Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana abortion restrictions

[sneakypete]

Charlie Kirk
@charliekirk11
John Roberts, a Bush appointee, is a disgrace. He sides with leftist socialists who hate America over the unborn. People like John Roberts are why we are losing our country.

@mystery-ak

The only thing that surprises me about this is that people are still pretending to be surprised by it.

I was ranting and raving about this closested homo with the adopted children from Argentina being a VERY high blackmail risk right after he was nominated.

[sneakypete]

I have no issue whatsoever with the principle that government cannot place an "undue burden" on the exercise of a Constitutional right.  But will they apply the same principle to the 2A right?

@Jazzhead

Roberts will do whatever his handlers order him to do.

[sneakypete]

There is no constitutional right to take another's life except by due process, just cause, or in the defense of self and others.

@roamer_1

And THAT is why abortion must NEVER be outlawed.

The problem with this whole argument is the "self-styled purists" on both sides refuse to budge an inch,so there will never be any compromise. Without compromise,nothing will ever change.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

And THAT is why abortion must NEVER be outlawed.

The problem with this whole argument is the "self-styled purists" on both sides refuse to budge an inch,so there will never be any compromise. Without compromise,nothing will ever change.

@sneakypete
It is not defense of self to kill a baby.

[sneakypete]

Again, when it really matters, Roberts tilts left.  You can bank on it.

We need to investigate to see who or what organization is blackmailing the Chief Justice.  This is beyond suspicion.

.

@catfish1957

Start with the DNC and the RINONC. That search will lead to their Globalist handlers.

Best of luck to you.

[sneakypete]

If They Weren't Before, Conservatives are Officially Done With Justice John Roberts

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2020/06/29/if-they-werent-before-conservatives-are-officially-done-with-justice-john-roberts-n2571522

@mystery-ak

The Boy Jorge "Conservatives" will still be inviting him to their parties.

[dfwgator]

@sneakypete
It is not defense of self to kill a baby.

I have an idea to get Democrats to become "Pro-Life",  suggest all pregnant black women on Welfare get abortions.

[sneakypete]

If the most innocent among us have no rights, then neither do we. Calling a baby a fetus does not change the reality.

@roamer_1  @Jazzhead

Yeah,good luck with that one. You will have as much luck convincing him on that one as he would convincing you to accept abortion on demand.

That's the problem. Both sides have their ground staked out,and there is never going to be any compromise. It is either "abortion on demand right up to the instant of birth",or "abortion is illegal even if it is an established fact the mother will die if she gives live birth."

There IS no middle ground amongst the powers that drive either side.

[sneakypete]

He's a conservative and always has been.   

@Jazzhead .

He is nothing more than a whore being pimped out by his globalist masters.

[roamer_1]

I have an idea to get Democrats to become "Pro-Life",  suggest all pregnant black women on Welfare get abortions.

Margaret Sanger doctrine, already ensconced in the abortion rights movement.

[sneakypete]

That IS the case. You're killing babies. A sacrificial offering to Molech, just as horrendous as laying them in his red hot arms... You cannot justify it with the absurdities of political speech and supposed science. It is what it is. A sacrifice of life to continue fornication without consequence.

"Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -John Adams"

@roamer_1

DAMN THOSE HEATHENS TO HELL!

Hoo de hell they think they are,anyhow,running around out there poking fun at will like free people,anyhow? I say we burn them at the stake,causen that be whut our kind and luving gentle Jesus wood want!

[Applewood]

@mystery-ak

The only thing that surprises me about this is that people are still pretending to be surprised by it.

I was ranting and raving about this closested homo with the adopted children from Argentina being a VERY high blackmail risk right after he was nominated.

@sneakypete

And you are STILL ranting about it.  LOL

You know I don't believe in conspiracy theories.  But I do know Roberts was sold as a conservative and he wasn't.   I just wish there was something that could be used to impeach him. 

[roamer_1]

That's the problem. Both sides have their ground staked out,and there is never going to be any compromise. It is either "abortion on demand right up to the instant of birth",or "abortion is illegal even if it is an established fact the mother will die if she gives live birth."

There IS no middle ground amongst the powers that drive either side.

To a degree that's right @sneakypete ... Because the other side has already been treated moderately from the get-go. And from that moderation - legal abortion signed by a panel of doctors proving the life of the mother was at stake - came a rubber-stamping panel that approved any abortion at all.

You should read the reasonable means that Reagan set forth as governor of CA.
Likewise the position of the Conservative Right for YEARS allowed compromise in rape, incest, and the life of the mother... Even for an egregiously defective child whose life would not have quality, and whose life would be a burden... All of these were at points in time, 'settled on' and would have been considered as worthy compromises - Even on the Christian Right.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

DAMN THOSE HEATHENS TO HELL!

Hoo de hell they think they are,anyhow,running around out there poking fun at will like free people,anyhow? I say we burn them at the stake,causen that be whut our kind and luving gentle Jesus wood want!

