Requesting a formal apology from the United States Supreme Court and BAR ASSOCIATION
To concerned parties and fellow American citizens.
It has come to my attention that females of this once great nation and promised land are no longer allowed to elect whether their body is capable of not only:
A. Aborting a yet to be conceived biological entity known as a foetus
B. Whether they have the sole right to determine what to do with the biological content of their own bodily matter.
During my childhood we solemnly swore allegiance to this land during the morning Star Spangled Banner we sung with our hand on our heart. We had to stand physically. We solemnly swore allegiance.
It has become apparent that the USA no longer resembles a democracy which serves its commonfolk. What it really is a mishmash of various political economies (Big Pharma is just one) but of various political mafias run by vested interests. As oligarchies and wicked political economies exist anywhere I shall excuse this as this is a totally different subject but this has tarnished the land to begin with. My only reprieve was that as long as the justice system was intact it was tolerable.
Free will is what the USA has always been about. That's why we adhere to the assertion "Land of the free, home of the brave". The English Puritans came here seeking freedom of faith. All choices are binary choices. Either we say yes or no to it. In that sense freedom of choice is the ultimate freedom.
This is not a land of the free anymore if a female cannot choose what to do with her bodily content.
The justice system has failed. It is only a matter of time the elites will pack with passports and citizenship by investment programs in Switzerland, Cyprus, Netherlands, New Zealand, Singapore assuming they have not already purchased islands or residencies wherein they can live under their own manifestos. Minimal government maximum governance is their theory and rightfully so.
The Supreme Court is no longer a court or supreme as a court must be impartial. It is also only supreme in name. The BAR ASSOCIATION has also failed us in certifying heathens who want to impose their blatantly wicked thoughts on unwitting and unsuspecting individuals who've been hoodwinked into living in a "free land".
I request those in the capitol area to hold a candlelight vigil at
1 First St NE, Washington, DC 20543.
Sincerely,
A deeply disturbed and concerned American citizen.
Comments (101)
Microanalysis and nitpicking of technicals don't distort the reality. Doesn't make it any less truthful that the justice system is criminally enforced on an unwitting and unsuspecting public constitute.
American democracy is not a textbook or fit democracy to begin with. It's an oligarchy thats been hoodwinking the people for decades. How can I ever be fit for something which itself is not fit. If anything it should try to be fit to my standard which is textbook democracy.
Wow - so if your beliefs don't agree with the law, then the law must be wrong. Sounds like something a psychopath would say. Dexter Morgan would agree with you.
"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
You're a known Christian conservative on this site. In my eyes you qualify as biased. I shall discount your views.
Also, as per Sharia law in Muslim countries, Muslims have more privileges than non-Muslims. So if one were to retaliate against the Sharia law does that make them psychopaths ?
So as per your logic non-Muslims in Muslim countries should STFU and take in Sharia law because it's the law ! Duh ! Follow the law ! It's the law !
What does Sharia law have to do with the mighty mighty US of A? I believe in America.
"If you always put limits on everything you do, physical or anything else, it will spread into your work and into your life. There are no limits. There are only plateaus, and you must not stay there, you must go beyond them." - Bruce Lee
https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
-
- Learn more
- | Suggested Resource
Learn More300+ video lessons across 6 modeling courses taught by elite practitioners at the top investment banks and private equity funds -- Excel Modeling -- Financial Statement Modeling -- M&A Modeling -- LBO Modeling -- DCF and Valuation Modeling -- ALL INCLUDED + 2 Huge Bonuses.
Learn moreBut isn't that what the Supreme Court just did? Change the law because their beliefs didn't agree with it?
What a surprise, another progressive troll who believes Democracy is a good thing until the majority disagrees with them.
Array
> Wants "less" governmental control
> Sides with party that praises/pushes big government oversight
> Roe is overturned
> Abortion is left up to states to decide
> Wait not like that?!??!
You're delusional. Welcome to the real world snowflake.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. Prior to the Supreme Court ruling, no governments, state, federal, or local, had restrictions on abortion. Now, several states do have restrictions. That is pretty clearly more government control.
