SCOTUS discusses immunity for the President

[SeaMajor7]

That's because you and your comrades are wanna-be fascists.

PROJECTION

 

[martybegan]

Dobbs did not determine that the fetus is a human life. If they had, then all abortion would have been made illegal at all stages and for almost any reason since that supposed human life would have constitutional rights.

But Dobbs didn't extend constitutional rights to a fetus.

Exactly. All Dobbs did was return the issue to the States, where it belongs.

The issue of it being a PERSON is the debate, or even a limited PERSON.

That is a unique human life is a fact only denied by people needing to justify their position.

 

[Crepitus]

It is literally not a case limited to what is happening now.

Actually what's happening here and now is the issue and none of the justices want to discus it.

 

[SeaMajor7]

Actually what's happening here and now is the issue and none of the justices want to discus it.

Not a good day for you neo-Marxists.
Too bad.

 

[Marener]

Exactly. All Dobbs did was return the issue to the States, where it belongs.

The issue of it being a PERSON is the debate, or even a limited PERSON.

That is a unique human life is a fact only denied by people needing to justify their position.

Just like Plessey kept the issue of segregation with the states where they thought it belonged.

Since Dobbs didn't extend constitutional rights to a fetus, that's really not the issue at play. The only issue is whether a state has the authority over the bodily autonomy of a woman. I think autonomy is an inherent right, just like integration is inherent to the constitution.

At the end of the day, Dobbs has far more in common with Plessey.

 

[martybegan]

Just like Plessey kept the issue of segregation with the states where they thought it belonged.

Since Dobbs didn't extend constitutional rights to a fetus, that's really not the issue at play. The only issue is whether a state has the authority over the bodily autonomy of a woman. I think autonomy is an inherent right, just like integration is inherent to the constitution.

At the end of the day, Dobbs has far more in common with Plessey.

Wrongly.

The constitution doesn't enumerate it, the Roe court wrongly tried to create an enumerated right, thinking the issue would go away. It didn't go away, so Dobbs corrected the mistake.

No, because Plessey was wrong and Dobbs was right.

 

[kyzr]

With Democrats running amok charging Trump with ridiculous indictments during an election year specifically to RIG the election the SCOTUS needs to get off it's ass and put a stop to this.

When the USSC asked Trump's lawyer if Trump's J6 actions were "private" or "presidential" the response was "private".
So the best outcome for Trump is for the USSC to send the "immunity" case back down until after the election.
That sinks Smith's two cases (J6 & Classified docs) and Letitia's election interference case until after the election.

Be careful what you wish for. The USSC will not agree to presidential immunity that helps Trump's illegal "private" actions.

 

[Marener]

Wrongly.

The constitution doesn't enumerate it, the Roe court wrongly tried to create an enumerated right, thinking the issue would go away. It didn't go away, so Dobbs corrected the mistake.

No, because Plessey was wrong and Dobbs was right.

Constitution didn't enumerate integration as a right either. It was created as a right. You only give a shit about what is and isn't enumerated when you feel like it.

"Dobbs was right" is about as thoughtful argument as you are capable of.

Plessey and Dobbs both took rights away from people and granted them to the state.

 

[Billiejeens]

Actually what's happening here and now is the issue and none of the justices want to discus it.

Like normal, you do not know what you are talking about.
And that's okay.

 

[martybegan]

Constitution didn't enumerate integration as a right either. It was created as a right. You only give a shit about what is and isn't enumerated when you feel like it.

"Dobbs was right" is about as thoughtful argument as you are capable of.

Plessey and Dobbs both took rights away from people and granted them to the state.

No, it created equal protection under the law via the 14th amendment as a right. "Separate but equal" was a made up idea just as bad as Roe using "privacy" as the reason.

Plessey did it wrongly, Dobbs did it correctly as interpreted properly by the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

No, it created equal protection under the law via the 14th amendment as a right. "Separate but equal" was a made up idea just as bad as Roe using "privacy" as the reason.

Plessey did it wrongly, Dobbs did it correctly as interpreted properly by the Constitution.

The constitution only says equal. It doesn't say it couldn't be separate. Plessey merely sent that issue back to the states where they thought it belonged.

Just like Dobbs.

 

[dudmuck]

With Democrats running amok charging Trump with ridiculous indictments during an election year specifically to RIG the election the SCOTUS needs to get off it's ass and put a stop to this.

 

[Billiejeens]

Your meme doesn't understand the story.

 

[martybegan]

The constitution only says equal. It doesn't say it couldn't be separate. Plessey merely sent that issue back to the states where they thought it belonged.

Just like Dobbs.

And Brown rightly found separate in these cases was inherently unequal.

Wrongly did so.

Dobbs was correct from a strict constructional standpoint, i.e. the correct standpoint.

Don't like that? Amend the Constitution.

 

[Marener]

And Brown rightly found separate in these cases was inherently unequal.

Wrongly did so.

Dobbs was correct from a strict constructional standpoint, i.e. the correct standpoint.

Don't like that? Amend the Constitution.

And Roe rightly found that privacy and autonomy are inherent rights.

Plessey thought they were correct from a "strict" standpoint because they maintained equality and didn't create rights that weren't specifically enumerated.

 

[martybegan]

And Roe rightly found that privacy and autonomy are inherent rights.

Plessey thought they were correct from a "strict" standpoint because they maintained equality and didn't create rights that weren't specifically enumerated.

Wrongly, because abortion isn't a right.

Plessey court was wrong.

 

[Marener]

Wrongly, because abortion isn't a right.

Plessey court was wrong.

Plessey didn’t think that integration was a right.

Integration isn’t mentioned in the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

Plessey didn’t think that integration was a right.

Integration isn’t mentioned in the constitution.

The Plessey court was wrong, called out by Harlan in his dissent.

Equal protection under the law is, and Brown rightly found separate is inherently unequal.

 

[Marener]

The Plessey court was wrong, called out by Harlan in his dissent.

Equal protection under the law is, and Brown rightly found separate is inherently unequal.

And limiting abortion inherently violates right to autonomy for women.

Dobbs is wrong just like Plessey.

 

[Care4all]

Wrongly, because abortion isn't a right.

Plessey court was wrong.

Was the government given the power to force a woman to tell the government she is pregnant before she is showing, in the Constitution? Or the govt given the power to track women's periods? Or the government given the power to make your personal medical decisions? Or force you to carry your baby to be when it is harmful to you and future pregnancies?

Can you direct me to where in the constitution it gives the government that power, over us and our medical decisions and body autonomy?