MAGA Macho Man
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #461
If it's on the ballot it can, like before.A simple majority cannot vote to take away your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
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.
If it's on the ballot it can, like before.A simple majority cannot vote to take away your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
The Court has been political longer than that – Eisenhower regretting appointing Earl Warren Chief Justice, who was instrumental in a unanimous Brown decision ending segregation.I lost that sense of right and wrong in the SC in 2000
It's been political since then...maybe it always was
Wrong.A simple majority cannot vote to take away your constitutionally guaranteed rights.
My body, my right. God gave ME, free will. No man has the right to take it away.
I live in a country where abortion is a medical decision I make with my doctor. There are no laws governing it.
You live in a country which enslaves women to their biology and removes the right of free will. You are neither the home of the brave, nor the land of the free.
This is shameful.
I am telling myself that nothing is permanent and in time this too can and will be overruled. It rests on far weaker foundations than the original Roe. But I don’t like to see out pr finest institution politicized like this. Established rights and law overturned regardless of consequences. Not just this, but other rulings too. Never for a moment did I think a fundamental right, established by the time I came of age, would be taken away. Dark times
If it's on the ballot it can, like before.
Abortion is not a human right, you dumb fucking ****.
It is an ELECTIVE medical procedure. Except in very, very rare cases.
Now STFU, and ask your boy Trudy to give you some morning after pills
Where in the constitution does it give power to the government to ban ones personal decision or a couple's personal and private decision on when or when not to have a child???Unfortunately for you, the opinion of the majority is irrelevant.
We don't have mob rule in this country.
We have a little thing called a Constitution, that you are required to adhere to, because it's the highest law in the land
Where in the constitution does it give power to the government to ban ones personal decision or a couple's personal and private decision on when or when not to have a child???
"RESERVED TO THE STATES, AND TO THE PEOPLE"Can you point to the spot in the constitution that gives that power to them?
Well, that's a perfectly valid point in normal times, but I'm not so sure with this SC.And then it can be overturned for being unconstitutional.
If a simple majority voted to remove 1st amendment rights from any group, whether the simple majority voted for it or not, it is still unconstitutional.
The use of the 14th amendment was sound and the Oberfell ruling should remain.
Law 101. The government is not party to the marriage contract.
It ain't the federal government.who gives you the marriage license?
I am not and was not in favor of SSM. However, I am and was in favor of civil unions which conferred all the same rights on same sex couples.
Clarence Thomas’ white wife might be upset if he overturns LovingThomas wants to overturn Loving as well – he wants to destroy 14th Amendment jurisprudence in its entirety, giving the states free rein to do as they please.
Thomas would vote to overturn Miranda v. Arizona, Gideon v. Wainwright, and Brown v. Board of Education – ‘justified’ by “states’ rights” dogma.
This radical, extreme, activist Court wants to eliminate the Constitutional safeguards that protects the rights of minorities living in Republican-controlled states.
It ain't the federal government.
It could be 30 or 40 years before the Supreme Court overturns Dobbs, and the courts again defend the right to privacy – and that’s not certain given the unpredictable, capricious process of who is in the WH when a vacancy manifests on the Court.
During that time some red states will turn blue, repealing or no longer enforcing anti-privacy rights measures, but women will continue to suffer in the remaining ban states.
Yes, dark times indeed, and the worst is yet to come as the Nation grows more divided, with repressive, authoritarian red states at odds with free blue states; we haven’t seen such division since before the Civil War.
Well, that's a perfectly valid point in normal times, but I'm not so sure with this SC.
It's none of any government's business scruffy, not just the federal gvt.Exactly.
WTF have the righties been telling you for 50 years now?
Exact same thing you just said.
It's NONE OF FEDGOV'S BUSINESS.
"RESERVED TO THE STATES, AND TO THE PEOPLE"
It's right there in front of you in black and white, if you:d bother to read.
Yes it is stupid! Animals and children cannot consent.Yes, dumb ass, it really is that simpleThey can never answer that.