"Therefore, Congress does not have the authority to tell states that they must allow abortions."

They can. They did. SOCTUS determined that they lacked the authority under the constitution to do so.

So...what's the problem?

"PLEASE TRY TO LEARN SOMETHING"

Do you wanna compare that academic pedigree and professional experience or not?

"2. Abortion and gun laws ARE "touched on through constitutional processes"-i.e. the courts. Let me explain something VERY BASIC to you. Your rights are not and should not be subject to legislative (i.e. politics) restraints. PRIVACY was a right up to June 2022. Because the radical court decided otherwise."

No it wasn't. I had to fill out a form if I wanted to buy a gun. It had to be cleared by the ATF.

Oh, and there has never been a constitutional amendment protecting abortion. There is an amendment protecting the right to keep and bear arms. It was actually the second amendment the drafters produced. So...we can agree that the right to keep and bear arms is fundamentally higher than the right to an abortion?

"1. Yes fanatical, they made up "law" based on nothing. They are legislating (radically) from the bench, originalism is whatever they want on a specific case, they are ignoring the constitutional requirements to reach conclusions, the big question doctrine is nonsense. They are reaching unpopular fringe decisions on cases. So yeah fanatics"

What law did they "make up?"

"And I argue that you are not very educated, that you fail to understand how our government works."

Really?

Would you like to compare professional experience and academic pedigree?

"Being a homosexual gives you a pass for screwing someone who's married?"

He's actually doing those wives a favor. Hopefully he is bragging about it.

I don't think many wives want to be married to dudes who were in to dudes.

"Hey, speaking of the equal protection clause. how come women no longer have the same rights as men?"

They actually have more rights.

A woman can legally terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

A man cannot.

"I have no idea what you are babbling about."

As a male, if I get a girl knocked up, do I have the right to make her terminate that pregnancy?

Do I even have the right to terminate my connection to the child that results from that pregnancy?

"Because your basic rights should not be up to political will."

Like the right to keep and bear arms, reference the 2A?

The right to free speech?

The right to peaceably assemble?

"During each of the 6 lying fanatic justices' nomination hearing, each one lied saying they believed in stare decisis specifically in the area of abortion They freaking lied, under oath"

Fanatical??? Have you listed to yourself? If you do a line tonight, you might not make it.

I am 100% of legal abortion, but that's just my opinion. Just like I think it should be up to the states to determine gun laws. However, my opinion is immaterial. Both of the topics I just addressed could be touched on through constitutional processes. Your issue seems to be that it would be too much trouble. That your beliefs count higher than the constitution. Sorry bro, you're not that important. None of us are.

"For 49 years it was decided that a right to an abortion WAS in the constitution."

Really?

Where?

I guess I missed that.

Are you equally fervent about the actual amendments? Like the 2nd amendment?

"I have zero respect for any man who does not fully support women and their rights to reproductive care."

Yeah.

Tell me, at what point has abortion been legal for men?

"I knew you wouldn't be man enough to admit you were wrong."

Because I wasn't. Period.

"The SC REFUSED to overturn SB-8."

On what grounds would they overturn something that was deemed a function of the state? Wouldn't they have been contradicting a ruling that they made just over two years ago?

"You refuse to acknowledge this reality."

Negative, Ghostrider. What they did was put it back to the states. Again, there is nothing in the constitution guaranteeing the right to an abortion. You seem to think there should be-I'd be OK with that as well-but until such time as it becomes an amendment, it's subject to relatively easy change. And there is nothing stopping from any state making abortion legal and capturing that right in their own state constitution.

"Why would there need to be a federal law when Roe v. Wade was the law of the land..."

If it is not in the constitution, it is subject to change. Even then it is subject to change...the bar for change is just higher.

"I predict you will run away instead of acknowledging your error."

I predict you will continue to act hysterically.

"You apparently aren't aware that the SC specifically refused to overturn Texas law SB-8. You understand that, right?"

And?

