Democrats Threaten USSC Justices & Undermine the USSC Because They Hate The Constitution

[easyt65]

Thd US Constitution and Its Sworn Defenders Prevent Democrats / Liberals From Getting What They Want, The Way They Want It, Because They Want It When They Want It

The Left Undermines SCOTUS Because They Despise The Constitution

'They've been trying to undermine the court so that they can limit those rights,' Federalist Senior David Harsanyi said.

thefederalist.com

 

[Sunsettommy]

The true state of the Democrat party,

 

[okfine]

Thd US Constitution and Its Sworn Defenders Prevent Democrats / Liberals From Getting What They Want, The Way They Want It, Because They Want It When They Want It

The Left Undermines SCOTUS Because They Despise The Constitution

'They've been trying to undermine the court so that they can limit those rights,' Federalist Senior David Harsanyi said.

thefederalist.com

Fuck the Federalist. Nothing but RW propaganda.

Polling shows the People of this country aren't being listened to.

 

[theHawk]

Fuck the Federalist. Nothing but RW propaganda.

Polling shows the People of this country aren't being listened to.

Propaganda? Leftwingers are literally saying these things all over Twatter and in front of cameras. Pig Lois even sent out an official statement.

 

[lantern2814]

Fuck the Federalist. Nothing but RW propaganda.

Polling shows the People of this country aren't being listened to.

News flash. SCOTUS isn’t supposed to listen to the people. They rule on the constitutionality of laws. Facts.

 

[TNHarley]

People want a political activist court. Not a Constitutional one. Obviously.

 

[forkup]

People want a political activist court. Not a Constitutional one. Obviously.

Oh, you assert that the rulings of this court are about the constitution and not political?

 

[Concerned American]

Polling shows the People of this country aren't being listened to.

For once, you are 100% correct. The people have not been listened to since the democrats took control of the house in 2018---but, thankfully, that will be changing in November. Get your crying towel out.

 

[okfine]

For once, you are 100% correct. The people have not been listened to since the democrats took control of the house in 2018---but, thankfully, that will be changing in November. Get your crying towel out.

And the polling isn't what you think it is. Nice try.

 

[scruffy]

Oh, you assert that the rulings of this court are about the constitution and not political?

You assert they're not?

 

[Concerned American]

And the polling isn't what you think it is. Nice try.

Maybe you can collect those democrat tears in Nov and alleviate the CA drought. ROFLMAO!

 

[easyt65]

People want a political activist court. Not a Constitutional one. Obviously.

LIBERALS / DEMOCRATS Do

 

[forkup]

You assert they're not?

I do assert that for the following reasons. In their recent concealed carry ruling they assert that the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution. However the whole concept that the the 2nd amendment applies to the individual right to be armed is NOT in the Constitution. The first paragraph of the 2nd amendment clearly states that the right only applies in the context of a militia. The whole idea that it applies to everybody has only been argued since the 1950's. Not exactly originalism.

In their recent ruling on abortion, the majority argued that since abortion is not in the Constitution it should be struck down. They also said that the same does not apply to other unenumerated rights, citing potential life doctrine as their argument. Not only is that not in the Constitution. The place they get the justification from is Roe v Wade and Dobbs. The exact rulings they are aiming to invalidate.

If your concept of "originalism" is only applicable on parts of your rulings, or on a selective reading of the Constitution, then your rulings aren't about the Constitution but are rather motivated by ideology.

 

[TNHarley]

Oh, you assert that the rulings of this court are about the constitution and not political?

Can you show me a ruling not based on the Constitution?

 

[forkup]

Can you show me a ruling not based on the Constitution?

I just did. Maybe I'll explain it in another way.

In this abortion ruling the Democrats have a consistent position. They look at the Constitution as a framework to rule. Basically saying, what would the the people who wrote the Constitution do if this question is put before them. You might or might not agree with the legal doctrine but it is consistent.

Roberts had a consistent legal doctrine. Namely the one that the Supreme Court should make rulings solely based on the question before them. You might or might not agree with it, but it is consistent.

