Joe Biden, Me Too..

[Sea of red]

The fact that he has stuck to those positions since getting elected and didn't abandon them once he moved into the White House is compelling evidence that he had a true conversion.

Whatever you want to believe dude.

The guy was ready to abandon the wall and get onboard gun control, until the base sent his approval numbers plummeting.

[rogue06]

It's just as bad inside the GOP.

Which brings us back to my original statement:

I don't think that either party represents the mainstream social views of America

Moore was supported by Trump to the very end, and most Republicans still voted for him, too. King was known to be a racist scumbag for years, but he was only punished when the media focused on a few of his comments.

At least with the Republicans they pretty much stripped King of his seniority and power whereas the Democrats keep circling the wagons around their haters, attacking anyone with the temerity to point out some of their vileness and brazenly pretending it doesn't exist.

[Sea of red]

It's almost like there's politics involved.

Of course.

As much crap as politicians get, you have to blame the voters for having such unreasonable demands.

Alright, blokes, I'm gone. My car is finally ready. I've been waiting in a repair shop.

It's been real.

[Cow Poke]

Of course.

As much crap as politicians get, you have to blame the voters for having such unreasonable demands.

Alright, blokes, I'm gone. My car is finally ready. I've been waiting in a repair shop.

It's been real.

And off he goes - a fiery horse with a speed of light, a cloud of dust, and a hearty ‘Hi-Yo, Silver!’

[Terraceth]

There's also not many Americans that want Roe overturned, the transgendered to be banned from the military, for the drug war to continue, for a wall to be built, or for current gun laws to remain stagnant, but that hasn't stopped the Republicans any.

The question of how many people want Roe v. Wade overturned is an odd one. When asked directly whether they want it overturned the numbers aren't that high, but from what I can tell a good chunk of those who say they're against an overturn are in favor of abortion restrictions that Roe v. Wade claims are unconstitutional. I wonder what the numbers would be if everyone was properly educated as to the specifics of what is and isn't prohibited by Roe v. Wade (or perhaps more accurately Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which modified Roe v. Wade a little).

[Tassman]

The question of how many people want Roe v. Wade overturned is an odd one. When asked directly whether they want it overturned the numbers aren't that high, but from what I can tell a good chunk of those who say they're against an overturn are in favor of abortion restrictions that Roe v. Wade claims are unconstitutional. I wonder what the numbers would be if everyone was properly educated as to the specifics of what is and isn't prohibited by Roe v. Wade (or perhaps more accurately Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which modified Roe v. Wade a little).

I think most agree that Roe v Wade (and the Casey modification) gets the balance right between the rights of the woman and rights of the fetus.

“The SCOTUS attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability”.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

[rogue06]

I think most agree that Roe v Wade (and the Casey modification) gets the balance right between the rights of the woman and rights of the fetus.

And you would be wrong. Poll after poll reveals that while the majority of Americans don't want abortion completely outlawed (the part of these polls that the MSM reports on), they also show that they want tighter restrictions than what we have under Roe and Casey (the part of the polls that the MSM typically leaves out).

For example, the annual NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll on abortion, consistently shows that even among those who self-identify as "pro-choice" over 60% of them want abortion restricted to the first three months (first trimester). Among Americans overall, three-quarters of us want that or even more.

Moreover, nearly two-thirds of all Americans say they want the Supreme Court to revisit Roe in a substantial way.

And when Roe is not mentioned in the polling the numbers are even more eye-opening. Last years Gallup poll found that 53% want abortion to be illegal in all or most circumstances. In fact, since 1994 when Gallup started annual tracking of attitudes toward abortion the combined percentage of people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in "all circumstances" or legal "only in a few circumstances" has exceeded 50% every time.

[Cow Poke]

And you would be wrong. Poll after poll reveals that while the majority of Americans don't want abortion completely outlawed (the part of these polls that the MSM reports on), they also show that they want tighter restrictions than what we have under Roe and Casey (the part of the polls that the MSM typically leaves out).

For example, the annual NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll on abortion, consistently shows that even among those who self-identify as "pro-choice" over 60% of them want abortion restricted to the first three months (first trimester). Among Americans overall, three-quarters of us want that or even more.

