DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post Reply
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 9, 2022

Op-Ed: Dobbs for Dummies


The following Op-Ed was written and submitted by Paul Plante

As I sit here typing these words, one old grandfather and disabled combat veteran without political clout or financial means out here in what the slick and sophisticated city folks would call a cultural backwater tucked back into the mountains, where it is still the 1800’s, and really cool dudes like Hussein Obama mock the people, working-class voters the majority of them, who have become frustrated with economic conditions, saying to the world, as if someone from Chicago like him who has never really been to America would even have a clue, “And it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” none of which is really true, the Democrats are spending millions of dollars promoting abortion, and in the course of doing, openly and blatantly spreading what I call a GREAT BIG TOXIC ABORTION LIE for no other purpose than to provoke and incite violence, including violence towards members of the Supreme Court, by stoking the passions and emotions of women with outright lies, as we see by going to an article in the Albany, New York Times Union titled “Ad spending shows Dems hinging midterm hopes on abortion” by Steve Peoples and Aaron M. Kessler of the Associated Press on September 20, 2022, as follows:

WASHINGTON (AP) — Democrats are pumping an unprecedented amount of money into advertising related to abortion rights, underscoring how central the message is to the party in the final weeks before the November midterm elections.

With the most intense period of campaigning only just beginning, Democrats have already invested more than an estimated $124 million this year in television advertising referencing abortion.

That’s more than twice as much money as the Democrats’ next top issue this year, “character,” and almost 20 times more than Democrats spent on abortion-related ads in the 2018 midterms.

end quotes

So, some really BIG MONEY in the game here, people, which should raise the question in the minds of all Americans – WHY?

Specifically, WHY are the Democrats spending more than twice as much money on abortions as they are on their next top issue this year, that being “character,” of which they are sorely lacking?

WHY is abortion so much more important to Democrats than character, when it is character that is so much more important to me?

Which takes us back to that article, as follows:

The estimated spending figures, based on an Associated Press analysis of data provided by the nonpartisan research firm AdImpact, reveal the extent to which Democrats are betting their majorities in Congress and key governorships on one issue.

That’s even as large majorities of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction and that the economy is in poor condition.

end quotes

Which seriously blows my mind – yes, people, the country is indeed heading in the wrong direction, the economy is in poor condition and is about to get worse, your credit card interest rate is going up, you can’t afford food, or to pay your rent, your neighbor’s smarmy son who went to Harvard law school and now makes his living going after college students who can’t pay their student loans and evicting people who can’t pay their mortgages just got his student loans canceled by Joe Biden, and you can’t find katsup on the shelf to make katsup soup with to feed your children, but buck up folks, because the Democrats are doing everything they can to make sure you can still get an abortion, which takes us back to that article for more, as follows:

Since the high court’s decision in June to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion, roughly 1 in 3 television advertising dollars spent by Democrats and their allies have focused on abortion.

end quotes

And whoa, right there, people – because there is the Democrats’ GREAT BIG TOXIC ABORTION LIE staring us right in the face there, because there was NO high court decision in June to eliminate the constitutional right to abortion.

THERE WAS NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION TO ELIMINATE IN JUNE BECAUSE IN JUNE, SUCH A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO ABORTION DID NOT EXIST, PERIOD!

In concurring in Roe v. Wade in 1973, Mr. Chief Justice Burger stated in plain and simple language that even dull-wits like the Democrats should be able to comprehend and understand, as follows:

Plainly, the Court today rejects any claim that the Constitution requires abortions on demand.

end quote

And there is where it all begins and ends, people, with those fourteen (14) words written by the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court in 1973.

So WHY are the Democrats lying to us today, trying to tell us something different?

Because they think we are all stupid and easy to deceive and mislead?

And let me make an important point here – NO, you do not need to be a lawyer to read Supreme Court decisions like Roe v. Wade or Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., No. 19–1392, decided June 24, 2022, nor do you need a JD from Harvard to understand and comprehend what the decisions are saying, since the decisions are meant to speak to us, the common folks in this land, so that we can understand what the law really is without having to keep a lawyer on retainer like the organized crime dudes do.

