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

[BackAgain]

haha

haha no it literally means numbered…written down rights outlined in the constitution versus say like the right to marry which isn’t

Ha ha. Your shallow literalism precludes you from even basic comprehension.

Written down is correct. But “numbered” is not correct. The phrase is meant to denote that the powers granted to the government are the ones set forth in the Constitution.

You could even look it up.

There is a related concept of implied powers derived from a general grant allowing Congress the ability to enact laws to accomplish the enumerated powers. But, again, if it ain’t an enumerated power, it ain’t an implied power either.

 

[daveman]

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.

Yup, I knew you wouldn't stop to think one solitary second about the human cost of your "health care".

 

[daveman]

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

Makes you wonder why Democrats have made no effort to do so during the last 50 years, doesn't it?

 

[struth]

Makes you wonder why Democrats have made no effort to do so during the last 50 years, doesn't it?

no it doesn’t…the left always wanted to make it or keep it as a culture issue to tan the flames when their policies destroyed the economy…they didn’t care about women rights…they cared about using them as a political pawn

 

[daveman]

Overturning New York’s may issue provision of its firearm law is the conduct of an activist court – of tyrants in black robes legislating from the bench contrary to the will of the people of the State of New York.

But when the Court has legislated the leftist agenda from the bench, you're all for it.

Bad leftist. No tyranny for you!

 

[daveman]

True.

Nowhere in the Second Amendment will one find the words ‘individual’ or ‘self-defense’ – but they’re there because the Supreme Court says that they’re there – just as the right to privacy is in the Constitution, because the Supreme Court says it is there.

Again, conservatives can’t have it both ways.

Cry about it some more.

 

[daveman]

We can argue back and forth forever but the fact is… a Court with a different make up could easily rule that abortion is legal and that the 2A does not afford protection for gun ownership outside their use in a well regulated militia

That has now been made obvious by this court


And changing the make up of the Court is what we need to do

Why? The Court's purpose is to weigh legislation against the Constitution. That's what the current Court did.

You want a leftist court to ignore the Constitution and rubber-stamp the leftist agenda.

 

[daveman]

The point of the thread isn’t to rehash Dobbs and Bruen – or Roe and Heller, for that matter.

Indeed, I agree with the ruling in Bruen.

The point of the thread is to illustrate the hypocrisy of conservatives, the intellectual laziness and dishonesty of conservatives, and how their blind partisanism and subjective adherence to a wrongheaded conservative agenda results in flawed, inconsistent judicial dogma.

Looks more like this thread is illustrating what whiny bitches leftists are.

 

[daveman]

You don't care about babies...they are born and are inconvenient to you. The unborn take no effort on your part to pretend to care about.

You making up shit based on your programmed and irrational hatred of conservatives is not a compelling argument.

 

[Lesh]

Why? The Court's purpose is to weigh legislation against the Constitution. That's what the current Court did.

You want a leftist court to ignore the Constitution and rubber-stamp the leftist agenda.

That "leftists agenda" (Roe) was handed down by a Republican Court

 

[daveman]

That "leftists agenda" (Roe) was handed down by a Republican Court

And they were all old white men, too. That really must've chapped y'all's asses.

 

[excalibur]

But they'll try

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

The right to keep and bear arms.

Long Ago a Chief Justice Agreed That Citizens Had the Right to Go About Armed

Indeed, it was Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott who admitted to this fact. See page 58 of Bruen at the below link. Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 (1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a parade of horribles that would result from recognizing...

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Lesh]

And they were all old white men, too. That really must've chapped y'all's asses.

That kinda shoots your whole "liberal agenda" thing in the ass

 

[daveman]

That kinda shoots your whole "liberal agenda" thing in the ass

No it doesn't. That's what y'all want when you talk about packing the court. You want a bench of tame Justices who will decide cases based on what Democrats want, whether it's Constitutional or not. And that's why you all wailed and gnashed your teeth at Trump's picks for the Court. They said they'd decide cases based on the Constitution and not ideology.

 

[Lesh]

No it doesn't. That's what y'all want when you talk about packing the court. You want a bench of tame Justices who will decide cases based on what Democrats want, whether it's Constitutional or not. And that's why you all wailed and gnashed your teeth at Trump's picks for the Court. They said they'd decide cases based on the Constitution and not ideology.

So the Conservative Republican Justices that voted for Roe 7-2 were not looking at the Constitution but these ultra conservative Justices are?

Ummmm

 

[BackAgain]

So the Conservative Republican Justices that voted for Roe 7-2 were not looking at the Constitution but these ultra conservative Justices are?

Ummmm

Alternative way to ask the question. Was the Roe decision actually founded upon anything in the Constitution? No. It certainly was not. Is correcting such a mistake based ON the Constitution a more traditionally conservative thing to do? Yes. Yes it is.

Emanations from penumbras is not actually constitutional law.

 

[Lesh]

Alternative way to ask the question. Was the Roe decision actually founded upon anything in the Constitution? No. It certainly was not. Is correcting such a mistake based ON the Constitution a more traditionally conservative thing to do? Yes. Yes it is.

Emanations from penumbras is not actually constitutional law.

Roe stood through various Courts...for FIFTY years...so yea it was

 

[daveman]

So the Conservative Republican Justices that voted for Roe 7-2 were not looking at the Constitution but these ultra conservative Justices are?

Ummmm

This may -- will -- come as a complete shock to you, but Republicans aren't one single hive mind. I know your own leftist hive mind tells you we are, but it's wrong.

 

[BackAgain]

Roe stood through various Courts...for FIFTY years...so yea it was

Plessy stood longer. Thankfully, that bullshit decision also got overruled. And Plessy was also not founded upon anything validly found in the Constitution.

So … your answer is both illogical and simply and flatly wrong.

 

[daveman]

Roe stood through various Courts...for FIFTY years...so yea it was

But this is the first time SCOTUS has heard it since it was enacted.

I bet the Jackson's Women's Health Organization is wishing it had kept its mouth shut.