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.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
The Equal Protection clause in the 14th A gives women a right to control over their bodies."Established precedent"? What does that mean? There is nothing in the Constitution that indicates "a woman's right to privacy" entitles her to hire someone to kill the unborn life inside her. Does "established precedent trump (pardon the pun) Constitutional law?
www.bbc.com
Someone should argue that to the courts.The Equal Protection clause in the 14th A gives women a right to control over their bodies.
In History: How Ruth Bader Ginsburg foresaw the threat to abortion access in the US
In one of her final interviews, the Supreme Court justice and women's rights pioneer predicted that US abortion rights could be revoked and warned the poorest would pay the price
If that were true the defense should have had no problem establishing that fact and go on to prove trump's innocence to the trial jury.Oh don’t blame the grand juries for your political prosecutions. They get presented on the evidence the demafasict prosecutors want them to see
You got that right. It was decided on the religious beliefs of the majority.Someone should argue that to the courts.
Roe wasn’t decided on equal protection
www.salon.com
Even if this is true. the right is not absolute, as spelled out in Roe.The Equal Protection clause in the 14th A gives women a right to control over their bodies.
Um the defense doesn’t prove anyone’s innocence.If that were true the defense should have had no problem establishing that fact and go on to prove trump's innocence to the trial jury.
What you are left with is the preposterous, paranoid claim everyone in the system........including random private citizens.........is against trump.
Roe was decided on the religious beliefs of the courts? What?You got that right. It was decided on the religious beliefs of the majority.
How Sam Alito snuck medieval Christianity into the Dobbs opinion
Alito's opinion overturning Roe is literally built on fake history — and a sneak attack on the First Amendment
Translation: The USSC did not tow the leftist line.Not like this time. Not with respect to rules proposed to address the corruption and unaccountability that has recently come to light.
Sigh.........and just like when FDR tried to get slick, you too are going to get hosed; but hey, at least you have something to get excited about besides looking at a CORPSE for President that YOU voted in!It’s hard to know the precise combination of developments that changed President Biden’s mind about Supreme Court reforms and prompted him to place them more centrally in the framework of the 2024 election.
Was it the ethics scandals of Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito and the Supreme Court’s own ineptitude in dealing with them? Was it the series of controversial decisions across a whole host of issues and areas of civic life in which the court wrested power away from the executive and legislative branches and placed it firmly in the judicial branch? Was it the six-justice conservative majority aggressively uprooting the court’s own precedents in pursuit of its own preferred legal and policy outcomes? Was it the fact that he’s trailing in the polls with his own re-election more at risk that at any previous point in his presidency?
All of the above are in play, of course. A tipping point was reached, and it’s unlikely any one development was the difference-maker.
Biden Elevates Supreme Court Reform To His Re-Election Agenda
It’s hard to know the precise combination of developments that prompted President Biden to embrace Supreme Court reforms.talkingpointsmemo.com
trump's Court's popularity is in the shitter. Deservedly so. Perhaps this is a move by Joe to capitalize on voter sentiment. No matter the motive, reform is overdue. There must be accountability for crass ethics violations and for the lack of recusals when there are demonstrable conflicts of interest (hello Clarence). I can understand the Founders wanting to somewhat insulate the Court in order to maintain its independence. But they did not contemplate such a corrupt Court nor such polarized times.
the burden of proof is on the govt, people are innocent until prove beyond a reasonable doubt they are guiltyOf course it does, if it can. Stop hiding behind childish, semantic defenses.
Dimwingers get a few rulings they don't like and they want to pack the court, or overhaul it so they can kick off the current justices.Biden and the democrats are a danger to Democracy. The Supreme court is the third, equal branch of government. The democrats are facists using the executive branch of government like they are dictators.
Translate: we don’t want the courts to be a seperate coequal branch of govt, we want it to do what xiden tells it to doSome members of the USSC did not meet the ethical standards required of all other judges. Dems want to change that by requiring them to abide by an enforceable code of conduct.
Dems are violently INTOLERANT of any views other than their own.Dimwingers get a few rulings they don't like and they want to pack the court, or overhaul it so they can kick off the current justices.
Crybaby tactics instead of dealing with it like adults.
The Supreme Court's June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the half-century-old precedent of Roe v. Wade, occasioned worldwide rage, enough that Justice Samuel Alito — author of the majority opinion in Dobbs — mocked the outraged Prince Harry and other luminaries. Jewish advocacy groups, among others, have filed suits argued that laws restricting abortion may violate religious freedom, but ironically enough, the widespread rage may have prevented people from noticing what may be the most outrageous feature of Dobbs.Roe was decided on the religious beliefs of the courts? What?
Why are you talking about Dobbs? We were talking about RoeThe Supreme Court's June decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned the half-century-old precedent of Roe v. Wade, occasioned worldwide rage, enough that Justice Samuel Alito — author of the majority opinion in Dobbs — mocked the outraged Prince Harry and other luminaries. Jewish advocacy groups, among others, have filed suits argued that laws restricting abortion may violate religious freedom, but ironically enough, the widespread rage may have prevented people from noticing what may be the most outrageous feature of Dobbs.
Alito's opinion sneaks in a 12th-century religious penalty for abortion — not a criminal statute — citing it in a section meant to support the history of criminal punishment, and with its ecclesiastical origins neatly excised. Those who are outraged by this are now free to mock Alito, unless they'd rather have him impeached — along with the whole Dobbs majority, perhaps — for deceiving America and violating the separation of church and state.
No this is just another Dem SCHEME to threaten their political opponents and corrupt government. If they got their code of ethics the lawfare would begin immediately.Translate: we don’t want the courts to be a seperate coequal branch of govt, we want it to do what xiden tells it to do