And that goes for members of the press who keep misrepresenting Roe v. Wade, and Dobbs, as well, which is why I am stepping up to the plate here to confront these lies with a little more than four weeks until the all-important mid-terms elections which are going to determine the fate and future of OUR Republic in the face of a Democrat onslaught to strip us of not only our liberty, but essentially, our citizenship rights if we are not pro-abortion, as we see in this Fox News article titled “AOC wonders if pro-life Democrats should continue to serve: ‘We really need to reassess'” by Cortney O’Brien on 26 June 2022, to wit:

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., suggested in an Instagram video Saturday night that pro-life Democrats should no longer serve in the wake of the Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade.

end quotes

Think about it, people!

Think about what AOC is really saying there.

IF you do not believe fervently and whole-heartedly with women having abortions any time they want them, on demand, then you should not be represented in the Congress of the United States of America.

If you are cool with that, then your choice is obviously already made, so there is probably nothing here of interest to you, since your mind is already closed.

If, on the other hand, you are really concerned about the direction the Democrats want to take this country, and want to know more about what Roe v. Wade and Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al. really do say in simple and easy to understand terms straight from the decisions themselves, as opposed to from the Democrat PROPAGANDA MILL, stay tuned.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s/#respond
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 9, 2022 AT 11:16 AM

Paul Plante says:

I. DOBBS TOOK NOTHING FROM WOMEN IN AMERICA AND GAVE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS BACK TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA!

As an independent American citizen who is not a Democrat, nor a Republican, and Viet Nam combat veteran now in his seventies, I am so sick and tired of hearing nothing but an endless stream of lies, half-truths, and misinformation coming at us from the Democrats, Joe Biden, Karmela Harris, AOC, and their pet poodles and enablers and lickspittles in the main-stream and media legacy concerning this subject of abortion, which is an issue that I have been familiar with since the late-1950s or early-1960s, when there was a lot of discussion about bringing abortion out from the back alleys where famous “coat hanger” abortions were destroying the lives of American women, or killing them.

Like guns, abortion exists, and has existed probably since there have been people on the face of the earth, precisely because the earth itself provides medical plants that induce abortion, something native women in this nation were well aware of before the white man came to these shores back in the 1500s or earlier.

In fact, going back in time to the ancient Greeks, circa  570 – c. 495 BC, Aristotle argued that abortion was acceptable for the good of the state, which cuts across the bow of the arguments of the Democrats and Karmela Harris on Meet the Press on 11 September 2022 that “Everything is on the line when you think about the millions of women and people in America who care about them, who understand the significance of protecting a woman’s right to make decisions about her own body instead of her government telling her what to do.”

Which is pure bull**** because the government is NOT telling women what to do – to the contrary, the PEOPLE, who are “THE GOVERNMENT” in this country, are telling women and Karmela Harris and AOC what they are not free to do, which is to kill an unborn child.

That, people, is what Dobbs gave back to the AMERICAN PEOPLE, which is that right, state by state by state, to defend and protect the unborn from being murdered, for profit, or convenience, to wit:

Held: The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.

end quote

That, people, is AMERICAN DEMOCRATIC PROCESS in action, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to be defending and protecting – OUR RIGHT to be a self-governing people, and in Dobbs, they did exactly that!

So why are the Democrats so upset then?

Going back to ancient Greece and Aristotle, he argued that when a state becomes overpopulated, “let abortion be procured before life and sense have begun.”

And there, people, is THE ISSUE before us – WHEN have life and sense begun in the womb?

Roe said after the first trimester.

Dobbs says after the first trimester.

