Supreme Court overturning Roe v Wade?

Timewise 60+ said:
Due to the American media, many are confused what our Supreme Court really did, especially foreign countries.

What our Supreme Court did not do was "make a ruling on abortion"! What they did do was declare a prior ruling on abortion unconstitutional and therefore makes the question of abortions up to each of our 50 states and/or our Congress which can write a new law on abortions if they chose to. Our Constitution does not mention abortions or define any legal precedence that could be applied to abortions; thus, the original ruling is Non constitutional. Why other courts ignored this for so long, but this ruling seems to be correct based on reading our Constitution.
Click to expand...
I thank you for the explanation and I understand that concept. Australia is also a federation of states based loosely on the US system but it is also a parliamentary democracy along Westminster lines. One major difference is that we do not have a Bill of Rights that are subject to endless argument in court. Rights in Australia stem from common law and from legislation.

We only have six states, not fifty, so it is easier to get the states and the Commonwealth to come together on very important matters. If the state governments all agree to hand over some power that was not mentioned in the original constitution of 1901 then it can be done quite easily by passing the necessary legislation. One example of this was during WWII when the states handed over income taxation to the Commonwealth in return for a share to be decided by a formula that took into consideration the economics of each state. The less developed states received a bit more than was collected in their state to allow the big, but relatively empty, states (WA and Queensland) to build infrastructure, schools and hospitals. This arrangement is flexible. Now that these states are rich in mining royalties and well developed economically, the extra share is no longer needed.

According to the Constitution, states can still levy tax on income but no premier wants to take back this power. The present system suits everybody, citizens and governments alike, and two income taxes would be very unpopular after all this time, but it remains an option for the future.

A current issue in Australia is assisted dying which is now legal in all six states. Since this was never considered when the Constitution was drawn up in the late 1800s, it is entirely a matter for the states except in the two territories, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra). Here the Commonwealth can still override territory law. Assisted dying legislation in the NT was vetoed by the Australian parliament years ago but it is looking very likely that things will be different now.
 

Last edited:
oldman said:
Thank you. That’s interesting. I like to learn some new everyday.
Click to expand...
If you notice, at the beginning of decisions, it states:

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337.

Of course the Clerk is involved also:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_41

I should have said in my first post on it, of course the Clerk of Court is involved, that is what Clerks of Courts do. That is more legally accurate. Sorry oldman.
 
Last edited:
Buckeye said:
If abortion is included, how about prostitution? How about drug use? How about bigamy?
Click to expand...
Why not, I am pretty libertarian and think at least the first two should be legal.

I would also allow polygamy, however I believe bigamy is fraud, marrying more than one person without the knowledge of the parties. That I would not want to see legal.
 

Alligatorob said:
I would also allow polygamy, however I believe bigamy is fraud, marrying more than one person without the knowledge of the parties. That I would not want to see legal.
Click to expand...
I have no objection to people who are in sexual and/or household relationships that include more than two people. Their business. However, I do object to more than two people in legal marriages.

It's hard enough for courts to disentangle two person marriages. One can only imagine the nightmare of separating one or more "spouses" and offspring from threesomes, foursomes, or larger groups.
 
StarSong said:
I do object to more than two people in legal marriages.

It's hard enough for courts to disentangle two person marriages. One can only imagine the nightmare of separating one or more "spouses" and offspring from threesomes, foursomes, or larger groups.
Click to expand...
Under our current legal definition of marriage you are right.

The solution is a marital contract rather than a conventional government controlled marriage. I think that makes more sense for any marriage than the government defining what marriage is and isn't.
 
Alligatorob said:
Under our current legal definition of marriage you are right.

The solution is a marital contract rather than a conventional government controlled marriage. I think that makes more sense for any marriage than the government defining what marriage is and isn't.
Click to expand...
What exactly do you mean by a marital contract? Like a pre-nup?
 
StarSong said:
What exactly do you mean by a marital contract? Like a pre-nup?
Click to expand...
There are some similarities to a pre-nup, but it would be more inclusive and replace our current legal marriage system. Parties would agree to things like splitting of assets and some child related things. How the contract could be dissolved would also be addressed, setting the framework for divorce, if necessary. I do not think it should allow either parent to be absolved of parental responsibilities. It would take legislative change of course.

