Why?

@p-nullifidian Aside from the fact that it is a gross misstatement, it totally misses the reason for the ruling.

It's a cartoon, and when situations are as depressing as this one is, a little sarcasm aimed at the correct target sometimes helps people feel better.

@Alienbeing The reasoning behind the ruling is of less concern than the forces that clearly are behind the placement of the judges who voted for this ruling. The entire abortion issue is a religious matter, involving a definition that is purely philosophical.

@p-nullifidian Your understanding of the reasoning is incorrect. I paste a portion of the 10th Amendment to refresh your memory of the Constitution.

Amendment X
(ratified December 15, 1791)
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

@Organist1 I don't agree.

@Alienbeing Fine, nor do I agree with you, which is fine also.

@Organist1 Yes but a reflection of poor judgement of intent.

@Alienbeing blocked.

@Organist1 Who cares?

@Alienbeing You really eem to love attention.

@Organist1 Go away, YOU blocked me, be gone, I do not want your attention. I prefer to speak with intelligent people.

@Alienbeing

@Alienbeing I did not address the reasoning, admitting that it is a lesser concern than the repugnant religious moralists who qualified the recent court appointments, judges who lied to the Senate about their true feelings regarding precedent (stare decisis), thus making this decision inevitable.

The fact is, reasoning behind any argument can be logically sound, yet morally bankrupt. Another fact is that the Supreme Court, whether liberal or conservative, inevitably interprets cases in a manner that effectively “legislates from the bench.”

My simple question to you is this: Do you, or do you not, accept that, without religious activism in every aspect of American politics, the decision this week by the Supreme Court would not have been possible? And do you not think for a moment that tomorrow in churches all across this country, congregations will be praising and singing “hallelujah!” to the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade?

Religion is on the rise, its influence has increased, and they are just getting started… and Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave!

@p-nullifidian I agree that religion (as all other life experiences) can affect a Justice's view.

@Alienbeing Sadly, the case here is that religiously backed, ‘dark money’ funded political action committees that worked to develop, over many years, a catalogue of judges and prosecutors, from every state, who had been qualified using a litmus test on their every ruling and publicly available opinions. Only candidates from this catalog made it to the Trump White House for consideration, not just at the Supreme Court, but at the Federal district levels as well.

It took McConnell‘s refusal to consider Obama‘s candidate, Merrick Garland, as well as the passing of Ruth Bader Ginsberg just weeks before the 2020 election, to get us where we are today. Emboldened by the Roe v. Wade decision (not to mention Clarence Thomas‘s commentary contained therein) conservative activists are intent on a reconsideration of other rulings, including Oberkfell v. Hodges (gay marriage) and Lawrence v. Texas (anti-sodomy laws/right to privacy).

Meanwhile, conservative atheists and agnostics, who have made their beds with these religious fanatics, are a bit like frogs in a pot, apparently unconcerned how much religion is influencing our political systems.

@p-nullifidian The three Trump nominated Justices are in the process of incorrect rulings, although I think I dislike Alito more than any of the others.

The Warren Court was like the current Court, only in the other direction.

Eventually we will survive,

@Alienbeing It's ironic when you realize that Earl Warren was a lifelong Republican who, as governor of California, was a running mate for Thomas Dewey and who, as the attorney general for our state, strongly supported the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II!

And yet, without Earl Warren as Chief Justice, we might not have had a unanimous decision on Brown v. the Board of Education. Would you suggest that was a bad ruling, or should we just return to “separate but equal?”

And is it preferable to live in a police state, or better that we have due process, including Mirandizing suspects?

And what about anti-miscegenation laws? If it weren’t for the Warren Court, justice Clarence Thomas and his white wife Ginni would be subject to arrest in most of the Southern states!

And then we have the impact of religion in the public schools. Do you really want a nation where public schools are allowed to impose their Christianity on everyone? Before the Warren Court decisions, many public schools had mandatory Bible readings and prayer over the PA systems! In fact, we just had a ruling from the current court that allows a prominent high school football coach to hold “voluntary” post-game prayer sessions in the center of the football field at the end of every game! Are you fucking kidding me!

When you say that the Warren Court was like the current court, but in the opposite direction, which direction do you prefer?

@p-nullifidian Try not to read your thoughts into my remarks. I speak very clearly and I guarantee you that you don't need to look for coded messages.

NO I don't even suggest that Brown v The Boad of Education, or any manifistation of "separate but equal" is an improper decision, they were both correct.

Anti-miscegenation laws are proper.

No prayers in schools or on school property. There are plenty of places one can pray.

Last, I do not prefer either the Warren Court of the current Court direction, My point was that BOTH Courts read into or Constitution Rights (or prohibitions) that do not exist. I believe Federal Laws should be few, each State can choose its own course in most instances. At the Federal level we are a Republic, at the State level we are a Democracy.

@Alienbeing “Anti-miscegenation laws are proper.”
I’m not looking for coded messages and I realize you write very intentionally and clearly. But I would like to know more about why you think such laws are proper.

@p-nullifidian For the simple reason that no government should be in the position to dictate who one can marry. One should be free to marry any race, or any sexual identity.

@Alienbeing You and I agree on this topic , and I’m pleased about that. I was confused because anti-miscegenation laws prohibit interracial marriage, so I think you meant to say that such laws are improper.

@p-nullifidian Ummmm, perhaps my dictionary differs from yours. My dictionary defines miscegenation this way:

"mis·ceg·e·na·tion | məˌsejəˈnāSHən, ˌmisəjəˈnāSHən |
noun
the interbreeding of people considered to be of different racial types"

hence an anti-miscegenation law would prohibit a law that forbids interracial marriage.

@Alienbeing You gotta love the English language! Alas, what you’re saying is not the case as, much like the words flammable and inflammable, both anti-miscegenation and miscegenation laws mean the same thing.
[en.wikipedia.org]

@p-nullifidian The English language does have issues. Apparently even dictionaries offer different definitions. I'll point out that the definition I pasted defines the word in its use as a noun, which is how I was using it.

Having said that, since we really agree on the issue, it is not impotent. Have a nice day.