Post: #1

Most people know about Roe v. Wade but have little understanding of this decision and why it matters so much, especially to the degenerates and radicals on the left.

Roe was a woman who sued the State of Texas to invalidate a law that made abortion a crime. In the eyes of Texas, just like in the eyes of a pregnant woman who is the victim of a car crash, the life of the fetus is worth protecting.

(Roe wasn't her real name. Roe is a convention, its the female version of John Doe.).

Ultimately, the case went to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court generally hears two types of cases - does the government have the power to pass this sort of law, or is there a limit on government power that applies in this particular case?

This was not a powers case because this was a state law. States are generally assumed to have plenary (absolute) power to regulate their citizens, especially regarding crimes and especially regarding conduct that has historically been prohibited. This is because prior to those states joining the United States, they were assumed to have this power and to retain it unless they specifically ceded this power to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment says this, although it does not give the context that I just did.

Anyway, what was at issue whether there was a limit on the right of the government to prohibit abortion.

When deciding these cases, it matters greatly whether a fundamental right is impacted. Up until a short time before Roe, a fundamental right was limted to rights listed in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights - freedom of speech, freedom of religion, right to a jury trial, etc. However, a few years before Roe the court overturned a Connecticut law that banned contraceptives. (Griswold, 1965). To overturn the ban, the Court had to find a fundamental right. Basically, the court said that recreational sex was a fundamental right!

Roe was a tougher case because instead of a sperm they had a fetus. Texas, like a pregnant crash victim that is suing you, argued that they had an interest in protecting the life of the fetus. Roe argued that she had a fundamental right to kill her fetus. The Court split the baby so to speak. They found that Roe had a right to kill her baby, calling it a right to privacy, but that the Government had an equal right in the life of the fetus. The government's right was compelling, and worthy of outweighing Roe's right, at viability of the fetus, which the court in 1973 assumed was the beginning of the third trimester.

Later, in 1992, the Court revisited Roe. It was ripe to be overturned. Regan and Bush had appointed conservatives (they thought) to the Court. However, Justice Kennedy sided with the left and basically cemented Roe. The one major change is that the trimester assumption was discarded for a viability standard. But the court, with the Republican-appointee Kennedy casting the swing vote, upheld the view that there is an imaginary right to privacy. (Hilariously, the Roe court even described the location of this right - between the penumbras (shadows) and emanations (light) of the First and Fifth Amendment (self incrimination).

Think about this. With the stroke of a pen, the court invented rights that didn't exist before. Don't worry about amending the Constitution. Don't worry about voter referenda supporting bans on gay marriage. We found an invisible right and we'll tell you what to do!

The reason why Kavanaugh matters is because he is Kennedy. Gorsuch replaced Scalia, so while he is likely to be a fine justice, its a wash. (Roberts replaced O'Connor, which was a win, but we were in a deficit so it didn't have much impact yet). Kavanaugh becomes the swing vote! And the Democrat lifestyle is built on a house of cards.

First, as it pertains to abortion, even under existing law the court can take judicial notice of the improvements in medical science since 1973. The medical profession recognizes viability at about 22-24 weeks, or 1.5 trimesters.

Second, it would be quite reasonable for the Court to say there is no such thing as "penumbras and emanations." The Griswold court made this up. Its completely unprincipled, because once you find a right to privacy, there is suddenly the right to sodomy, gay marriage, the right to discriminate against whites and Asians in employment and school admissions, a right to force normies to pay for sex changes, etc. There is no limit, because there is no text. Its literally in the shadows.

The entire Democrat Diversity Everybody But Straights industry is at risk. As a simple example, I bet there is a shortage of white male professors at most universities because of systematic reverse discrimination. Probably Asians too, but I'm not sure you can call that reverse discrimination. So when the crazy lying cunt from California perjures herself, among other things its to keep her job which exists because of "diversity."

This is why they are willing to perjure themselves. This is why they are in bed with Avenetti. This is why Seth Rich was murdered, and why Strok devised an "insurance policy."

Post: #2

Excellent writeup and summary of the topic, thanks for sharing this.

And if you do the math, 2018 - 1992 gets you to 26 years, which roughly represents the average age of the subsidized single mother spawn we all currently have to deal with. There are many other contributing factors of course, environmental being one of the major ones. But something very crucial has changed in U.S. society over the past quarter century, and the early 90s most certainly were the point of recognition that led us to the Marxist social justice train wreck of the present.