@sneakypete
RIGHT... In the words of John Adams, encapsulating the motive of our founding fathers.
I will gladly take his opinion on the matter over yours.

And he IS right - Every single issue tearing this nation down is a moral issue, where the moral wisdom and fortitude of our fathers have been subjugated to what once was called evil...

[sneakypete]

To a degree that's right @sneakypete ... Because the other side has already been treated moderately from the get-go. And from that moderation - legal abortion signed by a panel of doctors proving the life of the mother was at stake - came a rubber-stamping panel that approved any abortion at all.

You should read the reasonable means that Reagan set forth as governor of CA.
Likewise the position of the Conservative Right for YEARS allowed compromise in rape, incest, and the life of the mother... Even for an egregiously defective child whose life would not have quality, and whose life would be a burden... All of these were at points in time, 'settled on' and would have been considered as worthy compromises - Even on the Christian Right.

@roamer_1

We can both agree that what we both wrote makes sense,and it won't make any more difference than a rain drop in a flood. The sad,sad truth is BOTH sides have too much emotional ego wrapped up in "winning",so this nightmare will continue.

There is no such critter as a rational agreement on a uber-emotional subject. It just ain't going to happen. Sooner or later one side will have the political horsepower to dominate the other,and a new law will be written,and the argument will start all over again from scratch.

I seriously doubt anybody from either side is happy about it,but there it is.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
RIGHT... In the words of John Adams, encapsulating the motive of our founding fathers.
I will gladly take his opinion on the matter over yours.

And he IS right - Every single issue tearing this nation down is a moral issue, where the moral wisdom and fortitude of our fathers have been subjugated to what once was called evil...

@roamer_1

Everything looks like kindling to an arsonist.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

Everything looks like kindling to an arsonist.

@sneakypete

Not at all - I am speaking quite literally.

[roamer_1]

@roamer_1

We can both agree that what we both wrote makes sense,and it won't make any more difference than a rain drop in a flood. The sad,sad truth is BOTH sides have too much emotional ego wrapped up in "winning",so this nightmare will continue.

There is no such critter as a rational agreement on a uber-emotional subject. It just ain't going to happen. Sooner or later one side will have the political horsepower to dominate the other,and a new law will be written,and the argument will start all over again from scratch.

I seriously doubt anybody from either side is happy about it,but there it is.

@sneakypete

That's fine and all, and largely right.
But the fault is not on the Christian Right, which offered legitimate compromises... It is the Left that is uncompromising, and always had been. It is the left that bends law, that imposes by fiat, that is never satisfied.

In that, your critique of the Christian Right is unfounded.

[HoustonSam]

Then make your case.   Just don't demand that government impose your moral values on others.  Some folks feel it's abhorrent that you own a bunch of guns.  But you still have the right to decide that for yourself.

The abortion issue has the uncanny ability to make both right and left appear as hypocrites

Hi @Jazzhead , I hope you and yours are well considering the still-evolving COVID crisis.

I think the case here is twofold :

• RKBA is quite literally a Constitutional right; it is explicitly written therein.  Of course people will argue (as I think you have at times) that the predicate clause is significant; nevertheless, one can make no argument that there is no RKBA.  Abortion on the other hand quite literally is not a Constitutional right.  It's simply not there; Roe is just another example of, at best, penumbral reasoning.  One could argue that it's encompassed by the 10A, but that enables at least as valid an argument that a state can legislate against abortion as that the FedGov has a role in protecting women from a state doing so.
• The case for the legality of abortion is essentially the same as was the case for the legality of slavery - it is advantageous for one group of people to assert that another group of people is something less than human, and consequently lack rights, so the former group makes that assertion.  As was the case with slavery for almost 80 years, the law sides with the more powerful group, conspiring against the less powerful, even as the more powerful argue that their interests are a positive moral good, and in fact a better outcome for the less powerful themselves.  Just as the reasoning was repugnant in the day of Dred Scott, so it is repugnant in this day of Roe, and identifying the "right" to kill a genetically distinct human being on the grounds of inconvenience is no more compelling than was arguing for the "right" to own some other human being because he was of an "inferior" race.
  

On a purely practical basis, the challenge to the Louisiana law is risible in its transparent inconsistency.  Pro-abortion advocates regularly position the practice as "health care" for women, and they argue that it must be safe.  So to preserve that safety we must now forego admitting privileges for abortion providers; apparently women are made safer by a lower standard of care.

I admire your striving for consistency, but Justice Blackmun denying the right of the unborn to live no more makes abortion a right than did Justice Taney denying the right of Dred Scott to sue made slavery a right.

[montanajoe]

Robert's views his role as CJ to quote him during his confirmation hearing was to act as an umpire "calling balls and strikes."

His view is that the SC should stay out of so the called social issues, it is up to Congress and not the courts to make those changes in his view.

When the GOP held the Senate, House and Presidency they could have passed legislation banning abortion and I guarantee Roberts would have upheld that law.

In every one of these "social issue" cases he is making it abundantly clear that in his view it is not the SC's place to legislate from the bench..it's up to Congress to do the job they were elected to do.

