Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on June 29, 2020, 11:29:09 AM

Title: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 29, 2020, 11:29:09 AM
Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana law on abortion clinic restrictions
The court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts siding with the court's liberal justices.
By Ronn Blitzer (https://www.foxnews.com/person/b/ronn-blitzer), Shannon Bream (https://www.foxnews.com/person/b/shannon-bream), Bill Mears (https://www.foxnews.com/person/m/bill-mears) | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/)

Supreme Court draws harsh scrutiny (http://video.foxnews.com/v/6166148372001)

The Supreme Court (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/judiciary/supreme-court) on Monday ruled that a Louisiana law requiring that individuals who perform abortions (https://www.foxnews.com/category/politics/judiciary/abortion) at clinics have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital is unconstitutional, as it places an undue burden on women seeking abortions.

The court ruled 5-4 in the case, June Medical Services LLC v. Russo, with Chief Justice John Roberts once again casting a deciding vote by siding with the court's liberal justices.

SUPREME COURT SIDES WITH TEXAS GOP OFFICIALS OVER MAIL-IN BALLOTS, TRUMP CALLS IT A 'BIG WIN' (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-gop-texas-officials-over-mail-in-ballots)

The opinion, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, noted that the Louisiana law is "almost word-for-word identical" to a Texas law the court ruled was unconstitutional in 2016's Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt. A District Court had rejected the Louisiana law because of that precedent, but a court of appeals ruled otherwise.

"We have examined the extensive record carefully and conclude that it supports the District Court’s findings of fact," Breyer wrote. "Those findings mirror those made in Whole Woman’s Health in every relevant respect and require the same result. We consequently hold that the Louisiana statute is unconstitutional."

(https://cf-images.us-east-1.prod.boltdns.net/v1/static/694940094001/a2d0471c-fc1e-4b4f-8a03-eeb96d52d1eb/48d08e0a-9634-47a1-b842-bf879bd46b00/1280x720/match/image.jpg)Video (http://video.foxnews.com/v/6165355607001)

Breyer noted that the District Court found that the law “offers no significant health benefit” and that “conditions on admitting privileges common to hospitals throughout the State have made and will continue to make it impossible for abortion providers to obtain conforming privileges for reasons that have nothing to do with the State’s asserted interests in promoting women’s health and safety.”

Ultimately, the majority felt that this case was virtually the same as the 2016 case, and ruled accordingly.

"This case is similar to, nearly identical with, Whole Woman’s Health," Breyer wrote. "And the law must consequently reach a similar conclusion."

Roberts had dissented in the 2016 case and said in a concurring opinion that while he still believes that the past case was wrongly decided, he was ruling with the majority in the present case due to court precedent.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike," Roberts wrote. "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana’s law cannot stand under our precedents."

The ruling was met with fierce criticism from conservatives.

In dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "Today a majority of the Court perpetuates its ill-founded abortion jurisprudence by enjoining a perfectly legitimate state law and doing so without jurisdiction."

Thomas claimed that those performing abortions do not have standing to challenge laws on the basis that they restrict the ability to get an abortion, because it is not their rights that are at issue, but their potential patients'.

Thomas went on to flatly state that "abortion precedents are grievously wrong and should be overruled."

ROBERTS EMBRACES ROLE AS SUPREME COURT SWING JUSTICE, WITH LATEST CHURCH RULING (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/roberts-embraces-role-as-supreme-court-swing-justice-with-latest-church-ruling)

Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, said her organization was "appalled" by the Supreme Court's decision.

"The legislation at issue in June Medical Services v. Russo was designed to safeguard women’s health and safety, which the abortion business in Louisiana egregiously sidelined for the sake of profit," Mancini said in a statement. "No abortion facility should receive a free pass to provide substandard care."

When the case was being argued in front of the Supreme Court, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., spoke at a rally hosted by the Center for Reproductive Rights (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om5c20c_HB4) in which he appeared to threaten Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh -- conservatives who were appointed by President Trump.

"I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price!" Schumer warned. "You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions."

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh both opposed Monday's decision, but with Roberts siding with the liberal justices, they had no effect on the outcome.

After the court's decision was handed down, Schumer tweeted an observation about how the court has been ruling as of late.

"The Supreme Court’s entering Buffalo Springfield territory: 'There’s something happening here,'" he wrote.


This is just the latest closely watched court case where Roberts has cast a critical vote, and angered conservatives (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-justices-supreme-court-conservatives-roberts).

The court recently ruled, in a 5-4 decision penned by Roberts,  (https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-rules-against-trump-administration-over-move-to-end-daca-program)that President Trump's reversal of former President Barack Obama’s DACA executive order –­ that shielded immigrants who came to the country illegally as children from deportation –­ was in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), which sets out rulemaking procedures for federal agencies.

