Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

  1. #1
    God/dess Raziel's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    2,438
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 989 Posts

    Default Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    With the death of Antonin Scalia, the republicans are bent on blocking anything Obama does to appoint a new Justice. This could have really heavy consequences. First off, we can't have EIGHT FRIGGIN' JUSTICES for almost a year. Second, if they are successful at this, they can possibly overturn Roe Vs. Wade. That would be an awful thing. If women don't have access to safe abortions, desperate women will seek out unsafe abortions. Backdoor coat-hanger-man and stuff. This concerns me deeply as it will lead to women dying that didn't have to. They could possibly overturn Gay-Marriage. My cousin is a lesbian. Her partner is awesome! (These two are social workers... in Chicago. Let me say that again, SOCIAL WORKERS IN CHIGAGO!. They've seen some shit go down) I'm not going to be part of the people that tells these two, with everything they've been through, that they can't marry who they want.

    Give me some hope? I'm a bit freaked out!
    Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 219 Times in 69 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Scalia was the most conservative justice on the bench, and he opposed abortion. The makeup of the Supreme Court skews liberal - more so, now that he has passed. Even if he is replaced by an equally conservative justice, the Court won't have the numbers to overturn Roe or gay marriage.

    I can't say it's impossible, though, if we do elect a Republican president. The problem is that a couple of the more liberal justices are also getting up there in age, and they might pass in the next five years. At that point, the next president would be appointing multiple justices (given that the Senate successfully blocks all of Obama's nominees). There was a call a while ago for Ginsburg to step down while Obama could still replace her with a politically liberal justice. Looks like the window for that has closed, though.

  3. #3
    God/dess Raziel's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    2,438
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 989 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Blocking all of Obama's nominees for ten months leaves us with an eight panel Supreme Court for, lets face it, over a year no matter who's in office. That's unconstitutional.
    Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it

  4. #4
    Moderator
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    901
    Thanks
    635
    Thanked 1,519 Times in 585 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    What is awesome is that if they block a nominee for almost a full year, they prove that they lied when they said they were going to get things done with control over the senate, and if they approve a nominee, it will turn the court to the left.


    HA HA HA facists, lose lose and I love it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Smartest thing for Obama to to is appoint a true centrist, and really give them something to think about.

    I mean if trump or Cruz win the primaries, they will get smoooooooooooooked

    Oh man is this fun

  5. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldster For This Useful Post:


  6. #5
    Moderator
    Joined
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    901
    Thanks
    635
    Thanked 1,519 Times in 585 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Super fun if Bernie wins some primaries,,hooh hoooooooooooooo

  7. #6
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,947
    Thanks
    2,845
    Thanked 5,526 Times in 3,113 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziel View Post
    Blocking all of Obama's nominees for ten months leaves us with an eight panel Supreme Court for, lets face it, over a year no matter who's in office. That's unconstitutional.
    Can you cite us a case for that proposition?

  8. #7
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 219 Times in 69 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by slowpoke View Post
    Can you cite us a case for that proposition?
    If OP is suggesting that blocking Obama's nominees would be unconstitutional, he doesn't have to cite case law, he can quote the relevant part of the Constitution.

    I believe the part in question (being dissected elsewhere on the internet) is the following (Article II, Section 2): "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint [...] judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law"

    However, it's not clear to me that this section forces the Senate to work with the President in confirming nominees; instead, it specifies that appointments will only happen with their consent, which they can withhold and have done many times in the past. There is certainly a question of whether the Senate could block the nominations indefinitely, though, to the point where it infringes on the President's constitutional right to appoint a justice. When they declare that this is their intent (rather than merely blocking nominees they don't like, but ostensibly intending to confirm a choice they agree with), this may violate Article II.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to tigershoes For This Useful Post:


  10. #8
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,947
    Thanks
    2,845
    Thanked 5,526 Times in 3,113 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    So are you saying there is not case law to support the proposition?

  11. #9
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 219 Times in 69 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Not that I know of. But I don't believe there needs to be, if the Constitution supports the proposition.

  12. #10
    Veteran Member 423texas's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    343
    Thanks
    128
    Thanked 168 Times in 93 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Roe vs Wade will not be overturned anytime soon.

    It would be too much of a monumental change and both sides are much more interested in maintaining power rather than making huge changes.

  13. #11
    God/dess Zofia's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    2,964
    Thanked 2,370 Times in 934 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziel View Post
    Blocking all of Obama's nominees for ten months leaves us with an eight panel Supreme Court for, lets face it, over a year no matter who's in office. That's unconstitutional.
    Actually an eight judge panel for a year is not unheard of. Abe Fortas resigned before the beginning of the 1969-70 term and his successor was not confirmed until after the term ended. That was after Democrats refused to confirm not one, but two of Nixon's appointees. So, it's not unconstitutional, nor unheard of. More like politics as usual.