Unfortunately, Congress is filled with individuals who are only interested in lining their pockets at the public trough and they have no interest in tackling basic issues such as the life of a newborn....

[catfish1957]

Robert's views his role as CJ to quote him during his confirmation hearing was to act as an umpire "calling balls and strikes."

If that is the case, he needs to change his name to Angel Hernandez.....

[jmyrlefuller]

Until legislators start putting poison pills making it a felony for any citizen to file a legal challenge against the law, or for any judge to hear it, this will continue.

[Jazzhead]

??? He's been voting consistently liberal. Please explain how the abortion issue makes conservatives hypocrites?

How was this decision "liberal"?     The Constitutional right at stake was being made subject to an arbitrary Louisiana law that, according to the record established by the lower court, would likely have shuttered two-thirds of the state's abortion facilities.

How would you react to a state law (say an arbitrary  strict liability requirement) that would force most of a state's gun stores to close?   You'd scream and make the same argument found persuasive by the Court in this case - that the state law imposed an arbitrary burden aimed at limiting the exercise of a Constitutional right.     That's because the "undue burden" test is a fundamentally conservative test,  requiring the state to show the efficacy and narrow scope of a proposed restriction on YOUR Constitutional right.

So of course the Louisana case was rightly decided from the perspective of an individual seeking to exercise her Constitutional right.   As Roberts pointed out,  the State of Louisiana did NOT raise in this case the Constitutionality of Roe v. Wade.  The right itself was not at issue, just the right of a state to deny the right on a whim in the name of "safety" utterly not proven.   

Folks here would have hailed this decision had it that facts been a state restriction on gun rights.   And that's where my charge of hypocrisy lies.  Rights for me but not for thee.     Indeed,  the Heller decision is itself on shaky grounds having only been decided by a 5 -4 majority.   What a breath of fresh air it would be for a Justice who had voted against Heller to now recognize that it represents precedent that deserves respect under the doctrine of stare decisis. 

There are two types of "conservative" judges.   The first is the activist kind,  seeking to impose an ideological vision on the community, and the second is the kind that recognizes the limited role of the judicial branch and respectful of precedent.   Roberts is the latter kind,  and I wish all judges, liberal and conservative alike,  were to follow his lead.     

[Jazzhead]

Hi @Jazzhead , I hope you and yours are well considering the still-evolving COVID crisis.

I think the case here is twofold :

• RKBA is quite literally a Constitutional right; it is explicitly written therein.  Of course people will argue (as I think you have at times) that the predicate clause is significant; nevertheless, one can make no argument that there is no RKBA.  Abortion on the other hand quite literally is not a Constitutional right.  It's simply not there; Roe is just another example of, at best, penumbral reasoning.  One could argue that it's encompassed by the 10A, but that enables at least as valid an argument that a state can legislate against abortion as that the FedGov has a role in protecting women from a state doing so.
• The case for the legality of abortion is essentially the same as was the case for the legality of slavery - it is advantageous for one group of people to assert that another group of people is something less than human, and consequently lack rights, so the former group makes that assertion.  As was the case with slavery for almost 80 years, the law sides with the more powerful group, conspiring against the less powerful, even as the more powerful argue that their interests are a positive moral good, and in fact a better outcome for the less powerful themselves.  Just as the reasoning was repugnant in the day of Dred Scott, so it is repugnant in this day of Roe, and identifying the "right" to kill a genetically distinct human being on the grounds of inconvenience is no more compelling than was arguing for the "right" to own some other human being because he was of an "inferior" race.
  

On a purely practical basis, the challenge to the Louisiana law is risible in its transparent inconsistency.  Pro-abortion advocates regularly position the practice as "health care" for women, and they argue that it must be safe.  So to preserve that safety we must now forego admitting privileges for abortion providers; apparently women are made safer by a lower standard of care.

I admire your striving for consistency, but Justice Blackmun denying the right of the unborn to live no more makes abortion a right than did Justice Taney denying the right of Dred Scott to sue made slavery a right.

Thanks for your response, @HoustonSam.    Yes, I am striving for consistency here,  and the fact is that the abortion right is just as guaranteed under the Constitution as the gun right is.     The people can always speak up by means of a Constitutional amendment and change that result,   but in this case,  with the Constitutionality of Roe explicitly not at issue,  Roberts was right in concluding that the SCOTUS' earlier decision to strike down a similar Texas law as placing on undue burden on the exercise of the right deserved respect as precedent. 

That is how a responsible court is supposed to work,  and here adherence to precedent served the interest of PROTECTING the individual's right against the arbitrary whims of the State.   

I anticipate your objection - what about the fetus?    Well, I know the truth is painful,  but it has to be faced squarely - the only legal "rights" at stake are that of the mother (at least prior to viability).    So what's the answer?  Simple:  persuasion, not coercion.   

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

That's fine and all, and largely right.
But the fault is not on the Christian Right, which offered legitimate compromises...

@roamer_1

ROFLMAO! Good one!