Not true. You have never read Casey which literally applies federal limits to abortion.
Regardless power is now in the hands of voters not 9 white guys in the 1970s...
Almost everything you stated in your post was wrong in one way or another. Like factually incorrect.
This is actually somewhat of a departure from Papertiger's normal trolling, as this is actually a serious topic. I hope the conservatives on this site enjoy paying higher taxes due to more people being on welfare in red states.
If the welfare stopped in red states, many recipients who wished to continue receiving welfare would simply move to blue states.
I do not know what you mean. The number of people on welfare in red states will go up, not down. There are probably laws that determine welfare eligibility in each state but I think much of the funding is from the federal government.
This could be one of the only topics from Papertiger that does not qualify for trolling points. The supreme court decision literally turns the clock back 50 years to a time when the majority of US citizens held biased views against all different types of people including women. The decision to give states the ability to restrict abortion in almost any way, is likely based in ideology and not law. My understanding is that when the supreme court overturns long-term settled law, the decision should be based on some event or series of extraordinary events that would warrant a change of this magnitude. Nothing extraordinary has changed on this issue in the past 50 years. This decision was mostly based on a very questionable change in the composition of the court and nothing else. The republican party has created an illegitimate supreme court by not giving Garland a vote. Over time, confidence in this court will erode, if it has not already.
Okay former lawyer. You would think a former lawyer would be able to string together a coherent legal argument and not resort to insults. Your signature makes sense.
Ever heard of gerrymandering?
Yeah you're only saying this because it goes against your ideology
Just to be completely clear, your position is that the authors of the US Constitution knowingly acknowledged that the right to an abortion is an immutable, fundamental right? Be specific. Where, specifically, is this right found in the US Constitution? Specifically.
Array
https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
Amazed at the amount of shitheads in this forum who think they're not being obvious with their desire to disempower women. Very stupid of the lying sack of shit Republican judges who said they'd respect precedent law and didn't even offer any valid rationale; everything they say is bullshit given they're acting as mere partisan functionaries and were appointed by presidents lost that LOST popular votes. Massive instability coming and I'm going to enjoy watching the women of America tear the place apart.
Signing some dumb / oppressive / religious bullshit into law has never worked out well.
Go ahead and throw shit but first, punch yourself in the balls because that's exactly what scotus just did to the country.
https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
You're not an american
No American would write Foetus
I wish people would stop simplifying the abortion issue, making it sound like conservatives (and pro-life liberals) are just trying to oppress women. Really?? You think that's the sole driving force behind men and WOMEN alike who oppose abortion?!
How about you address the fundamental of issue of whether or not a child in the mother's womb is an individual, and if it is, then why is it not entitled to life? After all, it is one of the government's core duties to protect citizens' right to LIFE, Liberty, and Property. If you don't think a baby in the womb is an individual, please enlighten the rest of us by explaining how in the hell you so easily came to that conclusion.
Is it really that hard to see why the opposing side may disagree with this question of whether a baby in the womb is an individual? Weren't all of us fetuses in a womb in the beginning? And aren't we all individuals who deserve the right to life? If you want to debate whether a baby in the womb is a life, that's one thing. But for the love of god, please stop reciting your political sound bites that are so short-sided and designed to enrage without context.
The political discourse these days is despicable. Rather than healthy debate and critical thinking, people ignorantly recite the sound bites they heard on CNN or Fox til they are blue in the face. Honestly open your minds to the other side of the issue and I bet it won't seem so black and white after all.
There's nothing to talk about. It's a fucking ball of cells. If you don't want an abortion don't get one. Deliberately stripping women of bodily autonomy is a direct attack on them.
Any position to the contrary is just some religious point of view THAT HAS NO PLACE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM.
Preach it brotha preach it.
Has it ever occurred to you that you too are a ball of cells? Why is your ball of cells more worthy of protection than another ball of cells?
I didn't realize a ball of cells had to have its skull crushed, brains sucked out, and body parts dismembered to remove it from a body.
