointment advise and consent

Which of these powers can be used to protect a right that has been deemed not inherent to the individual?

#16 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:35 AM | Reply

What listed power within the Constitution could permit nationwide protection of abortion?

Their Article 1 powers TH, Congress' expressed right to make laws.

The SCOTUS has no constitutional grounds to find either a pro or anti abortion law illegal. That is solely Congress' purview based on the Constitution itself.

#17 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 10:37 AM | Reply

Tony, you are simply wrong. Here are the powers of Congress:

Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the -------- of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Any law has to have it's basis in one of these powers.

And again, this court ruled that the right to an abortion is NOT right protected by the Amendments to the constitution

#18 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:41 AM | Reply

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

here is what you could claim is the power BUT, the SC said that abortion is not a right codified in the Amendments or Inherent, this does not apply

#19 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:45 AM | Reply

You either believe we are born with bodily autonomy rights or you don't. That's the crux of the matter.

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 10:46 AM | Reply

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

This. Although there are still arguments about the topic, Congress can and has used the Commerce Clause as the basis for the type of law which would allow abortions in all 50 states.

This time around, Congress would again define access to abortion as a case of interstate commerce. People travel across state lines to procure abortion services; medical equipment that provide abortions all moves in interstate commerce; and licensing, training and education for abortion providers all involve interstate travel and commerce. Proponents hope that by codifying Roe in this way, a new federal law guaranteeing the right to abortion would survive the Supreme Court's inevitable review.

There is ample Supreme Court precedent to support Congress's regulating abortion through interstate commerce, as law professor Julian Mortenson outlines.

But there is another reason that Democrats in Congress may not want to codify Roe through legislation.

If the Supreme Court rules that Congress has the power to protect abortion through legislation, Congress also would have the power to prohibit abortion through legislation. As Chief Justice John Marshall famously concluded in an 1824 Commerce Clause case, the power to regulate necessarily includes the power to prohibit.

Ultimately, any victory for abortion rights the Democrats might claim with the WHPA would be temporary, lasting only until Republicans regained control.

www.washingtonpost.com

#21 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 10:50 AM | Reply

SC said that abortion is not a right codified in the Amendments or Inherent

This is where you keep going of the tracks. The SCOTUS found that there was no right to privacy inherent in the 14th Amendment! They did not rule on abortion, they ruled on privacy.

Privacy was the ground under which the right for legal abortion was built by the 1972 Court. No ground, no right to abortion.

Congress has every constitutional right to codify abortion as a legal procedure or establish the parameters and conditions for its legal use - just as they can outlaw it in all 50 states as well.

#22 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 10:55 AM | Reply

The problem with that approach Tony is that professional certification for doctors is not an inter state issue
Each state certified doctors
Travel restrictions may protect a woman who travels for an abortion but can't cover the majority of abortions which occur within a state

That argument is weak especially given this courts expressed opinion

#23 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:56 AM | Reply

"The ruling itself was not per se about abortion, it was about the Court's historical perspective that at the time the amendment was originally codified there were anti-abortion laws on the books which were not then deemed unlawful"

^
This logic removes any Constitutional protection from gay marriage. Interracial marriage too.

At least one of those being struck down will be cheered by JeffJ.

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 10:56 AM | Reply

You either believe we are born with bodily autonomy rights or you don't.

No, you have to believe whether something kicking in your womb and has a heartbeat is a human or not.

#25 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 10:57 AM | Reply

Most threatening of all, no language in today's decision stops the Federal Government from prohibiting abortions nationwide, once again from the moment of conception and without exceptions for rape or ------.
#8 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

In other words, pregnant women don't have a right to life under the Constitution.

Do any of us have a right to life under the Constitution?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 10:57 AM | Reply

"No, you have to believe whether something kicking in your womb and has a heartbeat is a human or not."

An intruder in your home has a heartbeat, but you're allowed to kill or otherwise remove them.

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 10:58 AM | Reply

They said right to privacy does not apply to abortion so your argument is incorrect

Admittedly we are in uncharted waters here but I see no authority that this sc is bound to recognize given dobbs

#28 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 10:58 AM | Reply

No, you have to believe whether something kicking in your womb and has a heartbeat is a human or not.

