Supreme Court overturns Texas abortion law

[daws101]

Stuff like this might make a good case for repealing the 14th Amendment - we could get rid of abortion and gay marriage both in one shot.

Oh , I would LOVE to agree with that. But I think SCOTUS has became entirely too political.

Let's take THIS law for example.

IT was a 5-3 decision. it should have been 8-0. 3 judges stuck to their partisan beliefs. And that happens all too often, sometimes to the left sometimes to the right. Human nature obviously, but Supreme Court Justices should be above such nonsense. They should be able to say "okay I personally disagree with abortion/gun ownership, BUT that doesn't change the rights that people have"

And that is why no liberal should ever be in the WH. They are amoral.

morality is subjective ...you might want to look that up.

Morality is objective and universal, just like mathematics.

Spoken like a true authorization conservative.

As opposed to the left wing authoritarians who want to tax people for drinking soda LOL

Your point?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Stuff like this might make a good case for repealing the 14th Amendment - we could get rid of abortion and gay marriage both in one shot.

And that is why no liberal should ever be in the WH. They are amoral.

morality is subjective ...you might want to look that up.

Morality is objective and universal, just like mathematics.

Spoken like a true authorization conservative.

As opposed to the left wing authoritarians who want to tax people for drinking soda LOL

Your point?

Authoritarians exist on the left and the right.

 

[daws101]

Stuff like this might make a good case for repealing the 14th Amendment - we could get rid of abortion and gay marriage both in one shot.

morality is subjective ...you might want to look that up.

Morality is objective and universal, just like mathematics.

Spoken like a true authorization conservative.

As opposed to the left wing authoritarians who want to tax people for drinking soda LOL

Your point?

Authoritarians exist on the left and the right.

Golly! Captain obvious!

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Stuff like this might make a good case for repealing the 14th Amendment - we could get rid of abortion and gay marriage both in one shot.

Morality is objective and universal, just like mathematics.

Spoken like a true authorization conservative.

As opposed to the left wing authoritarians who want to tax people for drinking soda LOL

Your point?

Authoritarians exist on the left and the right.

Golly! Captain obvious!

Yes, also obvious that you and your compadres never have a bad word to say about them, only the ones on the right.

 

[daws101]

Spoken like a true authorization conservative.

As opposed to the left wing authoritarians who want to tax people for drinking soda LOL

Your point?

Authoritarians exist on the left and the right.

Golly! Captain obvious!

Yes, also obvious that you and your compadres never have a bad word to say about them, only the ones on the right.

Sheer bullshit!

 

[martybegan]

How the hell is a 3-6 month wait and a $1000 fine reasonable.

The Court found the regulations to be too burdensome, and an attempt to limit access in the Texas Abortion case. How is the NYC handgun law any different?

It would actually be hilarious if Texas passed an IDENTICAL law. 3-6 month waiting list and a $1000 application fee to obtain an abortion. Jillian's head would spin, no doubt.

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Fascist much?

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

It would actually be hilarious if Texas passed an IDENTICAL law. 3-6 month waiting list and a $1000 application fee to obtain an abortion. Jillian's head would spin, no doubt.

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Fascist much?

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

 

[martybegan]

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Fascist much?

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Fascist much?

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

A right doesn't SPECIFICALLY have to be listed in the COTUS to exist. The fact is, much as gun grabbers hate it that even in the 2nd did NOT exist, we would still have the right to own a firearm. The 2nd doesn't give us that right, it merely ensures that the government can not infringe. As compared to say the right to abortion, there actually is no specific constitonal protection of that right, the court has created the protection, and that is the way our system was designed. The government tries to infringe on a right and the Court says "nope, you can't do that" that doesn't mean the Court created a right, the right was already there, all the Court did was confirm that the government can't infringe.

 

[martybegan]

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

A right doesn't SPECIFICALLY have to be listed in the COTUS to exist. The fact is, much as gun grabbers hate it that even in the 2nd did NOT exist, we would still have the right to own a firearm. The 2nd doesn't give us that right, it merely ensures that the government can not infringe. As compared to say the right to abortion, there actually is no specific constitonal protection of that right, the court has created the protection, and that is the way our system was designed. The government tries to infringe on a right and the Court says "nope, you can't do that" that doesn't mean the Court created a right, the right was already there, all the Court did was confirm that the government can't infringe.

I don't see where in the system it says a court can create a protected right. To me that was why the amendment process was created. Why does the word of a court, an un-elected one at that, supersede the will of the people via State legislatures?

My issue is a selfish one, because to me a court that can say "Hey! this is a right protected by the constitution!" can just as easily say "well the constitution says this, BUT it really didn't mean it, no rights for you!"

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Major false comparison.

