team politics talking points.

[AnalogPackrat]

It's far worse than this.

When striking down vaccine mandates, they cited to Mitchell v. Wisconsin, notably:



Note this cite is from 1891.

Now when it comes to women's bodily autonomy, Alito now argues that abortion rights aren't rooted in history and tradition (note this isn't a legal precedence, it's just his opinion). I guess 1891 isn't historical enough. Aside from Roe itself, Dobbs is bereft of citing any legal precedence. It' invented from whole cloth, nothing more.

The difference being that at some point in the pregnancy, it is no longer just the mother's body that is affected. Do you at least admit this?

Now the talking point is "just pass a bill". H.R. 3755 was brought to the Senate floor just last month, and was filibustered by all Republicans and Joe Manchin. So that's that.

Passing a bill requires compromise and negotiation. I haven't read HR3755, have you? Perhaps there are reasons for the filibuster. The Democrats of late are great at demanding compromise from those of us who disagree with them, but refuse to give an inch on their side. So it won't pass until the empass clears, by shifts due to elections or otherwise. This is how it works. It isn't supposed to be easy.

 

[hodad]

Hearsay under oath..?

You really should have watched. She made it quite clear that she was relating what was told to her. And so far, no one seems to disagree with her that Trump became irate when told it wasn't safe to go to the Capitol; they've only questioned the particulars. And frankly, if Engel, Ornato, Cipollone and Meadows wish to testify publicly, they're welcome to join in the fun. (I believe Cipollone was subpoenaed today, so there's that.)

something to the effect of...." multiple times

She could have said, "I'm paraphrasing;" few among us (in fact, almost none of us) can actually quote conversations back verbatim. You're really stretching in your criticisms here.

Remember, too: almost all the witnesses have been Republicans. Hutchinson interned with Scalise and Ted Cruz before working for Meadows--those two aren't commie pinkos by any means. But by all means, dismiss her testimony, and the testimony of all the other Republicans, out of hand--not because they're lying, but because you don't like what they're saying.

There was a lot more to her testimony than the "Trump tries to grab the wheel" story. Much of it was far more alarming than that sensational tidbit. You'd know that if you'd watched, but.....

 

[epaladin]

It's far worse than this.

When striking down vaccine mandates, they cited to Mitchell v. Wisconsin, notably:



Note this cite is from 1891.

Now when it comes to women's bodily autonomy, Alito now argues that abortion rights aren't rooted in history and tradition (note this isn't a legal precedence, it's just his opinion). I guess 1891 isn't historical enough. Aside from Roe itself, Dobbs is bereft of citing any legal precedence. It' invented from whole cloth, nothing more.

Now the talking point is "just pass a bill". H.R. 3755 was brought to the Senate floor just last month, and was filibustered by all Republicans and Joe Manchin. So that's that.

Two points of interest here. First regarding women's "bodily autonomy" which should be sacrosanct as it should be for anyone. But, unfortunately, we're not dealing with only one person's bodily autonomy with abortion, the baby's autonomy is involved as well and is as equally sacrosanct as any other person's.

Second, the original Roe decision was indeed "invented from whole cloth" more so than any current opinion by the justices. It has long been recognized to have been extremely poor jurisprudence and a very weak and flawed ruling that should have been reversed decades ago. This has nothing to do with medical/biological arguments but rather clear constitutional law.

That said I don't have a dog in this fight and can see both sides of the question as having valid positions. But with the reversal of Roe the legality of abortion returns to state legislatures to decide, which is where it should have stayed in a democratic republic all along. That's the whole point of our system of governance, allowing local control of the majority of legislation (within states) so regional people can decide how they want their society structured for themselves.

Prior to the implementation of the federal income tax in the early 1900s the federal government was very weak and state governments were strong, as was intended by our very intelligent founders. And national senators were appointed by state legislatures instead of chosen by popular election which also strengthened state sovereignty. Sadly we'll never be able to return to those days...

 

[Matador]

Two points of interest here. First regarding women's "bodily autonomy" which should be sacrosanct as it should be for anyone. But, unfortunately, we're not dealing with only one person's bodily autonomy with abortion, the baby's autonomy is involved as well and is as equally sacrosanct as any other person's.

Setting aside that a bundle of 100 cells isn't a person, this act of balancing competing rights was the exact balance struck by Roe - prior to viability, the woman's rights took precedence, and after, the life of the baby (provided the life of the mother wasn't I jeopardy) was favored.

What if one of your kidneys could save a life? Can the state compel you to donate it against your wishes?

That's the whole point of our system of governance, allowing local control of the majority of legislation (within states) so regional people can decide how they want their society structured for themselves.

No. Our system was NOT designed where each state doled out an individual's rights on a state-by-state basis. It's why a woman can vote in every state, and when you get married it's recognized across the board, and people of color are allowed to eat in the same restaurant as everyone else regardless of where you are.

Sadly we'll never be able to return to those days...

You mean those days right after people stopped owning other people?

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Setting aside that a bundle of 100 cells isn't a person, this act of balancing competing rights was the exact balance struck by Roe - prior to viability, the woman's rights took precedence, and after, the life of the baby (provided the life of the mother wasn't I jeopardy) was favored.

Always with the reductionist dodge. At what point does the "clump of cells" become a human baby? Answer that and we can go from there.

What if one of your kidneys could save a life? Can the state compel you to donate it against your wishes?

Irrelevant. Of course not, a kidney can never develop into a human, so it isn't the same thing at all. What a garbage argument.