Post: #3

I'm confused.

What would be the benefit of overturning Roe v Wade, as opposed to having Kavanaugh to prevent further cultural Marxism from the Supreme Court?

What's the point in bringing up the societal costs of bastard children of single moms, in the context of overturning Roe v Wade? Those are the kids who weren't aborted.

Post: #4

These issues go well beyond abortion.

The US is in an incredibly unique position compared to other Western nations in that the SCOTUS is able to hit a giant reset button undoing decades of left wing subversion.

For the last fifty years the Communist left and the Federal authoritarian Right has run roughshod over the Constitution via the commerce clause. An honest SCOTUS that rules by the actual intent of the Constitution could smash countless federal regulations that have all but strangled state's rights and turned America into a defacto federal tyranny.

This unfortunately does not by defacto banish the hordes of antidepressant-scoffing witches, bug-chasing faggots and LaRaza invaders, or any other number of by-products of corporate/communist subversion, but it means there's a fair chance that American patriots will get to go up against the enemies of America rather than an American police state, and that is a blessing the magnitude of which cannot be understated.

Post: #5

(10-04-2018 04:37 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  I'm confused.

What would be the benefit of overturning Roe v Wade, as opposed to having Kavanaugh to prevent further cultural Marxism from the Supreme Court?

What's the point in bringing up the societal costs of bastard children of single moms, in the context of overturning Roe v Wade? Those are the kids who weren't aborted.

I'm not taking a position for or against.

I'm just explaining how Roe and Griswold are the foundation for reverse discrimination and affirmative action, Gay rights, a lot of things, and that foundation literally is based on a shadow.

In the early 90s there was a case where pro life protesters were protesting an abortion clinic. The clinic got some ordinance put through that made them protest very far away, far enough to be ineffective. The protestors sue that their fundamental right - the right to free speech and to protest - was being infringed. The Kennedy court sided with the abortion clinic, and actually elevated an imagined right above the express right in the First Amendment. That was a schocking result and likely to be reversed.

Post: #6

(10-04-2018 04:51 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  These issues go well beyond abortion.

The US is in an incredibly unique position compared to other Western nations in that the SCOTUS is able to hit a giant reset button undoing decades of left wing subversion.

For the last fifty years the Communist left and the Federal authoritarian Right has run roughshod over the Constitution via the commerce clause. An honest SCOTUS that rules by the actual intent of the Constitution could smash countless federal regulations that have all but strangled state's rights and turned America into a defacto federal tyranny.

What evidence is there that a Trump-appointed SCOTUS would take this approach to limiting the abuse of the interstate commerce clause, apart from e.g. the second amendment? As you said, this was perpetrated by both the left and the right. Nobody on either side of the Kavanaugh appointment controversy sees ICC abuse as a key issue at stake.

Post: #7

Because the SCOTUS (when in proper form) is actually independent of the Administrative branch and the corporate lobby complex.

If the SCOTUS can be recaptured to rule purely by law and not by partisan corruption then the only thing left is for Americans to challenge previous rulings and return America to it's intended power structure wherein the Federal government is responsible for the borders and protecting the individual from the states only where their fundamental (bill of) rights are being infringed upon.

A pessimist might suggest that Kavanaugh and whoever replaces Ginsburg will simply rule in the same corporate authoritarian direction as previous decades but at that point we're simply entering into speculation. The point I'm making is that federal tyranny can be wound back, and an honest SCOTUS is by far the fastest and cleanest way to get that done.

Post: #8

The one concern I would have about this is if Kavanaugh turns out to be another Kennedy.

Kennedy wasn't chosen because he was a progressive. To be fair, psyop tactics were used on him: read Robert Cialdini's Pre-suasion and you'll see how the Leftist activists who ran the case twisted Kennedy using priming tactics. It is just not infrequent in jurisdictions where judges are appointed and not elected - Britain, Australia - that a prosecutor suddenly turns into a defence-biased judge. Or a defence lawyer who's appointed as a judge becomes a defence lawyer's worst nightmare.

And this hullabaloo against Kavanaugh is a horse head in his bed: "See what we're doing to you just when you get appointed. Even if you're confirmed, and even if we don't impeach you, every decision you make will be protested or #Resisted if you step out of line."

