Roe V Wade has been repealed

Status
Not open for further replies.

SScorpio

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jan 30, 2008
Messages
145
Trophies
0
XP
1,200
Country
United States
Also, it's not a "you lose, majority win" situation. Trump campaigned mostly on empty threats and promises and standard mudslinging. He accomplished nothing his campaign was based on, spent two years repealing Obama era laws and blaming COVID on China while setting up tariffs and golfing. What down time he had he spent crying about voter fraud (during his presidency, mind you) and staffing as much of the Supreme Court and cabinet related positions with people that pandered to him rather than people who generally sought to make things better for "Every"one.
So he didn't get major tax reforms passed that ended the "marriage tax", simplified the vast majority of tax filings by making most people eligible for the standard deduction, and get people to pay their "fair share" rather than allowing states first dibs?
 

LainaGabranth

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
413
Trophies
0
Age
53
Location
Sneed's Feed and Seed
XP
705
Country
United States
Just a week ago, as a man, I was told by a lot of women that I was not entitled to an opinion.
Now its "selfish" for me to not care?

pick a lane.
"Uh I was told something different by someone else, so now it's selfish according to you, a different person, to say something different from them???"
Please don't post anything this bad faith again, it's embarrassing.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,140
Country
United States
So he didn't get major tax reforms passed that ended the "marriage tax", simplified the vast majority of tax filings by making most people eligible for the standard deduction, and get people to pay their "fair share" rather than allowing states first dibs?

Yes he did, and those are some pretty good accomplishments. Out of 4 years in office, did he accomplish anything else his campaign was based on?
 

LainaGabranth

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2022
Messages
413
Trophies
0
Age
53
Location
Sneed's Feed and Seed
XP
705
Country
United States
Yes he did, and those are some pretty good accomplishments. Out of 4 years in office, did he accomplish anything else his campaign was based on?
It says a lot when a guy campaigns on wild shit like "I am gonna build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, and deport all the illegals, and stop sanctuary cities!!"

And all his fucking cultists have to say is "Uhhh, well, uhhhhh, he like, did a tax break or something." Like, look at how much they're trying to hype it up. Big fucking deal, he had a tax break. He didn't address the systemic and economic issues that resulted in the want for said tax breaks, he just slashed tax rates for people. So yes, that is still bad. It's a bandage on a huge issue, but god forbid a fucking Trumper has the IQ to parse systemic issues.
 

SyphenFreht

As above, so below
Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2016
Messages
556
Trophies
0
Age
120
XP
1,140
Country
United States
It says a lot when a guy campaigns on wild shit like "I am gonna build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, and deport all the illegals, and stop sanctuary cities!!"

And all his fucking cultists have to say is "Uhhh, well, uhhhhh, he like, did a tax break or something." Like, look at how much they're trying to hype it up. Big fucking deal, he had a tax break. He didn't address the systemic and economic issues that resulted in the want for said tax breaks, he just slashed tax rates for people. So yes, that is still bad. It's a bandage on a huge issue, but god forbid a fucking Trumper has the IQ to parse systemic issues.

Not to mention most of those tax breaks went to people much higher up on the economic class than the majority of Americans. I think it was something stupid like $100k+, but my exact numbers could be a little off.

But you're right. Most of his followers don't understand that he did very little to nothing for any fan of his that doesn't own a profitable business. He didn't turn the economy around, he didn't fix any immigration besides the tariffs he put on China (of which immigration was a by product and not even the right country according to his campaign), and pretty much blundered his way through COVID, which wasn't entirely his fault and would've been a miserable experience for any president, and left office with the country in worse position than when he inherited it.

And to this day, all the people that defended his "grab em by the p*$$y" statement now get to gloat about how they can get away with demeaning women and no one can do anything about it because Roe v Wade got overturned (which wasn't directly his fault besides fielding judges that pandered to him).

It must be fun to be blissfully ignorant to the human condition. There's so many people on this board alone that revel in it.
 

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
283
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
564
Country
Portugal
It says a lot when a guy campaigns on wild shit like "I am gonna build a wall, and make Mexico pay for it, and deport all the illegals, and stop sanctuary cities!!"