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2022-06-30 10:57 AM | REPLY

The unborn have no rights under the constitution. Only the born. Do try again.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 10:59 AM | Reply

If women are forced to use their body to save a life what will stop the states from requiring you give up a kidney to save a life?

#30 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:01 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You either believe we are born with bodily autonomy rights or you don't.
No, you have to believe whether something kicking in your womb and has a heartbeat is a human or not.

#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Boaz, should the state have the power to force you to give up a kidney to save a life?

#31 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:02 AM | Reply

I like how allowing a dude to say a silent prayer after a football game

#2 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

That's not what he was doing.

I couldn't stand to be you. The lying is too creepy.

#32 | Posted by Zed at 2022-06-30 11:11 AM | Reply

TH
Tony Roma explained it perfectly.
I've seen nothing in the Dobbs opinion that prohibits a federal abortion law.

#13 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER AT 2022-06-30 10:30 AM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Exactly correct. Dems have had 3 chances to make it law when the had super majorities and they failed to do so. Why? Because every election cycle they have used it to raise money.

#33 | Posted by fishpaw at 2022-06-30 11:11 AM | Reply

Has nothing to do with nothing Truth.

#34 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 11:11 AM | Reply

Boaz, should the state have the power to force you to give up a kidney to save a life?

#31 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS A

Not BOAZ. Some woman.

#35 | Posted by Zed at 2022-06-30 11:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dobbs corrected that all the while leaving a legislative remedy in place.

#3 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Dobbs "corrected" nothing. It just made things worse. It made America Worse Again. MAWA!!

And you are are a fool if you think "silent prayers" on a football friend is all that the ruling covered.

It "elevates one individual's interest in personal religious exercise, in the exact time and place of that individual's choosing, over society's interest in protecting the separation between church and state."

So much for all that separation of church and state junk!

Welcome to 1962 and the The Divided States of America where there are no longer any precedents in the law and no such thing as "inalienable rights". (Because they aren't specifically spelled out in the constitution so ... )

#36 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 11:14 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The unborn have no rights under the constitution. Only the born. Do try again.

#29 | Posted by LauraMohr

Show me..

#37 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 11:14 AM | Reply

And again, this court ruled that the right to an abortion is NOT right protected by the Amendments to the constitution

#18 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-06-30 10:41 AM | REPLY

Yeah, sure. And the Bible never uses the word "Trinity" (or even "Bible" for that matter) but could luck convincing 99% of Christians the Trinity isn't "in the Bible" or that Bibles don't exist.

Language works that way. The original version of the Constitution doesn't mention AR15s (or Women!) either. But I'll bet you think the Constitution has some things to "say" about both subjects nonetheless.

#38 | Posted by anton at 2022-06-30 11:15 AM | Reply

So much for all that separation of church and state junk!

There was no such thing to begin with. Another thing you liberals made up.

#39 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 11:15 AM | Reply

The court just interpreted the law. That's all they did. Anything NOT in the constitution is left to the states.

I dont understand what you liberals dont understand about that.

#40 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 11:21 AM | Reply

"There was no such thing to begin with."

Oh so now I guess you liars are gonna try and rewrite history too?

It was just a stinking letter from a Founding Father but it's not what that founding father intended!!

Good luck with that crap.

Can't wait until a Muslim throws down his prayer rug on the 50 yard line (or ground zero) so I can watch you hateful fools lose your freaky little minds.

#41 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 11:24 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Section 1
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

#42 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 11:25 AM | Reply

Said it b4, will say it again,
the GOP, and their judicial minions,
is a Corporate Sellout Party...

Support Gun Companies rights to
hold Americans hostage in their own
neighborhoods and houses, due to fear
of being shot? No problem!

Allow the Fossil Fuel Industry to pollute
the very planet we live on into one
that increasingly supports a limited space
for life, by gutting the authority of
the EPA to enforce and regulate?
No problem!

Allow less privacy for the average citizen, both in the workplace and at home, allowing for more right for corporations to invade what little privacy that we have left? Once again
No problem!

That the GOP long ago sold their soul to
the Devil, is hardly breaking news anymore,
as neither is their apparent will to enforce
their will against the will of the people...

Right ladies?