Kavanaugh's reaction to being questioned deeply concerns me. In short, he has a glass jaw, and it's shaped like if not composed of vagina. Anybody who resorts to tears in front of a bunch of politicians just because his reputation is getting hammered by a loony woman and who is stupid enough to say "Yes! She was raped!" without a skerrick of evidence and after decades as a judge is a secret #BelieveAllWomen sympathiser, and none of you should forget that. He's the sort of man who values people's feelings over facts, the sort of man who is swayed by emotional appeals, and that's a dangerous person to have on a Supreme Court bench at the best of times.

What was the great sin of the Griswold bench looking at Roe vs. Wade? They were prepared to create or acknowledge a fictional reality. Penumbras and ejaculations and shit.

Saying "I have no doubt you were raped somewhere, sometime" is to accept someone else's fictional reality.

Anybody who brings in what his ten year old daughter said as some kind of mad wisdom is the kind of moron who thinks ten year olds - male or female - make wise decisions about anything. It's entirely possible that he will think he can convince women to love him by the decisions he makes in their favour. He's full, classic beta; not alpha; not strong; not a shitlord. Or do any of you think his tears got any pussy flowing from any of the women behind him?

It would take an alpha of Donald Trump levels to ascend to the bench in these circumstances and not allow his decisions to subsequently be biased by the beating he's taken from the Left. This was a giant shit test by the women of the Left, and much as I hate to say so, I think Kavanaugh failed it. Female plaintiffs and their lawyers won't respect him and it's likely that either he recuses himself from such cases or he isn't able to persuade his fellow judges around to his point of view anyway.

Take this as concern trolling, sure. I'm just putting it up as a distinct possibility given the sort of men we see in these positions and who resort to tears to get what they want. Bill Cosby used to joke that the secret to winning any argument in a marriage is to cry first, but Cosby's still behind fucking bars and still had to resort to Spanish Fly to get laid.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #9

Kavanaugh will be another Kennedy with regard to Roe v. Wade. Roe is too useful to the Republicans as an issue to mobilize the base against.

If Roe were overturned, the issue would go back to the states, and state legislatures would have to do the difficult work of writing statutes to regulate abortion.

If, say, Alabama outlawed abortion and imposed criminal penalties on participants in an abortion there would be an electoral backlash. For one thing, the medical profession would be mobilized. Second, all the women who have had abortions, guys who escaped through abortion, or sympathize with either of them.

Not to mention it would be almost impossible to convict anyone of criminal abortion in the USA if there were any "rape or danger to the life of the woman" exceptions. The rape exception could lead to an increase of false rape charges. Trials would be long battles of expert witnesses, and then there would be frequent hung juries as holdouts would just refuse to convict.

The political effect could be a shift to the Democrats of state legislatures, which would give them federal and state legislative gerrymandering power.

and you can't even think of overturning Griswold, which is where OP notes "right to privacy" originates. State legislatures making access to birth control more restrictive? Recipe for political extinction.

The other scenario would be the Supreme Court overruling Roe, and using the same substantive due process arguments as Griswold and Roe, finding a "right to life" and blatantly legislating an embryo' personhood, ignoring the Tenth Amendment again, and making abortion illegal in all 50 states. That's a way to break up the USA.

Post: #10

To overturn Roe, from what I understand, a state like Georgia, Alabama or Oklahoma, would pass an anti abortion law and it goes to the Supreme Court and 5 conservative justices would potentially overturn it, and then some other states pass laws banning abortions.

Congress could step in and pass a law making abortion legal in all 50 states if they had a pro choice president to sign it into law.

Post: #11

Exactly, we don't need another cuckervative who will turn the cheek only to get spanked by the left. In theory and on paper he should have learned he's getting a masterclass in how the left treats its political opponents.

But in practice if he wants to forgive the left and cater to their every whim the US is in deep shit. I'm sure he's getting confirmed but we'll just have to see how he acts. One of the commenters on Vox Day said the person who follows Trump might be a strongman that will absolutely not tolerate the left.

(10-04-2018 06:49 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  The one concern I would have about this is if Kavanaugh turns out to be another Kennedy.

Kennedy wasn't chosen because he was a progressive. To be fair, psyop tactics were used on him: read Robert Cialdini's Pre-suasion and you'll see how the Leftist activists who ran the case twisted Kennedy using priming tactics. It is just not infrequent in jurisdictions where judges are appointed and not elected - Britain, Australia - that a prosecutor suddenly turns into a defence-biased judge. Or a defence lawyer who's appointed as a judge becomes a defence lawyer's worst nightmare.