It was Roberts who, by siding with the liberal wing and reinterpreting an individual mandate as a tax, allowed ObamaCare to be found constitutional in 2012. Last year, he joined with the wing again in shutting down Trump’s efforts to add a citizenship question to the census.

Monday's ruling, meanwhile, could impact legal and political efforts to roll back broader abortion rights.

The Louisiana statute is just one of dozens of new sweeping state-level abortion restrictions nationwide, which activists on both sides say could push the Supreme Court to revisit its nearly five-decade Roe v. Wade precedent that guarantees a women's right to the medical procedure.

It also comes as abortion has once again become a major campaign issue.

Trump in January became the first sitting president to address anti-abortion March for Life rally in person, telling activists "I'm fighting for you, and we're fighting for those who have no voice, and we'll win, because we know how to win."

Democrats running for the White House promised throughout the primary season to nominate justices to the Supreme Court that will respect abortion rights.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP (https://www.foxnews.com/apps-products)

"Abortion and the court has been a political issue for quite a long time," said Paul Smith, a Georgetown Law Center professor who has also argued several cases before the Supreme Court. "If you go back and look at the candidate debates, it seems to be an issue that the conservative side is more motivated by, or has been historically. That may change this year."
Fox News' Adam Shaw and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 11:32:28 AM
Lots of neocons think that Roberts is being blackmailed.  Perhaps he has frequent flyer miles on Epstein Air (for visits to the island).

Or else he's just a liberal scumbag.  His biography says he want to Catholic school, but does not say for sure that he was raised Catholic (not that I could find).  But a big red light should have been that one of his earliest legal missions was pro-bono work in favor of sodomite civil rights, leading to one of the significant early landmark decisions in that area.  Could Roberts himself be a sodomite?  He certainly has that look about him.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: DecemRationis on June 29, 2020, 11:34:39 AM
Note: Trump didn't appoint Roberts; Bush did.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 11:35:14 AM
And of course the foul Ginsberg just refused to die ... allegedly ... or it may have been a different decision.

Yes, they need parental consent to give your kid Advil at school for a bad headache, but a minor can seek an abortion without any parental consent or knowledge.
Title: Re: Trump's Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 29, 2020, 11:40:19 AM
Note: Trump didn't appoint Roberts; Bush did.
Thanks for the correction; I have edited the thread title accordingly.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Matthew on June 29, 2020, 04:07:19 PM
Thanks for the correction; I have edited the thread title accordingly.

Seriously, why do some people (fanboys of Hugh Akins perhaps?) feel the need to EMBELLISH a headline?
Did you actually think he was one of the Trump justices, or was that put in there "for good measure" because "Trump delenda est"?

Why do the facts 
"Tornado destroys two towns in Oklahoma" 
have to become the headline 
"Tornado destroys two towns in Oklahoma as Trump does nothing"
With Trads like that, who needs the Fake News Media?

I knew that Roberts wasn't one of the TWO justices appointed by Trump, and I only casually follow the news. Why do so many Trads/conservatives/Catholics with TDS feel the need to distort the facts about Trump? Why is there so much motivation to make Trump look as bad as possible? Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon would be proud.

Anything to take out Trump, right? Even putting in a pure communist like Biden? The ends justify the means?
It pisses me off to see the truth take a back seat to hatred-of-Trump. Especially when Trump has done so much good for Traditional Catholics.

I will point out, again, that I will happily vote FOR Trump this November. I will also point out that out of the umpteen "conservative anti-Trumpers" I haven't heard a SINGLE ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATE other than "hide in your bunker and wait for the end".

Sorry, but with all due respect that's a f***ing stupid idea. I'd rather vote for a candidate who will preserve SOME of God's order and laws rather than NONE of it/them.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Matthew on June 29, 2020, 04:18:40 PM
P.S.

I will also remind you of the stark fact that

THERE ARE ONLY TWO SIDES.

The communist, Marxists who want to see America burn -- tear America down so it can be rebuilt from scratch as a Satanic dystopia

and

The conservatives, whose current leader/champion is Trump

You're either with Trump, or against him == which means on the side of the Marxists.

I'm just stating the facts; stating "how it is". You can like it or lump it, but I'm right about this.

If you aren't supporting Trump, then you are DE FACTO aiding and supporting the Marxists in their destruction of the last Christian vestiges of America. Congratulations Judas.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 29, 2020, 04:29:32 PM
Even if Roberts was a Trump appointee, it’s not like Trump has any leverage to make Roberts vote in a specific direction.  Once Judges are confirmed, they are free to do what they want.  A president nominates the best candidate he knows (many times, you have to settle for the best candidate who can be confirmed) and then your job is done.  
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: SeanJohnson on June 29, 2020, 04:33:46 PM
Seriously, why do some people (fanboys of Hugh Akins perhaps?) feel the need to EMBELLISH a headline?
Did you actually think he was one of the Trump justices, or was that put in there "for good measure" because "Trump delenda est"?