So, think about it, then, people, if Dobbs allows abortions in the first thirteen weeks of pregnancy, which is what Roe allowed, what has the Supreme Court taken away from the women of America with their Dobbs decision?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-701564
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 10, 2022 AT 9:08 PM

Paul Plante says:

II. DOBBS DOES NOT AFFECT WHO YOU LOVE

In his toxic speech to the nation from a Third Reich setting in Philadelphia on 1 September, 2022, American autocrat Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, stated thusly concerning the Supreme Court and its decision in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., as follows:

MAGA forces are determined to take this country backwards, backwards to an America where there is no right to choose, no right to privacy, no right to contraception, no right to marry who you love.

end quote

Where Joe gets that particular and peculiar notion from, nobody actually knows, but he certainly did not and could not have gotten that silly notion from the Supreme Court in Dobbs, and with respect to that silly notion of Joe’s, in Dobbs, the Supreme Court took great pains to make that point clear, that Dobbs has NO affect on anything but abortion, to wit:

Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al.

United States Supreme Court

The Court emphasizes that this decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right.

end quote

Note the word “emphasizes,” which means “give special importance or prominence to (something) in speaking or writing,” or “make (something) more clearly defined.”

Is that a hard word for a president of the United States of America to understand, does anyone think?

Getting back to Dobbs, the Supreme Court continued on that subject, as follows:

Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.

end quote

And again, people, is that really all that hard to understand, what they are saying there?

DOBBS HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH PRECEDENTS OF THE SUPREME COURT THAT HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ABORTION, PERIOD!

So why is Joe Biden trying so hard to make us think otherwise?

Getting back to Dobbs and the Supreme Court, we have more as follows, to wit:

Casey identified another concern, namely, the danger that the public will perceive a decision overruling a controversial “watershed” decision, such as Roe, as influenced by political considerations or public opinion.

end quotes

And that is exactly where we are right now in this matter with the Democrats spending millions of dollars in advertising to promote their FALSE NARRATIVE and GREAT BIG TOXIC LIE that the decision overruling the controversial “watershed” decision known as Roe could only have been influenced by political considerations or public opinion.

It simply could not have been because Roe was bad law, and presented the courts with a formula for determining constitutional from unconstitutional abortion laws that was in practice unworkable, and in fact, had been rejected already by the Supreme Court in its decision in Casey, above mentioned.

Going back to the Supreme Court for more, we have:

But the Court cannot allow its decisions to be affected by such extraneous concerns.

A precedent of this Court is subject to the usual principles of stare decisis under which adherence to precedent is the norm but not an inexorable command.

If the rule were otherwise, erroneous decisions like Plessy would still be the law.

The Court’s job is to interpret the law, apply longstanding principles of stare decisis, and decide this case accordingly.

Under the Court’s precedents, rational-basis review is the appropriate standard to apply when state abortion regulations undergo constitutional challenge.

Given that procuring an abortion is not a fundamental constitutional right, it follows that the States may regulate abortion for legitimate reasons, and when such regulations are challenged under the Constitution, courts cannot “substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson, 372 U. S., at 729–730.

That applies even when the laws at issue concern matters of great social significance and moral substance.

A law regulating abortion, like other health and welfare laws, is entitled to a “strong presumption of validity.” Heller v. Doe, 509 U. S. 312, 319.

It must be sustained if there is a rational basis on which the legislature could have thought that it would serve legitimate state interests.

Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act is supported by the Mississippi Legislature’s specific findings, which include the State’s asserted interest in “protecting the life of the unborn.” §2(b)(i).

These legitimate interests provide a rational basis for the Gestational Age Act, and it follows that respondents’ constitutional challenge must fail.

(e) Abortion presents a profound moral question.

The Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each State from regulating or prohibiting abortion.

Roe and Casey arrogated that authority.

The Court overrules those decisions and returns that authority to the people and their elected representatives.

945 F. 3d 265, reversed and remanded.

end quotes

And seriously, people, is any of that difficult to understand?

And of course it is not, since it is written in plain English meant for us common folks to be able to understand.

So why then can’t Joe Biden, himself a lawyer, and Karmela Harris, herself a lawyer, and the Democrats understand it?

