The use of historical evidence to determine constitutional rights

[FA_Q2]

how does it not? what went over your head?

No, it simply addresses nothing whatsoever. I made no claim about amendments and making them is not relevant.

I made a simple point, the right opened the door for ignoring past rulings in the same manner about things that the liberal justices have thought for decades were not sound rulings.

It seems THAT has gone over your head completely. Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

When a state does this, let us know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I made a simple point, the right opened the door for ignoring past rulings in the same manner about things that the liberal justices have thought for decades were not sound rulings.

The USSC did not ignore Roe.

 

[struth]

No, it simply addresses nothing whatsoever. I made no claim about amendments and making them is not relevant.

I made a simple point, the right opened the door for ignoring past rulings in the same manner about things that the liberal justices have thought for decades were not sound rulings.

It seems THAT has gone over your head completely. Try again.

liberal justices could always do that same review in regards to sub due process rights

 

[Nostra]

There are already laws being passed banning birth control on the grounds it contributes to "immoral behaviour". Like there was no pre-marital sex or abortions BEFORE both were available.

Link to these laws being passed Dragonlady

 

[Nostra]

This Court has lost all legitimacy. Three of the Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in regards precedent and "settled law". It was bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and their "dark money" donors. Another plank in the authoritarian structure these theocrats have been building for decades.

Nobody lied in their confirmation hearings, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

Clarence has already suggested as much.

Alito wrote the majority decision, and he clearly stated this has no bearing on birth control, marriage, etc.

Regurgitating Dimtard talking point bullshit makes you look stupid.

 

[Nostra]

Not when Roe was overturned simply because it was not an enumerated right. That same standard will have to be applied to everything otherwise they’re simply hacks acting politically.

Cool. All Federal gun laws should be shitcanned then. The Second Amendment only confirms the inherent, God given write of the people to keep and bear arms, and bans the Federal Government from infringing on the inherent, God given right.

 

[Resnic]

I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?

They won't, and even for you that's really trying to reach for something to spin a hypothetical scenario in order to diss someone you don't like.

No links, no facts, just some random and far fetched idea that doesn't really mean anything and is based on absolutely nothing.

 

[bendog]

This is true but what makes you think that such matters?

The real point here is that the right leaning court overturned something that had been established for 50 years and was a considered by the left not only settled constitutional protections but also fundamental.

What makes you think the left is going to care one iota how well established the second is? If they ever manage to get 5 seats or they simply pack the court directly, they will absolutely overturn gun rights. The fact that the Row decision's reasoning will not apply is not really relevant as it is not the reasoning that brings the second into question here but rather the mere fact a precedent like this was overturned in the first place. That they overturned something that the left felt was firm win for them already is enough IMHO. The reasoning will come after.


It is not as though the left judges on the court have not already voiced their opinion on how the second is not a right whatsoever. They do that with every single gun challenge that comes before the court. The real problem here is that overturning Row gives the future court the cover to revisit almost anything. This is the problem with revisiting things like this, the idea of legal continuity is essentially gone and fights over what is and is not a constitutional right can now persist forever."

I hadn't considered the Second. But you're right. The result of Dobbs is that it is now "unsettled" as to whether the the well regulated militia clause limits gun ownership to military service and specifically state guard units

And this isn't good.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I hadn't considered the Second. But you're right. The result of Dobbs is that it is now "unsettled" as to whether the the well regulated militia clause limits gun ownership to military service and specifically state guard units
And this isn't good.

Not really.
Roe was decided on 'emanations from the penumbras' of a number of rights in the constitution - and thus, 2 drgrees of separation from same. Dobbs overturned this under the argument that if you have to go that far to find a right, it doesn't exist
Heller, was decided based on a right specifically protected by the literal text of the constitution.
Apples/oranges

 

[Nostra]

I hadn't considered the Second. But you're right. The result of Dobbs is that it is now "unsettled" as to whether the the well regulated militia clause limits gun ownership to military service and specifically state guard units

And this isn't good.

Nope. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with a militia.

Not sure why Dimwingers only want to use a portion of the 2A.

 

[bendog]

Not really.
Roe was decided on 'emanations from the penumbras' of a number of rights in the constitution - and thus, 2 drgrees of separation from same. Dobbs overturned this under the argument that if you have to go that far to find a right, it doesn't exist
Heller, was decided based on a right specifically protected by the literal text of the constitution.
Apples/oranges

You don't have any idea what "fundamental" rights the Court has found under privacy. Marriage, procreation, contraception to the list.

But that's not really the story. Alito found 50 years of a right existing is not stare decisis, yet his opinion did not focus what is different now than then.

 

[FA_Q2]

Not really.
Roe was decided on 'emanations from the penumbras' of a number of rights in the constitution - and thus, 2 drgrees of separation from same. Dobbs overturned this under the argument that if you have to go that far to find a right, it doesn't exist
Heller, was decided based on a right specifically protected by the literal text of the constitution.
Apples/oranges

Again, not relevant.

If you think that the left leaning judges are not going to find reasons that remove limits on their pet project after the conservatives have done so with Roe and 50 years of stare decisis then you are willfully ignoring the obvious. They already did this in every one of those decisions and now they have no reason to abide by the precedent set by this court. If they ever get control of the court back it will take a nanosecond for them to throw out all the latest court rulings over the last decade and any more that the court will pass in the coming years that affirm gun rights. It would be silly to expect otherwise.

Why is this so difficult for those on the right to understand? It is not only simple, it is glaringly obvious.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, not relevant.
If you think that the left leaning judges are not going to find reasons that remove limits on their pet project...

The liberals plan to do this anyway - they did not need the reversal of Roe as any sort of precedent or excuse.
Why is this so difficult for those on the left to understand? It is not only simple, it is glaringly obvious.

 

[FA_Q2]

The liberals plan to do this anyway - they did not need the reversal of Roe as any sort of precedent or excuse.
Why is this so difficult for those on the left to understand? It is not only simple, it is glaringly obvious.

Because it is not in evidence.

It is a nice try though. And you are not talking to a liberal either but your glasses seem to prevent you from understanding that as well.


You can claim the counterfactual, but you have nothing to show that such a claim has any connection with reality.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because it is not in evidence.

What's not in evidence?
The left;s intent to overturn Heller, et al?
The left's hostility toward the the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[FA_Q2]

What's not in evidence?
The left;s intent to overturn Heller, et al?
The left's hostility toward the the right to keep and bear arms?

The left's intent to ignore decades of stare decisis.

Stare decisis that the court is establishing right now.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The left's intent to ignore decades of stare decisis.

Which is necessarily attached to their intent to overturn Heller, regardless of what happened to Roe.

And so:
What's not in evidence?
The left;s intent to overturn Heller, et al?
The left's hostility toward the the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[dblack]

I didn't say one was.

You have to spell it out. If they can just dumb up and pretend to misunderstand, they will.