Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: didjuneau who wrote (762310)	5/2/2022 11:26:13 PM
From: Maple MAGA	1 Recommendation Recommended By didjuneau Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793685

Leak of SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade sparks intense reactions on social mediahttps://t.co/MFxxRxk5h9 — The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) May 3, 2022

To: didjuneau who wrote (762310)	5/2/2022 11:34:11 PM
From: carranza2	1 Recommendation Recommended By MulhollandDrive Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793685

Very damned interesting. I haven’t read the leaked opinion, so my initial understanding that it will allow the states to regulate abortions might be off the mark. If this is generally the import of the decision, what happens to the penumbral right to privacy? There is little doubt that Roe v. Wade was wrong, in that it improperly foreclosed the right of the individual States to deal with abortion and other issues. After having recognized it for decades, does the new decision mean that the right to be left alone now takes on a more Fourth Amendment-ish color? If so, federal concerns still exist. Or are we in 10th Amendment territory? I cannot imagine that the right to privacy gets tossed by the wayside in this new opinion. The right to privacy makes sense, but what it means after this decision will surely be up in the air. If a new doctrinal basis for it needs to be created, we are in trouble. Doctrinal changes like the one suggested by this new opinion should not be changed like a dirty shirt. Who knows, certainly not me. Legal theory aside, a leak at the Supreme Court level is truly unprecedented. Very troubling.

To: didjuneau who wrote (762310)	5/3/2022 12:23:02 AM
From: rxbond	3 Recommendations Recommended By Alan Smithee garrettjax skinowski Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793685

Pack the court will now become the call. They were given a reason.

To: didjuneau who wrote (762310)	5/3/2022 8:39:43 AM
From: DMaA	1 Recommendation Recommended By didjuneau Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793685

Row/Wade is definitely a shadow across this land.

To: didjuneau who wrote (762310)	5/3/2022 8:54:45 AM
From: DMaA	5 Recommendations Recommended By D. Long didjuneau MulhollandDrive Neeka pheilman_ Respond to of 793685

The idea that there is a right to privacy in the Constitution is so preposterous as to be insulting. Especially after two years of the Federal Government demanding you show your health papers to be able to perform basic everyday acts of a human being. Also being a couple of weeks after tax season where the Federal Government demand backed up by the threat of violence that you reveal the most intimate details of your financial life.