The GOP Nanny State and the Right’s Contempt for the Constitution

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Dred Scott.

Brown v Board of Education

Are you suggesting that school desegregation is bad constitutional law?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

“Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT

As with the invalidated Texas law, the Ohio measure likewise constitutes an undue burden to the right to privacy.

Yet Republicans passed this law repugnant to the Constitution in spite of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence that is beyond dispute.

Such is the right’s contempt for the rule of law.

There is nothing, anywhere in the Constitution, that credibly supports a “right” to kill unborn children in cold blood. Nothing. Roe Vs. Wade was a corrupt and evil ruling, by a corrupt court, that twisted and perverted the Constitution in order to claim that it supported something that it very clearly does not. It's bizarre how those of you on the left wrong can get the courts to make up “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned, implied, or even suggested by the actual text of the Constitution, while dismissing and denying rights which are explicitly affirmed and protected in the Constitution.

If there is anything that shows contempt for the rule of law, it is this—twisting the highest law to mean what you want it to mean, in opposition to taking it to mean what it clearly says.

When Ruth Ginzberg dies,,,soon we hope, Trump will give us a liberal proof court and convenience abortion will be banned from America forever.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

“Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT

As with the invalidated Texas law, the Ohio measure likewise constitutes an undue burden to the right to privacy.

Yet Republicans passed this law repugnant to the Constitution in spite of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence that is beyond dispute.

Such is the right’s contempt for the rule of law.

There is nothing, anywhere in the Constitution, that credibly supports a “right” to kill unborn children in cold blood. Nothing. Roe Vs. Wade was a corrupt and evil ruling, by a corrupt court, that twisted and perverted the Constitution in order to claim that it supported something that it very clearly does not. It's bizarre how those of you on the left wrong can get the courts to make up “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned, implied, or even suggested by the actual text of the Constitution, while dismissing and denying rights which are explicitly affirmed and protected in the Constitution.

If there is anything that shows contempt for the rule of law, it is this—twisting the highest law to mean what you want it to mean, in opposition to taking it to mean what it clearly says.

When Ruth Ginzberg dies,,,soon we hope, Trump will give us a liberal proof court and convenience abortion will be banned from America forever.

Don't go that far. If an entire next generation has to be killed off, if it is the liberal generation would that really be so painful?

 

[Harry Dresden]

“Both the admitting-privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH v. HELLERSTEDT

As with the invalidated Texas law, the Ohio measure likewise constitutes an undue burden to the right to privacy.

Yet Republicans passed this law repugnant to the Constitution in spite of settled, accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence that is beyond dispute.

Such is the right’s contempt for the rule of law.

There is nothing, anywhere in the Constitution, that credibly supports a “right” to kill unborn children in cold blood. Nothing. Roe Vs. Wade was a corrupt and evil ruling, by a corrupt court, that twisted and perverted the Constitution in order to claim that it supported something that it very clearly does not. It's bizarre how those of you on the left wrong can get the courts to make up “Constitutional rights” that are nowhere mentioned, implied, or even suggested by the actual text of the Constitution, while dismissing and denying rights which are explicitly affirmed and protected in the Constitution.

If there is anything that shows contempt for the rule of law, it is this—twisting the highest law to mean what you want it to mean, in opposition to taking it to mean what it clearly says.

When Ruth Ginzberg dies,,,soon we hope, Trump will give us a liberal proof court and convenience abortion will be banned from America forever.

Don't go that far. If an entire next generation has to be killed off, if it is the liberal generation would that really be so painful?

it wouldnt be so bad if people like you were killed off too....

 

[JOSweetHeart]

Just stop the Constitutional argument. There is nothing in the Constitution about killing children. Be honest. You want to end these lives because they are inconvenient, make you sad or you really wanted a boy.

I am all for liberals killing off their own next generation. Just don't say there is some constitutional authority for the murders.

Amen to this.

God bless you always!!!

Holly