So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[TNHarley]

Are you now denying it was a constitutional right?

That was build on a faulty premise. Not even sure i would call it a constitutional right. More like a supreme court right.

Agreed, but it is relevant to this this thread

Fair enough. It does show how activist that decision was.

Ok. Still waiting for you to show that enumeration..

I never said it was. Read what I said again.

But it's still not in the constitution.

I know marriage isnt. But the government took it over. If anything, the government should be completely out of marriage. The ONLY time they should be involved is during disputes during divorce.

At least y'all have some stuff in common with our middle eastern enemies.

Way to bridge the gap.

Im not a republican. That party is full of fascists. They are wayyyyyyyyyyyy too leftist for me. So FU.
I am also pro-life. Probably more-so than most people. Its not any of the governments business what a woman does with her body.

 

[Dragonlady]

Nope, that's not in the rules. Stare Decisis is something justices use as a guideline when thinking of overturning something ON THE MERITS, not due to numbers.

Given the time it takes for a case like this to weave it's way through the courts, things like this aren't done on a whim.

And the SC not being political ended a long time ago, the left is just mad because it's not their side controlling it now.

This case skyrocketed through the system, as did Dobbs. As soon as the radicals had the numbers, they invited interested parties to send them cases, and the red states obliged them quickly.

The SC has never in it's history, taken away a right once it has been confirmed. All of the justices told the Senate that Roe was "settled precedent" at their confirmation hearings, and then changed their tune once seated.

Furthermore, there is a procedure for overturning "settled precedent" which involves doing a study of how many people rely on the law, and what the harm will be to them if it's overturned. That process was not followed for Roe, or for the other precedents this court has upended since 2012.

 

[TNHarley]

Revoking 50 years of constitutional precedent based on an amendment in the bill of rights and it was activism the first time.

Yeah, ok.

You run with that.

It was a faulty premise. Even Ruth said it was. Sorry for your luck

 

[TNHarley]

Furthermore, there is a procedure for overturning "settled precedent" which involves doing a study of how many people rely on the law, and what the harm will be to them if it's overturned.

Yes damnit! Just like desegregating the USA!
Those sorry bastards!

 

[postman]

The Supreme Court does not "legislate from the bench", it determines the Constitutionality of laws and issues. It isn't about the Supreme Court but rather the left's distain for the Constitution that they view as an antiquated document rather than the Law of the Land.

What about Citizens United vs FEC.

The court determined that constitutional rights are granted to corporations.

 

[Dragonlady]

That was build on a faulty premise. Not even sure i would call it a constitutional right. More like a supreme court right.

Fair enough. It does show how activist that decision was.

I never said it was. Read what I said again.

I know marriage isnt. But the government took it over. If anything, the government should be completely out of marriage. The ONLY time they should be involved is during disputes during divorce.

Im not a republican. That party is full of fascists. They are wayyyyyyyyyyyy too leftist for me. So FU.
I am also pro-life. Probably more-so than most people. Its not any of the governments business what a woman does with her body.

The goverment can't be allowed to resolve divorce disputes if there are no laws governing the rights and responsibilities of the parties in the marriage, in the first place. All resolutions by the courts are based on laws which currently exist, so that everyone is held to the same standard.

Marriage is entirely a legal concept, not a religious concept. The wedding ceremony was merely the "blessing" of the congregation on the couple, have no legal meaning whatsoever. And since women were seen as chattels with no right to their own property or decisions, divorce was simply a matter of return the "property" back to her father.

It was only when women started getting rights to own and keep property, that marriage laws were needed to define who owns what and where it goes on the split. And what about the children.

 

[postman]

The SC ruled on this?

Texas Abortion Ban Case at the Supreme Court

This case challenges Texas's extreme abortion ban, which has ended almost all abortion access in the state. The Supreme Court failed to block the law in a December 2021 ruling.

reproductiverights.org

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in this case,

 

[Catsnmeters]

nope, it was not a right. sorry

Well. You don't say?

Certainly that is a legal argument nobody can overcome.

Red states could have been banning abortion since the 70s if they only had your legal acumen.

Thanks counselor.

 

[Dragonlady]

Yes damnit! Just like desegregating the USA!
Those sorry bastards!

