Coming to a Red State near you....

[Coyote]

Do you think that the job of a Justice is to follow the intent of the founders or to try to make the world a better place, moving society forward with their rulings?

Neither.

I think their job is to interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended, take it along with any relevant precedents and case law and apply it to today’s world. We don’t live in 1776 any more, that is why I don’t agree with “originalism”.

 

[Coyote]

Oh here we go. More man bashing. Feminism. Now CHANT WE WANT TO KILL BABIES.

You know Late Term is WRONG. and Blue shit hole states are making sure THAT IS LEGAL NOW. Well it already was as the decision doesn't effect them. but .........They are PROUD OF IT.

 

[Correll]

Neither.

I think their job is to interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended, take it along with any relevant precedents and case law and apply it to today’s world. We don’t live in 1776 any more, that is why I don’t agree with “originalism”.

The justices that wrote a lot of the lib rulings over the last 50 years, clearly disagreed with you.

Now that finally we have a court with a majority of justices that want to do their actual job, some of those precedents are rightfully being overturned.

 

[Nostra]

Neither.

I think their job is to interpret the Constitution as it was written and intended, take it along with any relevant precedents and case law and apply it to today’s world. We don’t live in 1776 any more, that is why I don’t agree with “originalism”.

Where in the Constitution "as it was written" is the right to kill your baby?

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

1. Lets say a psychopath killed 10 people next door to where he lived.
2. Im making this up, not a true story.
3. Well anyway, on with the show!
4. So one day this nutter, lets say he is a libtard, just for shits and grins.
5. He wakes up one day, drinks his coffee, and says to himself, "I'm going next door and murder the whole family living there, a husband, wife, and eight kids, four boys and four girls varying in ages.
6. So he does, and while he's doing it there are screams coming from the house, and the next house over with his smaller family comes running out with his pistol.
7. So about this time the libtard comes walking out onto the porch, all bloody and still has the knife in his hand.
8. The man on the sidewalk with the gun, yells to him, "Drop the knife, and lay down, now, and put your hands behind your back!"
9. The libtard mumbles something about blood on his shoes, and then complies.
10. Drops the knife and lays down, saying something about his poor knees.
11. So anyway someone else calls 911, and in three minutes a cop car rolls up, and slap cuffs on the libtard laying face down of the porch.
12. So the cops takes the libtard to jail, after speaking briefly to the guy with the gun, and says *thank you*, to him, *good neighbors are not easy to find,* he says.
13. So he gets a rush court date, and is found guilty, cause so many witnessed what he did, they could see through the windows, as he slaughtered this family, swinging that large knife, throwing kids against the walls, all bloodied, some kids he threw through windows, in the yard, and people saw him do it, many people walked out of theirs houses and watched from across the street, when they heard all the screaming.
14. There was no doubt he was a animal.
15. This is where it get interesting and libtards head shall explode everywhere.
16. So the murderer of this family was cast into a jail cell, one with bars all around, no chance to escape.
17. Then a certain jailer pushes a button, in a small room next to his jail cell, and from around the jail cell comes metal arms with, scissors and scalpels, and they take the man apart, piece by piece, and soon enough, maybe 20 minutes, his entire body, is no longer in the jail, because he is in pieces on the floor outside the jail cell.
18. Now how does that make you feel baby butchers?
19. Sounds inhuman, and yet this man got what he deserved, but a baby in the womb can only be *innocent*.
20. You can cry now.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[TemplarKormac]

I was wondering what liberals think of En Caul births? Although they are rare, it's when the baby exits the uterus still encased in the amniotic sac and is still suspended in amniotic fluid.

So is the baby born or not? Would it still be a fetus until the sac is broken or would we consider it a live birth? I think it would present a unique dilemma to the whole "it's a fetus not a human" argument.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Aren't you working on destroying the 1st and 2nd amendments?

In the coming years and decades, we’ll see Republican state lawmakers enact all manner of discriminatory measures – measures initially invalidated by the lower courts consistent with current 14th Amendment jurisprudence, but ultimately upheld by this activist, extreme, and radical conservative Supreme Court.

And with every discriminatory measure upheld, the settled, accepted precedent that was 14th Amendment case law will be eroded and in time eliminated.

We know this to be true because this activist, extreme, and radical conservative Supreme Court has no respect for precedent – if it had, it wouldn’t have overturned Roe.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Condoms break.

True.

In fact, no contraceptive method is 100 percent.

Consider the married couple that doesn’t wish to have children yet, diligently using a birth control method in good faith that fails through no fault of their own.