    HTH
    Z

  14. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Zofia For This Useful Post:


  15. #12
    God/dess Raziel's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    2,438
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 989 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zofia View Post
    Actually an eight judge panel for a year is not unheard of. Abe Fortas resigned before the beginning of the 1969-70 term and his successor was not confirmed until after the term ended. That was after Democrats refused to confirm not one, but two of Nixon's appointees. So, it's not unconstitutional, nor unheard of. More like politics as usual.

    HTH
    Z
    Well, they were after it, weren't they? They were trying to get someone seated. The problem is that now it's possible for it to be a tie. WTF happens then?

    One answer is that Justice Scalia actually named his own replacement. Elena Kagan. So name her. The republicans can't really argue with that. Lemme find the article i'm all stream of thought here.... http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...ustice-scalia/

    Now look, i have no issue with right leaning justices on the supreme court, what bothers me is that if it's all right (or left) crazy shit might get done. This goes well beyond abortion (though i fully support a woman's right to chose), it could get really bad if either liberals or Conservatives dominate. No-one wants to live in a fascist or Communist state.
    Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it

  16. #13
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 219 Times in 69 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    It's buried in the article, but Obama actually did nominate Kagan a few years ago and she is currently a Justice.

  17. #14
    God/dess Raziel's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Somewhere
    Posts
    2,438
    Thanks
    414
    Thanked 1,568 Times in 989 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by tigershoes View Post
    It's buried in the article, but Obama actually did nominate Kagan a few years ago and she is currently a Justice.
    Well. Crap. I'm all out of answers, here.
    Sarchasm (n): The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it

  18. #15
    Senior Member
    Joined
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    106
    Thanks
    137
    Thanked 219 Times in 69 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Yeah. We are rooting for Obama to make a recess appointment (he technically can, if the Senate is in recess for longer than 10 days - which it currently is). We hold a slight hope that in saying he won't do that, he's merely tricking the Senate into staying in recess the full 10 days, and that he'll appoint someone on the last day. Doesn't seem like his style, but would be a great option. However, I read that some are claiming that Sundays don't count toward a recess, which would make the current one only 8 days and thus not valid for appointments.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...nt-obama-do-it

  19. #16
    Featured Member Tourdefranzia's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    1,445
    Thanks
    649
    Thanked 3,393 Times in 970 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    The lower courts are stacked with liberal justices, so even if the Supreme Court is deadlocked (and therefore cannot reach a decision), the rulings of lower courts will stand and become the law of the land.

  20. #17
    God/dess Trem's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    2,958
    Thanks
    1,714
    Thanked 3,253 Times in 1,343 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    There are plenty of places where it is already nearly impossible for women to get abortions, and it has nothing to do with the supreme court. It doesn't matter what happens with the SC, even in the highly unlikely event that a Republican wins the next election they would still struggle to find a bigger right wing troll than Scalia. If you care about women's ability to choose what happens to their own body then worry about all the states where Republicans have complete control at the local/state level, those are the places that are really hurting.
    "Well done. Here are the test results: You are a horrible person. I'm serious, that's what it says: 'A horrible person.' We weren't even testing for that."

  21. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Trem For This Useful Post:


  22. #18
    Featured Member
    Joined
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Puritanical New England
    Posts
    1,003
    Thanks
    1,798
    Thanked 929 Times in 495 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Scary that there are single issue voters out there. Ohio Governor John Kasich just came in second to Trump in NH primary, so he's championing defunding Planned Parenthood so he gets votes in the South. Democrats are protesting that the Republicans will try to block a Supreme Court Nominee until after the election, Fox news produced video of NY Senator Chuck Schumer saying the same thing in one of the Bush's terms... Picking a Supreme Court Justice is the longest influence a President can make. Cases coming up include decisions on Obamacare, Energy (Death of coal)...

    I kink of think that agreeing to have the next president decide will mobilize more voters to 'make a difference', although more 'crazies' will come out and ordinary / moderates still won't vote. So we're screwed either way... :-/
    Originally Posted by
    I don't know what it is about me that says "wife me up." Everyone wants to choke me or date me. Or both. This job is weird.


    Originally Posted by Nocturnelle
    ... Kittens are assholes but they're just so darn cute.

  23. #19
    God/dess
    Joined
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    6,947
    Thanks
    2,845
    Thanked 5,526 Times in 3,113 Posts
    My Mood
    Angelic

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Interesting:
    "Planned Parenthood has received federal funding since 1970, when President Richard Nixon signed into law the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act, amending the Public Health Service Act. Title X of that law provides funding for family planning services, including contraception and family planning information. The law had support from both Republicans and Democrats.[54] Nixon described Title X funding as based on the premise that "no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition".[55]"

  24. #20
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Aug 2013
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    291
    Thanks
    193
    Thanked 359 Times in 174 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Simple answer: vote!

  25. The Following User Says Thank You to sarah101 For This Useful Post:


  26. #21
    God/dess audritwo's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2013
    Location
    10.0.0.1
    Posts
    4,582
    Thanks
    5,702
    Thanked 19,566 Times in 3,647 Posts
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Ding dong the wicked witch is dead.





