Inspector is right. The supreme court can't just magically overturn Roe v. Wade because they composition of the justices is different. A case in controversy needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to overrule their own precedent established in Roe v. Wade. Both of these are extremely unlikely, if not impossible due to the existence of the other. The Supreme Court can't have a case in controversy over a subject that's already been decided, and they can't decide on something (again) without a case in controversy. At best, someone could bring a case along the peripherals like Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the state didn't outright ban abortions, but instead created obstacles like waiting periods and requiring parental consent and this was ruled constitutional. So there are ways to attack abortion along the borders, but there are balances to keep these in check. Also with the way the Supreme Court works, this would be years and years away.

Additionally, even though abortion was not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.

Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:

Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."

Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.

I am going to condense some of my posts into this one.  Antisepsis is absolutely right here. Well worded.   

This brings up an important question.  Inspector/Flapp, if you believe that abortions should be state rights, do you also believe firearm control should be too?  You cant have only one side.  In this case just like a state like Georgia can place major restrictions on abortion making it a defacto ban.  Hawaii can do the exact same with guns.

I believe both should be protected federally for everyone.  If only I worded it as such we probably could of avoided much of the heartache of this thread.  I think no matter if you are against abortion for religious or scientific views.  You should support the ability for all individuals in any state to make up their decision on what they believe if its prochoice or prolife on their own.   Same with free speech, gun rights etc.  It should be protected choice of freedom nationwide.

This applies to the press and everything.  The left super liberals news have as much right to run as the right conservative news.  You may hate on the other but you should protect their right to exist.  Same with guns and everything.  You can't pick and choose freedom.

Exactly (well mostly) what I’ve been trying to get through to him. He’s still stuck on his feelings and refusing to accept reality. He thinks what he wants will change the world. I mean I get people are energized by certain issues, but he seems to twist or ignore facts for what he believes is “right” in his mind.

Yeah, I tire easily of his emotional feelings about things with no basis in reality. I also got tired of his accusations and making stuff up. I stopped short of calling him a liar as I really think he believes his emotions are right in his mind. I just feel sorry for the guy. I can’t imagine what life would be like looking at it from an emotional state.

Wait....why does it not apply?  I work with computers if my boss wanted me to program a machine that does [insert] with abortion, because I have no religious commandments stopping me I don't see why I would not listen and do that program.    You literally spelt out religious bias.  Just does it magically not apply for judges?

I don't pretend to know everything but I also don't shove my head into a hole like ostrich and blindly follow.  I try think objectively from both sides.  Even if that side is one I don't agree with. I am only human in the end though, I make mistakes.

I apologize that's its come to this.  I guess in the end i am pro abortion and you are all anti. We will never come to see eye to eye. This judge threatens my values and views on freedom so I can't fully support her.  She supports your values so you can.  Everyone keeps blaming emotion, but we are all human and powered by them.  I sincerely hope you are all correct and she will faithfully do her job with no bias. I have no power to change her not getting in the job.  All I have is a way to vent my concerns to you all.  Sorry it's gotten to this level.  I just really value freedom.  Thanks for listening and I hope everyone the best.

First, I apologize for some of those posts.  I has some drinks (no excuse) and got heated.  My bad on that. 

Second, you tend to ASSUME a lot about folks.  Hence my comments about your ignorance.  You also seem to twist what people say either to try to "win" the argument through your views as well as insert your OPINIONS and/or perceptions of people and the world.  I mean you're certainly free to make up your own mind, but you need to stop twisting what people say.

Third, I am not pro abortion.  I am not anti abortion.  In general, I am for the individual's right to decide what is best for them.  Of course circumstances dependent.  I am that way for 2a as well.  My belief is that it's up the individual to decide what is best for them and hate when the "I know what is best for everyone" folks impose their values on everyone.  You're doing the same thing even though you say you're "fighting for freedom". 

Overall, on rights, IMO personal responsibility is huge.  So when people demonstrate that they are incapable of responsible behavior, then I am for limiting or even taking away of privileges of those freedoms, but have to be very careful on that. I actually haven't read that deeply into ACB's background, but my point in this thread was IF ACB said she is capable of setting aside her religious beliefs and do her JOB, why are you so irrationally against her?  And again, what do you have to substantiate your accusation that ACB will NOT be capable of performing her duties as Supreme Court Justice without religious bias? 