#43 | Posted by earthmuse at 2022-06-30 11:27 AM | Reply

Has nothing to do with nothing Truth.

#34 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Only to small minds. Your argument is that a woman MUST use her body to support an unborn "child". Are you aware that no laws exist that require a person to use their body to save another person's? Now this decision can be used to force you to do just that. A woman no longer has bodily autonomy to save another's life. What is the difference between a woman carrying a "child" and requiring you to give up a portion of YOUR body to save another's life?

#44 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:28 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Apparently some that people call 'rights' were never Rights under the US Constitution - deal with it.

#45 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-06-30 11:29 AM | Reply

" Apparently some that people call 'rights' were never Rights under the US Constitution - deal with it."

Are you married? That's not a right spelled out in the Constitution.

#46 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-30 11:31 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The court just interpreted the law. That's all they did. Anything NOT in the constitution is left to the states.
I dont understand what you liberals dont understand about that.

#40 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Boaz, do not concepts of liberty and rights evolve over time? Is it right to blindly follow a document where the majority of people had zero say in it's promulgation? Why are precedents regarding laws covering womens' bodies from prior to women having the right to vote given any weight?

#47 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:32 AM | Reply

Apparently some that people call 'rights' were never Rights under the US Constitution - deal with it.

#45 | POSTED BY MSGT

Those rights were written excluding women and PoC, why should those be the only rights?

#48 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:34 AM | Reply

Apparently some that people call 'rights' were never Rights under the US Constitution - deal with it.

#45 | POSTED BY MSGT

Oh we will. We will ALL have to deal with it thank you so very much.

Goodbye to those "inalienable rights". I will miss them!

#49 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 11:34 AM | Reply

" Apparently some that people call 'rights' were never Rights under the US Constitution - deal with it."
Are you married? That's not a right spelled out in the Constitution.

#46 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Do you have children? I guess the state can just take them away as the right to have children isn't in the Constitution.

#50 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:35 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Most people fail to realize that Mother Nature herself is the most prolific abortionist in history:

Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among women who know they are pregnant, about 10% to 25% will have a miscarriage. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy.

medlineplus.gov

Just how will lawyers discern the difference between a natural miscarriage from an intentional abortion, since there is no medical way possible of making this distinction?

Should we outlaw Mother Nature?

#51 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 11:39 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

------- will create a Vagina Force to investigate miscarriages

#52 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:40 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In the gilead criminal justice system, the people are represented by two separate yet equally important groups. The vagina police who investigate crime and the religious whackos who prosecute the offenders. These are their stories."

#53 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:41 AM | Reply

I owe my very existence to an abortion.

#54 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 11:41 AM | Reply

What is the difference between a woman carrying a "child" and requiring you to give up a portion of YOUR body to save another's life?

#44 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS

You didn't get the memo? It's 1962 again (America is Great Again!) so this ruling only (apparently) applies to women who are now once again apparently subservient to the Man ... the pater familia once again rules the roost!! And the declaration specifically says all Men are are created equal. Not women. Duh.

#55 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 11:41 AM | Reply

In the gilead criminal justice system, unmarried women having sex is considered especially heinous.
In -------- Mississippi, the dedicated theocrats who investigate these vicious felonies are members of an elite squad known as the Special Criminals Unit. These are their stories.

#56 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:43 AM | Reply

"In gilead, the vicious and violent women of the pink hat squad are hunted by the detectives of the Vagina Crime (not rape) Control Bureau. These are their stories

#57 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:46 AM | Reply

In Gilead's war on sex, the worst criminal offenders (you know, those uppity women) are pursued by the detectives of the ------- Inspection Squad. These are their stories.

#58 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:47 AM | Reply

This logic removes any Constitutional protection from gay marriage. Interracial marriage too.

But Alito and Kavanaugh pinkie swore that this ruling does not apply to anything other than abortion. Thomas said "Line 'em up, and let's knock em' down ... except my interracial marriage of course, ah hum."

I have a grand idea. Maybe we need a new constitutional amendment codifying every citizen's right to privacy as it regards their own life choices, 2-person legally-affirmed unions, and individual health decisions - INCLUDING the right to have or be free from firearms within their homes and personally-owned businesses.