Moreover, nearly two-thirds of all Americans say they want the Supreme Court to revisit Roe in a substantial way.

And when Roe is not mentioned in the polling the numbers are even more eye-opening. Last years Gallup poll found that 53% want abortion to be illegal in all or most circumstances. In fact, since 1994 when Gallup started annual tracking of attitudes toward abortion the combined percentage of people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in "all circumstances" or legal "only in a few circumstances" has exceeded 50% every time.

I wonder what the polling would be if you included only people who had actually seen an early stage sonogram of a developing unborn baby. Or, better yet, actually witnessed an abortion. In other words, something akin to "an informed electorate".

[Tassman]

And you would be wrong. Poll after poll reveals that while the majority of Americans don't want abortion completely outlawed (the part of these polls that the MSM reports on), they also show that they want tighter restrictions than what we have under Roe and Casey (the part of the polls that the MSM typically leaves out).

For example, the annual NPR/PBS NewsHour/Marist poll on abortion, consistently shows that even among those who self-identify as "pro-choice" over 60% of them want abortion restricted to the first three months (first trimester). Among Americans overall, three-quarters of us want that or even more.

Moreover, nearly two-thirds of all Americans say they want the Supreme Court to revisit Roe in a substantial way.

And when Roe is not mentioned in the polling the numbers are even more eye-opening. Last years Gallup poll found that 53% want abortion to be illegal in all or most circumstances. In fact, since 1994 when Gallup started annual tracking of attitudes toward abortion the combined percentage of people who said they believe abortion should be illegal in "all circumstances" or legal "only in a few circumstances" has exceeded 50% every time.

Yes there are substantial partisan and ideological divides on abortion but overall: “About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) said in a 2018 survey that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 37% who said it should be illegal all or most of the time. Public opinion on this question has been relatively stable over more than two decades of Pew Research Center polling”.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...te-in-america/

[Terraceth]

I think most agree that Roe v Wade (and the Casey modification) gets the balance right between the rights of the woman and rights of the fetus.

“The SCOTUS attempted to balance the state’s distinct compelling interests in the health of pregnant women and in the potential life of fetuses. It placed the point after which a state’s compelling interest in the pregnant woman’s health would allow it to regulate abortion “at approximately the end of the first trimester” of pregnancy. With regard to the fetus, the court located that point at “capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb,” or viability”.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

Except the "balance" attempted was the state's interest in health/potential life against... nothing. What "right" of the woman was being removed? The prohibition of abortion is a prohibition of a medical procedure; the government puts all kinds of restrictions, regulations, or even prohibitions on those. If the government can't prohibit abortion, then it logically should be equally unable to ban the use of cocaine. So the Supreme Court simply invented a right (which it doesn't even apply consistently), then claimed this invented right (a right that, as John Hart Ely points out, is "not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers' thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation's governmental structure.") was somehow so powerful that it removed the government's ability to regulate abortion to any practical effect.

Again, I cannot recommend John Hart Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" article enough for explaining the astounding extent to which Roe v. Wade "is bad because it is bad constitutional law, or rather because it is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be." And, as I have said before and will note again, John Hart Ely was pro-choice.

If we're going to make up rights out of nowhere, let's go the full route and return to the Lochner era and enforce freedom of contract. Under freedom of contract, minimum wage laws are unconstitutional, laws setting maximum work hours are unconstitutional, and employment discrimination laws are unconstitutional. Let's knock them all down! It's certainly a right no less supported by the Constitution than the right asserted in Roe v. Wade.

Certainly, someone can argue that Roe v. Wade/Planned Parenthood v. Casey, from a policy standpoint, hit the right balance. But deciding policy is not the job of the court system. The court system, when it comes to judicial review, simply has the job to determine whether a particular law is constitutional or not, not whether it was wise policy or not. And the Constitution is simply silent on the subject. "The Constitution has little to say about contract, less about abortion, and those who would speculate about which the framers would have been more likely to protect may not be pleased with the answer." (John Hart Ely again)

And even if the argument is that the SCOTUS's decision matches up with society's thoughts on the issue, that argument is self-refuting. If society was so OK with allowing abortions, there should be no problem with overturning Roe v. Wade. After all, society would simply allow the applicable access to abortion required by Roe v. Wade without the decision, right? So there's no need for the decision.

