New Studies Show Supreme Courts Imperial Behavior Really Is Unprecedented

[pknopp]

It's more than opinion. Instances of the alleged right to privacy are drawn from bits and pieces of the Constitution without context. Abortion is a contract between parties, which is why none of Justices who claimed the privacy privilege cited the 4th, which does in fact grant protections from government.

Do you feel you have a right to privacy in your medical records? Should the government simply be allowed to confiscate them at will?

 

[pknopp]

Only a prog could insist that both 'A' and not 'A' can be true.

And that is the Constitution we were left with.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And that is the Constitution we were left with.

Bullshit

 

[pknopp]

Bullshit

Otherwise there would have been no need for an apparatus put in place (which the founders did) to determine the meaning.

 

[BS Filter]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

The Court is being cleansed of bad law. Abortion and same-sex marriage are not Constitutional issues. They are state issues.

 

[pknopp]

The Court is being cleansed of bad law. Abortion and same-sex marriage are not Constitutional issues. They are state issues.

As long as the government is giving benefits based upon one's marriage standing, it's a federal issue.

 

[Orangecat]

It's also Constitutional to note that the court does protect a right to privacy and abortion can not be banned without violating that.

Neither can murder, by that tortured logic.

 

[easyt65]

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful, we've landed ourselves in a place where nobody's quite sure what is or isn't covered by United States law because court conservatives have been increasingly unwilling to bother with explaining it to us. Or, rather more urgently, to the lower courts who have been trying to piece together their rulings into a consistency that Justice Blackout Drunk or Justice Papal Seance haven't bothered to themselves provide.

It's nice to see judicial experts and reporters alike putting some real numbers to the problem, and The New York Times has a genuinely good(!) examination of the court's eagerness to change even their own internal processes in order to more efficiently arrive at the preferred conservative outcomes without argument or, increasingly, without waiting for lower court decisions in the first place.

We'll have to leave it to legal experts for suggestions on counteracting a Supreme Court that's decided the last 200 years of history was a mistake that needs correcting. Filling the court with a few more justices who haven't been specifically handpicked by the Federalist Society to sabotage human rights and cooperative governance both seems like it'd be a plus, so long as we're talking about correcting past errors. But apparently, doing that would be (checks notes) an insult to the current Court and to the seditionist who created it.

New studies show the Supreme Court's 'imperial' behavior really is unprecedented

As Republican nominees of archconservative Supreme Court yank back precedents of the last hundred years in an attempt to scrub American society of any rights that old-timey English witch-hunters or Colonial-era slaveholders would find distasteful,...

www.dailykos.com

The most corrupt court in history. Any means by which to change it is justified. And every decision it has made revisited also justified.

'Imperial Behavior' = Democrats not getting their way

 

[Rogue AI]

Do you feel you have a right to privacy in your medical records? Should the government simply be allowed to confiscate them at will?

It not about feelz, it's about the Constitution and what is written. Don't like it, get an amendment.

There are already limits to doctor/patient confidentiality.

 

[pknopp]

Neither can murder, by that tortured logic.

If you say so.

 

[pknopp]

It not about feelz, it's about the Constitution and what is written. Don't like it, get an amendment.

There are already limits to doctor/patient confidentiality.

Based upon what?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Otherwise there would have been no need for an apparatus put in place (which the founders did) to determine the meaning.

Dumbass we have a constitution for one reason. And it's not to be bastardized like you leftists try to do it.

 

[bripat9643]

And that is the Constitution we were left with.

No it isn't. It's only the author of whatever article you read who is unable to commit logic.

"Privacy" is a state of affairs, not an act of government. You can't have a right to a state of affairs. The Bill of Rights determines what the government is not allowed to do. It doesn't mandate states of affairs. The claim about the so-called "right to privacy" is utter horseshit.

 

[Rogue AI]

Based upon what?

Elaborate.

 

[Orangecat]

If you say so.

It's not "me saying so", it's a logical conclusion.
Privacy to commit an abortion is the same privacy to commit murder. No one else's business, right?

 

[pknopp]

Elaborate.

We have Dr/Patient protections. What are they based upon? The right to privacy?

 

[bodecea]

Yes we know how you fascists feel about being constitutional. It is unprecedented to you.

MAGAts love them some crooked Justices.

 

[bodecea]

What facts? There is not nor has there ever been any legislation under federal law that protected abortion. It's a state issue. Roe vs Wade ruling was judicial activism an unconstitutional. Putting it back in the hands of the states is constitutional. A concept you fail to grasp

MAGAts trying to con-trol women thru their bodies.

 

[pknopp]

It's not "me saying so", it's a logical conclusion.
Privacy to commit an abortion is the same privacy to commit murder. No one else's business, right?

I'm pro-life so I support neither but I am discussing legal matters.

 

[bripat9643]

We have Dr/Patient protections. What are they based upon? The right to privacy?

The Constitution does not enforce Dr/Patient protections