Maybe that could make everyone happy except those people trying to dictate how others live their lives - outside of public health and safety concerns - while maintaining complete autonomy to live theirs as they see fit without restrictions from anybody else.

#59 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 11:51 AM | Reply

Laura,

Why do you care? You will never have the chance or have a reason to get an abortion.

#60 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 11:52 AM | Reply

Maybe we need a new constitutional amendment codifying every citizen's right to privacy as it regards their own life choices

Sure, bring it to a constitutional convention. Otherwise, it's left to the states, as the ruling said.

#61 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 11:54 AM | Reply

Laura,
Why do you care? You will never have the chance or have a reason to get an abortion.

POSTED BY BOAZ AT 2022-06-30 11:52 AM | REPLY

I'm alive because of an abortion. Dummkopf. Besides I can support a cis gender woman's right to reproductive choice. God you're just a dingledorfer.

#62 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 11:55 AM | Reply

In gilead's criminal justice system, all women are guilty until proven guilty, either by forced confession, plea "bargain" or witch trial by jury. These are their stories.

#63 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 11:55 AM | Reply

#61

You don't need a convention to amend the Constitution Boaz. Even you should know that.

#64 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 11:55 AM | Reply

" Laura, Why do you care? You will never have the chance or have a reason to get an abortion."

She cares for the same reason she cares about equal rights for people like you.

#65 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-30 11:56 AM | Reply

The court just interpreted the law. That's all they did. Anything NOT in the constitution is left to the states.
I dont understand what you liberals dont understand about that.
#40 | POSTED BY BOAZ

I want to make sure I understand:
There is no right to life in the Constitution.
That is left to the States.
Is that accurate?

#66 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:01 PM | Reply

"Louisiana, Why do you care? You will never have the chance or have a reason to get an abortion."

#67 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:02 PM | Reply

#43

You can't use logic like that on this site and expect a reaction. This site is for bickering and abuse only.

The yellow zone is for bickering and abuse only!

#68 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-06-30 12:02 PM | Reply

69!!!!

#69 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-06-30 12:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

How can the glaring right wing hypocrisy of wanting to protect the life of the unborn while refusing to take meaningful steps to limit the availability of guns (especially assault rifles) in our society possibly be reconciled? I don't think it can. To my way of thinking, that makes them evil.

#70 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-06-30 12:05 PM | Reply

Should we outlaw Mother Nature?

No need to outlaw when we can ignore without penalty, for the time being.

#71 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-06-30 12:06 PM | Reply

POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You lie.
#4 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

It's literally all he does.

Not sure why anyone engages him in discussion.

Boredom?

#72 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-30 12:08 PM | Reply

69!!!!

#69 | POSTED BY LEE_THE_AGENT

Now illegal in 18 States.

#73 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 12:08 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-Not sure why anyone engages him in discussion.

I know exactly why folks engage him in discussions every damn day here.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2022-06-30 12:09 PM | Reply

Calling out lies and disinformation is generally worth doing.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:10 PM | Reply

I can't imagine hating women so much as to allow a complete gutting of their basic rights

#76 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 12:11 PM | Reply

I've noticed you ask really stupid questions, Snoofy, when you cant formulate a counter argument.

Most of your asinine questions also have nothing to do any subject at hand.

#77 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 12:11 PM | Reply

"The court just interpreted the law."

Reinterpreted the law. Which means it can just be "reinterpreted" again. And I bet it won't take 50 years to reinterpret it this time.


#78 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-How can the glaring right wing hypocrisy of wanting to protect the life of the unborn while refusing to take meaningful steps to limit the availability of guns (especially assault rifles) in our society possibly be reconciled?

I couldn't agree more. Anybody who claims to be prolife but stands firmly against welfare, health care, school funding, and yes.....rational gun restrictions......they aren't pro life.

They're just anti-abortion zealots masquerading as a pro lifer.

#79 | Posted by eberly at 2022-06-30 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

How can the glaring right wing hypocrisy of wanting to protect the life of the unborn while refusing to take meaningful steps to limit the availability of guns (especially assault rifles) in our society possibly be reconciled?

It wont be, until Democrats/progressives start understanding that we need to understand why the person who actually pulled the trigger did it.

It wont be until people like you start understanding it's not the weapon that killed, it was the person.