And all his fucking cultists have to say is "Uhhh, well, uhhhhh, he like, did a tax break or something." Like, look at how much they're trying to hype it up. Big fucking deal, he had a tax break. He didn't address the systemic and economic issues that resulted in the want for said tax breaks, he just slashed tax rates for people. So yes, that is still bad. It's a bandage on a huge issue, but god forbid a fucking Trumper has the IQ to parse systemic issues.

Tax break for the rich... didn't he keep or raise taxes for the common people?
 

Nothereed

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
385
Trophies
0
Age
21
Location
nope
XP
646
Country
United States
Roe was always controversial and invented out of whole cloth. It’s been cited as an example of legislating from the bench for decades, everybody and their dog knew that it was bad law from day 1. Nobody’s surprised that it was overturned - it was always at risk of being challenged. Congress had 50 years to address this problem accordingly, and it had failed to do so.
No it wasn't always at risk of being challanged, because of the 3 supreme court justices trump appointed, all of them said they support roe v wade. So no none of the public was informed that they were going to overturn it. Everyone could only speculate that they could be lying.

So this causes a condrum foxi4.
those same justices say they wouldn't overturn roe v wade under oath. Which means they believed it was constitutional. Why suddenly overturn it?
Either it was constitutional, and the justices LIED to get onto the court to subvert the people. Or it was unconstitutional, which would of meant they again, lied under oath, not admitting their main goal.
At the end of the day, what we have is a ruling that 60% of people consider a illegitimate ruling.
 

Kurt91

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2012
Messages
561
Trophies
0
Age
31
Location
Newport, WA
XP
1,651
Country
United States
Don't take this as me taking a side either way, I simply want to ask a question.

So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?

Wouldn't this imply that the entire time, Congress knew that they needed to formally pass a law to cement RvW as law? Not a full-out Constitutional Amendment, just pass a single bill? As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the Constitution that specifically allows abortion, but there's nothing there that specifically denies it. That would be the explanation as to why the Supreme Court overturned it, right? It's not the Supreme Court's place to create laws, their job is to simply strike down laws that go against the Constitution. So, at any point, Congress could have just passed a typical bill into law to cement abortions being legal, and there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to do even if they wanted to strike it down.

Just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly, because throughout the entire thread people have been saying that it needed a full-blown Constitutional Amendment, which is hard as balls to do, when just a normal passed bill into law would have sufficed, which is MUCH easier and could have been done damn near effortlessly in comparison.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Foxi4

MariArch

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
May 9, 2021
Messages
183
Trophies
0
Age
21
XP
654
Country
United States
Don't take this as me taking a side either way, I simply want to ask a question.

So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?

Wouldn't this imply that the entire time, Congress knew that they needed to formally pass a law to cement RvW as law? Not a full-out Constitutional Amendment, just pass a single bill? As far as I'm aware, there isn't anything in the Constitution that specifically allows abortion, but there's nothing there that specifically denies it. That would be the explanation as to why the Supreme Court overturned it, right? It's not the Supreme Court's place to create laws, their job is to simply strike down laws that go against the Constitution. So, at any point, Congress could have just passed a typical bill into law to cement abortions being legal, and there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to do even if they wanted to strike it down.

Just wanted to make sure I understood this correctly, because throughout the entire thread people have been saying that it needed a full-blown Constitutional Amendment, which is hard as balls to do, when just a normal passed bill into law would have sufficed, which is MUCH easier and could have been done damn near effortlessly in comparison.
A bill passed by the house cementing roe v wade would be immediately struck down by the court on the grounds that this is a 10th amendment issue lol. They're not going to be able to stop people from making their own laws in their states. Federalism wins.
 

Nothereed

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2022
Messages
385
Trophies
0
Age
21
Location
nope
XP
646
Country
United States
So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade.
Which all of the recent 3 republican leaning justices did say they supported it... to only then go back on their word.
. They're not going to be able to stop people from making their own laws in their states. Federalism wins.
Yeah, and your group is going to experience something called "consent to the governed" You can't just go repealing shit that 60% of people consider as a right. I mean you can, but not without completely de-legitimizing the supreme court. Which is exactly what's happening.
 

zxr750j

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 29, 2003
Messages
737
Trophies
0
Location
Utrecht
XP
2,145
Country
Netherlands
I regret to inform you all: the USA has dropped a couple of places in my "Countries to visit"...
It could be worse: Turkey is a no go place for me with the current regime.
 

