New Studies Show Supreme Courts Imperial Behavior Really Is Unprecedented

[Orangecat]

I'm pro-life so I support neither but I am discussing legal matters.

I'm pro choice, with reasonable, logical limitations. The point I'm making is that the right to privacy is not absolute, and does not give one the right to privately end another life.

 

[pknopp]

The Constitution does not enforce Dr/Patient protections

If you say so.

Your Right to Privacy of Your Medical Records - Neufeld O'Leary & Giusto

You have a right of privacy of your medical records under the U.S. Constitution. These rights aren’t unlimited, but you can sue if someone violates them.

www.noglaw.com

 

[pknopp]

I'm pro choice, with reasonable, logical limitations. The point I'm making is that the right to privacy is not absolute, and does not give one the right to privately end another life.

I didn't say it was absolute. I said it was based upon our Constitutional rights to privacy.

The Constitution gives us the right to speech also but it is not absolute.

 

[Orangecat]

I didn't say it was absolute. I said it was based upon our Constitutional rights to privacy.

The Constitution gives us the right to speech also but it is not absolute.

So do we agree that the constitutional right to privacy does not cover murder or abortion?

 

[pknopp]

So do we agree that the constitutional right to privacy does not cover murder or abortion?

In an absolute? No.

Woman finds out she is pregnant. She goes to a doctor and he performs an abortion. No one is told a word. How do you plan on prosecuting her?

 

[ReinyDays]

.As someone who lives in an abortion free state, I don't care. One more dead leftist.
I just don't want the karma and the tax burden. It's the reason I no longer use Amazon. I don't care if leftist sluts kill their children, as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Fewer heathen the better ... how about the death penalty for adultery? ... conservatives should like that, punish the sinners ...

But yeah, I'm big on state's rights ... The South will never prosper without slavery ...

 

[Orangecat]

In an absolute? No.

Woman finds out she is pregnant. She goes to a doctor and he performs an abortion. No one is told a word. How do you plan on prosecuting her?

Why would I prosecute her? I'm pro choice. However, if the procedure is beyond the 1st trimester, a doctor should be held accountable for his actions. However, much like any other crime, if you don't get caught, you don't get any punishment beyond your own karma.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Fewer heathen the better ... how about the death penalty for adultery? ... conservatives should like that, punish the sinners ...

But yeah, I'm big on state's rights ... The South will never prosper without slavery ...

.




I've never owned a slave and I don't have a spouse.







.

 

[22lcidw]

I didn't say it was absolute. I said it was based upon our Constitutional rights to privacy.

The Constitution gives us the right to speech also but it is not absolute.

There is real hate speech. Not the ones politically promoted. There is also eccentric speech that most people have spewed like comparing something to another time that was not good. And progs do that a lot also.

 

[Rogue AI]

We have Dr/Patient protections. What are they based upon? The right to privacy?

Are they? It's still a contract and the government has the power to regulate contracts, nor is it absolute.

 

[Flash]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

New York Times? LOL! Those Libatd fuckers are dumber than a door knob. They couldn't "examine" jackshit.

 

[ReinyDays]

I've never owned a slave and I don't have a spouse.

Your making a BIG mistake ... if you ever want to take up woodworking as a hobby, you're gonna want lots of children who know how to sand ...

 

[BS Filter]

MAGAts love them some crooked Justices.

Yeah, following the Constitution is so immoral, huh.

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

Your making a BIG mistake ... if you ever want to take up woodworking as a hobby, you're gonna want lots of children who know how to sand ...

.














.

 

[pknopp]

Why would I prosecute her? I'm pro choice. However, if the procedure is beyond the 1st trimester, a doctor should be held accountable for his actions. However, much like any other crime, if you don't get caught, you don't get any punishment beyond your own karma.

So to prosecute you would have to violate her right to privacy.

 

[pknopp]

Are they? It's still a contract and the government has the power to regulate contracts, nor is it absolute.

It is more than a contract.

 

[Rogue AI]

It is more than a contract.

Not really, it's a contract with protections, which could be legally removed.

 

[pknopp]

Not really, it's a contract with protections, which could be legally removed.

If you say so.

I posted a legal link earlier saying otherwise.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Otherwise there would have been no need for an apparatus put in place (which the founders did) to determine the meaning.

The meaning is only constitutionally when the legislator makes new law not judicial activism

 

[bodecea]

New York Times? LOL! Those Libatd fuckers are dumber than a door knob. They couldn't "examine" jackshit.

And yet so very much more successful and paid attention to more than you will EVER be.