#80 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 12:13 PM | Reply

" The court just interpreted the law. That's all they did. "

No, not all.

In the journey, Sam went from what he said at his confirmation hearing about Roe, to believing it was "egregiously" wrong from the start.

A fair question would be to ask Alito to walk us through his epiphany.

Same for Judge Keg, and Amy Coathanger Barrett. Either they both went through very recent epiphanies, or they're lying sacks of mushrooms.

#81 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-30 12:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

80

For Christ sakes Boaz, where in the hell do we go with that?

Understanding? Then what?

Where do you see a solution?

If you think limiting the availability of military grade assault weapons isn't the answer then what's your solution?

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2022-06-30 12:16 PM | Reply

"It wont be until people like you start understanding it's not the weapon that killed, it was the person."

We all understand that the person used the weapon to kill.

Not sure why you don't see it that way.

#83 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:23 PM | Reply

" It wont be, until Democrats/progressives start understanding that we need to understand why the person who actually pulled the trigger did it."

Sounds great! What say you, Abbott? Agree??

Yes! Let's prove how committed we are to that solution by cutting its budget by over $200,000,000.00!
~(What actually happened)

#84 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-06-30 12:23 PM | Reply

I've noticed you ask really stupid questions, Snoofy, when you cant formulate a counter argument.
Most of your asinine questions also have nothing to do any subject at hand.
#77 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Boaz, you said the unborn do mot have a right to life under the Constitution.

My follow-up question is, does anyone have a right to life under the Constitution, and if so, where do you find that right?

#85 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 12:25 PM | Reply

#81

Here's a really on point article by Ezra Klein that digs into stare decisis and how it alone really separates the Supreme Court from all others: www.nytimes.com

#86 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 12:26 PM | Reply

Take it up with the dissent. Congress can enact a federal abortion law. They flat out stated it.

#5 | Posted by BellRinger

Sure they can. In a government where 1.5 million dakota residences get 4 senators and 40 million californians get 2. Totally.

#87 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It wont be until people like you start understanding it's not the weapon that killed, it was the person.

#80 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Sigh.

It was the weapon AND the person that killed.

Hey, Buddy. You're right to an AR-15 is also something the Constitution doesn't mention. Your right to choose the sorts of guns you are legally allowed to own isn't mentioned.

#88 | Posted by Zed at 2022-06-30 12:32 PM | Reply

If you think limiting the availability of military grade assault weapons isn't the answer then what's your solution?

Build two HUGE mental health residency hospitals in every state and put the crazies away.

THAT will do alot...

#89 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 12:34 PM | Reply

Boaz, you said the unborn do mot have a right to life under the Constitution.

I didnt say that. You did.

#90 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 12:35 PM | Reply

89

but don't touch the military grade assault weapons? make them as available as they've been?

and good luck with locking up the crazies......they have rights just like gun owners.

and many of them never committed a crime before committing a mass killing.

your solution is worthless both politically and legally.

If we start some real reform on guns FIRST.....then there is a chance we can get more serious about mental health.

#91 | Posted by eberly at 2022-06-30 12:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

WOW I wholeheartedly agree with Eberly. I may need to check myself into Bellevue.

#92 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 12:41 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nothing wrong with agreeing with Eberly on occasion. He is a common sense Republican. Meaning, we probably honestly disagree with him on most social issues, but not all.

#93 | Posted by moder8 at 2022-06-30 12:43 PM | Reply

>and many of them never committed a crime before committing a mass killing.

Exactly - their field day with an AR-15 is their crazy coming out party.

#94 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2022-06-30 12:55 PM | Reply

I wonder if those of you that support Roe v Wade being overturned will now tell their cis gender female relatives that their rights don't matter to them?? Just curious.

#95 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2022-06-30 12:59 PM | Reply

Boaz, you said the unborn do mot have a right to life under the Constitution.

I didnt say that. You did.
#90 | POSTED BY BOAZ

But you did say that, Boaz:

The court just interpreted the law. That's all they did. Anything NOT in the constitution is left to the states.
#40 | POSTED BY BOAZ

^
Thus, you just said the right to life is not in the Constitution.

#96 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 01:02 PM | Reply

Build two HUGE mental health residency hospitals in every state and put the crazies away.