Last, you appear to have ASSUMED that "literally spelt out religious bias", I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that religion does not sway my professional decisions.  I am not a particularly religious person.  I am a person of principle shaped by life experiences.  You seem to lump me into religious, which is simply not the case.  You just assumed. . . again, ignorance.  Personally, there was a time when I detested religion as IMO it forced itself upon people.  I've come to appreciate certain aspects of religion, all religions.  That you seem to be so irrationally stuck on religion, again, you're totally missing key points.  That's your right to live life ignorant, just don't expect society to just accept that.  You may view that as people being mean or toxic, but have you every considered your personal responsibilities? 

You accuse me of shoving my head in the sand and blindly follow.  Uh huh.  I think I am pretty open minded and can appreciate other points of views.  That said, trust but verify.  Actually, my views on abortion aren't that different from yours.  I was just pointing out HOW you seem to go about presenting your side seems hugely ignorant.

Why is there is a Left and Right court?
Shouldn’t the Court be impartial ?
How do do we get 5-4 votes from some of the sharpest minds in the judiciary ? 

Wow, dude. You just make up shit as you go along. Wow. And I’ll bet you are fine with making stuff up. You accuse me assuming something just because I am old? I never said that. But did it ever dawn on you that I could be right? So far you offer no proof of my being wrong.   

I never said just because I am old I know what’s right. All I said was I changed my OPINION over the years, gave examples of why I changed my opinion and said the younger generation doesn’t appreciate the freedoms someone my age does. I don’t know where you get off saying I’m right just because I’m old. I don’t appreciate your making that up and your accusation.

Where do you get off accusing me of saying something I didn’t? But I suspect I hit a nerve with you. Why else would you react like that! Personally, I think that deep down inside you know I am right. It’s just that your feelings won’t allow you be objective and view the truth. 

Dude, I’m done talking to you. I don’t appreciate your making shit up about me and accusing me of saying something I didn’t. Good luck living in your alternate universe. By not accepting reality you are just making your life harder for yourself by not dealing with the real world. And you certainly don’t make any sense to those of us who understand reality.

My apologies I didn't mean that.  I was just tired of people discounting young people simply because they are young.  I have different experiences from you doesn't mean they are wrong.  Deep down I do not think you are correct.  Some things you say are but the bottom line I believe I and many others that have similar views to me are correct.  FYI more than 50% of America supports pro-choice.  Are they all wrong, ignorant masses?

Yeah, I tire easily of his emotional feelings about things with no basis in reality. I also got tired of his accusations and making stuff up. I stopped short of calling him a liar as I really think he believes his emotions are right in his mind. I just feel sorry for the guy. I can’t imagine what life would be like looking at it from an emotional state.

Copy.  He assumes much, and he assumed much of me.  He's probably so sure he's right, but gets easily frustrated when people just don't see his point.  Well, maybe they have no merit, or he should look to substantiate them.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions, including those based on emotion, but that's not a good foundation to present your views in hopes of swaying people to see your side.  At least not for rational folks.

First, I apologize for some of those posts.  I has some drinks (no excuse) and got heated.  My bad on that. 

Second, you tend to ASSUME a lot about folks.  Hence my comments about your ignorance.  You also seem to twist what people say either to try to "win" the argument through your views as well as insert your OPINIONS and/or perceptions of people and the world.  I mean you're certainly free to make up your own mind, but you need to stop twisting what people say.

Third, I am not pro abortion.  I am not anti abortion.  In general, I am for the individual's right to decide what is best for them.  Of course circumstances dependent.  I am that way for 2a as well.  My belief is that it's up the individual to decide what is best for them and hate when the "I know what is best for everyone" folks impose their values on everyone.  You're doing the same thing even though you say you're "fighting for freedom". 

Overall, on rights, IMO personal responsibility is huge.  So when people demonstrate that they are incapable of responsible behavior, then I am for limiting or even taking away of privileges of those freedoms, but have to be very careful on that. I actually haven't read that deeply into ACB's background, but my point in this thread was IF ACB said she is capable of setting aside her religious beliefs and do her JOB, why are you so irrationally against her?  And again, what do you have to substantiate your accusation that ACB will NOT be capable of performing her duties as Supreme Court Justice without religious bias? 

Last, you appear to have ASSUMED that "literally spelt out religious bias", I can tell you beyond a shadow of a doubt that religion does not sway my professional decisions.  I am not a particularly religious person.  I am a person of principle shaped by life experiences.  You seem to lump me into religious, which is simply not the case.  You just assumed. . . again, ignorance.  Personally, there was a time when I detested religion as IMO it forced itself upon people.  I've come to appreciate certain aspects of religion, all religions.  That you seem to be so irrationally stuck on religion, again, you're totally missing key points.  That's your right to live life ignorant, just don't expect society to just accept that.  You may view that as people being mean or toxic, but have you every considered your personal responsibilities? 