What’s up with that, does anyone think?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-701564
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 11, 2022 AT 7:47 PM

Paul Plante says:

III. ROE WAS “BAD LAW” AND WAS OVERRULED BY CASEY, NOT DOBBS!

With American autocrat Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior shamelessly stoking and inciting violence towards members of the Supreme Court with his poisonous and toxic rhetoric about Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., while at the same time encouraging rebellion, sedition, insurrection and treason by these women he is intentionally misleading and blatantly lying to about Dobbs, what comes across clearly here, people, is that American autocrat Joseph Robinette Biden, Junior, his executive deputy autocrat Karmela Harris, and the Democrats are against Constitutional separation of powers in the United States of America, as we can clearly see from a Fox News article titled “Biden scolds ‘MAGA Republicans’ after 5th Circuit Court strikes down DACA, orders no new applicants” by Lawrence Richard on 6 October 2022, where we have as follows, to wit:

President Joe Biden lashed out at a federal appeals court on Wednesday, after it ruled the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program was illegally implemented by the Obama administration.

In a statement, the president called the decision “unlawful” and urged Congress to make permanent legislative protections to help more than 600,000 immigrants currently protected by DACA.

end quotes

So, a grade school civics question here, people:

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, THE SAME CONSTITUTION THE DEMOCRATS RENOUNCED ON 6 JANAURY 2021 WHEN THEY APPOINTED JOE BIDEN PRESIDENT DESPITE A CONSTITUTIONALLY FLAWED ELECTION IN FIVE ROGUE STATES, WHAT BRANCH OF OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECIDES ON QUESTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LAWS?

It’s the judicial branch, is it not?

So where does Joe Biden over in the executive branch get off lashing out at a federal judge and telling people that a judge’s ruling on law is “unlawful?”

And then we had this ridiculous statement from Joe in that same article, which goes to show how extreme the Biden administration is in its views about challenging unlawful actions by Democrat presidents, to wit:

“This challenge to DACA is just another example of the extreme agenda being pushed by MAGA-Republican officials.”

end quotes

That is some seriously warped thinking there, people, the product of a real sick and twisted mind!

Which brings us to a Washington Examiner article titled “Kamala Harris attacks Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas for Roe remarks” by Misty Severi on 17 September 2022 for more “ANTI-SUPREME COURT” rhetoric or hate speech from the Biden administration, to wit:

Vice President Kamala Harris called out Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas on Friday for his portion of the Supreme Court ruling that reversed Roe v. Wade.

During a political event in Chicago for Gov. J. B. Pritzker, Harris claimed that same-sex marriage and contraception were Republicans’ next target if they won back the House or Senate in the midterms.

“Justice Clarence Thomas said the quiet part out loud,” Harris said.

“In the Dobbs decision, his piece of it was to say, basically, marriage equality is on the line, contraception is on the line.”

“So see what is happening and what is at play here.”

“See it clearly.”

“We’ve got to hold on to our numbers in the House and the Senate, because without Democratic majorities in Congress, the writing on the wall seems to be pretty clear about what other rights they’ll also come after.”

end quotes

All of which is crap, people, which brings us to Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., and the flaws in Roe as properly identified by the Justices of the Supreme Court, to wit:

The Court’s cases have identified factors that should be considered in deciding when a precedent should be overruled. Janus v. State, County, and Municipal Employees, 585 U. S. ___, ___–___.

Five factors discussed below weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and Casey.

(1) The nature of the Court’s error.

Like the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, Roe was also egregiously wrong and on a collision course with the Constitution from the day it was decided.

Casey perpetuated its errors, calling both sides of the national controversy to resolve their debate, but in doing so, Casey necessarily declared a winning side.

Those on the losing side — those who sought to advance the State’s interest in fetal life — could no longer seek to persuade their elected representatives to adopt policies consistent with their views.

The Court short-circuited the democratic process by closing it to the large number of Americans who disagreed with Roe.

(2) The quality of the reasoning.

Without any grounding in the constitutional text, history, or precedent, Roe imposed on the entire country a detailed set of rules for pregnancy divided into trimesters much like those that one might expect to find in a statute or regulation.