THAT will do alot...

#89 | Posted by boaz

Then I guess you'd better start voting for the party that would actually fund that.

#97 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 01:02 PM | Reply

I like how allowing a dude to say a silent prayer after a football game

#2 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

Are you deliberately lying or are you just that ignorant? He's not a dude. He's staff. What he did is no different than if a teacher tried to hold a prayer session in the middle of class.

#98 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2022-06-30 01:04 PM | Reply

Build two HUGE mental health residency hospitals in every state and put the crazies away.
THAT will do alot...
#89 | POSTED BY BOAZ

BOAZ supports this because he's used to voting against his own interests. Lock him up!

#99 | Posted by IndianaJones at 2022-06-30 01:07 PM | Reply

but don't touch the military grade assault weapons? make them as available as they've been?

#91 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-06-30 12:38 PM | FLAG:

Military grade weapons require a FFL.

#101 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2022-06-30 01:13 PM | Reply

#102

The 9th is much more on point:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Alito's entire argument falls apart when faced with 9th Amendment scrutiny.

The very fact that numerous rights which were NOT held by certain citizens (and some humans weren't even recognized as whole autonomous beings with any rights at all) at the time the Constitution was codified has never stopped future Courts from recognizing these rights as inherent in an enlightened time when discriminations and inequalities of the past have been shed in the quest for universal liberties.

#103 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 01:25 PM | Reply

olution?

Build two HUGE mental health residency hospitals in every state and put the crazies away.

THAT will do alot...
#89 | POSTED BY BO

Where in the constitution is that allowed?

#104 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 01:30 PM | Reply

but don't touch the military grade assault weapons? make them as available as they've been?
and good luck with locking up the crazies......they have rights just like gun owners.
and many of them never committed a crime before committing a mass killing.
your solution is worthless both politically and legally.
If we start some real reform on guns FIRST.....then there is a chance we can get more serious about mental health.

#91 | POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-06-30 12:38 PM |

You're painting with a broad brush. We now know that a number of people who committed mass shootings in previous years were not supposed to be able to purchase a gun, but they did so following protocol that anyone else would have to follow.

What can be done?
Extend background and mental health checks
Make info on gun buyers readily available from the Federal level all the way down to the local level. IOW follow the laws we already have.
You now have a red flag law in place that will help (hopefully LEO doesn't abuse it the same way they did the Patriot Act)
Quit letting millions of people we know nothing about enter our country and roam around freely.

It makes no sense whatsoever to take ownership privileges away from responsible people who have never done anything wrong just to say "look, we're doing something"

#106 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-30 01:46 PM | Reply

#105

Sorry, I missed that. I obviously agree.

#107 | Posted by tonyroma at 2022-06-30 01:49 PM | Reply

Gun control is an oxymoron. The genie is out of the bottle. It would be like putting toothpaste back in the tube.

#109 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2022-06-30 02:34 PM | Reply

What can be done?
Extend background and mental health checks
Make info on gun buyers readily available from the Federal level all the way down to the local level. IOW follow the laws we already have.
You now have a red flag law in place that will help (hopefully LEO doesn't abuse it the same way they did the Patriot Act)
Quit letting millions of people we know nothing about enter our country and roam around freely.

It makes no sense whatsoever to take ownership privileges away from responsible people who have never done anything wrong just to say "look, we're doing something"

#106 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Illegal immigrants arent the ones doing mass shootings. You just cant resist blaming everything on them. Fascism 101 - blame problems on immigrants and minority groups.

The rest of your list is opposed by republican politicians. Guess you'll have to start voting democrat.

#110 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 02:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

106

I don't disagree with any of your suggestions.

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2022-06-30 02:43 PM | Reply

You will never have the chance or have a reason to get an abortion.
#60 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Does this signify that you actually don't care? You certainly will never have a chance or have a reason to get an abortion.

#112 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-06-30 02:45 PM | Reply

You certainly will never have a chance or have a reason to get an abortion.

My state still has abortion if I or someone else needs it. Maybe not at 8 months, but by then you have had to made a decision anyway. I'm fine with how my state deals with it.

I have a moderate state. The state liberals are running to from their liberal hell holes.

