Lets discuss the specific Constitutionality of the Dobbs decision

[ColonelAngus]

The Consitution does not mention abortion as a right. The SUPREME COURT has no justidiction to rule. It is up to the states to make their own laws.

Its not complex.

Its amazing that SCOTUS says , “Make your own laws, its not up to us.”…..and the cult calls them FASCIST!

THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM!

DOBBS v. JACKSON WOMEN’S HEALTH ORGANIZATION

www.law.cornell.edu

How, specifically is abortion covered as a right in the Constitution?

I see speech, arms, self incrimination, due process….no abortions.

 

[occupied]

The "originalist" argument is designed to set back the clock on every bit of social progress made since 1868. The constitution may not specifically mention abortion, segregation, police powers or marriage equality but it was always the correct path for the court to rule in favor of expanding rights. Now it seems this court thinks their job is to help conservative politicians make it 1955 again.

 

[ColonelAngus]

One can support or be against abortion legality…but claiming no jurisdiction and letting the states decide for themselves is the least fascist thing the court can do.

Decentralizaton of power is antithetical to fascism.

If you dont like your state’s laws…then move…like many people from Cali are moving to Arizona and Texas and many from the NE are moving to Florida.

 

[skews13]

The Consitution does not mention abortion as a right. The SUPREME COURT has no justidiction to rule. It is up to the states to make their own laws.

Its not complex.

Its amazing that SCOTUS says , “Make your own laws, its not up to us.”…..and the cult calls them FASCIST!

THAT IS THE OPPOSITE OF FASCISM!

[URLunfurl="true"]https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/19-1392[/URL]

How, specifically is abortion covered as a right in the Constitution?

I see speech, arms, self incrimination, due process….no abortions.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Do you see that? its in the Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Do you see that? Its in the Constitution to.

Is there anything else in the Constitution you don't see, I can help you with?

 

[ColonelAngus]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Do you see that? its in the Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Do you see that? Its in the Constitution to.

Is there anything else in the Constitution you don't see, I can help you with?

You dolt. You just post 2 line with no context and then say your shit is roses.

What the fuck is that? Your inane drivel is meaningless.

Read the Dobbs decisions and point out the flawed application of the Constitution.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Do you see that? its in the Constitution.

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Do you see that? Its in the Constitution to.

Is there anything else in the Constitution you don't see, I can help you with?

You are wrong in your interpretation of these clauses. These clauses are limitations on the government in interference with rights of states to make their own laws and a prohibition on any state from imposing its laws on another state.

What liberal courts have done is legislate from the bench. It's creeping federalism where federal law suppresses the state's ability to make its own laws.

 

[ColonelAngus]

You are wrong in your interpretation of these clauses. These clauses are limitations on the government in interference with rights of states to make their own laws and a prohibition on any state from imposing its laws on another state.

What liberal courts have done is legislate from the bench. It's creeping federalism where federal law suppresses the state's ability to make its own laws.

Its amazing how uneducated they are on issues, and it is what their thought police want.

I have not seen anyone from the left in Congress publicly explain the actual ruling. They WANT people to be scared that abortion is illegal.

Its sick.

 

[buckeye]

The constitution may not specifically mention abortion, segregation, police powers or marriage equality but it was always the correct path for the court to rule in favor of expanding rights.

What about the baby's rights? That baby has rights in some cases and in others, the mother has a "right" to kill him/her.

How does that make sense?

 

[ColonelAngus]

What about the baby's rights? That baby has rights in some cases and in others, the mother has a "right" to kill him/her.

How does that make sense?

While I agree with you 100%, it is even beyond that.

It is a state issue and these left wing nuts need to take it up with each state they dont like.

If abortion is a Constitutional right, it would have been stipulated in the Constitution.

Lefties are really dumb.

 

[occupied]

What about the baby's rights? That baby has rights in some cases and in others, the mother has a "right" to kill him/her.

How does that make sense?

The supreme court is not tasked with settling questions of morality. Just because you like this particular ruling does not mean these people will not eventually come after something you like on the same faulty constitutional basis. These people think you do not have a right to mind your own business and they will always rule on the side of the police state.

 

[ColonelAngus]

What is so interesting to me is how left wing morons will protest and riot and freak out over a decision THEY HVE NOT EVEN FUCKING READ.

You people are drones.

 

[BluesLegend]

The left tried to use the SCOTUS to force their world view onto everyone. Naturally they are livid and freaking out that the people will actually have a voice on this issue.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The left tried to use the SCOTUS to force their world view onto everyone. Naturally they are livid and freaking out that the people will actually have a voice on this issue.