Roe’s failure even to note the overwhelming consensus of state laws in effect in 1868 is striking, and what it said about the common law was simply wrong.

Then, after surveying history, the opinion spent many paragraphs conducting the sort of fact-finding that might be undertaken by a legislative committee, and did not explain why the sources on which it relied shed light on the meaning of the Constitution.

As to precedent, citing a broad array of cases, the Court found support for a constitutional “right of personal privacy.” Id., at 152.

But Roe conflated the right to shield information from disclosure and the right to make and implement important personal decisions without governmental interference. See Whalen v. Roe, 429 U. S. 589, 599–600.

None of these decisions involved what is distinctive about abortion: its effect on what Roe termed “potential life.”

When the Court summarized the basis for the scheme it imposed on the country, it asserted that its rules were “consistent with,” among other things, “the relative weights of the respective interests involved” and “the demands of the profound problems of the present day.” Roe, 410 U. S., at 165.

These are precisely the sort of considerations that legislative bodies often take into account when they draw lines that accommodate competing interests.

The scheme Roe produced looked like legislation, and the Court provided the sort of explanation that might be expected from a legislative body.

An even more glaring deficiency was Roe’s failure to justify the critical distinction it drew between pre- and post-viability abortions. See id., at 163.

The arbitrary viability line, which Casey termed Roe’s central rule, has not found much support among philosophers and ethicists who have attempted to justify a right to abortion.

The most obvious problem with any such argument is that viability has changed over time and is heavily dependent on factors — such as medical advances and the availability of quality medical care — that have nothing to do with the characteristics of a fetus.

When Casey revisited Roe almost 20 years later, it reaffirmed Roe’s central holding, but pointedly refrained from endorsing most of its reasoning.

The Court abandoned any reliance on a privacy right and instead grounded the abortion right entirely on the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. 505 U. S., at 846.

The controlling opinion criticized and rejected Roe’s trimester scheme, 505 U. S., at 872, and substituted a new and obscure “undue burden” test.

Casey, in short, either refused to reaffirm or rejected important aspects of Roe’s analysis, failed to remedy glaring deficiencies in Roe’s reasoning, endorsed what it termed Roe’s central holding while suggesting that a majority might not have thought it was correct, provided no new support for the abortion right other than Roe’s status as precedent, and imposed a new test with no firm grounding in constitutional text, history, or precedent.

end quotes

And here I will pause to let that all sink in before continuing, and all of this is taken directly from the Supreme Court decision itself.

So open your minds and think for yourselves, people!

DO NOT BE DECEIVED BY THE TOXIC ABORTION LIES OF JOE BIDEN, KARMELA HARRIS AND THE HATE-FILLED DEMOCRATS WHO WANT DEMOCRACY IN AMERICA TO ONLY BE FOR THEM!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-702050
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 13, 2022 AT 10:20 AM

Paul Plante says:

IV. DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS DOES NOT BIND SUPREME COURT TO PRIOR DECISIONS!

The term stare decisis is simply Latin for “to stand by things decided,” and stare decisis is the doctrine that courts will adhere to precedent in making their decisions.

In connection with Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al., we first come across the term in a Salon article titled “Defund the Democrats: Stop giving money to the party of surrender and inaction” by Nolan Higdon & Mickey Huff on 3 July 2022, where we had as follows:

On June 24, 2022, a majority ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States officially reversed the historic 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, which established that pregnant women had a constitutionally protected right to choose to have an abortion.

Rather than take swift action to protect abortion rights, the Democratic Party — which currently controls the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government — chose to fundraise.

Shortly after Roe was overturned, the Biden administration once again refused to consider expanding the court.

Such a radical maneuver may be exactly what is needed to counter reactionary rulings by unaccountable justices in defiance of stare decisis (the importance of legal precedent).

end quotes

Note two important points in there, people:

1. The Democrats want to pack the court with people who will guarantee that any decision from the court the Democrats want, they will get, as if the Supreme Court were a mere appendage and servant of the Democrat party; and

2. The Democrats clearly do not understand the fact that the doctrine of stare decisis does not bind the Supreme Court to its prior decisions.

