Lesh
Diamond Member
- Dec 21, 2016
- 82,885
- 41,452
- 2,615
What these creeps CLAIMED was that they recognized the PRECEDENTYeah, Roe sucked, the current Court recognized this and corrected the error.
They lied
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What these creeps CLAIMED was that they recognized the PRECEDENTYeah, Roe sucked, the current Court recognized this and corrected the error.
Hardly, they recognized the precedent existed, they did not proclaim it was the right precedent nor etched in stone for eternity. Either way, done is done. We will be moving on. You folks can cry to your heart's content.What these creeps CLAIMED was that they recognized the PRECEDENT
They lied
HorseshitHardly, they recognized the precedent existed, they did not proclaim it was the right precedent nor etched in stone for eternity. Either way, done is done. We will be moving on. You folks can cry to your heart's content.
No it doesn't. Get over it, whining won't change anything.Horseshit
Recognizing precedent means you will follow that precedent
Idiot
Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.No it doesn't. Get over it, whining won't change anything.
So yesterday didn't happen? At least you can stop crying now.Precedent refers to a court decision that is considered as authority for deciding subsequent cases involving identical or similar facts, or similar legal issues. Precedent is incorporated into the doctrine of stare decisis and requires courts to apply the law in the same manner to cases with the same facts.
You're an idiot
Following precedent or recognizing it means to use it to inform subsequent rulings
Initiate violence? That’s exactly what the 2nd amendment allows lol.
Here, let me quote Rothbard for you, and then you go sit in the corner with your dunce hat on after which you remove "libertarian" from your avatar. Dumbass.
Twitter LinkedIn Email
By Martin van Staden
19 June 2015
3 2548 4
Email Address
Subscribe for Article Updates
![]()
“Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example, declares that all that he wants for the fetus is the rights of any human being—i.e., the right not to be murdered. But there is more involved here, and this is the crucial consideration. If we are to treat the fetus as having the same rights as humans, then let us ask: What human has the right to remain, unbidden, as an unwanted parasite within some other human being’s body? This is the nub of the issue: the absolute right of every person and hence every woman, to the ownership of her own body. What the mother is doing in an abortion is causing an unwanted entity within her body to be ejected from it: If the fetus dies, this does not rebut the point that no being has a right to live, unbidden, as a parasite within or upon some person’s body.
The common retort that the mother either originally wanted or at least was responsible for placing the fetus within her body is, again, beside the point. Even in the stronger case where the mother originally wanted the child, the mother, as the property owner in her own body, has the right to change her mind and to eject it.”
![]()
Murray Rothbard on Abortion (For a New Liberty) - Rational Standard
“Most discussion of the issue bogs down in minutiae about when human life begins, when or if the fetus can be considered to be alive, etc. All this is really irrelevant to the issue of the legality (again, not necessarily the morality) of abortion. The Catholic antiabortionist, for example...rationalstandard.com
And you still could not be forced get one, even under the state of a pandemic emergency....you could resist and not be jailed.....it was not a criminal offense to resist, ..... though if a doctor or nurse etc, you could lose your job....![]()
No you’re wrong and nothing will change that lol
It's you libtards who sound stupid and juvenile on any subject.Do you realize how stupid and juvenile you sound being so obsessed guns?
Let us know when you pull your head out of your ass.Let us know what happens and how you’ll feel when you get a fling or non serious girlfriend pregnant unintentionally.
No it is about the Constitution that says 0 about abortion that is why control was returned to the states. You have no respect for the rule of law along with the assholes you support.Overturning Roe was never about ‘abortion’ – it was about destroying the 14th Amendment caselaw that stood in the way of conservatives establishing the tyranny of Republican minority rule.
Why are lefties so afraid of democracy?
No, you're wrong and I proved you're wrong with empirical evidence. You leftists just can't stand the truth. Truth to a leftist is like a cross to Dracula.
And if it fails?Correct, there are options to almost everything, such as if you don't like this ruling, then have protected sex. See how simple that was?
It's always a potential consequence, accepting responsibility is a big step in becoming an adult.And if it fails?
Fucktard leftie liar. ^^^Don't be ridiculous. The 6 justices gave an OPINION based on their religious objection to abortion. As we know from Scalia pretending rulings are based on constitutional principles is a farce.
It's always a potential consequence, accepting responsibility is a big step in becoming an adult.