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

A right doesn't SPECIFICALLY have to be listed in the COTUS to exist. The fact is, much as gun grabbers hate it that even in the 2nd did NOT exist, we would still have the right to own a firearm. The 2nd doesn't give us that right, it merely ensures that the government can not infringe. As compared to say the right to abortion, there actually is no specific constitonal protection of that right, the court has created the protection, and that is the way our system was designed. The government tries to infringe on a right and the Court says "nope, you can't do that" that doesn't mean the Court created a right, the right was already there, all the Court did was confirm that the government can't infringe.

I don't see where in the system it says a court can create a protected right. To me that was why the amendment process was created. Why does the word of a court, an un-elected one at that, supersede the will of the people via State legislatures?

My issue is a selfish one, because to me a court that can say "Hey! this is a right protected by the constitution!" can just as easily say "well the constitution says this, BUT it really didn't mean it, no rights for you!"

well, as I've written before, the COTUS was NOT meant to apply to states. That's just a fact. The fact is that at the time of the writing of the COTUS, for example, many of the states in fact had official religions. Many of the states outlawed carrying guns in city limits, etc etc. Incorporation was a mistake IMO, but one that isn't going to be undone now. And that is how the federal Court system started over ruling state legislators.

 

[jillian]

How the hell is a 3-6 month wait and a $1000 fine reasonable.

The Court found the regulations to be too burdensome, and an attempt to limit access in the Texas Abortion case. How is the NYC handgun law any different?

It would actually be hilarious if Texas passed an IDENTICAL law. 3-6 month waiting list and a $1000 application fee to obtain an abortion. Jillian's head would spin, no doubt.

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Fascist much?

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

he's kind of a moron. whatchagonnado?

 

[martybegan]

Not at all. the claim about the Texas law is that its true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for Doctors to perform abortions. The NYC law's true purpose is to make it as difficult as possible for someone to legally own a handgun. Its actually a perfect comparison, the difference is you support one right, and not the other.

To me both are equally wrong if you accept abortion as being a constitutionally protected right.

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

A right doesn't SPECIFICALLY have to be listed in the COTUS to exist. The fact is, much as gun grabbers hate it that even in the 2nd did NOT exist, we would still have the right to own a firearm. The 2nd doesn't give us that right, it merely ensures that the government can not infringe. As compared to say the right to abortion, there actually is no specific constitonal protection of that right, the court has created the protection, and that is the way our system was designed. The government tries to infringe on a right and the Court says "nope, you can't do that" that doesn't mean the Court created a right, the right was already there, all the Court did was confirm that the government can't infringe.

I don't see where in the system it says a court can create a protected right. To me that was why the amendment process was created. Why does the word of a court, an un-elected one at that, supersede the will of the people via State legislatures?

My issue is a selfish one, because to me a court that can say "Hey! this is a right protected by the constitution!" can just as easily say "well the constitution says this, BUT it really didn't mean it, no rights for you!"

well, as I've written before, the COTUS was NOT meant to apply to states. That's just a fact. The fact is that at the time of the writing of the COTUS, for example, many of the states in fact had official religions. Many of the states outlawed carrying guns in city limits, etc etc. Incorporation was a mistake IMO, but one that isn't going to be undone now. And that is how the federal Court system started over ruling state legislators.

Incorporation is the only way enumerated rights can be protected from States that don't accept them. The mistake is letting Courts creating things out of thin air just because 5 of 9 lawyers decide something is a good idea. As a United States Citizen, I have a RKBA, and no State can take that away from me without due process.

 

[jillian]

I see! So it's okay for abortion clinics to give substandard care to liberal women. I can handle that.

You really don't believe that garbage do you?

You just meet wacky willow? She believes all manner of garbage

I don't believe you and you are garbage. So, there's that.

probably because you have an IQ of 20, willow ijit.

 

[martybegan]

It would actually be hilarious if Texas passed an IDENTICAL law. 3-6 month waiting list and a $1000 application fee to obtain an abortion. Jillian's head would spin, no doubt.

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Fascist much?

Hey, to get a revolver in NYC for keeping at home its $1000 and 3-6 months. I'm being more than fair.

Major false comparison.

he's kind of a moron. whatchagonnado?

My point is valid, its just your stubborn partisanship that prevents you from seeing it.

And also, my IQ vs yours any day of the week.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

And further, you MUST accept that BOTH are protected rights. You don't have to agree with them, you merely have to accept the facts.

That's what both instances boil down to, many on the left do not want gun ownership to be a protected right, and many on the right do not want abortion to be a protected right. Both those groups need to get the **** over it.

It does humor me though that a large portion of the left believes regulating gun ownership is just fine, but dont you dare try to regulate abortions....................

Actually, it saddens me.

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

A right doesn't SPECIFICALLY have to be listed in the COTUS to exist. The fact is, much as gun grabbers hate it that even in the 2nd did NOT exist, we would still have the right to own a firearm. The 2nd doesn't give us that right, it merely ensures that the government can not infringe. As compared to say the right to abortion, there actually is no specific constitonal protection of that right, the court has created the protection, and that is the way our system was designed. The government tries to infringe on a right and the Court says "nope, you can't do that" that doesn't mean the Court created a right, the right was already there, all the Court did was confirm that the government can't infringe.

