Opinion Do you think women will ever lose right to vote ? Or are Interracial marriage bans are possible?

[BKMMAFAN]

Well I view Abortion as a different case since I consider it murder. Equality is a human right, however (marriage, voting)

and really the supreme court is just leaving it up to the states. not banning it outright. But human rights IMO should be protected on a federal level. I consider the right to marry and vote a human right. I dont consider abortion a human right. I consider it the opposite if anything.

That's not the standard the SOCTUS used to overturn Roe. Since abortion is not an enumerated right in the Constitution, they considered whether it was "deeply rooted in our nation's history and tradition". The Majority noted the overwhelming majority of states that had laws prohibiting abortion at various stages both in 1868 (14th's passage) and a small majority that still had very restrictive laws in 1973 when Roe was decided. Thus, abortion was clearly not "deeply rooted in our history and tradition".

The same exact reasoning can be implemented to interracial marriage. Nothing would change; a vast majority of states banned interracial marriage in 1868 and for many years after its passage. It clearly is not a right the ratifiers of the 14th envisioned to be protected as evidenced by state laws banning interracial marriage existing up until Loving in 1967.

You're correct in the respect that the current SCOTUS seems to pick which of their religious views to impose upon the nation in terms of restricting previously protected rights. Despite Roe and Loving using nearly identical reasoning, by majority GOP appointees btw, only Roe and possibly Obergefell are realistically at risk of being overturned due to their sheer hypocrisy.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I thin youre using a slippery slope argument tbh, which Ive been told is a right-wing falalcy
also, Roe appeal didnt ban abortion

there wont be a ban on women voting or interracial marriage, you can rest easy. The fact that people think its even possible tells me hopw jaded the left is.

You didn't respond to the point. People who said that if Trump won, Roe would be repealed were called fear-mongerers. No one wanted to admit how extreme and tyrannical the GOP has become. So why should anyone believe they'll stop here? I think SSM is clearly on the table. Birth control and non-vaginal sex are under attack, too. Preventing financial and environmental regs is already in progress. The return of the movement to scrap SS and Medicare/Medicaid is coming. Interracial marriage is not safe either.

 

[Don Quixote]

No, it’s nonsense, a slippery slope.

 

[Diogenes of Sinope]

People who said that if Trump won, Roe would be repealed were called fear-mongerers. No one wanted to admit how extreme and tyrannical the GOP has become. So why should anyone believe they'll stop here? I think SSM is clearly on the table. Birth control and non-vaginal sex are under attack, too. Preventing financial and environmental regs is already in progress. The return of the movement to scrap SS and Medicare/Medicaid is coming. Interracial marriage is not safe either.

Trump flat out said he wanted to get rid of Roe v Wade though before he even got into office.

so idk what you mean.

So why should anyone believe they'll stop here?

Slippery slope fallacy again

 

[Jack V Savage]

Trump flat out said he wanted to get rid of Roe v Wade though before he even got into office.

so idk what you mean.




Slippery slope fallacy again

It's like trying to teach a monkey to play piano here.

 

[TryggeTryggvar]

Interracial marriage is not safe either.

Do you really belive this?

 

[Jack V Savage]

Do you really belive this?

Yes. The legal reasoning that the SCOTUS has put forward in attacks on other rights would seem to justify overturning Loving v. Virginia. I don't think the fall of Loving would immediately lead to states taking the next step, but it puts it back on the table (hence "not safe").

The whole point of rights are that it's not just a matter of law changing. It's a barrier against bad governance. When we remove them, we don't necessarily immediately lose freedoms, but it does put our freedoms up to the current gov't.

 

[Denter]

You didn't respond to the point. People who said that if Trump won, Roe would be repealed were called fear-mongerers. No one wanted to admit how extreme and tyrannical the GOP has become. So why should anyone believe they'll stop here? I think SSM is clearly on the table. Birth control and non-vaginal sex are under attack, too. Preventing financial and environmental regs is already in progress. The return of the movement to scrap SS and Medicare/Medicaid is coming. Interracial marriage is not safe either.

The Roe decision wasn't "extreme" or tyrannical by any stretch of the imagination. It was a very limited decision, returning the issue to the states. They could have said "the 14th amendment grants a right to life" and banned it across the entire nation, its right there in the text of the 14th amendment. The fact that this makes the libs howl about tyranny is ridiculous.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The Roe decision wasn't "extreme" or tyrannical by any stretch of the imagination. It was a very limited decision, returning the issue to the states. They could have said "the 14th amendment grants a right to life" and banned it across the entire nation, its right there in the text of the 14th amendment. The fact that this makes the libs howl about tyranny is ridiculous.

Disagree. It's taking away an established right on a very weak basis. That's pretty extreme and tyrannical. We already have 10-year-old rape victims having to leave the state to get an abortion, and there's an attempt to crack down on that kind of thing, too.