We next come across the term in connection with Dobbs in a USA TODAY article titled “Remind me why the Biden administration is in court fighting publication of the ERA?” by Carli Pierson, a New York licensed attorney and opinion writer with USA TODAY as well as being a member of the USA TODAY Editorial Board, on 1 October 2022, as follows:

In order to fulfill an ideological agenda, our highest court has decided to roll back women’s rights by reading the Constitution without regard to the Equal Protection Clause or the bedrock principle of stare decisis, requiring courts to abide by precedents laid down as applicable to a similar set of facts.

end quotes

And that people, is pure ignorant and stupid Democrat lawyer bull**** all the way around, which goes to demonstrate just how ignorant one can be of the law and how it functions and still be called a lawyer in New York state, and as we go into the November mid-terms being barraged and inundated with these MASSIVE TOXIC DEMOCRAT ABORTION LIES, it is vitally important to know HOW that is so, so as to be able to think intelligently and clearly on the matter before going to the polls to cast your vote.

As to the doctrine of stare decisis in relation to Dobbs, this is what the Supreme Court itself had to say on that very important subject, to wit:

(b)The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey.

Stare decisis plays an important role and protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.

It “reduces incentives for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the expense of endless relitigation.” Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC, 576 U. S. 446, 455.

It “contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827.

And it restrains judicial hubris by respecting the judgment of those who grappled with important questions in the past.

But stare decisis is not an inexorable command, Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U. S. 223, 233, and “is at its weakest when [the Court] interprets the Constitution,” Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 235.

Some of the Court’s most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior precedents. See, e.g., Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 491 (overruling the infamous decision in Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537, and its progeny).

end quotes

Now, think carefully about those words, people, because those are words taken directly from Dobbs, and as you do, ask yourself this critical and important question, to wit:

DO THOSE WORDS SOUND LIKE REACTIONARY RULINGS BY UNACCOUNTABLE JUDGES?

OR DO THEY SOUND RATIONAL, WELL THOUGHT OUT, AND INTELLIGENT?


As to Plessy v. Ferguson which was overruled by Brown v. Board of Education, Plessy v. Ferguson was a landmark 1896 U.S. Supreme Court decision that upheld the constitutionality of racial segregation under the “separate but equal” doctrine, with that case stemming from an 1892 incident in which African American train passenger Homer Plessy refused to sit in a car for Black people.

If stare decisis was really this sacred bedrock principle the Democrats want it to be, there is where we would still be in this country, people.

So why do the Democrats want to take us back to that?

Because of the power over others it would give them to reinstate SEPARATE BUT EQUAL in America?

And please, stay tuned, for there is a bit more yet to come.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-703302
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: DOBBS FOR DUMMIES

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR OCTOBER 15, 2022 AT 10:25 AM

Paul Plante says:

V. THE SUPREME COURT FULFILLED NO “IDEOLOGICAL AGENDA” IN DECIDING DOBBS!

As was stated above, we come across the term “ideological” in connection with Dobbs in what can only be called an ignorant USA TODAY article titled “Remind me why the Biden administration is in court fighting publication of the ERA?” by Carli Pierson, a New York licensed attorney and opinion writer with USA TODAY as well as being a member of the USA TODAY Editorial Board, on 1 October 2022, as follows:

In order to fulfill an ideological agenda, our highest court has decided to roll back women’s rights by reading the Constitution without regard to the Equal Protection Clause or the bedrock principle of stare decisis, requiring courts to abide by precedents laid down as applicable to a similar set of facts.

end quote

Now think on that for a moment, people – in deciding Dobbs as they did, did the Supreme Court in fact fulfill (bring to completion or reality; achieve or realize) an ideological agenda, where the word “ideological” is an adjective that describes political, cultural, or religious beliefs, and where ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it?

Or is that horsecrap, plain and simple?

