So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[postman]

And is based on the fact only congress can remove and judge a sitting president, and the federal constitution overrides all State Constitutions and laws.

We aren't talking removing a president from office. We're talking throwing a sitting president in jail for high crimes.

 

[postman]

Huh? Are you talking about a texan going to another state and having an abortion, and then texas punishing them when they return? Completely unconstitutional.

Not what the "activist" supreme court said.

 

[postman]

It doesnt have the words, but the right itself exists in other rights.

So it's not enumerated.

Thank You.

You still recognize it exists in the constitution.

 

[martybegan]

States are not required to treat documents issued from other states with full faith and credit.
Example: A concealed carry permit, or gun license in one state, does not have to be recognized by another.
Nor does a drivers license from one state, doesn't have to be recognized by another.
Unless the requirements for the same, exist in their state.

They should.

And Drivers licenses do carry over, regardless of differences in issuance.

Same for marriage licenses.

 

[martybegan]

We aren't talking removing a president from office. We're talking throwing a sitting president in jail for high crimes.

And the federal Constitution clearly states only the federal legislature can decide on that.

 

[jc456]

It's just as activist as when in Bush V Gore they interpreted Florida voting law, different than the way the Florida Supreme Court interpreted their own law.

The federal government is supposed to leave interpretation of state law, to the states.

in conclusion, we don't like to lose.

 

[jc456]

Yeah.

The revocation of abortion as a constitutional right.

a constitutional right to kill? hmmmmmmm way to step out.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Good. The ability to restrict speech will always be abused, and mostly by those on the left because they believe only their own views are valid.

That has little to do with anything, but I already figure you to be a big dummy. I get it. You are okay with undermining our self government by allowing campaigns unrestricted access to anonymous private, corporate and foreign funding to influence elections. It's been abused since day one, by democrats and especially by republicans. Without it the GOP wouldn't win elections.

 

[Catsnmeters]

a constitutional right to kill? hmmmmmmm way to step out.

Yep.

Regardless of your thots and feels, it was a constitutional right decided by a right wing court and then revoked by a different right wing court.

That is judicial activism.

 

[whitehall]

The Supreme Court does not "legislate from the bench", it determines the Constitutionality of laws and issues. It isn't about the Supreme Court but rather the left's distain for the Constitution that they view as an antiquated document rather than the Law of the Land.

 

[jc456]

Yep.

Regardless of your thots and feels, it was a constitutional right decided by a right wing court and then revoked by a different right wing court.

That is judicial activism.

never was it a constitutional right. Do you know what the constitution is? the court overstepped its boudaries and since that it has been corrected. Stop already with all your nonsense. tiring.

 

[TNHarley]

So it's not enumerated.

Thank You.

You still recognize it exists in the constitution.

Yes because the rights couldnt exist without the freedom to travel.

 

[TNHarley]

Yep.

Regardless of your thots and feels, it was a constitutional right decided by a right wing court and then revoked by a different right wing court.

That is judicial activism.

The first time it was, yes.

 

[TNHarley]

Not what the "activist" supreme court said.

The SC ruled on this?

 

[Catsnmeters]

If it was, why was there a limit on it? Hint: Because they made that shit up.

"If it was"?

Are you now denying it was a constitutional right?

The ninth amendment doesnt have much of a role in constitutional law. Do you know why? Because you can make that mean whatever in the hell you want it to mean.

Agreed, but it is relevant to this this thread and is relevant to the unenumerated rights we are discussing.

Hell, it was championed by the anti federalists ...which is basically what conservatives today pretend to support.

Read what I said again.

Ok. Still waiting for you to show that enumeration..

No, because the government is involved. The government cant discriminate against people. Well, it does every ******* day, but it shouldnt.

But it's still not in the constitution.

What does abortion have to do with privacy? Can i kill someone and it be private, and then i am protected? Jesus christ.

Read what I said again

You'll have to read the SCOTUS arguments for that. Should be easy to find.

Yes. Before roe v Wade was overturned, you could kill a fetus at differing levels of develooment depending on the state.

Ironically many Republicans want abortion laws highly reflective of those of middle eastern countries, Africa and south America.

With a few exceptions abortion rights are western 1st world country right.

At least y'all have some stuff in common with our middle eastern enemies.

Way to bridge the gap.

 

[Catsnmeters]

never was it a constitutional right. Do you know what the constitution is? the court overstepped its boudaries and since that has been corrected. Stop already with all your nonsense. tiring.

Yeah. Abortion was a constitutional right.

Why do you think red states didn't successfully ban abortion for 50 years? Lol.

 

[Catsnmeters]

The first time it was, yes.

Revoking 50 years of constitutional precedent based on an amendment in the bill of rights and it was activism the first time.

Yeah, ok.

You run with that.

 

[postman]

And the federal Constitution clearly states only the federal legislature can decide on that.

The Constitution doesn't enumerate any such right.
In fact the SCOTUS held 9-0 that a sitting president isn't immune for civil lawsuits.

 

[jc456]

Yeah. Abortion was a constitutional right.

Why do you think red states didn't successfully ban abortion for 50 years? Lol.

nope, it was not a right. sorry

 

[sartre play]

We always have had Supremes who leaned in one direction or the other,
In my life time Never have seen so much dishonesty displayed with such pride,