Array
https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
We're both ultimately just clumps of cells. What differentiates you and me as a clump of cells from a fetus who's a clump of cells? What distinguishes a born individual from an unborn one?
If it's memories or experiences, nobody can remember anything before age two. Should we be allowed to kill two-year-olds?
If it's sentience or intelligence, are we to say the smart are more worthy of life than the ones less so?
If it's based on having been conscious (the best argument I have seen), why do we value "life" on its past rather than future potential? We judge companies, individuals, and things by what they can do in the future, not necessarily what their track record has been.
The arguments for fetuses being human are not solely rooted in religion but also in philosophy. Saying it's only based on religion is a strawman.
You used many words without really saying much at all. We get that you believe a fetus has a right to life. By the way, a fetus is not a US citizen and should not have the same rights as a citizen.
And some people disagree with that… some people think a fetus should have rights. I'm not so much arguing for one side or another, I'm just baffled at people's inability to understand two opposing sides of an argument, instead blaming the other side of just wanting to hurt or oppress women. It's not that simple.
Just pointing out that abortion isn't a women's rights issue. Now that the Left has reliably informed us that men can give birth, too, abortion has been moved out of the category of women's rights.
Array
You should try that line at a bar.
Ok, transphobe.
Array
Overturning of Roe - come for saving the babies, stay for the libs going full retard over saving the babies
I come from down in the valley, where mister when you're young, they bring you up to do like your daddy done
Think of all those aborted fetuses who would never realize their destiny to become investment bankers.
As much as I disagree with your stance, this made me laugh
Good point haha
(But still no)
Abortion will become obsolete. As others have mentioned, a fetus is viable outside of the womb at 21 weeks. Given this, abortion at any time during or after this time of pregnancy is indefensible. As technology advances, the age at which a fetus can live outside of the womb will continue to decrease, and our ability to prevent pregnancy to happen in the first place will also progress. There will come a time when virtually every abortion clinic will be forced to shut down, not necessarily because of a religious right-wing takeover of the country, but because no one has any use for them.
Huh. I knew there were a bunch of "alt-right trolls" floating around WSO, first time I'm seeing an "alt-left troll".
And for the record, no, I would not put Drumpfy or Bobthebaker in that latter bucket. Those guys have a couple of beliefs that they settled into after due consideration of the evidence available to them. I agree with some of the positions they have settled on, and disagree with some others.
This guy is just trying to get a rise out of all of the rest of you.
Fk scotus and all the bigoted baboons who threw sht at you
Correction: fk scotus minus the liberalsAlso, if you don't get any shits thrown at u, you aren't doing something right. It's commendable to stand up for what you believe in. Particularly when it has to do w BASIC HUMAN RIGHTSthrow all the shits at me and homeboy. Shits = monkey street cred
https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
Every liberal who considers abortion a fundamental human right should look at pictures of aborted children.
https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
Okay, so don't have an abortion. Are you planning on carrying a fetus any time soon?
Murder is not legal. Why should this be legal? https://clinicquotes.com/abortion-pictures/
A brief I worked on was directly cited in the recent dissent to Dobbs. I'm happy to clear up some confusion surrounding the Court's legal reasoning. But first, a quick lesson in the Constitution.
To begin, America's modern legal system is founded upon the principle of judicial review. Judicial review is an implied power vested in and created by the Supreme Court; which gives it the power to determine whether the actions of the executive and legislative branches of government are constitutional or not. An act or law is constitutional if that a law or action is in accordance with the Constitution. But, interpreting what accordance with the Constitution is, is tricky. Generally, Conservative justices in interpreting the Constitution subscribe to a more textualist and static philosophy, meaning that if the actual text of the Constitution does not contain a express right to do something, then that right does not exist and it is not the job of the Court to create that right.
