So leftists hate the Supreme Court

[Procrustes Stretched]

again;

The right has hated the Supreme Court since it's inception. Even as the right changed and morphed into what it is today, hatred of the court system has always lurked behind the faux banners of "Law and Order"

A temporary few wins before one particular court will not change the fundamental hatred that motivates the right.

Mark my words

-- words marked --

Now we get a decisions they hate.

"the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue." -- Why?

They have been caused no harm, as they do not prescribe the pills (though they proscribe the pill being given by other medical professionals). D'Oh!

Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill

The court found that anti-abortion doctors who questioned the FDA’s easing of access to the pill did not have legal standing to sue.

www.nbcnews.com

.

 

[martybegan]

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

No, you can't admit that all overturning Citizens United would result in is the Right getting fucked over while the left continues on as previously.

 

[postman]

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

Read it again. That's the law which made traveling to another state for an abortion a crime enforceable by a $10,000 minimum civil action.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Left hates Trump but now also the Supreme Court

Why would Trey be putting an ad together when he did not intend to run for office again? That doesn't add up. I don't doubt that other Republicans used such a good fact filled clip as I do as well to make a point of the double standard for what passes for justice these days. The fact is...

www.usmessageboard.com

So leftists hate the Supreme Court

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?

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[postman]

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

The federal government had to protect "equal protection" and "privileges and immunities". When one state wouldn't recognize the marriage from another state.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

No, you can't admit that all overturning Citizens United would result in is the Right getting fucked over while the left continues on as previously.

I already explained that to you, jughead. Can't you fucking read?!? CU is the only reason the right can win elections. If it's overturned, the GOP is finished.

 

[postman]

what decision was that?

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

In particular, there is no temporary immunity and thus no delay of federal cases until the President leaves office

 

[martybegan]

I already explained that to you, jughead. Can't you fucking read?!? CU is the only reason the right can win elections. If it's overturned, the GOP is finished.

Because the left would be able to intimidate and hector their proponents?

Mob Rule lover loves mob rule.

And Dems do the same shit, but of course that's A-OK in your book even despite your protests to the contrary.

Anything restricting speech like this would be abused by people with no qualms about using government to punish their enemies, i.e. democrats and progressives.

 

[martybegan]

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clinton v. Jones - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

United States Supreme Court case establishing that a sitting President of the United States has no immunity from civil law litigation, in federal court, for acts done before taking office and unrelated to the office.

In particular, there is no temporary immunity and thus no delay of federal cases until the President leaves office

It also included these parts:

The court also found that "our decision rejecting the immunity claim and allowing the case to proceed does not require us to confront the question whether a court may compel the attendance of the President at any specific time or place."[1] In his concurring opinion, Breyer argued that presidential immunity would apply only if the President could show that a private civil lawsuit would somehow interfere with the President's constitutionally assigned duties.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

Because the left would be able to intimidate and hector their proponents?

Mob Rule lover loves mob rule.

And Dems do the same shit, but of course that's A-OK in your book even despite your protests to the contrary.

Anything restricting speech like this would be abused by people with no qualms about using government to punish their enemies, i.e. democrats and progressives.

You can't fucking read.

 

[TNHarley]

The federal government had to protect "equal protection" and "privileges and immunities". When one state wouldn't recognize the marriage from another state.

That is one of their few jobs.

 

[TNHarley]

Read it again. That's the law which made traveling to another state for an abortion a crime enforceable by a $10,000 minimum civil action.

I cant find it saying that. Please quote it.

 

[Dragonlady]

What about Citizens United vs FEC.

The court determined that constitutional rights are granted to corporations.

The Articles of Incorporation and the laws governing corporations say that "The corporation shall have the same rights and privileges of a natural person to hold property, enter into contracts, and to sue or be sued."

The SC truncated the rights ascribed to the corporation, after the word "person", giving Corporations "the same rights and privileges of a natural person". "Natural persons" can contribute to and participate in the election process.

It was a bad decision.

 

[martybegan]

You can't fucking read.

If that's all you got as a retort, you have nothing.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

If that's all you got as a retort, you have nothing.

I'm talking to a complete dumbfuck. There's nothing to begin with.

 

[Frankenstein]

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.

The right to end your child's life in utero is not mentioned in the constitution!

 

[martybegan]

I'm talking to a complete dumbfuck. There's nothing to begin with.

More nothing posts from a nothing poster.

 

[Frankenstein]

I'm talking to a complete dumbfuck. There's nothing to begin with.

Well stop talking to yourself, idiot.

 

[forkup]

The right to end your child's life in utero is not mentioned in the constitution!

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.

 

[Frankenstein]

There is nothing legal about infanticide!