The idea that the state should have the authority to force the woman to give birth against her will is the epitome of rightwing stupidity and cruelty – completely wrong and reprehensible.

 

[SweetSue92]

True.

In fact, no contraceptive method is 100 percent.

Consider the married couple that doesn’t wish to have children yet, diligently using a birth control method in good faith that fails through no fault of their own.

The idea that the state should have the authority to force the woman to give birth against her will is the epitome of rightwing stupidity and cruelty – completely wrong and reprehensible.

"You pays your money and you takes your chances"--Huxley, "A Brave New World"

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

While I don't condone abortions except for different circumstances I also do not believe anyone has the right to tell a woman what they can do with their body.

Including the state – and that’s the important point.

The right to privacy allows each citizen to decide for himself in accordance with his own good conscience when life begins absent interference from government.

It is neither the role nor responsibility of the state to dictate to citizens whether they may have a child or not – it’s a clear example of government excess and overreach; citizens know best how to conduct their private lives, not government.

And clearly conservatives believe the state knows better than citizens how to conduct their private lives.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The same that are pro life are not pro life from birth to a natural death and applaud the death penalty.

Conservatives are infamous for their hypocrisy.

If the states have the right to regulate abortion, the states likewise have the right to regulate firearms as they see fit.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I suspect the "abortion up to birth" is based on fear of slippery slopes once you start to ban it.

“Abortion up to birth” is a lie – another idiotic contrivance of the dishonest right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Kermit Gosnell - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This fails as a hasty generalization fallacy – more lies and demagoguery from the dishonest right.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I think this is the first time a right has been taken away.

As a matter of social policy, yes.

In the context of the law the right to privacy remains, but it will no longer be defended by the courts, citizens can no longer seek relief from their right to privacy being violated by government via the judicial process.

Citizens must now seek to defend their right to privacy from government attack through the political process – a process subject to gerrymandering, efforts to undermine the right to vote, partisan politics, and the capricious, inconsistent whims of the voters – not the rule of law.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

So females aren’t people?


This isn’t a trannie thread.


The court recognized a Constitutional right 50 years ago. Flawed or not, it was recognized and was a right. Now it removed a right. A precedent.

Actually, there’s nothing ‘flawed’ about the right to privacy.

The right to privacy places limits and restrictions on government to the benefit of individual liberty – limiting government authority and protecting individual liberty is far from ‘flawed.’

With the courts abdicating their responsibility to defend the right to privacy, we’ll see more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Right now the US is turning into a Supreme Court led Christian Caliphate.

At some point people are going to snap.

Excellent point.

What is the future of a country where the will of the majority is consistently ignored by the tyranny of conservative minority rule.

 

[IM2]

Sorry bout that,

1. Wow so much butt hurt, when a libtard has her right to murder a bay taken away.
2. Baby Butchers must follow the law, whichever state she abides, or get her butt hurt ass put into a sling.
3. Think long and hard before you mount another man sausage.
4. Its might get you thrown behind bars if you try to baby butcher another baby.

Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

I think people who support the ability for people to freely carry weapons that mow down children need to just stay silent about abortion.

 

[IM2]

Sorry. Can't get passed the "pregnant people" in the title. Can't be worth reading if they don't know that pregnancy is a condition that only happens to females. And no, this is not "good for women". Btw, the court did not "take" a constitutional right. Even RGB knew that Roe couldn't pass muster. Now is the time to fight for bodily autonomy for ALL people. We shouldn't have government and/or insurance bureaucrats deciding what our medical treatments can be.

Actually the court did take a right protected by the 14th amendment. If my memory serves me correctly that amendment is in the constitution.

 

[IM2]

Ummmmmmmmmmm, this Supreme Court ruled that there is no right for this written in the Constitution. Funny how the left always wants to frame this as a women's rights issue but don't seem to give a shit about a human being's right to life and not be murdered. I'm curious though, do you believe that the Supreme Court can overrule one of their own past decisions? Think before you answer.

This supreme court ruled wrongly and based on their personal political and religious beliefs. A zygote is not a human being.

 

[Independent thinker]

This supreme court ruled wrongly and based on their personal political and religious beliefs. A zygote is not a human being.

First of all, I don't see where the court ruled that a zygote is a human being. Second of all, you are basically a nothing while Supreme Court justices reached the pinnacle of their careers by having extensive knowledge of the law. Your opinion pales rather significantly to their expertise. Your opinion has no standing other than a drone speaking from the collective.