Has the Supreme Court been waiting around all these years waiting for the opportunity to strip the women of America of their Constitutional rights because of some ideological belief on the part of the Supreme Court that women in America should be kept barefoot and pregnant and chained to the bedpost with only enough chain to reach the kitchen stove as the Democrats and those with their own ideological belief in abortion like Joe Biden, Karmela Harris and AOC would have us believe?

Did the Supreme Court have any control whatsoever in bringing Dobbs before itself?

Or is that the responsibility of those in Mississippi who brought the suit in the first place?

And the answer to the first question is no, while the answer to the second question is in the affirmative.

The pro-abortion ideologues (an adherent of an ideology, especially one who is uncompromising and dogmatic) in the Democrat party, itself an ideology (a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy, as in “the ideology of democracy”) would have us believe that the Supreme Court has been out hunting around for some people willing to bring some lousy legal arguments before it so it could use those lousy legal arguments to strip women of a Constitutional right as part of an ideology of the Court, and that is just plain stupid, as only the Democrats can put forth stupid.

The Supreme Court does not control the legal arguments that are brought before it in legal briefs by the plaintiffs and defendants, and had no control over the legal arguments put before it in Dobbs, State Health Officer of the Mississippi Department of Health, et al. v. Jackson’s Women’s Health Organization et al.

The Supreme Court responds to those legal arguments once made, and what we have been doing in here is countering Democrat lies by going directly to the reasoning of the Court itself in Dobbs, which we will do again once more right now, to wit:

(3) Workability.

Deciding whether a precedent should be overruled depends in part on whether the rule it imposes is workable — that is, whether it can be understood and applied in a consistent and predictable manner.

Casey’s “undue burden” test has scored poorly on the workability scale.

The Casey plurality tried to put meaning into the “undue burden” test by setting out three subsidiary rules, but these rules created their own problems.

And the difficulty of applying Casey’s new rules surfaced in that very case. Compare 505 U. S., at 881–887, with id., at 920–922 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

The experience of the Courts of Appeals provides further evidence that Casey’s “line between” permissible and unconstitutional restrictions “has proved to be impossible to draw with precision.” Janus, 585 U. S., at ___.

Casey has generated a long list of Circuit conflicts.

Continued adherence to Casey’s unworkable “undue burden” test would undermine, not advance, the “evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 827.

(4) Effect on other areas of law.

Roe and Casey have led to the distortion of many important but unrelated legal doctrines, and that effect provides further support for overruling those decisions. See Ramos v. Louisiana, 590 U. S. ___, ___ (KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part).

(5) Reliance interests.

Overruling Roe and Casey will not upend concrete reliance interests like those that develop in “cases involving property and contract rights.” Payne, 501 U. S., at 828.

In Casey, the controlling opinion conceded that traditional reliance interests were not implicated because getting an abortion is generally “unplanned activity,” and “reproductive planning could take virtually immediate account of any sudden restoration of state authority to ban abortions.” 505 U. S., at 856.

Instead, the opinion perceived a more intangible form of reliance, namely, that “people [had] organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society . . . in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail” and that “the ability of women to participate equally in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives.” Ibid.

The contending sides in this case make impassioned and conflicting arguments about the effects of the abortion right on the lives of women as well as the status of the fetus.

The Casey plurality’s speculative attempt to weigh the relative importance of the interests of the fetus and the mother represent a departure from the “original constitutional proposition” that “courts do not substitute their social and economic beliefs for the judgment of legislative bodies.” Ferguson v. Skrupa, 372 U. S. 726, 729–730.

end quotes

And there we have it, people, in the Court’s own words.

So it is YOU, the jury of public opinion, that gets to decide in your own mind who the real ideologists are in this matter.

I and the Cape Charles Mirror have done our part as responsible citizens of civilized society to bring this vital information before you so you would have it to consider calmly and dispassionately before the November 2022 mid-terms, which are of vital importance to the continuation of our Republic here in the United States of America.

Now, it is up to YOU!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-704890
Post Reply