Thomas had a consistent legal doctrine. ( he didn't apply that same logic to his guns position) but for the sake of simplicity I'll grant him that. Namely that the Supreme Court can solely make rulings based on what is literally in the Constitution. You might or might not agree with it but it is consistent.

The other judges however didn't have a consistent legal position. They argued that they based their ruling on a literal reading of the Constitution and then immediately realised that the logic would cause them to rule a certain way on some political disastrous issues for the GOP. And therefor argued that the what is in the Constitution should be ignored in favor of an interpretation of it, citing the exact law they are striking down as precedent.

That is not a ruling based on the Constitution.

 

[scruffy]

However the whole concept that the the 2nd amendment applies to the individual right to be armed is NOT in the Constitution. .

BULLSHIT

Goddammit, these dumbass fucking lefties are beyond stupid!

READ the Second Amendment. The individual right is stated EXPLICITLY, you dumbass fucking moron with shit for brains

It's right there in black and white, and you're going to deny it? You're fucking RETARDED!!!

 

[TNHarley]

In this abortion ruling the Democrats have a consistent position. They look at the Constitution as a framework to rule. Basically saying, what would the the people who wrote the Constitution do if this question is put before them. You might or might not agree with the legal doctrine but it is consistent.

They argued that they based their ruling on a literal reading of the Constitution

Which is what they are supposed to do.

They argued that they based their ruling on a literal reading of the Constitution and then immediately realised that the logic would cause them to rule a certain way on some political disastrous issues for the GOP.

Was that in the opinion, or did you just make shit up?

That is not a ruling based on the Constitution.

What does the constitution say about abortion? What does fed power, a medical procedure and privacy(not even mentioned in the 14th BTW) have to do with each other?

 

[TNHarley]

BULLSHIT

Goddammit, these dumbass fucking lefties are beyond stupid!

READ the Second Amendment. The individual right is stated EXPLICITLY, you dumbass fucking moron with shit for brains

It's right there in black and white, and you're going to deny it? You're fucking RETARDED!!!

He is from Europe. He cant help it.

 

[Smokin' OP]

The idiot federalist claims:

“This law, it was about asking a policeman or a bureaucrat to give you your constitutional right. That’s not how it works for the First Amendment. It doesn’t work for any amendment,” Federalist Senior David Harsanyi said on Fox Business Network.

Harsanyi said the left’s reaction to today’s Supreme Court ruling that New Yorkers must be provided their right to self-defense is because “they just don’t like what the Constitution says and they don’t like what the First Amendment says or the Second.” Or virtually the entire Bill of Rights and the Constitution of which it’s a part.

Sure, so is this "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", the moron ignores that as did the supreme court.
But clings to this" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

It's called a prerequisite.

pre·req·ui·site
[prēˈrekwəzət]

NOUN

1. a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist.
   
   That's why "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is first and not last.
   

 

[forkup]

Which is what they are supposed to do.

Was that in the opinion, or did you just make shit up?

What does the constitution say about abortion? What does fed power, a medical procedure and privacy(not even mentioned in the 14th BTW) have to do with each other?

Which is what they are supposed to do.

Say some legal experts. Others that it is preposterous to base your judgements on a narrow reading of a document over 200 years old.

Was that in the opinion, or did you just make shit up?

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf

the logic of Dobbs requires the court to reconsider many cases that were based on similarly sketchy extrapolation from the Constitution, including Obergefell v. Hodges (same-sex marriage), Lawrence v. Texas (gay sex), and Griswold v. Connecticut (contraception).

On pages 32, 37, 38, 49, 66, and 71 the Court swears that the “potential life” principle, because it applies uniquely to abortion, will protect these other cases from being overturned. But not once does the Court cite a constitutional basis for that principle. In fact, the Court notes on page 38 that “nothing in the Constitution . . . authorizes the Court to adopt” a “particular theory about when the rights of personhood begin.”

In lieu of constitutional text, the Court quotes Roe and Casey, noting that they called abortion a “unique act” that is “inherently different from marital intimacy” because it terminates “potential life.”