The Supreme Court already ruled that abortion rights are a function of the state. So, it would be more apt and accurate to call this the "Texas" abortion ban. Perhaps you could blame SCOTUS, but objectively there is nothing in the constitution ensuring a federal right to abortion. Not that I'm aware of anyway.

In any case, I'm not sure where Trump fits in to this whole convo...

If abortion is so fundamentally important, why not create an amendment to the constitution? And even if you did, I'm not sure it would matter unless the federal government obligated to provide abortion services nationwide.

All of you should feel dumber for participating in this conversation.

Between us girls, I think if the title had been "Texas Abortion Ban Kills Another Woman," the article would have been on the back page with a handful of posts.

Trump Abortion Ban?

The title is super weird. It's cringy. Drunkle cringy.

Trump implemented this???

"Or is it that the billionaire owner did not want his paper to present an opinion in the opinion section that he did not agree with?"

Very likely, but there is nothing wrong with that. Would you have objections if a paper wanted to endorse Trump and the owner refused to let the staff use the paper as their own personal sounding board?

And it's also important to note that he did not make them endorse a candidate he disagreed with-he very well may have done the same if they had chosen to support Trump-he told them they could not use his paper as a vehicle to voice their opinions. And I don't think "billioniare" has anything to do with it...other than the fact that "billionaire" is one of the negative buzzwords that progressive like to use to throw around to signal their dislike for something. A publicly traded news outlet would be equally smart to do the same.

"Why should not the editors, who are intimately exposed to the news each day, be allowed to express their opinions in the section of the newspaper that is set aside for such opinions?"

IRT the Washington Times, it was about the paper, not the individuals, endorsing a candidate. I cannot speak for Jeff Bezos, but I have seen nothing to believe that he would have fired staffers who endorsed any candidate...speaking for themselves. And they can still do that.

"I mean, what is the fear here?"

What's the fear in remaining apolitical? It's not like the paper is endorsing Trump instead.

I think the anger come from the fact that the paper's owner has prohibited it from being used for an explicitly political purpose.

"What is the issue with the opinion part of the newspaper expressing opinions?"

In this case, their boss did not want his paper presenting a political opinion. There is nothing wrong with that. I like it.

I don't see it as being terribly different from the prohibitions on military personnel wearing their uniforms and political events.

And...there would have been crickets from this same group of handwringers had been directed to endorse Harris.

What a bunch of steaming -------. Handwringers getting pissy because a newspaper is directed to be apolitical.

Don't worry. You still have Mother Jones. Is the Daily Kos still around?

Oh, and I don't think it will happen, but Harris offering $25k to new home buyers is most definitely not going to do anything to bring down housing costs. Quite the opposite.

"Based on my anecdotal social media readings, some people from my hometown are voting to "send a message" about high grocery prices. When rent and groceries are all that people can afford to care about, that might affect their votes."

Two things. First, the profit margins for publicly traded grocery stores are very low. I think the highest is 1.4%. So increases are likely a result of what is going on in the commodities market, which is pretty much un-gougable. I would say that there is no such thing as price-gouging to start with, but that's a different story. Bottom line is that the increased prices are a reflection of market activity left of the grocery store.

Second, if you look at housing, the trend for decades has been bigger and bigger. The per square foot cost of a house hasn't changed all that much. A new trend is emerging where demand is shifting to smaller houses, which will inevitably cost less, all other things being equal.

"Now, the problem I see is that the income of some folk may not have kept up with those increases in prices. (as indicated by a resurgence of the labor movement). And what may have caused that trailing of income vs prices? Corporate and company owner greed in wanting to extract more profits at the expense of not paying their workers?"

From the article:

"On a per-person basis, American economic output is now about 40% higher than in western Europe and Canada, and 60% higher than in Japan"roughly twice as large as the gaps between them in 1990. Average wages in America's poorest state, Mississippi, are higher than the averages in Britain, Canada and Germany."

"There are a plenty of indians alive today for Biden to apologize to."

Hmm. Should I apologize too?