And this hullabaloo against Kavanaugh is a horse head in his bed: "See what we're doing to you just when you get appointed. Even if you're confirmed, and even if we don't impeach you, every decision you make will be protested or #Resisted if you step out of line."

Kavanaugh's reaction to being questioned deeply concerns me. In short, he has a glass jaw, and it's shaped like if not composed of vagina. Anybody who resorts to tears in front of a bunch of politicians just because his reputation is getting hammered by a loony woman and who is stupid enough to say "Yes! She was raped!" without a skerrick of evidence and after decades as a judge is a secret #BelieveAllWomen sympathiser, and none of you should forget that. He's the sort of man who values people's feelings over facts, the sort of man who is swayed by emotional appeals, and that's a dangerous person to have on a Supreme Court bench at the best of times.

What was the great sin of the Griswold bench looking at Roe vs. Wade? They were prepared to create or acknowledge a fictional reality. Penumbras and ejaculations and shit.

Saying "I have no doubt you were raped somewhere, sometime" is to accept someone else's fictional reality.

Anybody who brings in what his ten year old daughter said as some kind of mad wisdom is the kind of moron who thinks ten year olds - male or female - make wise decisions about anything. It's entirely possible that he will think he can convince women to love him by the decisions he makes in their favour. He's full, classic beta; not alpha; not strong; not a shitlord. Or do any of you think his tears got any pussy flowing from any of the women behind him?

It would take an alpha of Donald Trump levels to ascend to the bench in these circumstances and not allow his decisions to subsequently be biased by the beating he's taken from the Left. This was a giant shit test by the women of the Left, and much as I hate to say so, I think Kavanaugh failed it. Female plaintiffs and their lawyers won't respect him and it's likely that either he recuses himself from such cases or he isn't able to persuade his fellow judges around to his point of view anyway.

Take this as concern trolling, sure. I'm just putting it up as a distinct possibility given the sort of men we see in these positions and who resort to tears to get what they want. Bill Cosby used to joke that the secret to winning any argument in a marriage is to cry first, but Cosby's still behind fucking bars and still had to resort to Spanish Fly to get laid.

Post: #12

Hmm now that I think about it, while Roe is an overreach by the scotus and should be overturned, it would likely lead to a surge towards the left. We would see more barber shop abortions and more women going to another state or Mexico to get their abortions in some back alley.

Ultimately I think it makes sense to legalize abortions but it is congresses job to pass such a law, not the scotus.

Post: #13

(10-03-2018 06:29 PM)Hypno Wrote:  This was not a powers case because this was a state law. States are generally assumed to have plenary (absolute) power to regulate their citizens, especially regarding crimes and especially regarding conduct that has historically been prohibited. This is because prior to those states joining the United States, they were assumed to have this power and to retain it unless they specifically ceded this power to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment says this, although it does not give the context that I just did.

Actually this is incorrect. The states' powers over their citizens were constrained by the three Civil War amendments (13, 14, and 15). Long before Griswold the Supreme Court applied the substantive due process theory of the 14th Amendment to restrict the actions of the states in various ways. Griswold isn't entirely a radical departure from the case law that had been building for many decades beforehand.

Ultimately I believe Sp5 (who is an attorney) is right in that Kavanaugh isn't going to overturn Roe.

Roe doesn't even matter at this point. Kavanaugh is about protecting fundamental assumptions of our society like due process from the American Khmer Rouge. Their mob tactics have made an enemy of him for decades to come.

Post: #14

My biggest problem with Kavanaugh was his male feminist life (female friends, hiring women etc) but the rape shit may have neutralized that (and made the attack on him less realistic than if he was a firebrand asshole.)

Post: #15

(10-04-2018 04:37 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  I'm confused.

What would be the benefit of overturning Roe v Wade, as opposed to having Kavanaugh to prevent further cultural Marxism from the Supreme Court?

What's the point in bringing up the societal costs of bastard children of single moms, in the context of overturning Roe v Wade? Those are the kids who weren't aborted.

Single moms have less children and in most cases they have single children out of wedlock, who then grow up without a traditional father figure. It is all connected and as an old dog I have the benefit of remembering how families used to function.

Post: #16

(10-04-2018 08:46 AM)eradicator Wrote:  Hmm now that I think about it, while Roe is an overreach by the scotus and should be overturned, it would likely lead to a surge towards the left. We would see more barber shop abortions and more women going to another state or Mexico to get their abortions in some back alley.

