So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[TNHarley]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

 

[1srelluc]

They hate anyone with just the potential to oppose their leftist agenda.....Nothing new under the sun there except that the MSM is now giving them a sounding board for their incessant screeching.

 

[Votto]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

They overturned Roe vs. Wade, a direct infringement upon the Constitution.

In fact, the Founding Fathers would not have even revolted against the British crown had they been allowed to murder their unborn babies.

 

[TNHarley]

They overturned Roe vs. Wade

Gawd I hope one of them mentions that one

 

[forkup]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

Sure. Their decision on Roe v Wade decided on the idea that the constitution needs to be very strictly interpreted. While the oral arguments in the Trump ineligibility case were solely about the negative consequences of interpreting the constitution narrowly and so forcing the Supreme Court to rule on any such motion in the future even of it was done in bad faith.

My problem with how the conservative judges decide is not a function of me not liking what they decide. Although I don't.

The problem lies in the fact that they change the judicial philosophy they use as a justification of that decision depending on the case before them.

That makes them activists.

 

[Votto]

Gawd I hope one of them mentions that one

Woman hater!!

The GOP views the US as nothing more than an open-air prison for women that is also genocidal and apartheidily right wing.

 

[Lesh]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

Dobbs.. the over turning of Roe

 

[Votto]

Sure. Their decision on Roe v Wade decided on the idea that the constitution needs to be very strictly interpreted. While the oral arguments in the Trump ineligibility case were solely about the negative consequences of interpreting the constitution narrowly and so forcing the Supreme Court to rule on any such motion in the future even of it was done in bad faith.

My problem with how the conservative judges decide is not a function of me not liking what they decide. Although I don't.

The problem lies in the fact that they change the judicial philosophy they use as a justification of that decision depending on the case before them.

That makes them activists.

Correct.

When you unstrictly interpret the Constitution it says you should be able to kill unborn babies and deny states the right for pretty much any power at all to decide such things

Well said.

 

[Lesh]

They overturned Roe vs. Wade, a direct infringement upon the Constitution.

In fact, the Founding Fathers would not have even revolted against the British crown had they been allowed to murder their unborn babies.

That would be wrong of course

Abortion in the United States - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[postman]

Why? You say they are legislating from the bench. They are conservative activists etc.
Can you name some decisions that lead you to think like that?

How about overturning a decision that was made 7-2 and overturned 5-4. After they swore it was settled law.

 

[Votto]

Dobbs.. the over turning of Roe

Here they come TN!!

Lordy, Lordy, they be com'in out of the woodword yall!!

 

[Lesh]

Here they come TN!!


View attachment 961691


Lordy, Lordy, they be com'in out of the woodword yall!!

What the hell is wrong with you?

 

[Votto]

What the hell is wrong with you?

What is wrong with me? What is wrong with the Supreme Court?

They make millions from evil rich people and refuse to have the federal government put a stamp of approval for murdering their unborn children.

Somebody call judge Merchan, that has to be at least a felony!!!

 

[forkup]

Correct.

When you unstrictly interpret the Constitution it says you should be able to kill unborn babies and deny states the right for pretty much any power at all to decide such things

Well said.

First states could decide on Roe v Wade. It was just under certain restrictions.

Second. Roe v Wade relied on an implied right under the fourteenth amendment.

Third. Why should states be able to decide and not the person involved?

Fourth. You are trying to make a moral argument NOT a legal one. The purpose of the OP.

So if you want to have a discussion about abortion. By all means. Start an OP and I'll show up. Posing it here as a red herring though just says you have nothing substantial to add to the discussion.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Dobbs.. the over turning of Roe

Citizens United.

 

[Lesh]

What is wrong with me? What is wrong with the Supreme Court?

They make millions from evil rich people and refuse to have the federal government put a stamp of approval for murdering their unborn children.

Somebody call judge Merchan, that has to be at least a felony!!!

Thanks for that nonsensical babble.

We’re all a bit dumber for having read it

 

[Votto]

Thanks for that nonsensical babble.

We all a bit dumber for having read it

You are getting dumber?

That's not even possible

Stop with the fake news damn it!

 

[TNHarley]

Dobbs.. the over turning of Roe

Why?

 

[TNHarley]

Citizens United.

I agree with that one but I am talking about this SC

 

[postman]

My problem with how the conservative judges decide is not a function of me not liking what they decide. Although I don't.

The problem lies in the fact that they change the judicial philosophy they use as a justification of that decision depending on the case before them.

That makes them activists.

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis Supreme Court Decision


In 303 Creative, the plaintiff alleged that she wanted to create wedding websites for engaged couples, though she argued that her religious beliefs would not allow her to create wedding websites for LGBTQ+ couples. At the core of the plaintiff’s argument was that wedding websites are a form of expression, and she was concerned that the public accommodations law in Colorado, her home state, would require her to design such a website anyway.

The Supreme Court held that a state public-accommodations law cannot compel expressive speech, even if that speech is connected to a commercial transaction.

The conservative supreme court broke with the requirement "standing" and "ripe" in order to hear the case, which was not an actual case of being forced to create a website, but a "hypothetical" case, of if they went into the website business in the future.

That's what makes them activist.