Is This the End of Roe v. Wade?

Who really won though? All i saw was erasure of right to medical privacy and a good punch into reintegrating church and state (not good) especially with the other recent opinion for the public HS football coach who was fired for praying on the field after being told not to. Any other job where you go against the rules you get fired and no unemployment. That guy gets to be held up as some idol for the republican party.

Oh and in the majority opinion they discussed re-looking at Obergerfell (gay marriage) and Lawrence v Texas (if this gets overturned, homosexual people can be charged for sodomy and it means that what you do in your own home has no right to privacy).

So all I see is that the party that says they are for individual freedom are doing an awful lot to take it away…

2 Likes

IDK, how Loving vs Virginia didn’t make the list. Seems to be based upon the same logic.

Edit: I do think I know why. It is quite inconvenient to the author of the opinion and his seditious wife.

2 Likes

What logic is that?

Edit:

That’s interesting. Returning issues to the states and voters is taking away individual freedom?

1 Like

I think all of them were based on rights to privacy?

Loving v. Virginia was not.

1 Like

You are right.

Obergerfell which is listed in the opinion as in need of SC re-examination relied heavily on precedent from Loving.

I was a bit mixed up there. Sorry.

Which do you prefer?

United States of America

United Socialists of America

You don’t even need to change the acronym.

Huh? Was this asked to me?

That was asked to any who will reply

I think we should just change to America.

Agreed, which should follow the constitution and Federalism.

9 life appointed judges should not be making law.

The federal government should not be making law outside of the constraints of the constitution.

People often forget that the constitution is a limit to federal power not a grant of it.

6 Likes

Does “United States of” America carry a negative connotation, in your opinion?

1 Like

When the decision was made knowing that states had trigger laws in place, that even in my conservative oriented mind, took away from women, the court is contributing that. You cannot give someone freedom by taking away choice.

Add to that type ruling on the praying coach and now separation of church and state (basically the whole damn reason Europeans migrated here in the first place) is in question.

If Lawrence V TX and Obergerfell both fall, it will be illegal in many states (because those states will react faster than Congress) simply to exist as LGBT and love who one wants. How is that not attacking individual freedom?

It’s not a negative connotation, but I don’t think anyone currently believes we are 50 United entities at the moment.

I don’t think so? I haven’t really thought about it. My reasoning to change it to just America is more from a desire to troll the countries around us in North and South America.

The ruling was that the state can’t stop you from praying. It didn’t allow anyone to force religion on anyone else. It specifically said the state had no place in religion.

1 Like

They didn’t come here because of prayer by the government. “Separation of Church and State” has become so perverted that it’s no longer understood.

1 Like

Ever wonder why it is most often referred to as “Separation of Church and State” and not “Separation of Religion and State”?

1 Like

That’s a bit of a lazy reading of the opinion and dissents.

The Quakers, Puritans, etc…
They came over because they were tired of a government that was beholden to either the Catholic Church or Church of England. Pretty much any history book covers this.

Semantics

We will see if the law is applied consistently after the ruling. I don’t like inconsistency. So if they are okay with this, surely they will be fine with a coach doing a satanic ritual on the field after the game.

1 Like

I agree with that 100%. Or kneeling to Mecca.

1 Like