#113 | Posted by boaz at 2022-06-30 02:50 PM | Reply

#70 | POSTED BY MODER8 AT 2022-06-30 12:05 PM | FLAG: Just what is your definition of an 'assault rifle'?

#114 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-06-30 02:59 PM | Reply

Illegal immigrants arent the ones doing mass shootings. You just cant resist blaming everything on them. Fascism 101 - blame problems on immigrants and minority groups.
The rest of your list is opposed by republican politicians. Guess you'll have to start voting democrat.

#110 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-06-30 02:39 PM

Mass shootings get a lot of attention, well, because it's a lot of people at once. Lightning strikes kill more people than tornadoes annually, but not many people realize it because lightning usually only kills one person at a time.

But I don't expect you to side with reason.

#115 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-30 03:02 PM | Reply

Are you married? That's not a right spelled out in the Constitution.

#46 | POSTED BY DANFORTH AT 2022-06-30 11:31 AM | FLAG: Since my marriage license is issued by a state, I'd say that would then fall under States' Rights [never heard of a federal marriage license]; what say you from a legal standpoint?

PS; Also the institution of marriage has existed much longer than the United States Constitution.

#116 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-06-30 03:03 PM | Reply

#113 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Wait, so you're now saying that men can get pregnant?

JFC, BOAZ.

#117 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-06-30 03:07 PM | Reply

PS; Also the institution of marriage has existed much longer than the United States Constitution.

#116 | POSTED BY MSGT

so did abortion

#118 | Posted by truthhurts at 2022-06-30 03:21 PM | Reply

No, you have to believe whether something kicking in your womb and has a heartbeat is a human or not.

#25 | POSTED BY BOAZ

Nope, even if the fetus is dead in the womb, removing it is now up to the States. Same goes for ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. We have medical terms for what is gestating in the womb of a human, it's called a fetus.

#119 | Posted by chuffy at 2022-06-30 03:23 PM | Reply

Mass shootings get a lot of attention, well, because it's a lot of people at once. Lightning strikes kill more people than tornadoes annually, but not many people realize it because lightning usually only kills one person at a time.

But I don't expect you to side with reason.

#115 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Kids aren't having active shooter drills in schools and being traumatized because of ---------ers shooting each other at house parties.

They're doing it because of mass shooters.

That's reason.

#120 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 03:24 PM | Reply

so did abortion

#118 | POSTED BY TRUTHHURTS AT 2022-06-30 03:21 PM | FLAG:
So you admit that is states' rights..... : )

#121 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-06-30 03:32 PM | Reply

"My state still has abortion if I or someone else needs it. Maybe not at 8 months, but by then you have had to made a decision anyway."

Not true at all.
Abortion can be needed at 8 months.
Look up Savita Halappanavar.

According to your interpretation of the Constitution, women in her position do not have a right to life -- or even a right to self defense from a deadly threat.

#122 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 03:44 PM | Reply

Kids aren't having active shooter drills in schools and being traumatized because of ---------ers shooting each other at house parties.
They're doing it because of mass shooters.
That's reason.

#120 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2022-06-30 03:24 PM | FLAG:
(CHOOSE)

Last year there were 652 killed in mass shootings
www.mass-shootings.info

"In 2020, the most recent year for which complete data is available, 45,222 people died from gun-related injuries in the U.S., according to the CDC. That figure includes gun murders and gun suicides"
www.pewresearch.org

If you subtract suicides (yes we need help with mental health) we're still right at 20k murders from guns.

So if you compare the two numbers, 19,384 to the mass shooting numbers of 652, you can clearly see what I was talking about.

#123 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-30 03:54 PM | Reply

But I don't expect you to side with reason.
#115 | POSTED BY LFTHNDTHRDS

"Reason" doesn't support giving people like the Uvalde shooter the right to bear arms.

#124 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 03:56 PM | Reply

So you admit that is states' rights..... : )

#121 | POSTED BY MSGT

So you admit it's a right.

Forgive them Father for they know NOT what they do.

#125 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-06-30 04:15 PM | Reply

According to BOAZ, men can now get pregnant. And if he got pregnant, he would consider an abortion.

How pro-LGBTQ+ of him.

#126 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2022-06-30 04:25 PM | Reply

"Reason" doesn't support giving people like the Uvalde shooter the right to bear arms.