[Tassman]

And even if the argument is that the SCOTUS's decision matches up with society's thoughts on the issue, that argument is self-refuting. If society was so OK with allowing abortions, there should be no problem with overturning Roe v. Wade. After all, society would simply allow the applicable access to abortion required by Roe v. Wade without the decision, right? So there's no need for the decision.

Nice in theory but in practice it was because of restrictive state regulations that Roe v Wade was necessary in the first place. And given what’s occurring in Alabama the same situation is likely to recur.

[rogue06]

Yes there are substantial partisan and ideological divides on abortion but overall: “About six-in-ten U.S. adults (58%) said in a 2018 survey that abortion should be legal in all or most cases, compared with 37% who said it should be illegal all or most of the time. Public opinion on this question has been relatively stable over more than two decades of Pew Research Center polling”.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...te-in-america/

As I said, "the majority of Americans don't want abortion completely outlawed," but even this poll reveals that the majority want to see it restricted what with 55% wanting limitations and another 16% wanting it illegal (that's 71%). Only 22% want what the Democrats have been pushing for, namely unrestricted abortion.

[rogue06]

Nice in theory but in practice it was because of restrictive state regulations that Roe v Wade was necessary in the first place. And given what’s occurring in Alabama the same situation is likely to recur.

In reality Roe is largely the result of a deceptive propaganda put out by the pro-abortion crowd and uncritically regurgitated by an all too willing press. They lied through their teeth about just about everything.

Bernard Nathanson, co-founder in 1969 of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (NARAL) and one time director of New York City’s Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health (who later found God and became a very vocal Pro-Life supporter) exposed how the pro-abortion movement deliberately fabricated statistics concerning the number of deaths linked to illegal abortions in order to garner support for legalizing abortion. To give an example of just how outrageously their lies were, Nathanson confessed that he and his fellow travelers constantly fed the media the lie that 10,000 women a year died as a result of botched illegal abortion when in fact it was but a tiny fraction of that (in 1972, the year prior to Roe v. Wade, 28 deaths were reported from illegal abortions). And of course the MSM dutifully and unthinkingly parroted these numbers.

[Cow Poke]

In reality Roe is largely the result of a deceptive propaganda put out by the pro-abortion crowd and uncritically regurgitated by an all too willing press. They lied through their teeth about just about everything.

Besides, of course, being established on the very tragic life of "Roe" (Norma MCcorvey) who subsequently accepted Christ as Savior and abandoned Roe and her homosexuality.

Hmmmm... abortion and homosexuality are inconsistent with having accepted Jesus as Savior. Quick, somebody call Buttigieg!!!

[Terraceth]

Nice in theory but in practice it was because of restrictive state regulations that Roe v Wade was necessary in the first place.

Roe v. Wade was in no way "necessary" because those restrictive state regulations ran afoul of no part of the Constitution. Well, to be fair, a reasonable argument could be made they were (as worded at the time) unconstitutionally vague, which would allow states to revise those laws to be more clear. But the idea that these laws inherently are unconstitutional is nonsense. Indeed, voiding for vagueness is apparently what the Supreme Court was originally going to rule, thereby giving states an opportunity to reword their laws to fix them--but instead of this much more reasonable narrow ruling, they decided to engage in possibly the most extreme case of "legislating from the bench" in US history.

It's reminiscent of how Dred Scott v. Sandford was originally going to be a limited statement concerning the citizenship of Dred Scott that would have probably been forgotten in history, but in its final form it made the infamous rulings that no Black Americans were entitled to the rights of citizenship and the probably-not-as-infamous-now-but-possibly-more-problematic-at-the-time striking down of the Missouri Compromise, arguably leading to the Civil War.

And given what’s occurring in Alabama the same situation is likely to recur.

So you've disproven your own argument! If people were so supportive of Roe v. Wade, as you claim, it would be unnecessary. Much like how if the Supreme Court were to unanimously declare that they messed up with Brown v. Board of Education, you'd see no state suddenly jump on the idea of passing segregation laws, because they're now so profoundly unpopular that Brown v. Board of Education is practically meaningless. The same is clearly not true of Roe v. Wade.