more rights to be taken away ?

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

As a Fderal matter, abortion is still legal in the USA. It is now up to the voters in each state to determine what is what on abortion.

In how many states effected by trigger bans were citizens given a chance to vote on abortion rights?

Not one.

For a change, more salacious lies from the RWWs.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Here are a few:

right for married people to use contraception
parental rights
same sex marriage

all decided upon by the Supreme Court



Justice reasoning

"The constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases."

Justice opinion

"All rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

Is this something you're anticipating or something you've actually read the Supreme Court is considering?

[Jacuzzme]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

In how many states effected by trigger bans were citizens given a chance to vote on abortion rights?

All of them, when they voted for their elected representatives knowing full well what their stance on abortion was.

Not one.

For a change, more salacious lies from the RWWs.

Your understanding of basics civics was aborted.

[Austin Ellen]

God Damn - you are really stupid. Save yourself and go take a civics class. Thank you Jesus Christ for not letting this dumbass be on Team Trump. Amen

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Here are a few:

right for married people to use contraception
parental rights
same sex marriage

all decided upon by the Supreme Court



Justice reasoning

"The constitution’s Due Process Clause does not secure a right to an abortion or any other substantive rights, and he urged the court to apply that reasoning to other landmark cases."

Justice opinion

"All rights that have no history stretching back to the mid-19th century are insecure. Either the mass of the majority’s opinion is hypocrisy, or additional constitutional rights are under threat. It is one or the other.”

[oilfieldace]

The Supremes CANNOT make laws- ergo abortion is neither a right or a law . It’s was made of whole cloth by a super majority of Republican appointed justices that DID NOT HAVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAW IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Federal laws are made by the jackets on the hill. Vote red come November

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Is this something you're anticipating or something you've actually read the Supreme Court is considering?

Read the Supreme Court justice opinion in the last paragraph.



But thank you for elevating me to the level of the Supreme Court.

[VitaMan]

Originally Posted by Austin Ellen

God Damn - you are really stupid. Save yourself and go take a civics class. Thank you Jesus Christ for not letting this dumbass be on Team Trump. Amen

This seems to be your "go to" line saying others are stupid or dumb.
That's all you've got. All hat, no cattle.



Maybe Mr. Musk will throw you a bone and let you tour his factory in Austin.

[Austin Ellen]

Jesus fucking Christ - you need to look in the mirror. I never put anyone on ignore before but I'm going to start with you. I can't take how stupid you are.

Originally Posted by VitaMan

This seems to be your "go to" line saying others are stupid or dumb.
That's all you've got. All hat, no cattle.



Maybe Mr. Musk will throw you a bone and let you tour his factory in Austin.

[VitaMan]

Can't wait

[Salty Again]

... Yep... President Trump - with His long reach - surely was
one o' the Heroes yesterday. ..

... GREAT choices for the Supreme Court...

#### Salty

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Read the Supreme Court justice opinion in the last paragraph.



But thank you for elevating me to the level of the Supreme Court.

Trust me I wasn't elevating you to anything. I think you have a talent for misinterpreting information. So I always have to question it.

[VitaMan]

Because you are unable to start a thread of your own.


You must be happy you got your questions answered, even though it wasn't the answer you were hoping for.

[bb1961]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Trust me I wasn't elevating you to anything. I think you have a talent for misinterpreting information. So I always have to question it.

It called deflection...he has a doctorate in it!!

[VitaMan]

His questions were answered. Both of you may as well just mail it in.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

The Supreme Court justices are already considering using the Roe decision as a precedent to remove other established rights.

You are getting what you wished for. Just wait till yours are taken away.

More false information, why am I not surprised. Alito and Kavanugh both concurred that the votes to take away the things you mentioned IS NOT being considered and if they were, they would fail. Abortion is completely different because it involves taking a life. None of those other issues do that.



What Justice Thomas said was not that these other matters "will be brought up" but that they could since they were all based on the same reasoning ( more or less ) as Roe was. Yes, they all "could be brought up" and Alito and Kavanaugh ( at least ) suggested that they would not be inclined to vote against contraceptives, gay marriage and interracial marriage.


Abortion was "different" Alito said because abortion takes the life of a child, words described in Casey, the case that came 20 years after Roe just as Ginsburg predicted it would because Ginsburg, though all in favor of Roe, knew it was based on faulty understanding of the law and was bound to find it's way to the court again.


As for the "precedent" reasoning, Plessey "separate but equal" was law of the land for 58 years before being over turned by Brown. Does that mean it should have stood forever? Of course not.


Why is such simple reasoning so hard for some people to understand or is it that they understand the reasoning, they just don't like it because it doesn't go their way.


37 states had already decided that Gay marriage would be legal in their states before the SC "found" this right in the Constitution. Of course it isn't in the Constitution any more that Roe was but even if the SC over ruled same sex marriage, the votes are there for a Constitutional Amendment affirming Gay marriage and I would bet everything I own that if push came to shove, interracial marriage and contraceptives could rely on those same states and more to confirm those rights but hey, why let a little chaos slip through you fingers when you can put out false information ( some would say just like Trump did ) to further your narrative.


Stop all the lying..... both sides!