Dobbs & Bruen – the crudeness of the decisions is its own message

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’

Indignity Vol. 2, No. 52: Special pleading.

FINAL JUDGMENT DEP'T.

indignity.substack.com

Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.

The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.

Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’

Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.

 

[1srelluc]

I guess they took Mark Twain's quote to heart.

 

[johngaltshrugged]

‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’

Indignity Vol. 2, No. 52: Special pleading.

FINAL JUDGMENT DEP'T.

indignity.substack.com

Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.

The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.

Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’

Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.

It doesn't have to say either individual or self defense because the terms "the right of the people to keep & bear arms" covers that whole topic.
The people are made up of individuals & keeping/bearing arms isn't restricted to self defense

 

[bigrebnc1775]

‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’

Indignity Vol. 2, No. 52: Special pleading.

FINAL JUDGMENT DEP'T.

indignity.substack.com

Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.

The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.

Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’

Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.

 

[Auld Phart]

‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’

Indignity Vol. 2, No. 52: Special pleading.

FINAL JUDGMENT DEP'T.

indignity.substack.com

Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.

The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.

Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’

Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.

 

[daveman]

‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’

Indignity Vol. 2, No. 52: Special pleading.

FINAL JUDGMENT DEP'T.

indignity.substack.com

Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.

The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.

Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’

Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.

Which decision angers you more -- the one where more babies get to live, or the one where people can defend themselves from criminals?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

‘Read back to back, the rulings conveyed nothing but contempt. "The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision," Samuel Alito wrote for the majority in Dobbs. In Bruen, meanwhile, Clarence Thomas wrote passionately and at length about a constitutional right to "individual self-defense," which he described—quoting the court's earlier decision against Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban in District of Columbia v. Heller—as "'the central component' of the Second Amendment right.” The Constitution, of course, makes no reference to individual self-defense, and those words certainly do not appear in the amendment where Thomas described them as being the central component.’

Indignity Vol. 2, No. 52: Special pleading.

FINAL JUDGMENT DEP'T.

indignity.substack.com

Such hypocrisy and inconsistency are typical of conservative jurists.

The right to privacy is no more a ‘made up’ right than the individual right to possess a firearm and the right to self-defense.

Indeed, nowhere in the text of the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense.’

Whereas the Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments clearly recognize and codify the right to privacy – the Fourth Amendment in particular.

It doesn't have to say either individual or self defense because the terms "the right of the people to keep & bear arms" covers that whole topic.
The people are made up of individuals & keeping/bearing arms isn't restricted to self defense

I think he was just pointing out the inconsistencies in how they derive their conclusions.

But that is nothing new, they've always claimed things that patently weren't true, but are deemed to be true because "SCOTUS Says..."

 

[SassyIrishLass]

It doesn't have to say either individual or self defense because the terms "the right of the people to keep & bear arms" covers that whole topic.
The people are made up of individuals & keeping/bearing arms isn't restricted to self defense

/Thread

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Which decision angers you more -- the one where more babies get to live, or the one where people can defend themselves from criminals?

Be gentle it's been a rough week for the weak mind.

 

[daveman]

Be gentle it's been a rough week for the weak mind.

Let me check -- nope, my give-a-damn's still busted.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The two cases are a clear indication of the blatant hypocrisy of the right and the inconsistent application of the law and advocacy of “states’ rights’ by conservatives.

The Constitution isn’t a cafeteria plan – one cannot support the rights he approves of and reject the rights he does not like.

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

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

 

[Auld Phart]

The two cases are a clear indication of the blatant hypocrisy of the right and the inconsistent application of the law and advocacy of “states’ rights’ by conservatives.

The Constitution isn’t a cafeteria plan – one cannot support the rights he approves of and reject the rights he does not like.

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

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

no constitutional right to an abortion.

same can't be said for firearms

 

[Rogue AI]

The two cases are a clear indication of the blatant hypocrisy of the right and the inconsistent application of the law and advocacy of “states’ rights’ by conservatives.

The Constitution isn’t a cafeteria plan – one cannot support the rights he approves of and reject the rights he does not like.

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

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Two cases should by virtue have two separate outcomes. In the case of baby killing, there was never an individual right involved. In the case of the oppressor state limiting access to firearms, the right to keep and bear arms is an enumerated Constitutional right not subject to the whims of fascist state actors. Liberal ignorance is creating this false hypocrisy. Without regard to the fact that imaginary rights are not equal to actual rights.

Cry more.

 

[Lesh]

The two cases are a clear indication of the blatant hypocrisy of the right and the inconsistent application of the law and advocacy of “states’ rights’ by conservatives.

The Constitution isn’t a cafeteria plan – one cannot support the rights he approves of and reject the rights he does not like.

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

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

But they'll try

Again..."self defense" is nowhere mentioned in the 2A

 

[daveman]

The two cases are a clear indication of the blatant hypocrisy of the right and the inconsistent application of the law and advocacy of “states’ rights’ by conservatives.

The Constitution isn’t a cafeteria plan – one cannot support the rights he approves of and reject the rights he does not like.

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

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.

You've definitely never read the 10th Amendment.

The right to own firearms is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and so is inviolate.

The right to abortion is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and so the powers to regulate it are given to the States.

Run along now, boy.

 

[Rogue AI]

But they'll try

Again..."self defense" is nowhere mentioned in the 2A

Yet there is a 2nd amendment to cite, your fantasy abortion rights, not so much. Did you hold conservative justices to such standards when they decided that atrocious gay marriage thing? Perhaps you should have. How about that tax that wasn't a tax? Who am I kidding, the only standards you progs have are double standards.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

But they'll try

Again..."self defense" is nowhere mentioned in the 2A

Try again why else would you have a right to keep and bear arms? But self-defense..

 

[whitehall]

Crudeness? The only crudeness was the procedure that the decision ended. Legal scholars considered the original RvW as laughable. Black families should celebrate the decision that ended the crude "eugenics" racial purity system that evolved into Planned Parenthood. No longer will young black women be coerced by liberal men into hiring someone to kill the unborn life inside them.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You've definitely never read the 10th Amendment.

The right to own firearms is specifically mentioned in the Constitution, and so is inviolate.

The right to abortion is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution, and so the powers to regulate it are given to the States.

Run along now, boy.

The right to have access to and use contraceptives in not mentioned either in the U.S. Constitution but SCOTUS ruled that to be constitutionally protected, so it's not like it needs to be an explicit reference.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction.[1] The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control". By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".[2]​

​

Although the U.S. Bill of Rights does not explicitly mention "privacy", Justice William O. Douglas wrote for the majority, "Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship." Justice Arthur Goldberg wrote a concurring opinion in which he used the Ninth Amendment in support of the ruling. Justice Byron White and Justice John Marshall Harlan II wrote concurring opinions in which they argued that privacy is protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Griswold v. Connecticut - Wikipedia​

​

Roe v Wade was determined on a woman's right to privacy much in the same way Griswold was determined:

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973),[1] was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose to have an abortion. The decision, which struck down many U.S. federal and state abortion laws,[2][3] fueled an ongoing debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. It also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.​

Roe v. Wade - Wikipedia​