Someone had to start a thread on this red hot topic, so, here it is. The exact wording of the US Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision today is:

"The constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives".

I personally do not like this decision (after all, I went to Cal in 70's), but, the question is what does the constitution say. And, if someone does not like it, can they change the constitution (is it 2/3 of the states, etc.?).

Let the debates/arguments begin!

Go Bears!

Wrong Forum.
There's already a thread on this in the OT Forum.

OK. Admin, please move this thread to off topic Forum.

Go Bears!

Pack the Court.

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Justices will need them when people show up to their homes to peacefully threaten their families.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Justices will need them when people show up to their homes to peacefully threaten their families.

---

I guess they should have voted for gun control then.

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Justices will need them when people show up to their homes to peacefully threaten their families.

---

I guess they should have voted for gun control then.

---

The bad guys aren't just going to hand them over to the government who are also bad and have guns.

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Justices will need them when people show up to their homes to peacefully threaten their families.

---

I guess they should have voted for gun control then.

---

There is a part of the US Constitution which specifically grants the right to "bear arm". I do not like that provision of the Constitution at all, but, it is in the Constitution.

Is there anything in the US Constitution which specifically (or generally) grants the right to abortion? I do not like today's Supreme Court ruling at all, but, what part of the Constitution is it contrary to?

If a group of people does not like a portion of the constitution, they can work to amend the constitution (not easily done) as has been done several times.

Go Bears!

calbear80 said:

---

There is a part of US Constitution which grants the right to "bear arm". I do not like that provision of the Constitution at all, but, it is in the Constitution.

Is there anything in the US Constitution which grants the right to abortion? I do not like today's Supreme Court ruling, but, what part of the Constitution is it contrary to?

If a group of people does not like a portion of the constitution, they can work to amend the constitution (not easily done) as has been done several times.

---

The Court gets to decide which rights they see in the text and which ones they don't. This Court has made their choices very clear.

I say we go bowling. There's no way the offense can possibly stink again, right?

calbear80 said:

---

There is a part of the US Constitution which specifically grants the right to "bear arm". I do not like that provision of the Constitution at all, but, it is in the Constitution.

Is there anything in the US Constitution which specifically (or generally) grants the right to abortion? I do not like today's Supreme Court ruling at all, but, what part of the Constitution is it contrary to?

If a group of people does not like a portion of the constitution, they can work to amend the constitution (not easily done) as has been done several times.

Go Bears!

---

Ummm... let's be clear.
The framers of our Constitution sought to bolster a "well regulated militia"

This is what the Second Amendment says:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

FWIW: In a 1955 memo, Jack Basil, the NRA's constitutional authority, wrote, "From all the direct and indirect evidence, the Second Amendment appears to apply to a collective, not an individual, right to bear arms."

Then, late in the 20th century, after members voted in new militant leadership, the NRA erased from memory its prior findings to reinvent the Second Amendment and distort its meaning to claim a virtually unlimited right to keep and bear private arms.

I am not an attorney, just a "dumb" engineer/manager when it comes to the legal matters. Please keep the info coming.

Go Bears!

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Can anyone pull the movie scenes where the Judge is packing. Barrister, where are you when we need you?

calbear80 said:

---

I am not an attorney.

Go Bears!

---

That's probably a GOOD thing!

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Can anyone pull the movie scenes where the Judge is packing. Barrister, where are you when we need you?

---

wifeisafurd said:

---

sycasey said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Pack the Court.

---

With guns? Justices will need them.

---

Well according to them you can open carry just about anywhere, so why not?

---

Can anyone pull the movie scenes where the Judge is packing. Barrister, where are you when we need you?

---

Anyway, as I posted in the other thread:

We now have a radical right-wing Supreme Court that is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans. Proceed accordingly.

sycasey said:

---

Anyway, as I posted in the other thread:

We now have a radical right-wing Supreme Court that is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans. Proceed accordingly.

---

You should be pleased then that the Supreme Court has returned the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives to decide for themselves.

