Roe v Wade Protests Wage On Across US After Supreme Court Decision

[chevyontheriver]

Sure, when the USSC overturns a 50 year old decision, people are going to protest. I think it's the first time in the court's history where rights are being taken away...and it may not be the last. There are going to be a lot of protest for years to come...

The right to own slaves was taken away after first being affirmed in the Dred Scott case.

 

[Belk]

The right to own slaves was taken away after first being affirmed in the Dred Scott case.

Was that considered a right?

 

[Oompa Loompa]

The right to own slaves was taken away after first being affirmed in the Dred Scott case.

Yes...what was then considered a "sacred constitutional right" was no right at all. Much like abortion. Honestly, I pity the pro-choice crowd. Because they are the real victims in all of this. They only believe what so many people for so many years told them to believe. They were just hit with the wrecking ball of reality and are still dealing with the shock of it all. Truly, I feel bad for them.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Recap of the violence from this weekends protests.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

Was that considered a right?

When they were considered "property" many considered it a right to own slaves.

 

[Belk]

When they were considered "property" many considered it a right to own slaves.

But was it actually defined as such? I don't think it was.

 

[Oompa Loompa]

But was it actually defined as such? I don't think it was.

Doesn't matter how it was defined. That is what was believed by the lawmakers and the supreme court justices at that time. Much like how people wrongfully believed there was a constitutional right to an abortion. There isn't. Neither is their a constitutional right to birth control or gay marriage either.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Was that considered a right?

Constitutionally approved by the Dred Scott decision. Scott was property and a Southern Man could do as he pleased with his property. Even take him to Minnesota. Stare decisis and all. Some decisions need to be invalidated. It actually took the 13th amendment to the constitution to do that.

 

[FireDragon76]

The politics of " or else we will be outraged" is not as generally persuasive as "Here is an irrefutable argument for our POV".

Persuasion left the building a long time ago. That's not what protesting is about. You can't reason people out of a position they were not reasoned into. Appeals to civil discourse are just insincere in light of that.

Protesting is part of finding ones own power, for oneself and others.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But was it actually defined as such? I don't think it was.

Are you denying slavery now?

 

[FireDragon76]

Gavin Newsome as some sort of expert on men? Funny.

And your right to abortion has evaporated in the USA outside of pockets controlled by folks like Gavin Newsome.

Those state's aren't exactly anything to be cheering about. Nobody is moving in significant numbers to places like Mississiippi or Kentucky, and nobody moves to Texas without some serious financial compensation (and companies that have moved there have generally had to make promises that they'll pay for abortion-related travel expenses to employees to retain their talent).

 

[chevyontheriver]

Those state's aren't exactly anything to be cheering about. Nobody is moving in significant numbers to places like Mississiippi or Kentucky, and nobody moves to Texas without some serious financial compensation (and companies that have moved there have generally had to make promises that they'll pay for abortion-related travel expenses to employees to retain their talent).

People are fleeing California. We’d like to send them all back but we do have obligations to refugees.

 

[Belk]

Doesn't matter how it was defined. That is what was believed by the lawmakers and the supreme court justices at that time. Much like how people wrongfully believed there was a constitutional right to an abortion. There isn't. Neither is their a constitutional right to birth control or gay marriage either.

Are there Ruling where they called it such? I'm looking at some historians but so far they are only discussing the constitution and how it did little to define or codify slavery.
What the Constitution Really Says About Race and Slavery

 

[Belk]

Constitutionally approved by the Dred Scott decision. Scott was property and a Southern Man could do as he pleased with his property. Even take him to Minnesota. Stare decisis and all. Some decisions need to be invalidated. It actually took the 13th amendment to the constitution to do that.

From what I am reading, Dred Scott did not confirm a right to own slaves but that African Americans, free or slave, did not have a right to citizenship.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

 

[Belk]

Are you denying slavery now?

No. I'm asking if owning slaves was ever actually considered a right. I'm not finding any confirmation so far that it was. It certainly was not considered such in the northern states.

 

[chevyontheriver]

From what I am reading, Dred Scott did not confirm a right to own slaves but that African Americans, free or slave, did not have a right to citizenship.

Dred Scott v. Sandford - Wikipedia

Not only did they not have citizenship. They were property. At least those born into being property unless their owners freed them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

No. I'm asking if owning slaves was ever actually considered a right. I'm not finding any confirmation so far that it was. It certainly was not considered such in the northern states.

Ask any Southern Gentleman whether he had a right to his slaves. After all they fought a war to maintain that right.

 

[Belk]

Not only did they not have citizenship. They were property. At least those born into being property unless their owners freed them.

Yes, but that was not a part of the Dred Scott decision. That decision simply stated that they were not citizens and as such going to a "free" state did not free them. I would assume that their being slaves was already settled law and not included because of that.

 

[Belk]

Ask any Southern Gentleman whether he had a right to his slaves. After all they fought a war to maintain that right.

They fought a war to preserve states rights. That does not mean they voted owning slaves as a right. It does not mean they did but either. I'm looking for hard data but nothing so far.

 

[wing2000]

Contrary to the lies you have been told, abortion was never a constitutional right. I know you may have heard people talk about the 14th amendment and the "right to privacy" garbage. If there was any truth to any of it, you'd think there wouldn't be a better place and at a better time to bring it up than in the dissenting arguments. Ironically, the best argument for repealing Roe is found in thr dissenting arguments. Because there is no mention of any anything remotely constitutional. Just 66 pages of "We like abortions. Therefore Roe should stand." Why? Because even the justices knew it was complete and utter BS to twist the truth. YOU HAVE NO CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO AN ABORTION. THEREFORE, THE SUPREME COURT NEVER TAKEN ANY RIGHTS AWAY FROM ANYONE.

By the way, this is not the first time the Supreme Court removed a "right". Because at one time, people had what was considered "a constitutional right" to own slaves as property. Obviously, like roe v wade, they were wrong and made appropriate changes.

Thank you for your opinion.