    Quote Originally Posted by Miss_Red View Post
    Audritwo's asshole sees all, knows all. Spurs on armies of orcs. Casts fear into the dwindling races of Middle-Earth. Fears hobbits.

  27. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to audritwo For This Useful Post:


  28. #22
    God/dess Zofia's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Durham, North Carolina
    Posts
    2,417
    Thanks
    2,964
    Thanked 2,370 Times in 934 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Quote Originally Posted by Raziel View Post
    Well, they were after it, weren't they? They were trying to get someone seated. The problem is that now it's possible for it to be a tie. WTF happens then?
    The lower court ruling stands. Last term, the court decided 72 cases. Two thirds of the 2014-15 cases were unanimous decisions. That means add or take away a justice or two and there would have been no difference in outcome. There were only 10 cases decided by a vote of five to four. Only four of those were along ideological lines. So, changing a justice won't change much about the way the court works.

    One answer is that Justice Scalia actually named his own replacement. Elena Kagan. So name her. The republicans can't really argue with that. Lemme find the article i'm all stream of thought here.... http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/14/opinio...ustice-scalia/
    Not exactly. Please read the story again. First, Kagan is already on the court. Second, Justice Scalia was campaigning for her to replace retiring Justice David Souter. He is a friend of Kagan's and he respects her intellect. That's why he wanted her on the court.

    Now look, i have no issue with right leaning justices on the supreme court, what bothers me is that if it's all right (or left) crazy shit might get done. This goes well beyond abortion (though i fully support a woman's right to chose), it could get really bad if either liberals or Conservatives dominate. No-one wants to live in a fascist or Communist state.
    Do you really think our democracy is so fragile that nine lawyers who don't even command as much as a police force are all that stand between us and fascism or communism? Great Britain functions quite well without a Supreme Court with even the powers that ours has. (Parliament determines the constitutionality of its own laws. Parliament gives the courts whatever jurisdiction Parliament thinks they should have.) Canada functioned for decades with no Supreme Court at all. They used to send their final disputes to England for resolution. Courts are responsible for resolving disputes. The vast majority of them get resolved at a much lower level than the Supreme Court. Keep in mind that last term they only took 72 cases. Yes, the court is important, because they decide most cases by an overwhelming majority and remind people that most things are not as wildly partisan as your local politician would want you to think it is. The world won't end, no matter who sits on the court, or if it has only eight justices for a while.

    XOXO
    Z

  29. #23
    Veteran Member RyanXO's Avatar
    Joined
    Apr 2016
    Location
    (:
    Posts
    470
    Thanks
    723
    Thanked 1,042 Times in 330 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    This has been upsetting me! I don't like to get political and I get the media gets people riled up, but I am TERRIFIED of our current laws getting overturned. Already in Texas, an abortion is illegal after 20 weeks. Most of our clinics have closed down due to "new regulations" from 2013. Now they make you wait 24 hours have to describe the fetus to you in great detail. It's horribly upsetting. This has really been getting to me lately. Even if its not illegal, I fear more harsh regulations.

  30. The Following User Says Thank You to RyanXO For This Useful Post:


  31. #24
    Veteran Member Candycups's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    233
    Thanks
    234
    Thanked 501 Times in 172 Posts
    My Mood
    Cheerful

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    I just moved to Texas a few months ago, and ho-ly crap was it an event just for me to get a script for birth control. Most of the offices and clinics I called either "didn't do/offer that" (but were more than happy to help me if I was already pregnant) or wanted me to join a six month wait list. Others just wanted me to have lived in the area for X number of months before I went in to them. I'm an adult. I pay rent and taxes, I invest and save, and I do want kids someday. Just not right now. With all the hoops and arbitrary waiting periods for birth control, by time I got to the front to get a quick, simple prescription, I might already be in a new line, this one for an abortion.

    In the end, Planned Parenthood saved the day. Went in, paid full price because they're not in my insurance network (but guess what -- I can pay full price, and I'd have been willing to pay out of pocket for the others doctors, too, had they let me) and walked out a few minutes later with a year long prescription. Seriously. For real. Jesus. #Texasplz

  32. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Candycups For This Useful Post:


  33. #25
    Moderator
    Joined
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    2,508
    Thanks
    4,404
    Thanked 3,977 Times in 1,532 Posts

    Default Re: Concern suddenly for the future of women's choice in America.

    Roe v Wade won't be overturned with 8 justices on the bench. They have to agree to even hear a case. They won't.
    Where Am I? Missing NYC

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Is it suddenly cool to hit on older women?
    By jasmine in forum The Lounge
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 03-18-2008, 03:55 PM
  2. Future America
    By Yekhefah in forum Music Mix
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-01-2008, 11:40 AM
  3. Why am I suddenly seeing more women customers?
    By swvaguy in forum Stripping (was Stripping General)
    Replies: 50
    Last Post: 07-18-2006, 08:29 PM
  4. Why am I suddenly seeing more women customers?
    By swvaguy in forum Customer Conversation
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 07-16-2006, 09:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •