Putting abortion itself aside, these are the problems with overturning Roe v Wade...

[scruffy]

That is completely wrong.
Judges are who are supposed to always make law, and NOT legislators at all, in any way.

Someone else can respond to this foolishness, I'm too tired

You're wrong

As the day is long

Good night

 

[Rigby5]

Oh brother,

Life is hard.
It's even harder if you're stupid.

Not sure where you got your ill informed messaging. sad

If you do not understand that what the source of all legal authority is in a republic, then stop posting.
You are just putting up nonsense.
In a republic, inherent individual rights are supposed to be supreme, and not supposed to be up for grabs by a majority.
That is the mob rule of a dictatorship.
That is how we had slavery at one time.
The minority can not legally be over ruled by the majority, in a republic.
You clearly do not understand this, so are 100% wrong and ignorant.
States are NOT and can never be a source of legal authority.
States are reflections of their own financial interests, majority religions, corporate or political entities, etc., so can not be allowed to dictate.
That is why the 14th amendment became necessary.
States are unreliable.
And it is the judiciary that was given totally precedence over the legislative, by the 14th amendment.
Which obviously is the correct and only way it could ever have been done.

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong, judges don't make law, that is called legislating from the bench.
The Justices interpret the law.

Holy Cow, son.

Judges do "interpret" the law, but NOT based on mere legislation.
Legislation is banal generalities, and often is totally and completely irrelevant to any one particular case.
Law is an infinite abstraction of individual rights, defined and constantly redefined by infinite precedent.
You clearly have no grasp of what law is really at all.

 

[scruffy]

.
Law is an infinite abstraction of individual rights, defined and constantly redefined by infinite precedent.
You clearly have no grasp of what law is really at all.

Looks to me like a dumbass leftard trying to change the meaning of the law.

Just so you know, your PC bullshit won't work any more either.

Good night, dumbass leftard.

 

[Donald H]

There are few examples in the court's history of the court undoing its own precedent. But when it does happen, it has always been as an expansive view of personal liberties. By overturning Roe, the court is reversing itself to limit the scope of personal freedoms for the first time, ever.

You're getting it right on limiting the scope of personal freedsoms, but do consider that the Scotus hasn't been leading the charge. They are following the lead of many other institutions which allows a few extremists to take down America's freedoms., one by one for political expediency. And one by one for monetary gain of the very wealthy class.

Overturning Roe is not conservative. Of course, almost nobody knows what it means to be conservative anymore.

Your fellow Americans don't agree, as you must notice. Conservatism is upholding old outdated ideals that are influenced by religious superstitious beliefs. Liberalism is in the advance of science that destroys old and outdated fantasies. It's 'progress' that America isn't accepting along with the rest of the modern world.

Those beliefs naturally clash with democracy for obvious reasons. That and the huge backlash due to American working class being cheated out of a piece of the great American pie, allows fascism to take over quite unnoticed.

I've posted a link showing that America has slipped to 58th. on freedoms, and that can't be blamed on the taking down of abortion rights.

That's my case that says you're putting the cart before the horse.

The real essence of conservatism is strength through stability, wisdom over passion, contemplation over activism. What the court is now doing is embarking on a new era where stare decisis is no more, and the court oscillates back and forth on hot button issues as ideological balances shift.

The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self. The lifetime appointments that are intended to protect the court from political influence are now being weaponized by members of the court in order to solidify its own political objectives, which is a form of tyranny.

Where nominees to the court in recent decades have been (possibly inappropriately) asked litmus-test like questions during confirmation hearings (questions which they artfully avoided answering with generic deference to stare decisis), as justices these same individuals have shown that such questions were indeed necessary even if inappropriate, as will be the need to demand firm and unambiguous responses. The justices have proven that their own perfunctory responses could not be trusted, and therefore those of future nominees should not be trusted.

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

 

[Canon Shooter]

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

I don't buy into any of this doomsday bullshit. The sky isn't falling...

 

[Donald H]

Judges do "interpret" the law, but NOT based on mere legislation.
Legislation is banal generalities, and often is totally and completely irrelevant to any one particular case.
Law is an infinite abstraction of individual rights, defined and constantly redefined by infinite precedent.
You clearly have no grasp of what law is really at all.

If course you're right. A few handpicked judges that are interpreting the law according to 19th. century precedence.
They are at odds with 21st. century standards that are demanded by a huge majority of the people they're supposed to serve.

The biggest wrong being demonstrated by the Scotus is their clear demonstration that they will be willing participants for permitting the onset of fascism.

Democratic choice by fully 70% of the people can be ignored. Possibly even 90%, but after it's a huge majority, the number is not a factor that can stop that court.

 

[task0778]

Overturning Roe is not conservative. Of course, almost nobody knows what it means to be conservative anymore. The real essence of conservatism is strength through stability, wisdom over passion, contemplation over activism. What the court is now doing is embarking on a new era where stare decisis is no more, and the court oscillates back and forth on hot button issues as ideological balances shift.

The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self. The lifetime appointments that are intended to protect the court from political influence are now being weaponized by members of the court in order to solidify its own political objectives, which is a form of tyranny.

Where nominees to the court in recent decades have been (possibly inappropriately) asked litmus-test like questions during confirmation hearings (questions which they artfully avoided answering with generic deference to stare decisis), as justices these same individuals have shown that such questions were indeed necessary even if inappropriate, as will be the need to demand firm and unambiguous responses. The justices have proven that their own perfunctory responses could not be trusted, and therefore those of future nominees should not be trusted.

This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

What the court is now doing is embarking on a new era where stare decisis is no more

Nonsense, this is just one case that has no basis in the Constitution and IMHO it is fear-mongering to suggest otherwise. There is no way the current Supreme Court is going to ignore stare decisis in the future and no reason to believe that they will.


The court is establishing itself as a political institution and begging for political interference into the court's activities and composition. Essentially, the court is waging war on it's long standing traditional self. The lifetime appointments that are intended to protect the court from political influence are now being weaponized by members of the court in order to solidify its own political objectives, which is a form of tyranny.

I think this is total crap with no basis in fact. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but political interference has been ongoing for decades, as the original 1973 Roe v Wade shows us. The Supreme Court and most all lower courts have already been politicized, this is nothing new and this decision will not move the needle one way or the other.


Where nominees to the court in recent decades have been (possibly inappropriately) asked litmus-test like questions during confirmation hearings (questions which they artfully avoided answering with generic deference to stare decisis), as justices these same individuals have shown that such questions were indeed necessary even if inappropriate, as will be the need to demand firm and unambiguous responses. The justices have proven that their own perfunctory responses could not be trusted, and therefore those of future nominees should not be trusted.

IMHO, every Senate confirmation hearing is nothing more than propaganda and not to be believed. Whether it is a judge or justice or an executive position by either the individual being interviewed or the politicians asking the questions, the truth has been subjugated for a very long time in DC.


This paves the way for EVERY SINGLE LIBERTY PRESERVING PRECEDENT EVER to be overturned. Free speech, religious freedom, gun rights....all of it is now 100% at the mercy of the current court's willingness to uphold it for the individual at bar. The court will become superior to the bill of rights.

Nonsense. Speech, religious freedom, gun rights, and so many others are enshrined in the Bill of Rights and will never be overturned. The Courts do not and should not create new rights as they did with abortion, the Congress alone has the authority to do that. Instead, the courts are supposed to ensure that our existing rights have not been restricted or denied, according to their interpretation of our Constitution. They are in fact subservient to the Bill of Rights rather than the other way around. There was absolutely no precedent for the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling, and no legislation passed by the Congress to codify abortion rights. Hence, that ruling has no standing and should be overturned.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

A Judge was never denied a hearing

Wrong.

 

[scruffy]

If course you're right. A few handpicked judges that are interpreting the law according to 19th. century precedence.
They are at odds with 21st. century standards that are demanded by a huge majority of the people they're supposed to serve.

The biggest wrong being demonstrated by the Scotus is their clear demonstration that they will be willing participants for permitting the onset of fascism.

Democratic choice by fully 70% of the people can be ignored. Possibly even 90%, but after it's a huge majority, the number is not a factor that can stop that court.

This post is INCREDIBLY FULL OF SHIT.

THIS ^^^ is why dumbass progtards should not be allowed to vote AT ALL.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Wrong.
You clearly know nothing about law.
The reality is that inherent individual rights are the only source of any legal authority in a republic.
NOT government or legislators, who only temporarily borrow on that authority from individuals, when necessary, in order to resolve conflict between individuals.
And since individual inherent rights are infinite, it is and always was judges who decide law really.
It is not legislators, who frequently are corrupt and always have to make imperfect generalities.
You clearly do not at all understand law, because with law, judges are always supposed to completely and totally superior to the legislative branch. When judges make mistakes, it is other judges who fix it.
And in fact, when legislators or executive make mistakes, it is judges who fix it.
Judges are top dog, and the 3 branches were NEVER supposed to be equal.

The three branches of government is the checks and balances to the whole government.therefire they are equal in power

 

[Donald H]

THIS ^^^ is why dumbass progtards should not be allowed to vote AT ALL.

That just happens to be the opinion of even many rational grownups. It could become necessary if the extreme right doesn't win a clear majority in all branches of government at the ballot boxes.

Even democracy must not be permitted to stand in the way of what god demands.

God demands that there be no more abortions.

 

[Donald H]

Judges do "interpret" the law, but NOT based on mere legislation.
Legislation is banal generalities, and often is totally and completely irrelevant to any one particular case.
Law is an infinite abstraction of individual rights, defined and constantly redefined by infinite precedent.
You clearly have no grasp of what law is really at all.

They lack confidence and they're unsettled in their opinions. That's illustrated by scruffy and others who can only demonstrate rage when they're challenged.

 

[Meister]

You're getting it right on limiting the scope of personal freedsoms, but do consider that the Scotus hasn't been leading the charge. They are following the lead of many other institutions which allows a few extremists to take down America's freedoms., one by one for political expediency. And one by one for monetary gain of the very wealthy class.

Your fellow Americans don't agree, as you must notice. Conservatism is upholding old outdated ideals that are influenced by religious superstitious beliefs. Liberalism is in the advance of science that destroys old and outdated fantasies. It's 'progress' that America isn't accepting along with the rest of the modern world.

Those beliefs naturally clash with democracy for obvious reasons. That and the huge backlash due to American working class being cheated out of a piece of the great American pie, allows fascism to take over quite unnoticed.

I've posted a link showing that America has slipped to 58th. on freedoms, and that can't be blamed on the taking down of abortion rights.

That's my case that says you're putting the cart before the horse.

Taking away something from the feds, and giving it back to the states is a definition of freedom.
Only a socialist/communist wouldn't/couldn't understand that, H.

 

[scruffy]

They lack confidence and they're unsettled in their opinions. That's illustrated by scruffy and others who can only demonstrate rage when they're challenged.

lol

You'll let me know when I've been challenged.

 

[Meister]

That just happens to be the opinion of even many rational grownups. It could become necessary if the extreme right doesn't win a clear majority in all branches of government at the ballot boxes.

Even democracy must not be permitted to stand in the way of what god demands.

God demands that there be no more abortions.

Nobody is talking about "no abortions" but those who want to muck up the waters, H.
The Court is just sending it back down to the states and let the People decide.
This isn't rocket science.

 

[Lesh]

How do you justify Amy Barrets conformation ten days before the election?

They justify anything. Nothing actually means anything to them

 

[scruffy]

Taking away something from the feds, and giving it back to the states is a definition of freedom.
Only a socialist/communist wouldn't/couldn't understand that, H.

These leftists are completely fucked up!

Verily, I say!

Look what's in front of you, it's right here in black and white

The one dummy thinks judges make law and they're more important than elected representatives.

The other one thinks he's Freud and Kreskin all wrapped into one.

These lefties are entirely fucking retarded, amirite or am I right?

Read the words they just wrote. These people should NOT be voting.

Abortion? Fuck that. We should go after their voting rights

 

[Meister]

These leftists are completely fucked up!

Verily, I say!

Look what's in front of you, it's right here in black and white

The one dummy thinks judges make law and they're more important than elected representatives.

The other one thinks he's Freud and Kreskin all wrapped into one.

These lefties are entirely fucking retarded, amirite or am I right?

Read the words they just wrote. These people should NOT be voting.

Abortion? Fuck that. We should go after their voting rights

Luckily only one of the two can vote....legally here.

 

[Donald H]

Taking away something from the feds, and giving it back to the states is a definition of freedom.
Only a socialist/communist wouldn't/couldn't understand that, H.

I understand 'because' I lean toward socially responsibility being demonstrated by the higheest court in the land, regardless of what country's court we address.

I'm fully aware of the argument that freedom is being granted to the people of each individual state.

And so I understand how that argument is being used to strip away a woman's right to abortion.

To me that's an established fact, and then becomes secondary to revealing the explanation on why America is allowing it to happen.

Religious superstitious beliefs are at the top of the list.