And they thought it could be an election issue….the left was actually excited about the ruling to distract from the shit show economy…

…but it is not working.

5% have abortion as the #1 issue.


HEY DUMB FUCK CULT, PLEASE RUN ON ABORTION AS YOUR #1 ISSUE.

 

[BluesLegend]

And they thought it could be an election issue….the left was actually excited about the ruling to distract from the shit show economy…

…but it is not working.

5% have abortion as the #1 issue.


HEY DUMB FUCK CULT, PLEASE RUN ON ABORTION AS YOUR #1 ISSUE.

Good luck to Dems running on ripping babies limbs off in abortions.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The "originalist" argument is designed to set back the clock on every bit of social progress made since 1868. The constitution may not specifically mention abortion, segregation, police powers or marriage equality but it was always the correct path for the court to rule in favor of expanding rights. Now it seems this court thinks their job is to help conservative politicians make it 1955 again.

The originalists adhere to the correct understanding of the federal government and its purpose.

The federal government has very limited and specifically enumerated powers. States retain the remainder of the powers. Read the fucking constitution. It makes it clear. For more reading on this subject, see the federalist papers.

Your position is one of deliberate misunderstanding and an attempt to usurp powers for the federal government not granted in the original constructing document. You want to do this without amendment. You want to do this the wrong way so you can get your bratty, communist, authoritarian, bullshit way.

The original purpose of the federal government was to regulate commerce between the states, provide for the common defense, and provide for a common currency. Anything beyond that is beyond the original intent of the federal government. Going beyond that original intent requires a fucking constitutional fucking amendment.

Get that through your centralist head.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Good luck to Dems running on ripping babies limbs off in abortions.

They tried to see if it would work…it did not.

48% have inflation and gas as their #1 issue.

The cult is so stupid.

 

[buckeye]

The supreme court is not tasked with settling questions of morality. Just because you like this particular ruling does not mean these people will not eventually come after something you like on the same faulty constitutional basis. These people think you do not have a right to mind your own business and they will always rule on the side of the police state.

Oh baloney. Was it the right who tried to impose a speech police aka Misinformation Governance Board? Who imposes formerly called political correctness now called wokeness and the person cancelling it advocates? What side favored covid lockdowns, school closures and business failures? (and data now shows were ineffective wrt to covid transmission but extremely harmful to kids and adults) Who proposed and still supports vaccine mandates for a vaccine that we now KNOW was so much less effective than the much superior natural immunity? Who supported those who refused this "vaccine" lose their jobs, their ability to travel or go to school? What side favors censure of free speech???

Talk about ruling on the side of the police state, you are upside down. And for gawd's sake, Dobbs sends the decision to the states to be decided by the peoples' representatives. That's called democracy, not legislation off the bench which is what Roe is.

I am not speaking of morality. I am speaking of how law is used for fetuses. If you murder a pregnant woman, you are likely to be charged with two murders.

Yet mom can murder her fetus. I understand this has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.

 

[whitehall]

We went from a monarchy to a democracy and the left hates it. All the Court did was to leave it up to the voters to authorize states to determine the conditions that abortion would be allowed. It's ironic that democrats don't seem to trust democracy.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Oh baloney. Was it the right who tried to impose a speech police aka Misinformation Governance Board? Who imposes formerly called political correctness now called wokeness and the person cancelling it advocates? What side favored covid lockdowns, school closures and business failures? (and data now shows were ineffective wrt to covid transmission but extremely harmful to kids and adults) Who proposed and still supports vaccine mandates for a vaccine that we now KNOW was so much less effective than the much superior natural immunity? Who supported those who refused this "vaccine" lose their jobs, their ability to travel or go to school? What side favors censure of free speech???

Talk about ruling on the side of the police state, you are upside down. And for gawd's sake, Dobbs sends the decision to the states to be decided by the peoples' representatives. That's called democracy, not legislation off the bench which is what Roe is.

I am not speaking of morality. I am speaking of how law is used for fetuses. If you murder a pregnant woman, you are likely to be charged with two murders.

Yet mom can murder her fetus. I understand this has nothing to do with Roe v Wade.

If mom has the choice to keep or kill the baby, and the man has no say….shouldnt the man have the choice to pay child support?

 

[ColonelAngus]

Guns and abortion is the #1 issue for 8% of people.

Run on those 2 issues, you tone deaf simps.