Not really as complicated as it sounds it would not take long for the legal community to develop standard contracts, like we do now for real estate sales. No need to start from scratch.

It would of course take legislation, and things like family health care would need to be addressed, but if there were a will there is a way. I would like the government to be out of the marriage regulation business as much as possible.

Some of these things are happening anyway, the result of fewer nuclear families. Just not in a very organized way.

If this had been done years ago then there would not have been the need to legalize gay marriage, it would not have been illegal.

An article describing one possible approach is attached.
 

Attachments

  • fulltext.pdf
    3.1 MB · Views: 7
Last edited:
Buckeye said:
So where do you draw the line on the 14th? If abortion is included, how about prostitution? How about drug use? How about bigamy? How about etc, etc?

As has been said "The constitution says what it says, and doesn't say what it doesn't say".
Click to expand...
Wellll, there are many who don't want to draw any line anywhere..
From my viewpoint, "PC" vocabulary leads people to believe they must accept the unacceptable, and making things legal isn't far away.
Examples: I recently read we're not supposed to 'stigmatize' prostitutes by using that word.. you're supposed to say 'sex workers' instead... and not supposed to say 'addicts,' although I haven't seen what the 'preferred' term would be. :mad:
 
Alligatorob said:
There are some similarities to a pre-nup, but it would be more inclusive and replace our current legal marriage system. Parties would agree to things like splitting of assets and some child related things. How the contract could be dissolved would also be addressed, setting the framework for divorce, if necessary. I do not think it should allow either parent to be absolved of parental responsibilities. It would take legislative change of course.

Not really as complicated as it sounds it would not take long for the legal community to develop standard contracts, like we do now for real estate sales. No need to start from scratch.

It would of course take legislation, and things like family health care would need to be addressed, but if there were a will there is a way. I would like the government to be out of the marriage regulation business as much as possible.

Some of these things are happening anyway, the result of fewer nuclear families. Just not in a very organized way.

If this had been done years ago then there would not have been the need to legalize gay marriage, it would not have been illegal.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't be in favor of this at all. What seems reasonable in one's early twenties wouldn't be at all fair or suitable fifteen years, a couple of children, and an interrupted career later. "Spouses" would repeatedly renegotiate their contracts with every life change, large and small.

Talk about a bonanza for attorneys!
 
JaniceM said:
Wellll, there are many who don't want to draw any line anywhere..
From my viewpoint, "PC" vocabulary leads people to believe they must accept the unacceptable, and making things legal isn't far away.
Examples: I recently read we're not supposed to 'stigmatize' prostitutes by using that word.. you're supposed to say 'sex workers' instead... and not supposed to say 'addicts,' although I haven't seen what the 'preferred' term would be. :mad:
Click to expand...
Drug Fiends. Also, I doubt it's the prostitutes who object. Sex Worker. That's funny.
 
JaniceM said:
Wellll, there are many who don't want to draw any line anywhere..
From my viewpoint, "PC" vocabulary leads people to believe they must accept the unacceptable, and making things legal isn't far away.
Examples: I recently read we're not supposed to 'stigmatize' prostitutes by using that word.. you're supposed to say 'sex workers' instead... and not supposed to say 'addicts,' although I haven't seen what the 'preferred' term would be. :mad:
Click to expand...
LOL - I recall an episode of "Three's Company" that involved a similar discussion.
Someone asked a prostitute, "How could you have sex with just anyone?"
The prostitute said, "What do you think I am......a Hooker?"
"What's the difference between a prostitute & a hooker?"
"Hookers don't drive Ferraris."
 
I also recall an interview with Madam-to-the-stars, Heidi Fleiss after the Northridge, CA earthquake in 1994.
The interviewer asked, "Ms. Fleiss, since the quake happened at 4:00am, were you sleeping?"
"Yes."
"Did it wake you up?"
"No."
"How could you sleep through a strong earthquake?"
"My bed doesn't move for less than $500.00.
 
Sassycakes said:
I believe a woman should have the choice of whether or not to have an abortion. If the shoe was on the other foot and a man could get pregnant,I wonder what they would think about abortions.
Click to expand...
Gender is fluid so I am going to identify as a female while I answer this. :)

I think most men feel the same as most women. In the first trimester there should be few if any restrictions. Later in the second it gets a murkier and I am not certain how it should be handled. In the third trimester when the baby is viable outside the womb, there has to be a really good reason (such as the life of the mother is in danger).

