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

[AZrailwhale]

But SCOTUS has ruled that people have a right to privacy and the "right to privacy" is not explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights unless you want to consider the 4th amendment's admonishment that the people have the right to be secure in their homes, persons, personal affects, etc. (paraphrased) as a stand-in for "privacy".

And it appears that SCOTUS is now re-evaluating the earlier decisions by liberal courts.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Where in the constitution was power given to our government to force a 9 month pregnancy on a woman or girl if she and her husband or partner are not ready to have children in their lives yet? Not enough money to be a good parent, still in college, still a child and under age, date raped, or birth control didn't work, or partner left when they found out and were not ready to be a father etc etc etc???

where in the constitution does it give government the power to know what goes on in our bedrooms, or in our doctor's offices, about our own medical conditions, to even know we have had sex and gotten pregnant???

The Constitution is silent on that. The federal government has no right to promote OR restrict abortion or contraception. Both are powers restricted to the people or the “several states”.

 

[BackAgain]

And it appears that SCOTUS is now re-evaluating the earlier decisions by liberal courts.

No. It's not apparent. It is theoretically possible. But the sole suggestion came from only one Justice. That is not alone going to suffice. And for my part, I am perfectly content if they leave untouched the rulings about gay rights (like the right for gays to marry). I suspect they will leave those decisions alone. And I hope so.

 

[Correll]

The premise of your argument is false. The being inside her is not her body. If any woman wants to get plastic surgery on her nose or to amplify her breasts or to reduce the size of her breasts or to liposuction off some fat on her thighs, etc., nobody else has a right to say diddly dog about that.

But to the extent that our founding charter, the Constitution, serves to protect our rights and liberties, the right to life itself is absolutely the prime right. The preborn human inside the mother has its own unique DNA. It is an individual whose life commenced at conception. It cannot defend itself, but society can protect it -- by law.

Coyote, adn other libs are happy to have serious discussions about this issue.

As long as you accept their conclusion as a premise before the discussion starts.



The fact that this world view was just shitcanned by the US government and that every state now has to reexamine their laws to govern how to handle this issue,


that is lost to them, they can't hear it over how upset they are.

 

[struth]

Possibly because the the SCOTUS just finished noting that such authority isn't part of the authority granted to the Federal government by the Constitution.

they said it wasn’t a comstititional right…not that the feds couldn’t make it a law

 

[BackAgain]

they said it wasn’t a comstititional right…not that the feds couldn’t make it a law

They said it wasn't a right found in the Constitution. So, tell me: where would the authority be found for a government of limited and enumerated powers and authority in a document that doesn't even mention the topic?

What do you imagine Justice Alito and the majority meant when Alito wrote about RETURNING that matter to the STATES?

 

[westwall]

You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.

Just like you demanded everyone get vaxxed

 

[westwall]

Is it possible for you to post where the individual justices indicated that the 2nd amendment is an individual right and not one that must be connected to being a part of a militia or anything other than an individual right? I wasn't able to find anything but you are apparently more knowledgeable on this case than I am.

What I was able to find is the information on subsequent opinions that reference Miller.

Here are the Supreme Court's interpretations of the 1939 Miller opinion:

Konigsberg v. State Bar (1961); Footnote 10 That view, which of course cannot be reconciled with the law relating to libel, slander, misrepresentation, obscenity, perjury, false advertising, solicitation of crime, complicity by encouragement, conspiracy, and the like, is said to be compelled by the fact that the commands of the First Amendment are stated in unqualified terms: "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble". But as Mr. Justice Holmes once said: "[T]he provisions of the Constitution are not mathematical formulas having their essence in their form; they are organic living institutions transplanted from English soil. Their significance is vital not formal; it is to be gathered not simply by taking the words and a dictionary, but by considering their origin and the line of their growth." Gompers v. United States, 233 U.S. 604, 610. However, compare the qualified language of the Second Amendment: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And see United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174.​

​

Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964); (concurring opinion of Black; Footnote 11) "... cases in which the commerce power has been used to advance other ends not entirely commercial: e. g., ... United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (National Firearms Act);​

​

Adams v. Williams (1972); (dissenting opinion of Douglas, joined by Marshall) The leading case is United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, upholding a federal law making criminal the shipment in interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun. The law was upheld, there being no evidence that a sawed-off shotgun had "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia". Id., at 178. The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".​

Critics say that proposals like this water down the Second Amendment. Our decisions belie that argument, for the Second Amendment, as noted, was designed to keep alive the militia.​

​

Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8 (the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).​

​

Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas) Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense". Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)​

​

No, because educated people understood that "people" meant THE PEOPLE, not the government. The government has armies. Thus it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that a Right for the government to have guns, buried within a group of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Only a progressive could come up with such an asinine claim.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You support government control over a woman’s private medical decisions about her own body. That’s a rightest for you. Deep inside, Big Brother.

