What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The Law Or A Personal Agenda

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
The Right, the former,.....the Left, the latter.

1. We on the Right are 'originalists' when it comes to the Constitution: we believe it means what it says.
“The originalism looks to the original public-meaning of the Constitution and its amendments at the time they were enacted. The meaning of the Constitution must remain the same, until it is properly changed. And it cannot be changed unilaterally by the courts, or even by courts acting in conjunction with other branches of government.”
Professor Randy Barnett, in “Originalism,” Calabrisi, p. 262.


2. The Left ignores the Constitution and simply institutes its social policies.
“The power to assert that the Constitution prohibits any policy choice of which they disapprove has enabled the justices to make themselves the final lawmakers on any public policy issue that they choose to remove from the ordinary political process and to assign for decision to themselves.

the Court now performs in the American system of government a role similar to that performed by the Grand Council of Ayatollahs in the Iranian system: voting takes place and representatives of the people are elected as lawmakers, but the decisions they reach on basic issues of social policy are permitted to prevail only so long as they are not disallowed by the system’s highest authority. The major difference is that the ayatollahs act as a conservative force, while the effect of the Supreme Court’s interventions is almost always—as on every one of the issues just mentioned—to challenge, reverse, and overthrow traditional American practices and values.” Professor Lino Graglia https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/0817946020_1.pdf


3. And that is why the Democrats/Leftists are so incensed that originalism prevailed in the Dobbs case, with the court reporting that no where in the Constitution do we find an excuse for a national abortion policy.
Thanks to Trump, enough of the Justices hew to the text of the Constitution, specifically the 10th amendment and sent control of the issue, abortion, to the states.



4. The first lie is that the Court "overturned" Roe v Wade.

Roe v Wade Overturned: What It Means, What's Next

https://www.american.edu › ... › News
Jun 29, 2022 — On Friday, June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the landmark piece of legislation that made access to an abortion a ...


The second lie is in the "What's Next."
 

rightwinger

Award Winning USMB Paid Messageboard Poster
Joined
Aug 4, 2009
Messages
254,613
Reaction score
74,730
Points
2,190
Good
Then lets form well regulated militias

The Constitution demands it
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY

5. “Kamala LIES about Justice Clarence Thomas opinion in the Dobbs decision [VIDEO]

Kamala today claimed that Justice Clarence Thomas ‘said the quiet part out loud’ in his concurring opinion in the Dobbs decision and that these justices are planning to take away same-sex marriage and the right to contraception.


 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
6. Thomas says that Substantive due process ( the principle that the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments protect fundamental rights from government interference.) applies to

“The notion that a constitutional provision that guarantees only ‘process’ before a person is deprived of life, liberty, or property could define the substance of those rights strains credulity for even the most casual user of words.” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 811 (2010)

The resolution of this case is thus straightforward. Because the Due Process Clause does not secure any substantive rights, it does not secure a right to abortion.” Kamala LIES about Justice Clarence Thomas opinion in the Dobbs decision [VIDEO]
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
7. “Thomas then goes on to concur with Alito that this decision doesn’t have any effect on Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell.

But he does say that in the future the court should reconsider their decisions based on substantive due process, namely Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. Then, he says, the court should weigh the question of whether the constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage and contraception.

Thomas is NOT saying these so-called ‘rights’ should be taken away. He’s not even indicating a preference on one side or the other in these issues. Thomas is simply attacking the substantive due process doctrine that the court has used in these cases.

Kamala is just lie Biden, a liar and a fool.”
Kamala LIES about Justice Clarence Thomas opinion in the Dobbs decision [VIDEO]
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
8. The fear the Democrats are pushing is that the Court will use the principle in Dobbs to attack

Griswold (the right to contraception)

Obergefell (same-sex marriage)

Loving (interracial marriage)

Lawrence (consensual sex acts)



Heaven forfend that these are no longer in America’s description.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
9. Democrats and their media will lie as they did in Russia Collusion, to claim that the abortion decision will lead to the overturning of the gay marriage decision and the right to birth control.

These claims represent Rule #1 Every argument from Democrats and Liberals is a misrepresentation, a fabrication, or a bald-faced lie.




The abortion ruling was based on the 10th amendment, it is the prerogative of the states to decide, not the federal government.

Gay marriage decision was based on an entirely different portion of the Constitution: the 14th amendment, the equal rights provision.




10. The Democrats will claim that the court will disallow birth control as decided in Griswold...

The Griswold Decision on allowing birth control….
Connecticut (1965) In Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), the Supreme Court invalidated a Connecticut law that made it a crime to use birth control devices or to advise anyone about their use.
Griswold v. Connecticut | The First Amendment Encyclopedia
https://www.mtsu.edu › first-amendment › article › griswo...



…..it was based on states overstepping their authority: the states had no compelling government interest in deciding whether folks had a right to birth control.

The abortion decision would not lead to disallowing gay marriage or birth control by citizens.
 
OP
PoliticalChic

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
124,505
Reaction score
59,386
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
11. The courts have been infested by Progressives who will not abide by the values and heritage of this once great nation.


The Court has become the “ultimate law-giver on most of the basic issues of domestic social policy,” and these are the “issues that determine the basic values, nature, and quality of a society.” Racial and gender equality are denied by decisions favoring affirmative action and group identity while an egregiously broad scope for personal autonomy undercuts legitimate community desires for a degree of order and morality.

The undercutting takes several forms: the creation of unjustified restraints on the criminal justice system that make policing, prosecution, and punishment difficult, often inordinately delayed, and sometimes impossible; disapproval of laws reinforcing morality, particularly in sexual matters, to the detriment of marriage, families, and the traditional moral order; virulent antagonism to public displays of religion; and, in a stunning inversion of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech, protection of the worst forms of pornography and vulgarity but approval of even prior restraints on political speech, historically the heart of the Amendment. Graglia’s comprehensive indictment is entirely justified.
The contest is one between democracy and oligarchy, and for half a century the oligarchs have been winning.”
Bork, “A Country I Do Not Recognize”




It is hard to see a future for America.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top