Why do the facts
"Tornado destroys two towns in Oklahoma"
have to become the headline
"Tornado destroys two towns in Oklahoma as Trump does nothing"
With Trads like that, who needs the Fake News Media?

I knew that Roberts wasn't one of the TWO justices appointed by Trump, and I only casually follow the news. Why do so many Trads/conservatives/Catholics with TDS feel the need to distort the facts about Trump? Why is there so much motivation to make Trump look as bad as possible? Rachel Maddow and Don Lemon would be proud.

Anything to take out Trump, right? Even putting in a pure communist like Biden? The ends justify the means?
It pisses me off to see the truth take a back seat to hatred-of-Trump. Especially when Trump has done so much good for Traditional Catholics.

I will point out, again, that I will happily vote FOR Trump this November. I will also point out that out of the umpteen "conservative anti-Trumpers" I haven't heard a SINGLE ALTERNATIVE CANDIDATE other than "hide in your bunker and wait for the end".

Sorry, but with all due respect that's a f***ing stupid idea. I'd rather vote for a candidate who will preserve SOME of God's order and laws rather than NONE of it/them.
Yes, because I don’t pay much attention to liberal politics, I thought Trump appointed Roberts, but am wondering why you bothered with your emotional post after I had already admitted my mistake and changed the name of my thread (within the allotted edit window timeframe, yet CI did not make the change which I announced)?
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Matthew on June 29, 2020, 04:53:39 PM
Yes, because I don’t pay much attention to liberal politics, I thought Trump appointed Roberts, but am wondering why you bothered with your emotional post after I had already admitted my mistake and changed the name of my thread (within the allotted edit window timeframe, yet CI did not make the change which I announced)?

I'm just going to be very pissed if we end up with a communist dictatorship thanks to a bunch of naive, foolish Trads (as well as countless other "conservatives" who oppose Trump for whatever reason: his past personal sins, his support of Israel, etc.)

And yes, am I emotional at the consideration of myself and my children growing up in a communist hellhole? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. Guilty as charged!

If I could consider it coldly and dispassionately, I'd be nothing short of a psychopath.

Not speaking about you in particular, just speaking out AND TAKING TO TASK whoever it applies to.

I am more upset with Trads who take up the anti-Trump crusade, than I am with the actual Rachel Maddows and Don Lemons of the world. The latter are sodomites and foolishly addicted to vice and satan's "Do What Thou Wilt". Their whole lifestyle and beliefs demand that Trump be sent packing. Trads, however, are not thus committed to satan's kingdom on earth. Why do they oppose what is good?
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Matto on June 29, 2020, 05:13:54 PM
And yes, am I emotional at the consideration of myself and my children growing up in a communist hellhole? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. Guilty as charged!
I do believe a Communist hellhole is likely coming soon, unless Trump declares himself a dictator, or if a civil war happens and after millions of people die, the right wins and establishes a right wing dictatorship. There are more liberals than conservatives in this country and the number of liberals is growing while the number of conservatives is shrinking. All of the institutions are controlled by the left or by turncoats. We do not even have the Catholic Church on our side anymore.

Why did this happen? In my opinion, the leading factor was onanism.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Kazimierz on June 29, 2020, 05:35:44 PM
If I were to follow the Do what thou wilt narrative, it would end up with the death of Democrats, sodomites et al.

And if they cry "That is not what we meant!"
and I would reply "Tell that to your lord and master Satan."

But we leave vengeance to Our Lord God. :incense:
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Pax Vobis on June 29, 2020, 05:45:03 PM

Quote
There are more liberals than conservatives in this country and the number of liberals is growing while the number of conservatives is shrinking. All of the institutions are controlled by the left or by turncoats. 
True the extreme commie/Masonic liberals control most institutions, as Our Lady of Good Success foretold.  But conservatives far, far, FAR outnumber them.  It only appears the left has the numbers advantage because of the fake media, leftist Hollywood and neo-con politicians. 
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: SimpleMan on June 29, 2020, 06:36:39 PM
I do believe a Communist hellhole is likely coming soon, unless Trump declares himself a dictator, or if a civil war happens and after millions of people die, the right wins and establishes a right wing dictatorship. There are more liberals than conservatives in this country and the number of liberals is growing while the number of conservatives is shrinking. All of the institutions are controlled by the left or by turncoats. We do not even have the Catholic Church on our side anymore.

Why did this happen? In my opinion, the leading factor was onanism.
Are you referring to contraception, or the more commonly understood definition of onanism?  (It's really the same thing, except that contraception is mutual onanism.)
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 06:48:10 PM
You're either with Trump, or against him == which means on the side of the Marxists.