No. Our system was NOT designed where each state doled out an individual's rights on a state-by-state basis. It's why a woman can vote in every state, and when you get married it's recognized across the board, and people of color are allowed to eat in the same restaurant as everyone else regardless of where you are.

Abortion isn't a right under the Constitution as it currently exists. So this is not a Federal matter. The Constitution delimits the power of Federal government and anything not explicitly a Federal power is the business of the States and the People. It really is that simple. Attempt to amend the Constitution if you want this to be a Federally protected right, but don't whine when it either doesn't pass or passes with compromises.

You mean those days right after people stopped owning other people?

Another bogus trope. How original and surprising.

 

[scott2000]

At what point does the "clump of cells" become a human baby? Answer that and we can go from there.

A bit of an open ended question maybe?
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

 

[AnalogPackrat]

A bit of an open ended question maybe?
https://www.ncsl.org/research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx

It is the central question, in my opinion. I don't think it is unreasonable to limit abortion to within 12-16 weeks. This is where most of Europe has also ended up.

 

[hodad]

But, unfortunately, we're not dealing with only one person's bodily autonomy with abortion

And somehow, far too many Republicans don't seem to care about a woman's bodily autonomy much at all. They care less about a woman's autonomy being violated by rape than they do about forcing her to carry a fetus generated by that rape to term.

I can't speak for you, but I've heard far too many Republicans whose regard for a woman's bodily autonomy is negligible at best.

Second, the original Roe decision was indeed "invented from whole cloth" more so than any current opinion by the justices.

That's just like your opinion, man. There's a pretty fair argument that one or two of the decisions handed down in the past week might take that honor. In fact, one of them distorted (or lied about) the demonstrable facts of the case in support of the decision--if that's not inventing from whole cloth, I'm not sure what is.

Also, are you just here to argue politics, or do you actually do audio DIY?

 

[scott2000]

I don't think it is unreasonable to limit abortion to within 12-16 weeks

I can see some sporting The Rock tees
"it doesn't matter what you think jabroni"

 

[JohnRoberts]

It is the central question, in my opinion. I don't think it is unreasonable to limit abortion to within 12-16 weeks. This is where most of Europe has also ended up.

Indeed there is a middle ground for reasonable people to embrace.
===
Not many reasonable people involved in politics these days, it all about raising funds and polarizing voters.

JR

 

[AnalogPackrat]

And somehow, far too many Republicans don't seem to care about a woman's bodily autonomy much at all. They care less about a woman's autonomy being violated by rape than they do about forcing her to carry a fetus generated by that rape to term.

Rape and incest are common exceptions to abortion limits. But 12-16 weeks should provide plenty of time to the victim, no? The rest of your statement is worthless.

I can't speak for you, but I've heard far too many Republicans whose regard for a woman's bodily autonomy is negligible at best.

Blah blah. Can you focus on the discussion here instead of constantly deflecting and over-generalizing?

That's just like your opinion, man. There's a pretty fair argument that one or two of the decisions handed down in the past week might take that honor. In fact, one of them distorted (or lied about) the demonstrable facts of the case in support of the decision--if that's not inventing from whole cloth, I'm not sure what is.

More irrational word salad. Provide references that back your point that abortion is a Constitutionally protected right and that the 2A doesn't mean what it clearly says.

Also, are you just here to argue politics, or do you actually do audio DIY?

I can't speak for others, but I have many hobbies and interests. DIY audio is one of them.

 

[shabtek]

myofb?

 

[Matador]

"Originalism" is a buzzword used as cover for politically-driven conservative extremism in the judiciary.

 

[boji]

Setting aside that a bundle of 100 cells isn't a person

I think it's dangerous not to sort this out. Why should the potential for life and life itself be treated with differing amounts of sanctity?
When I game that out to its end, I imagine the gene tinkerers stepping in and creating entire new theatres of class warfare.

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Look, a washed up progressive comedian and some like-thinking lawyers! Nothing in the 14th Amendment says or even implies anything about abortion except perhaps that at some point on the gestation timeline abortion is, in fact, depriving a person of life without due process.

Our civilization is built on a foundation of written law. Law that has persistent meaning through time. Our system of laws provides mechanisms for modifying, adding, and repealing existing law. The founders laid out a Federal system with clear division of power and various checks and balances. This is the basis of our civil society. To pretend that 1) the founders wanted these laws to be in flux and subject to judicial or other radical reinterpretive whims, or 2) that the written law has no persistent meaning is not only ridiculous on its face, but outright dangerous to the republic.

What rational alternative to originalism is there?

 

[Matador]

Why should the potential for life and life itself be treated with differing amounts of sanctity?

Saying a zygote is different than a full-fledged newborn shouldn't be controversial. Also note that I said it's not the same as a person, I didn't say it was devoid of rights. So the mother (should) have rights, and the unborn should have rights too, yes?

 

[hodad]

Why should the potential for life and life itself be treated with differing amounts of sanctity?

Which side are you asking this of? The fetus-worshiping right wing who stop caring once the fetus becomes a person? The ones who are so concerned about a zygote that they don't care if giving birth could potentially kill the mother? I just want to be clear here.

 

[shabtek]

perfect example of why limited government don't work

 

[AnalogPackrat]

Which side are you asking this of? The fetus-worshiping right wing who stop caring once the fetus becomes a person? The ones who are so concerned about a zygote that they don't care if giving birth could potentially kill the mother? I just want to be clear here.

Maybe check some statistics before you run your mouth.

https://adoption.org/who-adopts-the-most

 

[AnalogPackrat]

perfect example of why limited government don't work

How so? Do you think unlimited government works better?