Not even close to the same thing. Desegregation did no harm at all and much good, other than in the minds of racists.

 

[TNHarley]

Texas Abortion Ban Case at the Supreme Court

This case challenges Texas's extreme abortion ban, which has ended almost all abortion access in the state. The Supreme Court failed to block the law in a December 2021 ruling.

reproductiverights.org

On December 10, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in this case,

Thats nto about taking people over state lines so they can get an abortion.

 

[TNHarley]

Not even close to the same thing. Desegregation did no harm at all and much good, other than in the minds of racists.

So you decide what harms people?

 

[Catsnmeters]

That was build on a faulty premise. Not even sure i would call it a constitutional right. More like a supreme court right.

Your opinion on the ruling does not mitigate the constitutionality of Roe v Wade.

Your hubris aside, it is just your opinion..

Fair enough. It does show how activist that decision was.

I disagree but hey, if you are defining what is activist or not I guess I didn't stand a chance in this thread and your question in the OP.

I never said it was. Read what I said again.

I know marriage isnt. But the government took it over. If anything, the government should be completely out of marriage. The ONLY time they should be involved is during disputes during divorce.

The constitutional right to marriage isn't taking it over...quite the opposite , it protects it from states who might would take it over if left to them.

Im not a republican. That party is full of fascists. They are wayyyyyyyyyyyy too leftist for me. So FU.
I am also pro-life. Probably more-so than most people. Its not any of the governments business what a woman does with her body.

I agree with you and I'm not a democrat...I just play one on these threads because the alternative is unacceptable.

 

[martybegan]

That has little to do with anything, but I already figure you to be a big dummy. I get it. You are okay with undermining our self government by allowing campaigns unrestricted access to anonymous private, corporate and foreign funding to influence elections. It's been abused since day one, by democrats and especially by republicans. Without it the GOP wouldn't win elections.

Any restrictions would be used by the government powers, i.e. democrats to restrict funding to only those they don't like.

Our country has a long history of anonymous input to political debate, going back to the Revolution.

 

[TNHarley]

Your hubris aside, it is just your opinion..

But mine sides with the current SC

The constitutional right to marriage isn't taking it over...quite the opposite , it protects it from states who might would take it over if left to them.

No it didnt. But the government got involved with marriage. You have to ok it with the state first, taxes, free shit etc.

 

[martybegan]

The Constitution doesn't enumerate any such right.
In fact the SCOTUS held 9-0 that a sitting president isn't immune for civil lawsuits.

what decision was that?

 

[TNHarley]

because the alternative is unacceptable.

Frankly, saying one is acceptable, is unacceptable.

 

[Catsnmeters]

But mine sides with the current SC

Touche. Lol.

No it didnt. But the government got involved with marriage. You have to ok it with the state first, taxes, free shit etc.

 

[martybegan]

This case skyrocketed through the system, as did Dobbs. As soon as the radicals had the numbers, they invited interested parties to send them cases, and the red states obliged them quickly.

The SC has never in it's history, taken away a right once it has been confirmed. All of the justices told the Senate that Roe was "settled precedent" at their confirmation hearings, and then changed their tune once seated.

Furthermore, there is a procedure for overturning "settled precedent" which involves doing a study of how many people rely on the law, and what the harm will be to them if it's overturned. That process was not followed for Roe, or for the other precedents this court has upended since 2012.

define "skyrocketed"

It took away the right of States to perform separate but equal.

It's taken away the right of people to own machine guns.

Plessey was settled precedent until it wasn't.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Any restrictions would be used by the government powers, i.e. democrats to restrict funding to only those they don't like.

Our country has a long history of anonymous input to political debate, going back to the Revolution.

I'm waiting for you to say something even moderately intelligent. Want to try again, or is that the extent of your knowledge?

 

[postman]

Well. You don't say?

Certainly that is a legal argument nobody can overcome.

Red states could have been banning abortion since the 70s if they only had your legal acumen.

Thanks counselor.

In fact many red states kept their abortion laws "on the books" like the Arizona 1864 abortion ban. It was only when Roe was overturned by Dobbs, that the red states could enforce the old laws, made unconstitutional by Roe.