Not buying it.  I'm not with either of them.  If I were to vote for Trump, it would be based on the principle of double effect only.

Have you looked into the Hegelian dialectic at all?  We're being manipulated.

We see the same dialectic at play among Traditional Catholics.  Either you're R&R or you're sedevacantist.  How about maybe both sides have some things right and both have some wrong?

Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 06:53:54 PM
And yes, am I emotional at the consideration of myself and my children growing up in a communist hellhole? YOU BETTER BELIEVE IT. Guilty as charged!

Apart from divine intervention (which I believe is coming), our children will grow up in whatever hellhole the powers that be (of a certain ethnicity) decide that they should grow up in.  It matters little who the allow to be President during any given term.  They're all simply Jewish-controlled puppets.

So we have Trump, the anti-Communist in office, and we've still had this lockdown, shutting down of churches, infringement of constitutional rights, and now curtailment of free speech ... as people are being fired simply for tweeting that "all lives matter".  We have Communist anarchists running around absolutely unchecked by our inglorious commander in chief ... who has done absolutely nothing about it but issue a few tweets.  This is a joke.  I don't think we'd be any more Communist had Hitlery been elected.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Ladislaus on June 29, 2020, 06:55:01 PM
Are you honestly naive enough to believe that our elections are not rigged?  If by some off chance a rogue candidate were elected who was not under their control, he'd be instantly JFKed.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: forlorn on June 29, 2020, 08:00:20 PM
Roberts is a coward who wants to avoid looking partisan by making sure no major conservative rulings pas 5-4.

Meanwhile the liberal judges vote in lockstep and NEVER get accused of partisanship. 
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Matto on June 29, 2020, 08:13:21 PM
Are you referring to contraception, or the more commonly understood definition of onanism?  (It's really the same thing, except that contraception is mutual onanism.)
I was referring to the commonly understood definition as masturbation, though also including other forms of onanism as well. I think the form of onanism called masturbation is the gateway drug to societal decay.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: WD 40 on June 29, 2020, 08:28:26 PM
Trump supports and defends perverts against nature otherwise known as sodomites, including freaks who pretend to be the opposite gender.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Struthio on June 29, 2020, 08:34:12 PM
Trump supports and defends perverts against nature otherwise known as sodomites, including freaks who pretend to be the opposite gender.

What about his "Last Lady"?
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Clemens Maria on June 29, 2020, 09:10:56 PM
Given that 40% of voters believe Biden has dementia including 20% of demonrats, can you please find a way to justify voting for Trump?  Not voting is basically handing the presidency to Biden’s hardcore Marxist female running mate.  When you’re locked up perpetually either in your home or in a fema camp you’ll be sorry you didn’t vote for a “bozo” like Trump.  Don’t shoot yourself in the foot.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: SimpleMan on June 29, 2020, 09:16:10 PM
I was referring to the commonly understood definition as masturbation, though also including other forms of onanism as well. I think the form of onanism called masturbation is the gateway drug to societal decay.
Well, it could be.  It is a mortal sin, practically all males commit it at one time or another in their lives, many if not most women do the same, it is a very difficult habit to break once indulged in, hardly anyone thinks it is a sin, and none of those people will ever repent of it.  Many people go straight from masturbation to contraceptive sex-on-demand, and never in their lives learn the virtue of sexual self-control and abstinence.

Put another way, how many people in our time say to themselves "I am going to have to sacrifice any physical sexual expression for a number of years, possibly even for a lifetime, no matter how badly I want it, nor how strong the urge might be"?
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: Matto on June 29, 2020, 09:24:57 PM
It is a mortal sin, practically all males commit it at one time or another in their lives, many if not most women do the same, it is a very difficult habit to break once indulged in, hardly anyone thinks it is a sin, and none of those people will ever repent of it.
I hope not "practically all". "Teach a boy to masturbate and he will cease to pray."
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: SimpleMan on June 29, 2020, 10:15:12 PM
I hope not "practically all". "Teach a boy to masturbate and he will cease to pray."
Human nature inclines to it, and if a young person is not taught otherwise, taught the horror and consequences of the sin, taught to practice self-mortification, they will do it.  There are very few truly faithful, orthodox, traditional Catholic families.  My son went to "Catholic" school through the end of Grade 5, and the boys were never taught a blooming thing about avoiding sins against purity.  That might be a bit young, and perhaps I got him out just in time, I have taught him everything he knows about the Sixth and Ninth Commandments.
Title: Re: Justice Roberts Strikes Again: Sides with Dems on Abortion
Post by: poche on July 02, 2020, 12:08:07 AM
This is the thing with Supreme Court justices. They may put on a persona of a certain type but when they arrive at the bench it is a whole different story. Anybody remember Earl Warren?