SCOTUS Over Rules 5th. Circuit On Texas Abortion Law.

[thereisnospoon]

The Sup Ct didn't overturn the law, but it stayed its being implemented. The Fifth Cir upheld the law, and it would appear the Sup Ct will take up the case and issue some opinion, and there are at least three Justices who favor upholding the law requiring docs doing abortions have admitting privledges at local hospitals .... which would never grant them admitting privledges because they'd have protesters at the hospital.

Court blocks abortion limits in Texas SCOTUSblog

I did not say the law was overturned (learn to write...it helps so damn umch).

Pissed off now, are we?
After that silly tirade, all you have is a bunch of paper.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Oh, so SCOTUS is capable of reading its own past decisions and re-affirming them by overturning lower courts. I guess they have to be more than a year old in order for SCOTUS to do that. Windsor 2013 I guess was just used to declare states have the unquestioned authority on marriage just to facilitate a win for Edie Windsor.. Not because...you know...states have the ACTUAL choice on marriage. Just the 'choice' to only say "yes".

Silo.....of course the SCOTUS can overturn lower court rulings. You're falling into the fallacy of assuming that the processes of the court are only valid if you agree with their rulings. Which just isn't the case. As for Windsor, it was case about the supremacy of legislation. Federal legislation vs state legislation in deciding marriage. It was ruled that in such a contest, state legislation would win out. It said nothing to the validity or constitutionality of gay marriage bans on the State level. Only that if the definitions in State law were more expansive than the definitions in federal law regarding marriage....that the federal legislation was invalid.

Windsor was a contest of federal legislation v. state legislation.

But court rulings aren't legislation. And the rulings of the lower courts regarding gay marriage aren't federal legislation v. state legislation. They're state legislation v. the rights of federal citizens. And as the Loving V. Virginia decision made ludicrously clear, the court has every authority to overrule marriage restrictions by the State that violate the rights of federal citizens. And every American is a federal citizen.

You misinterpreted Windsor. You assumed that state supremacy in a federal legislation v state legislation battle meant that the State could violate any right it wished in a State legislation v. Individual right contest. And Kennedy already slapped that silly shit down with the Romer V. Evans decision. The States don't have the authority to abrogate the rights of gay people. And they don't have the right to create discriminatory legislation that targets gays when that legislation serves no compelling state interest.

You were simply wrong.

Just a minute. Federal law is supreme ONLY when a state law is not already in place. As long as that state statute passes US Constitutional muster, the state law stands.
Now, if in the case where federal law already exists, the Supremacy Clause states the federal law is superior, invalidating state law.
Such is the case with the states which have legalized marijuana. Use, sale or cultivating this plant is STILL in violation of federal law. I believe the issue may exist where the federal government has either not made a challenge to these states a priority or the DOJ is working on bringing a case now.

 

[FA_Q2]

Just a minute. Federal law is supreme ONLY when a state law is not already in place. As long as that state statute passes US Constitutional muster, the state law stands.
Now, if in the case where federal law already exists, the Supremacy Clause states the federal law is superior, invalidating state law.
Such is the case with the states which have legalized marijuana. Use, sale or cultivating this plant is STILL in violation of federal law. I believe the issue may exist where the federal government has either not made a challenge to these states a priority or the DOJ is working on bringing a case now.

Order is irrelevant. It does not matter which law was first. All that matters is where the constitution delegates that specific power to. Where the constitution delegates power to the federal government, those federal laws are supreme over state laws weather or not the state law was fist. In those that are not, the state law should be supreme as the tenth amendment outlines. It does not matter if the federal law was first.

I say should only because modern interpretation of the commerce and general welfare clauses places anything and everything under the sun in federal jurisdiction rendering the entire concept of federalism moot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One little town is immaterial: no one simply has not found it worth the time to challenge. At what is not being told us is that there is an option close by.

 

[theHawk]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

In war or soldiers are not ordered to kill unborn or babies.

As for capital punishment, putting to death someone guilty of murder isn't the same as killing an unborn child that has done nothing to merit a death sentence.

It's funny that you bring these points up, since it's your side that seems to want to give murderers a pass, but you openly advocate the killing of an unborn child.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

In war or soldiers are not ordered to kill unborn or babies.

As for capital punishment, putting to death someone guilty of murder isn't the same as killing an unborn child that has done nothing to merit a death sentence.

