Too harsh! Trump suggests Desantis' 6 week abortion law went too far

It wasn't a new point. It was the same point.

Or it's evident how strongly activist these judges are.


It was a proper constitutional ruling. Even if you think otherwise.

Where we go is it is now states rights.

Trump's suggestion is irrelevant.
You are one of the very few people that I've discussed this subject with that thinks Roe V Wade was a good constitutional ruling... in fact its been years since I've heard anyone argue that point....
Like I said you are thinking with emotion not legal facts and wisdom....
I'm not going to talk you out from your stubbornness because you have such an attachment to your outdated opinion....
 
You are one of the very few people that I've discussed this subject with that thinks Roe V Wade was a good constitutional ruling... in fact its been years since I've heard anyone argue that point....
Like I said you are thinking with emotion not legal facts and wisdom....

Thanks for sharing your personal anecdote as legal a reason for Roe v Wade.

I'm not going to talk you out from your stubbornness because you have such an attachment to your outdated opinion....
No problem. Have a good rest of your weekend.
 
I don't need to. I am very familiar with the 9th amendment

“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the court's 6-3 decision.
 
“The Constitution does not confer a right to abortion; Roe and Casey are overruled; and the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives,” wrote Justice Samuel Alito in the court's 6-3 decision.
I am aware. You are not adding anything new to the debate. It's interesting that alito would completely disregard the 9th amendment in his ruling.

I wonder if that means he will support overturning the right to marriage, travel and presumption of innocence.

Do you think the courts should pretend the 9th amendment doesn't exist and those should be overturned and left to the states because "the constitution does not confer a right.."

Here is what James Madison had to say...unless you think he was an activist?

"The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives."

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."


So here we have a founding father essentially rejecting Alito's opinion. Interesting don't you say?
 
Agree. The religious nuts calling fetuses younger than 8 weeks late a "baby" have lost their marbles.
Religious nuts are a threat to the party.
Exactly who are you calling "religious nuts?" The Bible observes that God knows us when we are first conceived, and it says so in both the Old and the New testaments. Aborting a baby, a man spilling his seeds, and other beliefs about activities resulting in a new life are there. People who believe the Bible is a key to acceptable behaviors are not "religious nuts." The very first Amendment the founders gave us is specifically with re to religious freedom.
 
Exactly who are you calling "religious nuts?" The Bible observes that God knows us when we are first conceived, and it says so in both the Old and the New testaments. Aborting a baby, a man spilling his seeds, and other beliefs about activities resulting in a new life are there. People who believe the Bible is a key to acceptable behaviors are not "religious nuts." The very first Amendment the founders gave us is specifically with re to religious freedom.
You worship a false diety.

I will pray for you to find truth.

That said, the man made book you call the bible also has a recipe to abort an unfaithful woman.
 
Everything that I've read says at 10 weeks nearly all fetuses have a heartbeat, so 10 seems like a reasonable limit.

Agree 💯.

And those who are out to ban the morning after pill have lost the plot IMO.

If you make a mistake and can attempt to fix in the next few days... That's the responsible thing to do.
 
I am aware. You are not adding anything new to the debate. It's interesting that alito would completely disregard the 9th amendment in his ruling.

I wonder if that means he will support overturning the right to marriage, travel and presumption of innocence.

Do you think the courts should pretend the 9th amendment doesn't exist and those should be overturned and left to the states because "the constitution does not confer a right.."

Here is what James Madison had to say...unless you think he was an activist?

"The Federalists contended that a bill of rights was unnecessary. They responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing that, inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights, it would be dangerous to list some and thereby lend support to the argument that government was unrestrained as to those rights not listed. 1 Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives."

"It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."


So here we have a founding father essentially rejecting Alito's opinion. Interesting don't you say?
Show me and Justice Alito where there is a constitutional guarantee to an abortion.
 
Show me and Justice Alito where there is a constitutional guarantee to an abortion.
It was in the 9th amendment between the right to travel and presumption of innocence until activist judges struck down 50 years of precedent.
 
It was in the 9th amendment between the right to travel and presumption of innocence until activist judges struck down 50 years of precedent.
Activist judges created the problem.........Like RBG commented on the way it should have been accomplished, and Alito said....
 

Forum List

Back
Top