Since 95% of abortions take place in the first trimester, that tells me most of us probably are not that far from some form of civilized agreement.

Of course, I could be wrong. Even about gender being fluid.
 
oldman said:
This is a question that raises other questions. Supposedly, Justice Alito wrote the decision that was leaked to the world. I have wondered this question before. When a case comes before the court, do the Justices apply the Constitution to reach their ruling or do they apply their own personal opinion? How do we know? If all 9 Justices apply the Constitution to the question, why don’t all 9 Justices reach the same decision? Do they all interpret the Constitution or maybe amendments differently? Hmm…..
Click to expand...
You can read Alito's opinion and decide that for yourself. And you can also read the dissenting opinions and decide on how good they are. They are long and detailed. That's how we know

None of these justices invents thing out of thin air. Even the ones I disagree with have some solid basis for their opinions. Good people can disagree. That's why we have nine justices, 100 senators and 400+ Representatives.

IMHO, SCOTUS has a lot of extra work because Congress doesn't clearly address a lot of issue. Abortion is one. The extent of the EPA's regulatory powers is another. Our elected officials need to spend less time fighting with each other and more time doing their job.
 
StarSong said:
I wouldn't be in favor of this at all. What seems reasonable in one's early twenties wouldn't be at all fair or suitable fifteen years, a couple of children, and an interrupted career later. "Spouses" would repeatedly renegotiate their contracts with every life change, large and small.

Talk about a bonanza for attorneys!
Click to expand...
Sorry to be slow in responding. However I believe concerns like yours could be addressed and things made better.

As to the problem of people making decisions in their early 20s that could be problematic later, that happens right now with our current marriage system. Hence all the divorces. Having some contractual flexibility could reduce this, giving folks some choices not now available. As to renegotiation that might not be all bad. One thought people have had is to allow for a reopener every 10 years, also allowing for continuation if the parties don't see the need for change.

There are some inequities now that could be fixed, for example two earner married couples often pay more in taxes than if the same people were not married, that makes no sense. Also now spouses are usually liable for debts incurred by the other, even if the innocent spouse was unaware of the debts. The list goes on...

The objective would be to reduce the need for litigation and attorneys, of course it would not be eliminated. Fairly standard contracts would be available, much like we use for real estate or wills or lots of other things now. No need for a lot of lawyer time there. However for those with the means and inclination the contracts could be as complex and unique as they want.

I know this would take some legal refiguring of issues like Social Security, health care insurance, etc, but that is possible. And some of that is long overdue anyway.

This would not eliminate the role of religion in marriage.
 
Brookswood said:
I think most men feel the same as most women. In the first trimester there should be few if any restrictions. Later in the second it gets a murkier and I am not certain how it should be handled. In the third trimester when the baby is viable outside the womb, there has to be a really good reason (such as the life of the mother is in danger).

Since 95% of abortions take place in the first trimester, that tells me most of us probably are not that far from some form of civilized agreement.
Click to expand...
That is exactly the kind of compromise we need!

I don't favor any restriction on abortions, but would be happy if we could find a compromise most folks could live with so we can move on to other important issues.
 
Wonder where all those loving couples are going to come from to take the pressure off foster care homes? Private prison investors are certainly happy with the conservative block on the Supreme Court.

"Underfunded and overstressed foster care systems are bracing for new pressures if the overturning of Roe v. Wade sends more children their way.

Why it matters: About 424,000 children in foster care on any given day already face shortages of placements, low high school graduation rates, and disproportionately high rates of incarceration and homelessness. Without new funding and accountability, these problems may only get worse.

Zoom in: Child welfare advocates say they're concerned about a growing foster care-to-prison pipeline.

What they're saying: "We're really concerned that this could blow it up," Mariah Craven of the National Foster Youth Institute told Axios.

  • Children may end up in foster care because parents can't afford to keep them or aren't able to safely care for them. Some women forced to bring a pregnancy to term may not give the child up for adoption at birth but be forced to later.
  • "The answer isn't, 'Oh, well, we just now need 400,000 loving couples to adopt them,'" Craven said. "This is far more complicated than that."
https://www.axios.com/2022/07/05/roe-wade-abortion-foster-care-children
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top