It's funny that you bring these points up, since it's your side that seems to want to give murderers a pass, but you openly advocate the killing of an unborn child.

This fails as a straw man fallacy, no one seeks to give murders a 'pass,' the notion is ridiculous demagoguery.

And abortion is not 'murder,' to state otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

You're entitled to your subjective belief that an embryo/fetus is a 'child,' although as a fact of Constitutional law it is not, and you're entitled to not have an abortion accordingly, but you're not entitled to seek to codify your subjective believe in violation of the Constitution and its case law.

 

[Contumacious]

[
Just a minute. Federal law is supreme ONLY when a state law is not already in place. .

Incorrect.

Federal Law is supreme if it is exercising a power SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED>

.

 

[theHawk]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

In war or soldiers are not ordered to kill unborn or babies.

As for capital punishment, putting to death someone guilty of murder isn't the same as killing an unborn child that has done nothing to merit a death sentence.

It's funny that you bring these points up, since it's your side that seems to want to give murderers a pass, but you openly advocate the killing of an unborn child.

This fails as a straw man fallacy, no one seeks to give murders a 'pass,' the notion is ridiculous demagoguery.

And abortion is not 'murder,' to state otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

You're entitled to your subjective belief that an embryo/fetus is a 'child,' although as a fact of Constitutional law it is not, and you're entitled to not have an abortion accordingly, but you're not entitled to seek to codify your subjective believe in violation of the Constitution and its case law.

According to "Constitutional law" an embryo/fetus is not a "child"? Where does it state that?

You know there have been many cases when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer has been charged and found guilty of murding two people. This seems to contradict your statement.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

Abortion is murder not healthcare. Obutthurt lied when he said abortions would not be covered just like he lies about everything. Us Christians are the ones who actually care about life unlike you lying libtards.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

In war or soldiers are not ordered to kill unborn or babies.

As for capital punishment, putting to death someone guilty of murder isn't the same as killing an unborn child that has done nothing to merit a death sentence.

It's funny that you bring these points up, since it's your side that seems to want to give murderers a pass, but you openly advocate the killing of an unborn child.

This fails as a straw man fallacy, no one seeks to give murders a 'pass,' the notion is ridiculous demagoguery.

And abortion is not 'murder,' to state otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

You're entitled to your subjective belief that an embryo/fetus is a 'child,' although as a fact of Constitutional law it is not, and you're entitled to not have an abortion accordingly, but you're not entitled to seek to codify your subjective believe in violation of the Constitution and its case law.

According to "Constitutional law" an embryo/fetus is not a "child"? Where does it state that?

You know there have been many cases when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer has been charged and found guilty of murding two people. This seems to contradict your statement.

alibtard wouldn't know the first thing about constitutional law.

 

[theHawk]

Is a fetus not a human being?
Is a fetus not alive?

How is it ignorant and unfounded to believe in the scientific fact that a fetus is alive and of the human species?

 

[Contumacious]

Just so you know, all you god fearing, mother loving, apple pie eating, girl you left knocked up back home christians.

IF you supported the War(s) in Afghanistan and Iraq then you do not support the non-existent "Right To Life" Surely you would know that the U.S. Military Actions in those countries killed many "Unborn".

IF you support Capital Punishment, you do not support the "Right To Life". Capital Punishment is nothing more and nothing less than State Sanctioned First Degree Murder.

In war or soldiers are not ordered to kill unborn or babies.

As for capital punishment, putting to death someone guilty of murder isn't the same as killing an unborn child that has done nothing to merit a death sentence.

It's funny that you bring these points up, since it's your side that seems to want to give murderers a pass, but you openly advocate the killing of an unborn child.

This fails as a straw man fallacy, no one seeks to give murders a 'pass,' the notion is ridiculous demagoguery.

And abortion is not 'murder,' to state otherwise is ignorant and unfounded.

You're entitled to your subjective belief that an embryo/fetus is a 'child,' although as a fact of Constitutional law it is not, and you're entitled to not have an abortion accordingly, but you're not entitled to seek to codify your subjective believe in violation of the Constitution and its case law.

According to "Constitutional law" an embryo/fetus is not a "child"? Where does it state that?

You know there have been many cases when a pregnant woman is murdered, the killer has been charged and found guilty of murding two people. This seems to contradict your statement.

the constitution only identifies the powers of the government.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

—from the Fourteenth Amendment.

it does not say those who are not yet born have rights