You accuse me of shoving my head in the sand and blindly follow.  Uh huh.  I think I am pretty open minded and can appreciate other points of views.  That said, trust but verify.  Actually, my views on abortion aren't that different from yours.  I was just pointing out HOW you seem to go about presenting your side seems hugely ignorant.

I realize you are correct I have grouped a lot of you into one group to make for simplicity in arguments.  That's my bad.  As for assumptions,  I don't know or cant track everyone's individual opinions and feelings on everything.  There has to be some level of assuming. 
Thanks to your post I realize I might have come one of my more hated tendencies.  I personally think grouping people together for semi similar beliefs is wrong and is what is destroying America.   I am guilty of this too.  I will do my best to separate out everyone's differencing beliefs.  Thanks to this retrospect I actually realize now how America has been so divided.  Its always us for them.  Though my opinions on this forum appear to be different than most which enables you all to disagree as one unison voice.  I shouldn't defend based on that.   I take pride in being independent and realize that I has not been upholding my standards. 

Copy.  He assumes much, and he assumed much of me.  He's probably so sure he's right, but gets easily frustrated when people just don't see his point.  Well, maybe they have no merit, or he should look to substantiate them.  Everyone is entitled to their opinions, including those based on emotion, but that's not a good foundation to present your views in hopes of swaying people to see your side.  At least not for rational folks.

I think returning to post #300 will be a good way to reset this topic to less emotional state  He has worded it far better than I have.  I was trying to get that point across.

Why is there is a Left and Right court?
Shouldn’t the Court be impartial ?
How do do we get 5-4 votes from some of the sharpest minds in the judiciary ?

I agree with this 100%

Why is there is a Left and Right court?
Shouldn’t the Court be impartial ?
How do do we get 5-4 votes from some of the sharpest minds in the judiciary ?

noun
noun: judgement
1.
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
"an error of judgment"

Sensible is the key, IMO. 

Have you ever taken courses on management?  I've discussed this in other threads and with many friends.  Ever taken the Meyers Brigg personality test?  It's about 40 questions and pretty interesting when you see the results of self evaluation and well as others.  There are folks that I work with that are super nice, but when we discuss work, it seems like they are on a totally different planet.  It's usually in the last two aspects of the profile (there are four "ratings") that where if you're different, you can see problems from VASTLY different perspectives and hence, approach them differently. 

Do some Justices have their opinions swayed by personal biases?  I think so.  But CAN they set aside their biases and do their job?  I think many can.  But the issue with ACB is can she?  WRT to 2a, it appears that ACB would lean toward maintaining, even broadening 2a rights, as an "originalist".

Described by the National Review as a “champion of originalism,” Barrett was the lone dissenter in a case last year that upheld a U.S. District Court ruling that barred a Wisconsin man from owning a firearm because he was convicted of felony mail fraud. Barret wrote that the Second Amendment “confers an individual right, intimately connected with the natural right of self-defense and not limited to civic participation,” an opinion several legal experts told Guns and America, places her outside the mainstream of judges. In a May 2019 interview, Barrett focused on the importance of founding-era history to her Second Amendment analysis and described herself as an originalist.

https://wamu.org/story/20/09/29/amy-coney-barrett-could-reshape-interpretation-of-the-second-amendment/

noun
noun: judgement
1.
the ability to make considered decisions or come to sensible conclusions.
"an error of judgment"

Sensible is the key, IMO. 

Have you ever taken courses on management?  I've discussed this in other threads and with many friends.  Ever taken the Meyers Brigg personality test?  It's about 40 questions and pretty interesting when you see the results of self evaluation and well as others.  There are folks that I work with that are super nice, but when we discuss work, it seems like they are on a totally different planet.  It's usually in the last two aspects of the profile (there are four "ratings") that where if you're different, you can see problems from VASTLY different perspectives and hence, approach them differently. 

Do some Justices have their opinions swayed by personal biases?  I think so.  But CAN they set aside their biases and do their job?  I think many can.  But the issue with ACB is can she?  WRT to 2a, it appears that ACB would lean toward maintaining, even broadening 2a rights, as an "originalist".

https://wamu.org/story/20/09/29/amy-coney-barrett-could-reshape-interpretation-of-the-second-amendment/

Curious you mention that.  I am intj. What is everyone else?
https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

I am going to condense some of my posts into this one.  Antisepsis is absolutely right here. Well worded.   