Generally, liberal justices have a more open construction of the Constitution and are more likely to construe the constitutionality of any acts or laws in accordance with how they resonate with the intent, purpose and general spirit of the applicable parts of the Constitution. Both methods of construction are equally valid and have been used by both liberal and conservative justices over the centuries. When the Supreme Court, as the final court of the land, hands down a ruling, that ruling becomes binding precedent on all courts in the United States. This "binding precedent" that exists after a ruling is called "Stare Decisis"- which is the Court's policy of following the rules or principles laid down in previous judicial decisions unless they contravene the ordinary principles of justice. But, most importantly,, the text of the Constitution is absolute- if the Constitution explicitly says something, then that is the law and it cannot be overturned except via Amendment.
That brings us to Dobbs.
The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution contains the following: "No state shall deny (1) the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; (2) deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; (3) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The second part of this statement is called the Substantive Due Process Clause; Substantive Due Process is the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect your fundamental rights from the government. The three types of rights protected under substantive due process are:
(1) The rights created by the first 8 amendments to the Constitution.
(2) the right to participate in political process
(3) the rights of discrete and insular minority groups
A right is fundamental by examining whether it is deeply rooted in American history and traditions. If the right is not a fundamental right, the court determines if the violation of the right can be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose; if so, the law is valid.
The right to abortion, in Roe v. Wade, was created via use of the Substantive Due Process Clause, ancillary to the reproductive rights of women. In Dobbs, the court argues that use of substantive due process to protect abortion was incorrect because there are no substantive, unenumerated rights protected by the Substantive Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Instead, it argued that Substantive Due Process Clause is at most, an oxymoron, and a copy of Procedural Due Process in that it guarantees judicial process, to protect your rights of life liberty and property, should they be violated. Essentially, the majority's view stated that ALL rights created by the Due Process Clause have no constitutional basis for existence and should be "reevaluated".
Don't you all see? Forget that abortion was completely legal for the first one hundred years of this country's history- it's been a part of this country since its inception. This isn't just about women. It's not about politics even. The conservative justices on Court, in one fell swoop, stripped away the protections of so many rights in American society that affect EVERYONE. And they did it, by ignoring 50 years of precedent and stare decisis and completely disregarding the doctrines, rationale and legality of the issue, for the advancement of personal and political gain. They betrayed all of us- don't you think for a second this is a good thing.
Roe was not based on due process but substantive due process doctrine established in Dred Scott vs. Sandford. All of the 14th ammendment right to privacy decisions you'd think of in this case (Obergerfell, Griswald, Lawrence) are based on reprehensible legal doctrine which was designed to deny African-Americans citizenship. The rot starts in the roots of these decisions and engulfs them entirely.
I literally said that?
Also, Dred was litigated in 1857; substantive due process did not exist back then. Substantive Due Process was created via incorporation of the Due Process Clause into the 14th Amendment, after the Civil War.
Most privacy rights stem from substantive due process, not 14th Amendment protections.
It does not matter. The history of the SCOTUS has been to leave long standing legal precedent alone unless there are new and extraordinary circumstances to warrant a change. The only material change I can see is the composition of the court, which should not be the basis for overturning Rowe V Wade. I think what we have learned from this that the SCOTUS is powerful and its decisions can have substantial consequences.
Ratione impedit laudantium numquam repellat optio quae. Quas dolores sit provident perspiciatis. Harum est dolore magnam voluptatum cumque blanditiis non. Dolore omnis perspiciatis quam.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Want to Unlock by signing in with your social account?
Doloribus aut eos aliquam sint et atque. Autem consequatur similique consectetur hic recusandae iste sit incidunt. Nostrum reprehenderit iure quaerat non aut perferendis rerum ea.
Dignissimos rerum aut expedita libero impedit qui qui. Quis quia ipsam distinctio neque explicabo. Sed id autem non ex possimus quas. Quia aut culpa doloremque. Aut at doloribus voluptas accusantium. Nulla tenetur vel qui aspernatur tenetur nihil inventore dolor. Porro qui sed id cupiditate et.
Odio provident quia quis fuga omnis ad. Blanditiis ad deserunt delectus atque vel fuga. Molestias in alias modi sit amet dolor velit. Rem eius explicabo occaecati ea nam. Ut qui qui magnam quia.