deinonychus71

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Sep 12, 2008
Messages
870
Trophies
0
Location
Chicago
XP
2,145
Country
United States
I have always said that people on the right have no morals and their posts in this thread are why.
If you compare it to most countries in the western world democrats are also on the right, and not just a little.
They don't give two shits about fixing the healthcare system, even in their own state.
They completely abandoned the concept of class warfare, but they sure as hell will remind you that you, little Walmart worker that you are, are full of privileges. It's easier to control people when they're busy fighting each other in their own bubbles rather than their elites.

I disagree with most of what republicans represent, forcing religion on people, the repeal of absorption laws, lack of gun control, lack of government intervention in the economy, no healthcare consideration, paranoia over immigration, no understanding of the concept of equality of chances (that often gets misrepresented for equality of outcome), there's a lot of things wrong.

But the democrats are barely better, they do put a good show in defense of diversity, but that's it.
So long as people entertain this circus of blue versus red, left versus right, people will always lose. The US are dealing with a right versus far right politics, with some left & far left being loud on social media but having no real representation. That's it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SyphenFreht

Foxi4

Endless Trash
Global Moderator
Joined
Sep 13, 2009
Messages
29,379
Trophies
2
Location
Gaming Grotto
XP
27,150
Country
Poland
No it wasn't always at risk of being challanged, because of the 3 supreme court justices trump appointed, all of them said they support roe v wade. So no none of the public was informed that they were going to overturn it. Everyone could only speculate that they could be lying.

So this causes a condrum foxi4.
those same justices say they wouldn't overturn roe v wade under oath. Which means they believed it was constitutional. Why suddenly overturn it?
Either it was constitutional, and the justices LIED to get onto the court to subvert the people. Or it was unconstitutional, which would of meant they again, lied under oath, not admitting their main goal.
At the end of the day, what we have is a ruling that 60% of people consider a illegitimate ruling.
That’s not what they said. They said that it’s precedent. Precedents can be overturned if they turn out to be incorrect upon further examination. This restores the legitimacy of the court, not damage it. Their one and only job is to determine constitutionality, not to generate pseudo-legislation that pleases the electorate, they’re not a replacement for the legislature. Legislating is the job of Congress. Petition Congress to do its job and legislate accordingly, don’t blame the SCOTUS for doing precisely what it’s supposed to do.
Tax break for the rich... didn't he keep or raise taxes for the common people?
All tax brackets saw reduced tax liability under TCJA. Percentage-wise the tax cut benefitted low and middle income households the most - filers with annual incomes between $50-100K saved anywhere between 15-17%. Households with incomes between $15-$50K saved 16%. By comparison, households with incomes between $500k-$1m saved around 9% and those above $1m only saved 6%. People get uppity about those figures because they look at total dollar amounts which is inherently misleading. The “1%” obviously saved more in dollars because they have significantly higher incomes in general, their savings as a fraction of income were lower. The target group for cuts was always the middle class, and that’s who saw the biggest benefits in context.

https://www.heartland.org/publicati...ax-cuts-and-jobs-act-on-personal-income-taxes
So, each time one of these Supreme Court Justices were appointed, they were each asked about whether they supported Roe V. Wade. Wouldn't that mean that this entire time Congress and everybody knew that RvW was on shaky grounds and could be repealed any time, only reliant on picking Justices who agreed that they wouldn't?
*Ding Ding Ding!* We have a winner! Good job, you figured the con out. The whole process is not designed to select judges that are well-versed in constitutional law, it’s designed to pick judges that will be subservient pazzis for Congress. That is not how the system is supposed to work - the SCOTUS is supposed to be a check on Congress. Their only job should be to examine constitutionality, these kinds of questions are designed to eliminate judges that refuse to jeopardise their integrity on behalf of an impotent legislature.

Roe v. Wade was always bad law, it was always criticised as an instance of judicial activism and it was always under threat of being repealed because it was ruled on a shaky foundation. The reason why the justices were asked this question is because everybody and their dog in DC knows this for a fact. The decision only existed for this long because Congress refused to properly legislate the issue - now they’re forced to act, and that’s a good thing. About damn time for Congress to do its job and do something for the people, either via federal law or via a constitutional amendment - the proper way rights are introduced.

