lol, remember when you thought grizy's posts made you correct?

I have little doubt Barret on balance will be anti-immigration but the case we're discussing is bad evidence for that bias. The SCOTUS case on point is too on point for appellate judges to rule otherwise without some mental gymnastics or just disregard for the ruling, which is technically allowed since the SCOTUS ruling had no majority holding on the law.

In fact, the minority liberal view that citizen spouse's rights were implicated and due process entitled her to an explanation had more votes than the other 2 views (No right implicated got 3, due process met served got 2)

To add on to what you've posted previously:



I was generally aware of this, which is why I asked my question.

Right now we have literal concentration camps in America performing hysterectomies on refugees and grizy is trying to reassure us that some judicial minority review process is going to stop Aunt Lydia. Jesus, man, look around, how do you not see what's about to happen? I get that you've invested a huge part of your self-worth into the law and this is not comfortable for you, but surely you have to realize that the whole goddamn system is bankrupt.

Roe Vs. Wade will be overturned within 5 years. But, abortion will not be made illegal. It will revert to a states right issue. If you want an abortion and live in the South East and parts of the mid west, you will be out of luck.

The Midwest is already out of ****ing luck, there is literally only one functioning abortion clinic in Missouri. But I'm sure grizly will tell us all about how appellate judges will dissent and how it is not true that government can do whatever it wants without any review at all. Good ****.

Government can always do whatever it wants. They are the government. The only way to overturn a Supreme Court Ruling is with a Consitutional amendment.

I'm not trying to reassure anyone. I am saying Barret is probably a disaster on immigrants but the decision cited isn't great as evidence.

There are other decisions and writings of hers that more strongly suggest how terrible she will be for immigrants. Pretty much her entire body of work, opinions and academic writings included, on criminal justice topics screams she has an even more extreme view of executive branch power than Scalia. On these issues at least, I think she looks even worse than Scalia and will give even Thomas a run for his money.

A lot of her opinions, although I think I would reach same decision, are laced with what I perceive to be a disrespect for the rights we enjoy. She pays lip service to rights but she seems to think even minor "defects" in the person can mean he/she is no longer deserving of said rights. Can't navigate forms or afford lawyers? No longer afforded right to access courts. Convicted of a crime? No longer have a right to be free from cruelty and correction officers can beat you for basically any reason except sadism. Convicted of a crime? Lose right to vote.

I am probably suffering from a bit of confirmation bias but I feel there is a strand of Old Testament thinking in the way she thinks about the law. Yes, God made us equals and we have certain rights but if you sin, or is not one of the chosen, you lose those rights.

The only right she has been willing to protect, as far as I could find, seems to be right for felons to bear arms.

That's a nice touch. No limits on the abuse you can suffer behind bars, and probably no ****s given about the Floridians the state GOP there are now hitting with poll taxes after voters democratically restored their right to vote, but may God strike down the governor who tries to keep one of those felons from a gun!

Barret’s willingness to take rights away sets her apart from even Scalia. Scalia was loathe to imply rights not explicitly granted to people by the constitution or some other law but he was equally loathe to encroach on rights he thought existed.

Barret’s limited judicial record suggests she’s both loathe to grant rights and very willing to take rights away.

I just don’t understand how this is someone that either side can want to promote? Do they really want to stop abortions that much that they’ll roll the dice on their own rights being infringed upon at some point? It all seems extremely short sighted and barely thought through to a logical conclusion.

The people with power in the GOP are rich and white. They will never have any reason to fear their rights being intruded on. They will always be able to get abortions for their daughters and mistresses when needed. The social conservatism stuff is a game to them, they just want justices on the court who will stomp on workers in favor of corporations and stomp on social programs in favor of lower taxes. The rest is carnival barker stuff to get the rubes to keep voting for them.

All completely fair and solid points. I mean the voters though; the conservative base. I guess I'm just completely gobsmacked that there exist factions who will willingly surrender their rights over a single issue, let alone one as ridiculous as abortion.

There is also a significant portion of the Republican base who vote Republican solely because of the issue of guns and the libs coming for people's guns.

If you believe life begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg, 60,000,000 Americans have been murdered since Roe Vs. Wade has been passed.

If that is your belief, Roe Vs. Wade has been the biggest atrocity in the history of the world.

The right to live is the greatest right that the government should not be infringing on.

This is very wrong, FYI. The amendment part anyways. Your first sentence is probably practically true, if not legally sound.

Take it up with Judge Charles Evan Hughes! Source, GOOGLE

When the Supreme Court rules on a constitutional issue, that judgment is virtually final; its decisions can be altered only by the rarely used procedure of constitutional amendment or by a new ruling of the Court. However, when the Court interprets a statute, new legislative action can be taken.
Judge: Charles Evans Hughes

You may be correct but if you believe life begins the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg and the state has a right to protect that non-viable life form over the wishes of the pregnant female, you are a moron.

So, you feel the right of the mother should be limited to the moment that the baby is viable out of the womb?

No, a fetus can be viable in the womb in the later part of the term and the state should protect that life. “Life upon conception” has no viability or any need for the state to be involved.

So, you have a definition on when life begins, and you are requesting the state protects that definition?

I don’t really understand the last part of your question. In my opinion, the line is pretty close to viability, or 20-22 weeks. To a large degree, Roe got it right using the trimeter as the lines in the sand.

If ordinary or even extra-ordinary medical care can, or does in future, push that a week or two earlier, I am fine with the state asserting its interest at that point.

But the Christian Right line that “life begins at conception” is ridiculous. With that line, masturbating and “killing the building blocks of future life” should be subject to state control, just to play it safe and stop the atrocity of murdering of 600,000,000,000,000 future American lives. It’s already a sin and sends you to hell, it may as well be illegal too.

Yet Christians have no issue with Invetro even though you never use all the frozen after the eggs are fertilized. Many are disposed of.

Most Christians will sacrifice their beliefs for money or anything that serves them well

At some point, very likely in our lifetimes, we will be able to raise children in artificial wombs as soon as the egg is fertilized (very likely fertilized in a test tube). That’s why I think it’s dangerous to tie the definition of life to viability for pro-choice people.

I'm thinking if Roe is overturned... faced with product boycotts of epic proportions, most every national company based in those pro-life states will move and few companies in the pro-choice states could afford to do business with/in the pro-life states either. So your hypothesis may very well be put to the test.