Ultimately I think it makes sense to legalize abortions but it is congresses job to pass such a law, not the scotus.

Overturning Roe v. Wade it at this stage would incur a huge political cost and thus be counter productive. Unfortunately the current crop of American women in their prime child rearing years is pretty much lost. It will require at least two full generations to properly prime the minds of young woman back toward stable marriages, family life, and away from selfish attention whoring, riding the cock carousel, and single mother households.

Look, it took the Marxists half a century to get us from the nuclear family to the brink of civil war. It will take several decades to reverse the damage. God willing Trump gets his second turn in which case we all may just experience a whiff of the good old days by the time his final term is up.

Post: #17

One other situation where a case will end up in the Supreme Court is where there are conflicting precedents in different federal districts. By having a case on point decided by the US Supreme court, then it is the precedent for the whole country.

Post: #18

This post was by the OP is great with rich context provided and detailed insight.

Overturning Roe is a political 3rd rail and going after that in the SCOTUS would doom conservatives for a generation. Also, as many have noted the majority of ALL women will ALL bounce left. The majority of women support it, which is the majority of half the overall electorate. The only way you pull it off is with the hoodwink of a female conservative leader. I would instead use political capital on reforming family courts as we see children continually used as weapons against men and this much more damage done at present than women and their lust to abort.

Post: #19

I'm not predicting or recommending that Roe will be overturned. But it might, because its bad law. If you had 5 Scalias or Hugo Blacks on the court it would never have been written. If Kennedy had 2 balls it would have been overturned in 1992.

As for it being a powers case, you are mistaken Libertas. I do have a law degree, I just don't advertise it. Where you are correct is that the 14th amendment did something called incorporation, which is apply the 5th amendment to the states. This concept is not clear in the Constitution or the Bill of rights or any of the amendments, but its settled law. So when the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law . . . " it literally only applies to the federal government, but the 14th Amendment is interpreted to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the States as well. Which is interesting if you think about it because it was not enacted until after the Civil War. The reason is that until the Civil War, the States were like separate countries, and they only ceded authority to the feds in certain enumerated areas. After the South lost, that concept has been ignored. But the same phenomenon exists with the EU, which is a federation of separate countries that ceded authority to Brussels. None of this is really relevant to Roe or the invisible right of privacy.

As for what is likely to happen, I think the court will first scale back reverse discrimination in admissions which will be the first domino to ending "diveristy." The left will claim the sky is falling - Roe is next - but the court decides which cases it will take and it won't start there.

Post: #20

Mine came being a victim of some wild accusations that I would rather not go into detail with for obvious reasons. I then googled "what's considered sexual harrasment" that same day and the whole front page was basically saying 'if you have to think about it you are probably harrasing her'. Man fuck that I was raised to be assertive. And so my red pill journey began...

Post: #21

I'm actually hoping that these Federal and State "Hate Crime" multipliers can be deemed unconstitutional. They are purely extrajudicial measures to persecute whites. I find "Hate Crime" statutes far more aggravating than Roe.

Post: #22

(10-04-2018 06:42 PM)Hypno Wrote:  As for it being a powers case, you are mistaken Libertas. I do have a law degree, I just don't advertise it. Where you are correct is that the 14th amendment did something called incorporation, which is apply the 5th amendment to the states. This concept is not clear in the Constitution or the Bill of rights or any of the amendments, but its settled law. So when the First Amendment reads "Congress shall make no law . . . " it literally only applies to the federal government, but the 14th Amendment is interpreted to apply all of the Bill of Rights to the States as well. Which is interesting if you think about it because it was not enacted until after the Civil War. The reason is that until the Civil War, the States were like separate countries, and they only ceded authority to the feds in certain enumerated areas.

That's basically what I was saying. You just said that the states essentially have plenary powers in their territories but that isn't true anymore thanks to the Civil War amendments, as you point out.

It's arguable that Griswold and by extension Roe was bad law but I don't think they'll be overturned and some might say that they were preceded in the case laws reining in the states.

Post: #23

He won!

Post: #24

Post: #25

I never understood how RvW gives right to privacy for an abortion but at any time they can stick needles in you for blood, look at your phone, collect important business information, and just about anything else and claim its a 4th amendment exception

Perhaps ol Brett's recent experience will give him a new found appreciation of keeping the government out of your business and standing by your words,