We cannot ignore bad law solely on the premise that we like its results. If Roe v. Wade was unconstitutional, the only legitimate decision the court should make is to overturn it. If the people want abortion rights to be enshrined in the Constitution, they must necessarily be added to the Constitution, and there’s an established process on how that’s done. Corrupting the court and abusing its function isn’t it. A single abortion bill would suffice though - the reason why that’s not preferable to an amendment is that bills can be rolled back by future administrations, causing a tug of war. That’s inconsequential though - the law is the law. If even our lawmakers don’t follow it, what is the justification for pushing it onto the citizenry? They have certain confines they need to work in - now they have a pickle, and they need to figure it out, it’s what they’re paid for.
 

mrdude

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2015
Messages
1,542
Trophies
1
Age
54
XP
4,294
Country
I have always said that people on the right have no morals and their posts in this thread are why.
And yet they are mostly the ones in this thread that are against murdering unborn babies. I think they have a much better moral compass than those that want to kill an innocent life. I don't expect you to understand that as your NPC programming won't be able to compute that much data.
 

Dark_Ansem

Well-Known Member
Member
Joined
Oct 12, 2014
Messages
820
Trophies
0
Location
Death Star
XP
807
Country
United Kingdom
And yet they are mostly the ones in this thread that are against murdering unborn babies. I think they have a much better moral compass than those that want to kill an innocent life. I don't expect you to understand that as your NPC programming won't be able to compute that much data.
LOL the minus habens again with the lies. Claiming to protect the babies only to have them die in school shootouts after a life in poverty and misery. You aren't protecting anything - you just feel entitled to women's bodies, you incels.
*Ding Ding Ding!* We have a winner! Good job, you figured the con out. The whole process is not designed to select judges that are well-versed in constitutional law, it’s designed to pick judges that will be subservient pazzis for Congress. That is not how the system is supposed to work - the SCOTUS is supposed to be a check on Congress. Their only job should be to examine constitutionality, these kinds of questions are designed to eliminate judges that refuse to jeopardise their integrity on behalf of an impotent legislature.

Roe v. Wade was always bad law, it was always criticised as an instance of judicial activism and it was always under threat of being repealed because it was ruled on a shaky foundation. The reason why the justices were asked this question is because everybody and their dog in DC knows this for a fact. The decision only existed for this long because Congress refused to properly legislate the issue - now they’re forced to act, and that’s a good thing. About damn time for Congress to do its job and do something for the people, either via federal law or via a constitutional amendment - the proper way rights are introduced.
All very nice and dandy, except that precedent and stare decisis ARE part of the constitutional order and, in general, a staple of common law countries. I've said time and again that common law is absolutely shit and barbaric (in a metaphorical sense), and this proves it.

While it is true that the legislator should not have been lazy about it, it is also true that you know, after almost half a century of good precedent, and hearings, it should not have been needed. Fact is this SCOTUS is a partisan shitshow with no pretence of the rule of law. As you said, the picks are usually of subservient stooges with ridiculous curricula, of which clarence thomas is a perfect example, a man who made no contributions at all to legal doctrine and scholarship before being put in a position of power.
 

Dark_Phoras

Master of Hounds
Member
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
283
Trophies
0
Age
27
XP
564
Country
Portugal
All tax brackets saw reduced tax liability under TCJA. Percentage-wise the tax cut benefitted low and middle income households the most - filers with annual incomes between $50-100K saved anywhere between 15-17%. Households with incomes between $15-$50K saved 16%. By comparison, households with incomes between $500k-$1m saved around 9% and those above $1m only saved 6%. People get uppity about those figures because they look at total dollar amounts which is inherently misleading. The “1%” obviously saved more in dollars because they have significantly higher incomes in general, their savings as a fraction of income were lower. The target group for cuts was always the middle class, and that’s who saw the biggest benefits in context.

https://www.heartland.org/publicati...ax-cuts-and-jobs-act-on-personal-income-taxes

I'd never ask you... and you base yourself on a clearly partisan institution that doesn't even disguise it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
General chit-chat
Help Users
    Dark_Phoras @ Dark_Phoras: Lilacow