Imagine if abortion were protected like the right to keep and bear arms

[M14 Shooter]

In reference to the USSC rulings on the 2nd Amendment since Heller, inclusive....

If the court applied the same protections to abortion, the left would be absolutely giddy - they'd argue virtually every federal and state law regarding abortion is unconstitutional, on ts face.

Especially given the standard of scrutiny set in Bruen:
In keeping with Heller , we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation

Now, adjust the working to cover abortions rather than firearms.
Air tight, right?

And even now, the left is doing everything it can to work around the new jurisprudence, knowing full well that there's a very good chance their work will be struck. See, they know they can pass laws faster than the courts can overturn them.
And they know there are enough liberals in the district and circuit courts who will, as they have done since 2008, ignore USSC 2A precedent as much as possible.

These are not the actions of the intellectually honest.
These are the actions of those who hate the right to keep and bear arms and will do all they can to destroy it.
Thus, among other things:
Not one inch.

 

[1srelluc]

Blah, the killing of RvW was mere foreplay when compared to what SCOTUS just did to the regulatory agencies.

 

[woodwork201]

In reference to the USSC rulings on the 2nd Amendment since Heller, inclusive....

If the court applied the same protections to abortion, the left would be absolutely giddy - they'd argue virtually every federal and state law regarding abortion is unconstitutional, on ts face.

Especially given the standard of scrutiny set in Bruen:
In keeping with Heller , we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation

Now, adjust the working to cover abortions rather than firearms.
Air tight, right?

And even now, the left is doing everything it can to work around the new jurisprudence, knowing full well that there's a very good chance their work will be struck. See, they know they can pass laws faster than the courts can overturn them.
And they know there are enough liberals in the district and circuit courts who will, as they have done since 2008, ignore USSC 2A precedent as much as possible.

These are not the actions of the intellectually honest.
These are the actions of those who hate the right to keep and bear arms and will do all they can to destroy it.
Thus, among other things:
Not one inch.

What difference does it make? The Courts can take any right they wish and Congress can pass any law they wish - that has been your long-time claim.

I'm not sure if you're trying to argue against abortion or for the right to keep and bear arms in this thread but you arguing anything at all on the basis of constitutionality is a joke because, according to you, the Constitution doesn't inhibit government in any way.

 

[M14 Shooter]

What difference does it make? The Courts can take any right they wish and Congress can pass any law they wish - that has been your long-time claim.

Look at you - forced to lie to make a point.

 

[Rigby5]

There is no such thing as a "constitutional right".
Rights have to already exist or else they could not be mentioned in the Constitution, so that can not be their source.
And since the Constitution is arbitrary, it is dangerous to consider it the source of anything, since that which can arbitrarily be created by a constitution, can just as easily be removed.
And rights should not be possible to infringe.
We have to remember that legislation not based on or justified by the defense of inherent individual rights, is illegal and the SCOTUS should strike down.
Legislation can not just be arbitrary opinion or desires, but has to be based on what is necessary in order to defend rights.

This is important because then it is clear federal gun control laws are, drug laws, Prohibition, etc. are totally illegal.

 

[Staidhup]

Apples and Oranges. States have no authority to ignore or circumvent constitutional law.

 

[miketx]

What difference does it make? The Courts can take any right they wish and Congress can pass any law they wish - that has been your long-time claim.

I'm not sure if you're trying to argue against abortion or for the right to keep and bear arms in this thread but you arguing anything at all on the basis of constitutionality is a joke because, according to you, the Constitution doesn't inhibit government in any way.

Here lately is hasn't stopped them from doing anything.