 

[Denter]

Disagree. It's taking away an established right on a very weak basis. That's pretty extreme and tyrannical. We already have 10-year-old rape victims having to leave the state to get an abortion, and there's an attempt to crack down on that kind of thing, too.

In no sense was this right ever firmly established, it was always divisive and opposed by large %s of the population. It is good that it is gone in some states, but obviously much work remains to be done to get rid of it entirely. Even the libs don't deserve to be subjected to this.

 

[TryggeTryggvar]

Yes. The legal reasoning that the SCOTUS has put forward in attacks on other rights would seem to justify overturning Loving v. Virginia. I don't think the fall of Loving would immediately lead to states taking the next step, but it puts it back on the table (hence "not safe").

The whole point of rights are that it's not just a matter of law changing. It's a barrier against bad governance. When we remove them, we don't necessarily immediately lose freedoms, but it does put our freedoms up to the current gov't.

Wow, you truly are special

So when they ban interacial marriage, will the also force all interacial couples to divorce? Would love to hear your opinions on this.

 

[Jack V Savage]

In no sense was this right ever firmly established, it was always divisive and opposed by large %s of the population. It is good that it is gone in some states, but obviously much work remains to be done to get rid of it entirely. Even the libs don't deserve to be subjected to this.

The issue isn't whether you think it's good. I know where you stand. It's been a right for 50 years, and justices lied to get on the SCOTUS and take it away from people. Can't really deny that that's extreme and tyrannical.

Wow, you truly are special

So when they ban interacial marriage, will the also force all interacial couples to divorce? Would love to hear your opinions on this.

Something about message boards--I guess the anonymity?--makes it impossible for some of you to communicate like humans. Good luck, I guess.

 

[Denter]

The issue isn't whether you think it's good. I know where you stand. It's been a right for 50 years, and justices lied to get on the SCOTUS and take it away from people. Can't really deny that that's extreme and tyrannical.



Something about message boards--I guess the anonymity?--makes it impossible for some of you to communicate like humans. Good luck, I guess.

Are tyranny and democracy antonyms? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like the judges returned the issue to the regular political process, instead of ruling by unelected fiat? Not a fan of democracy but unless you are using the term in a unique way this is not supportable.

 

[MeatheadMike]

The Roe decision wasn't "extreme" or tyrannical by any stretch of the imagination. It was a very limited decision, returning the issue to the states. They could have said "the 14th amendment grants a right to life" and banned it across the entire nation, its right there in the text of the 14th amendment. The fact that this makes the libs howl about tyranny is ridiculous.

Eh regardless of where anyone stands, I don't think it would be legally possible to use the 14th as grounds for this. The amendment explicitly states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

In order get birthright citizenship, you have to be born in the US or one of its territories, and unborn children are, well.... unborn.

 

[Denter]

Eh regardless of where anyone stands, I don't think it would be legally possible to use the 14th as grounds for this. The explicitly states: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;"

In order get birthright citizenship, you have to be born in the US or one of its territories, and unborn children are well.... unborn.

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Many of the court's rulings have rested on reeds far more slender than this.

 

[TryggeTryggvar]

Something about message boards--I guess the anonymity?--makes it impossible for some of you to communicate like humans. Good luck, I guess.

Tbh, I would have said that to your face if you told me you thought they would ban interacial marriage soon. Its like finding a flat earther you know

Also you need to grow thicker skin if a small friendly jab on a karate forum makes your panties twist up.

 

[MeatheadMike]

"nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Many of the court's rulings have rested on reeds far more slender than this.

Seems like it would be a big stretch at best. Especially considering this amendment's purpose was to protect the rights of former slaves, whereas the rights of unborn children weren't a thought in anyone's minds at the time this was written... so clearly that was not the intention of it.

Using the 10th as grounds to kick it back to the states, as they did, seems much less legally problematic.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Are tyranny and democracy antonyms? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks like the judges returned the issue to the regular political process, instead of ruling by unelected fiat? Not a fan of democracy but unless you are using the term in a unique way this is not supportable.

If people don't have direct say in how they're governed, that's tyrannical, and if their rights are not protected, that also is.

 

[Denter]

If people don't have direct say in how they're governed, that's tyrannical, and if their rights are not protected, that also is.

What you are actually saying is, some issues should be removed from the normal political process- or if they are not, that is tyranny. And if other, different issues are removed from the normal political process- that is also tyranny. In fact, tyranny is just things I don't like.

 

[Denter]

To be fair, conservatives are guilty of calling everything tyranny as well. I think if we are going to use that term, it ought to mean what it was originally intended to mean: one who rules for private gain, and by personal fiat, without the benefit of law or regular process.