Don't forget, Republicans held a court majority when Roe was first decided in 1973.

https://votesaveamerica.com/roe/

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anyway, as I posted in the other thread:

We now have a radical right-wing Supreme Court that is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans. Proceed accordingly.

---

You should be pleased then that the Supreme Court has returned the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives to decide for themselves.

---

Right. The Supreme Court is tasked with the job of interpreting and applying the Constitution, not the latest opinion polls (which, by the way, can vary significantly, depending on how the questions are asked).

One of the interesting things about this decision is how it jettisons stare decisis so easily. Yanking back 50 years of recognizing a woman's right to control her own body is a big deal. The justification--as in most such departures from prior precedent--is that the prior decision is really really wrong. OK. But once they go down that road, particularly one so hotly disputed, legally, religiously, and politically (including the Garland and Barrett shenanigans), aren't they inviting another complete reversal as soon as the libs get a majority in the court? (Could take a long time, sure.) And look out for the 2nd Amendment Heller decision and yesterday's gun decision to get reversed by a later lib court. And then we basically have a banana republic court--maybe we do already.

Poor us.

MSaviolives said:

---

One of the interesting things about this decision is how it jettisons stare decisis so easily. Yanking back 50 years of recognizing a woman's right to control her own body is a big deal. The justification--as in most such departures from prior precedent--is that the prior decision is really really wrong. OK. But once they go down that road, particularly one so hotly disputed, legally, religiously, and politically (including the Garland and Barrett shenanigans), aren't they inviting another complete reversal as soon as the libs get a majority in the court? (Could take a long time, sure.) And look out for the 2nd Amendment Heller decision and yesterday's gun decision to get reversed by a later lib court. And then we basically have a banana republic court--maybe we do already.

Poor us.

---

Yup.

And yes, it's true that the Court is not meant to simply reflect opinion polls. But its validity as an institution is in many ways based on public trust; people follow laws because they trust that those laws were fairly decided. If that is eroded (and polls suggest that it has been, by a lot) then they will lose legitimacy.

Roberts seems to be the only one of the conservative justices who even cares about that.

KenBurnski said:

---

I say we go bowling. There's no way the offense can possibly stink again, right?

---

pic.twitter.com/cGPxZdK9Ya

— The Right To Bear Memes (@grandoldmemes) June 23, 2022

Rose Bowl all the way.

calbear80 said:

---

OK. Admin, please move this thread to off topic Forum.

Go Bears!

---

But... But..... BearFarce is going for a POSTING RECORD today!

Your interrupting the Big Mo.

79 Bear said:

---

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anyway, as I posted in the other thread:

We now have a radical right-wing Supreme Court that is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans. Proceed accordingly.

---

You should be pleased then that the Supreme Court has returned the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives to decide for themselves.

---

Right. The Supreme Court is tasked with the job of interpreting and applying the Constitution, not the latest opinion polls (which, by the way, can vary significantly, depending on how the questions are asked).

---

+1

As if the poor and discriminated against have the financial means to simply take time off from work and fly to another state or drive 20 hours for an abortion.

The more I read these threads, the more I think that my Cal diploma is WORTHLESS.

BearForce2 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Anyway, as I posted in the other thread:

We now have a radical right-wing Supreme Court that is wildly out of step with the majority of Americans. Proceed accordingly.

---

You should be pleased then that the Supreme Court has returned the authority to regulate abortion to the people and their elected representatives to decide for themselves.

Don't forget, Republicans held a court majority when Roe was first decided in 1973.

---

Women could already decide for themselves.

What this decision does is allow the government to decide for them.

“People cried. They screamed. They begged for help, she said. It was ‘complete despair.’”

To find out how people are living with today’s news, ⁦@ChabeliH⁩’s latest is a must-read https://t.co/V9qzqocjN5

— Shefali Luthra (@shefalil) June 24, 2022

Do I misunderstand that there is nothing in the US Supreme Court decision that bans abortion?

Do I misunderstand that the US Supreme Court decision empowers people of each state and their elected representatives to decide rather than the Big Brother from Washington mandate things?

Go Bears!

I thought Ms. Luthra was wrapping her jointless leg around her neck in that photo.