#124 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-06-30 03:56 PM | REPLY

"Reason" doesn't injure my rights (or any other sane persons rights) in the process of dealing with gun violence either.

#127 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-06-30 04:27 PM | Reply

""Reason" doesn't injure my rights (or any other sane persons rights) in the process of dealing with gun violence either."

Please tell us how that's supposed to work!

Again, "Reason" is when people like the Uvalde shooter simply aren't afforded right to bear arms.
No reasonable society would give a person intent on murder the right to bear arms.
Do you disagree?

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 04:39 PM | Reply

"Reason" doesn't injure my rights (or any other sane persons rights) in the process of dealing with gun violence either.

#127 | Posted by lfthndthrds

Your "right" to buy assault weapons was invented by the supreme court, who just took away women's right to abortion. So "rights" can come and go with the court. Unless you're in a well-regulated militia. Are you?

#129 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2022-06-30 05:03 PM | Reply

"Reason" doesn't injure my rights (or any other sane persons rights) in the process of dealing with gun violence either."

The rights of 19 students and 2 teachers were irreparably injured.
Unless of course you don't believe that Americans have a right to life!

Do Americans have a right to life, LftHndThrds? Yes or no.

#130 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-06-30 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Gotta kill more rights in order to return America to the pre 1940s.

#131 | Posted by ClownShack at 2022-06-30 05:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Welcome to the USA where a political party hides behind a court and freezes the rest of Gov. from doing anything. It is a sweet move. It locks everything up and relies on fools to re-elect them. These fools don't care about the environment/equality they just care about guns/woman's rights/trans. None of it does any good for the future.

#132 | Posted by Brennnn at 2022-07-01 06:41 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Today marks the end of what is surely one of the worst terms in #SCOTUS history. Guns and prayer and abortion got most of the attention. But that's not all the Court did. Here are just some of the Court's bad decisions:

twitter.com

#133 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2022-07-01 06:49 AM | Reply

Just calling something a Right does not make it so as to the US Constitution which defines our rights under the law'.

#134 | Posted by MSgt at 2022-07-01 10:24 AM | Reply

#134 So your personal belief is that you do not have a right to privacy, is that correct?

#135 | Posted by snoofy at 2022-07-01 10:29 AM | Reply

" Just calling something a Right does not make it so as to the US Constitution which defines our rights under the law'."

Show me where your marriage is a right in the Constitution.

#136 | Posted by Danforth at 2022-07-01 10:36 AM | Reply

No reasonable society would give a person intent on murder the right to bear arms.
Do you disagree?

#128 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2022-06-30 04:39 PM | REPLY

True statement. And no reasonable society would disarm citizens who have no intent on murder. Another true statement.

See Honduras and Mexico for examples.

#137 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2022-07-01 10:49 AM | Reply

Something that is opinionated by millions on one side and millions on the other is not a human right. It's a want. The whole stupid nonsense of calling abortion a "Right" is where Dems have lost their fight already. Millions of people also thought being able to go outside without the government forcing you to wear a symbol of something like, oh I don't know, that I'm scared of a virus and have to wear a mask, but the government took that away quickly.

Americans have become so entitled they have started to believe wants are human rights and have lost sight of what actually is a human right and what is a want that the government has to control.

Btw, I'm pro-choice. But, as usual, it's too hard for me to ignore illogical arguments made by people who are only mad because they didn't get their way.

#138 | Posted by humtake at 2022-07-01 12:02 PM | Reply

The whole thing is getting weird. By December are gay men going to be required to sing show tunes on command? Is it going to become legal to drown women with red hair? Are they going to outlaw hanukkah?

#139 | Posted by Tor at 2022-07-01 04:49 PM | Reply

it's too hard for me to ignore illogical arguments made by people who are only mad because they didn't get their way.

#138 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

Too hard to ignore?? Because they are busy desecrating your capital?

Like Trumpers who didn't get their way in an election so they tried to overthrow that election and who are still attempting to undermine our democracy at every turn?

Yeah. I'd like to ignore them too but they are a clear and present danger.

#140 | Posted by donnerboy at 2022-07-02 10:26 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2022 World Readable

Drudge Retort