This brings up an important question.  Inspector/Flapp, if you believe that abortions should be state rights, do you also believe firearm control should be too?  You cant have only one side.  In this case just like a state like Georgia can place major restrictions on abortion making it a defacto ban.  Hawaii can do the exact same with guns.

I believe both should be protected federally for everyone.  If only I worded it as such we probably could of avoided much of the heartache of this thread.  I think no matter if you are against abortion for religious or scientific views.  You should support the ability for all individuals in any state to make up their decision on what they believe if its prochoice or prolife on their own.   Same with free speech, gun rights etc.  It should be protected choice of freedom nationwide.

This applies to the press and everything.  The left super liberals news have as much right to run as the right conservative news.  You may hate on the other but you should protect their right to exist.  Same with guns and everything.  You can't pick and choose freedom.

I know what you are trying to say, but need to be very careful with the last. 

I know what you are trying to say, but need to be very careful with the last.

What do you mean.  Do you think you can pick and choose  freedom? I don't understand what you are alluding to.

Curious you mention that.  I am intj. What is everyone else?
https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

I am ENTJ.  I think I am close to middle-ground on the N/S and I think I've has ESTJ before.  I've found if folks are different in the last two, that tends to lead to a "WTF are they thinking" initial reaction.  BUT, after some explanation, I usually see the merits.  However, if folks are also far extreme on the middle two N/S and F/T, that can lead to a "WTF are they thinking" reaction as well. 

Curious you mention that.  I am intj. What is everyone else?
https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

istj-a

What do you mean.  Do you think you can pick and choose  freedom? I don't understand what you are alluding to.

How do you define freedom?  Freedom to "do what you want"? 

Freedom as laid out by the Constitution?

You seem to be the freedom to do what one wants type.  Then again, freedom comes with personal responsibilities.  At least IMO.  It's when people have demonstrated that they are incapable of that is when many problems arise. 

istj-a

Bwahahahaha.  "asshole" subtype. . . 

 

I am ENTJ.  I think I am close to middle-ground on the N/S and I think I've has ESTJ before.  I've found if folks are different in the last two, that tends to lead to a "WTF are they thinking" initial reaction.  BUT, after some explanation, I usually see the merits.  However, if folks are also far extreme on the middle two N/S and F/T, that can lead to a "WTF are they thinking" reaction as well.

I am close to ENTJ a previous test had me get that result.   I understand, sometimes I have a hard time to tell how others think.  Doesn't help i don't have all that much empathy.

How do you define freedom?  Freedom to "do what you want"? 

Freedom as laid out by the Constitution?

You seem to be the freedom to do what one wants type.  Then again, freedom comes with personal responsibilities.  At least IMO.  It's when people have demonstrated that they are incapable of that is when many problems arise.

I personally believe in freedom to do what one wants.  BUT a HUGE caveat is that it must not affect the freedoms of another person.

AKA own all the guns you want yourself.  But if you use them to deprive someone else of their freedom (rob, murder, etc)  is very bad.

So i see nothing wrong with abortion for any reason including your own mistakes.  As your abortion has zero impact on my life or anyone elses.

Inspector is right. The supreme court can't just magically overturn Roe v. Wade because they composition of the justices is different. A case in controversy needs to work its way up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would have to overrule their own precedent established in Roe v. Wade. Both of these are extremely unlikely, if not impossible due to the existence of the other. The Supreme Court can't have a case in controversy over a subject that's already been decided, and they can't decide on something (again) without a case in controversy. At best, someone could bring a case along the peripherals like Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In Casey, the state didn't outright ban abortions, but instead created obstacles like waiting periods and requiring parental consent and this was ruled constitutional. So there are ways to attack abortion along the borders, but there are balances to keep these in check. Also with the way the Supreme Court works, this would be years and years away.

Additionally, even though abortion was not protected by the Constitution outright in specific language, it can still fall under the penumbra of constitutional protections (Griswold v. Connecticut). In the same way the constitution did not specifically say speech over the internet is protected under the first amendment, or semi-automatic firearms are protected under the second amendment, there can be a logical inference that they fall within the constitutional shadow and are thus protected.

Also, of interesting relevance to us here in the firearms community, abortion and gun control are basically the same argument from polar opposite sides:

Primary argument: "We need to ban (guns/abortions) for the sake of the children"
Courts rule: "no you can't ban (guns/abortions) outright, but states can make their own policies."
Individual states: "Well we don't like (guns/abortions) so we're gonna throw up obstacles like waiting periods, and mandatory classes, and proof of competency, and make it really hard to have (guns/abortions) in our state."