And the cavalier, misogynistic male perspective - notice he refers to getting back to the woman getting back to "having fun" as if she was the only participant.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

And it appears that SCOTUS is now re-evaluating the earlier decisions by liberal courts.

How does that work? If SCOTUS rulings are final that is?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

No, because educated people understood that "people" meant THE PEOPLE, not the government. The government has armies. Thus it is absolutely ridiculous to assume that a Right for the government to have guns, buried within a group of INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS.

Only a progressive could come up with such an asinine claim.

So you can't because it doesn't exist?

 

[struth]

They said it wasn't a right found in the Constitution. So, tell me: where would the authority be found for a government of limited and enumerated powers and authority in a document that doesn't even mention the topic?

What do you imagine Justice Alito and the majority meant when Alito wrote about RETURNING that matter to the STATES?

the federal govt regulated all sorts of things that aren’t rights

 

[westwall]

How does that work? If SCOTUS rulings are final that is?

SCOTUS has reversed itself over 300 times. Or were you unaware of that?

 

[westwall]

So you can't because it doesn't exist?

Correct. Your interpretation is a fallacious construct put forward by progressives.

The Bill Of Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights.

Except for the 2nd.


Suuuuuuuure it is...

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Correct. Your interpretation is a fallacious construct put forward by progressives.

The Bill Of Rights are INDIVIDUAL Rights.

Except for the 2nd.


Suuuuuuuure it is...

Why are you attempting to mock ME? I'm not the one who concluded that the Bill of Rights pertains to the rights of "the people of the United States" with the EXCEPTION of the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS is the one who has insisted upon that even though you keep saying that they never did, and kept trying to make it look as if this was my stance when it never has been.

Then you referenced Miller but the justices in that case said that restriction of the sawed off shotgun in question under the U.S. Constitution was allowed BECAUSE a sawed off shotgun is not the type of weapon that would be used or covered by the protections of the second amendment as part of the militia

possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.​

​

So again, why is my perspective wrong?

Proof of what my position has always been:

 

[westwall]

Why are you attempting to mock ME? I'm not the one who concluded that the Bill of Rights pertains to the rights of "the people of the United States" with the EXCEPTION of the 2nd Amendment, SCOTUS is the one who has insisted upon that even though you keep saying that they never did, and kept trying to make it look as if this was my stance when it never has been.

Then you referenced Miller but the justices in that case said that restriction of the sawed off shotgun in question under the U.S. Constitution was allowed BECAUSE a sawed off shotgun is not the type of weapon that would be used or covered by the protections of the second amendment as part of the militia

possessing a sawed-off double barrel shotgun does not have a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, the Second Amendment does not protect the possession of such an instrument.​

​

So again, why is my perspective wrong?

View attachment 662771
View attachment 662772


Proof of what my position has always been:
View attachment 662773

Because you all ignore the fact that at the time the 2nd was written EVERYBODY was in the militia. This is all well known history.

Try readong the Federalist Papers and the thinking at the time it was written will be abundantly clear.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Because you all ignore the fact that at the time the 2nd was written EVERYBODY was in the militia. This is all well known history.

Try readong the Federalist Papers and the thinking at the time it was written will be abundantly clear.

So you're saying that they're using the term "militia" interchangeably with "individual right"?

I'm going to have to get back to this at some other time because I have to start preparing for the upcoming work week. I'm sure once I have enough time to actually read instead of just scanning the legal opinions and the historical documents things will make better sense, but my original point was that things are whatever SCOTUS deems them to be, no matter how contrary their opinions may appear.

The fact that they rule one way at one point in time and then another way at a different point in time does not help.

 

[OKTexas]

‘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.

You have no right to take the life of another human, in public or private. And the right of self defense is part of natural law, citizens understood that right at the founding, so see the 9th Amendment, it did not need to be enumerated.

If the founders could have foreseen you commies and activist judges, there would have been more than 100 amendments in the bill of rights.

.

 

[OKTexas]

So you're saying that they're using the term "militia" interchangeably with "individual right"?

I'm going to have to get back to this at some other time because I have to start preparing for the upcoming work week. I'm sure once I have enough time to actually read instead of just scanning the legal opinions and the historical documents things will make better sense, but my original point was that things are whatever SCOTUS deems them to be, no matter how contrary their opinions may appear.

The fact that they rule one way at one point in time and then another way at a different point in time does not help.

No, governments have powers, people have rights. Having a militia is a State power, the 'right" to keep and bear arms belongs to individual citizens. So simple even a commie should be able to understand.

.

 

[Care4all]

Not the way Roe v Wade was presented, without a federal law the Roe v Wade decision was vulnerable that is why Congress should have addressed it a long time ago.

Can you please explain what you're saying here?