I don't see where in the system it says a court can create a protected right. To me that was why the amendment process was created. Why does the word of a court, an un-elected one at that, supersede the will of the people via State legislatures?

My issue is a selfish one, because to me a court that can say "Hey! this is a right protected by the constitution!" can just as easily say "well the constitution says this, BUT it really didn't mean it, no rights for you!"

well, as I've written before, the COTUS was NOT meant to apply to states. That's just a fact. The fact is that at the time of the writing of the COTUS, for example, many of the states in fact had official religions. Many of the states outlawed carrying guns in city limits, etc etc. Incorporation was a mistake IMO, but one that isn't going to be undone now. And that is how the federal Court system started over ruling state legislators.

Incorporation is the only way enumerated rights can be protected from States that don't accept them. The mistake is letting Courts creating things out of thin air just because 5 of 9 lawyers decide something is a good idea. As a United States Citizen, I have a RKBA, and no State can take that away from me without due process.

The COTUS was never meant to protect states from violating rights, that's the point.

 

[WillowTree]

I see! So it's okay for abortion clinics to give substandard care to liberal women. I can handle that.

You really don't believe that garbage do you?

You just meet wacky willow? She believes all manner of garbage

I don't believe you and you are garbage. So, there's that.

probably because you have an IQ of 20, willow ijit.

And it still beats yours asshole.

 

[Witchit]

It would actually be hilarious if Texas passed an IDENTICAL law. 3-6 month waiting list and a $1000 application fee to obtain an abortion. Jillian's head would spin, no doubt.

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Piss off

No. Just as per usual you're an idiot who cares nothing about the rights of others.

So. I reiterate.

I actually do care about the rights of others, even rights I don't agree with. That is the difference between me and you.

My main issue is when rights are created out of thin air, that defeat the concept of federalism. People that create fake rights can just as easily deny real ones.

Nope. You care nothing about the rights of others, and somehow you've led yourself to believe that women give a shit what you think or how you feel. Now THAT'S delusional.

 

[martybegan]

To me RKBA has far more standing as an explicitly protected right, compared to abortion which is a right only in the minds of the SC justices who created it. I just don't see the document enshrining it as a protected right. That doesn't mean I want to ban abortion, it just means I don't see why places like Alabama can't do it if their State legislatures decide they want to do it.

A right doesn't SPECIFICALLY have to be listed in the COTUS to exist. The fact is, much as gun grabbers hate it that even in the 2nd did NOT exist, we would still have the right to own a firearm. The 2nd doesn't give us that right, it merely ensures that the government can not infringe. As compared to say the right to abortion, there actually is no specific constitonal protection of that right, the court has created the protection, and that is the way our system was designed. The government tries to infringe on a right and the Court says "nope, you can't do that" that doesn't mean the Court created a right, the right was already there, all the Court did was confirm that the government can't infringe.

I don't see where in the system it says a court can create a protected right. To me that was why the amendment process was created. Why does the word of a court, an un-elected one at that, supersede the will of the people via State legislatures?

My issue is a selfish one, because to me a court that can say "Hey! this is a right protected by the constitution!" can just as easily say "well the constitution says this, BUT it really didn't mean it, no rights for you!"

well, as I've written before, the COTUS was NOT meant to apply to states. That's just a fact. The fact is that at the time of the writing of the COTUS, for example, many of the states in fact had official religions. Many of the states outlawed carrying guns in city limits, etc etc. Incorporation was a mistake IMO, but one that isn't going to be undone now. And that is how the federal Court system started over ruling state legislators.

Incorporation is the only way enumerated rights can be protected from States that don't accept them. The mistake is letting Courts creating things out of thin air just because 5 of 9 lawyers decide something is a good idea. As a United States Citizen, I have a RKBA, and no State can take that away from me without due process.

The COTUS was never meant to protect states from violating rights, that's the point.

Once the 14th amendment was passed, the Feds gave themselves interest in what States can and cannot do when it comes to the Rights of US Citizens, and to me that means enumerated rights.

 

[martybegan]

To be fair, Abortion is a bit more time sensitive. I would be happy with a 2 week waiting period, and a $250 fee.

and if you want to have your abortion outside your home, you have to go to the local sheriff and show why you need one.

Piss off

No. Just as per usual you're an idiot who cares nothing about the rights of others.

So. I reiterate.

I actually do care about the rights of others, even rights I don't agree with. That is the difference between me and you.

My main issue is when rights are created out of thin air, that defeat the concept of federalism. People that create fake rights can just as easily deny real ones.

Nope. You care nothing about the rights of others, and somehow you've led yourself to believe that women give a shit what you think or how you feel. Now THAT'S delusional.

Where have I singled out "Women" as a object of my postings? I post my opinions, and I am entitled to them, and to express them despite your views about it.