Believing the federal government or states should have the right to restrict one and not the other is quite hypocritical.

I am going to condense some of my posts into this one.  (edited and reposted with a more detailed post)  Antisepsis is absolutely right here. Well worded.   

This brings up an important question.  Inspector/Flapp/Everyone, if you believe that abortions should be state rights, do you also believe firearm control should be too?  What about free speech can some states have varying laws on the definition of free speech? You cant have only one side.  In this case just like a state like Georgia can place major restrictions on abortion making it a defacto ban.  Hawaii can do the exact same with guns.

I believe both should be protected federally for everyone.  If only I worded it as such we probably could of avoided much of the heartache of this thread.  I think no matter if you are against abortion for religious or scientific views.  You should support the ability for all individuals in any state to make up their decision on what they believe if its prochoice or prolife on their own.  Who gets to draw the line?  I have asked before but no one answered, if you did a test on your partner and the baby had genetic or physical deformities will it be okay to have an abortion then?  I know people mentioned rape or incest.  But why is that so special?  If you truly believe all fetuses are 100% alive and human isn't that still murder? Who gets to draw the line?  Who gets decide what they can pick and choose what people can do?  You can't only have the things you want.  Same with free speech, gun rights etc.  It should be protected choice of freedom nationwide. Only you should decide what you morally believe in.  Don't force your beliefs on anyone else, whether you believe it religious or scientific.

It is your right to decide for yourself.  This applies to the press and everything.  The left super liberals news have as much right to run as the right conservative news.  You may hate on the other but you should protect their right to exist.  Same with guns and everything.  You can't pick and choose freedom. In the sense that you can't get some things while depriving others of other things.

AKA you cant limit someone from saying something if you don't agree with them.  I would dare to go to the extremes of hate speech is free speech.  I may personally think you are an utter dumbass.  But you have the right to say all the stupid incorrect shit you want.


drck1000 asked what freedom I believe in, I personally believe in freedom to do what one wants.  BUT a HUGE caveat is that it must not affect the freedoms of another person.

AKA own all the guns you want yourself.  But if you use them to deprive someone else of their freedom (rob, murder, etc)  is very bad.

So i see nothing wrong with abortion for any reason including your own mistakes.  As your abortion has zero impact on my life or anyone else's.  It is your decision and yours alone.  If you make a decision you must find people to support that.  AKA if you want an abortion find a doctor freely willing to give you one.  Don't force all doctors to do it or force tax payers to pay for the abortions themselves. 

Even if you believe in personal responsibility for your actions, people have the right to be irresponsible. As long as that doesn't have an impact on your rights/freedom.  I am not arguing about responsibility or lack of, is relevant to this topic. I personally believe in safe sex and being responsible in that sense and have practiced it and had no issues. But that's my personal choice, I cant force that upon others. IF they decide to have unsafe sex then they run the risks of pregnancy or STI's.  Then its their own responsibility to fix those issues.  Hopefully they will learn but you can't force them. These rights should transcends states.  Just like how (Assuming) everyone here believes that gun rights are protected everywhere. Hawaii cant ban guns and another state cant just allow it.  Antithesis again perfectly illustrated it, though I am leaning more toward protected federally and less on the states choosing for various reasons that I mentioned. I personally don't agree that either issue (guns or abortion) is a states issue.  But I digress.


I know some may bring up the fact that its not expressively protected under the constitution but like Antithesis pointed out internet speech wasn't either.  The constitution is a perfect foundation for a great nation.  But our forefathers could not predict the future much less 200 years later.  What technology and advances have come.


I know FLAPP has gone to the farm to relax,  so I summarized most of my opinions in this one post if he or others dare to respond.   I apologize for the long rough journey here.  I mean no ill will to anyone here.

Curious you mention that.  I am intj. What is everyone else?
https://www.16personalities.com/intj-personality

I'm INFJ-A
introverted, intuitive, feeling, and judging
Funny that I suceeded in the engineering professions
software and electronics.  I must have mellowed with age.
The test suggested I become a doctor with my personality,
I thought about becoming a doctor when I was younger,
but decided I really didn't
like people all THAT much.
I wanted to fix/make things that didn't talk back or complain.
I don't think the test means much.

Just for grins I went back and took test giving the answers
I would have given at age 17
I came back as ISTJ-A
Mac and I have something in common.