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.
No, it simply addresses nothing whatsoever. I made no claim about amendments and making them is not relevant.how does it not? what went over your head?
When a state does this, let us know.I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?
The USSC did not ignore Roe.I made a simple point, the right opened the door for ignoring past rulings in the same manner about things that the liberal justices have thought for decades were not sound rulings.
liberal justices could always do that same review in regards to sub due process rightsNo, it simply addresses nothing whatsoever. I made no claim about amendments and making them is not relevant.
I made a simple point, the right opened the door for ignoring past rulings in the same manner about things that the liberal justices have thought for decades were not sound rulings.
It seems THAT has gone over your head completely. Try again.
Link to these laws being passed DragonladyThere are already laws being passed banning birth control on the grounds it contributes to "immoral behaviour". Like there was no pre-marital sex or abortions BEFORE both were available.
Nobody lied in their confirmation hearings, Simp.This Court has lost all legitimacy. Three of the Justices lied in their confirmation hearings in regards precedent and "settled law". It was bought and paid for by the Federalist Society and their "dark money" donors. Another plank in the authoritarian structure these theocrats have been building for decades.
Alito wrote the majority decision, and he clearly stated this has no bearing on birth control, marriage, etc.Clarence has already suggested as much.
Cool. All Federal gun laws should be shitcanned then. The Second Amendment only confirms the inherent, God given write of the people to keep and bear arms, and bans the Federal Government from infringing on the inherent, God given right.Not when Roe was overturned simply because it was not an enumerated right. That same standard will have to be applied to everything otherwise they’re simply hacks acting politically.
I can't help wondering how Clarence will feel, given his believe for the need of the explicit enumeration of rights in the Constitution, and the purported over stepping of prior court's authority in that regard, when a state decides to outlaw inter-racial marriage?
I hadn't considered the Second. But you're right. The result of Dobbs is that it is now "unsettled" as to whether the the well regulated militia clause limits gun ownership to military service and specifically state guard unitsThis is true but what makes you think that such matters?
The real point here is that the right leaning court overturned something that had been established for 50 years and was a considered by the left not only settled constitutional protections but also fundamental.
What makes you think the left is going to care one iota how well established the second is? If they ever manage to get 5 seats or they simply pack the court directly, they will absolutely overturn gun rights. The fact that the Row decision's reasoning will not apply is not really relevant as it is not the reasoning that brings the second into question here but rather the mere fact a precedent like this was overturned in the first place. That they overturned something that the left felt was firm win for them already is enough IMHO. The reasoning will come after.
It is not as though the left judges on the court have not already voiced their opinion on how the second is not a right whatsoever. They do that with every single gun challenge that comes before the court. The real problem here is that overturning Row gives the future court the cover to revisit almost anything. This is the problem with revisiting things like this, the idea of legal continuity is essentially gone and fights over what is and is not a constitutional right can now persist forever."
Not really.I hadn't considered the Second. But you're right. The result of Dobbs is that it is now "unsettled" as to whether the the well regulated militia clause limits gun ownership to military service and specifically state guard units
And this isn't good.
Nope. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with a militia.I hadn't considered the Second. But you're right. The result of Dobbs is that it is now "unsettled" as to whether the the well regulated militia clause limits gun ownership to military service and specifically state guard units
And this isn't good.
You don't have any idea what "fundamental" rights the Court has found under privacy. Marriage, procreation, contraception to the list.Not really.
Roe was decided on 'emanations from the penumbras' of a number of rights in the constitution - and thus, 2 drgrees of separation from same. Dobbs overturned this under the argument that if you have to go that far to find a right, it doesn't exist
Heller, was decided based on a right specifically protected by the literal text of the constitution.
Apples/oranges
Again, not relevant.Not really.
Roe was decided on 'emanations from the penumbras' of a number of rights in the constitution - and thus, 2 drgrees of separation from same. Dobbs overturned this under the argument that if you have to go that far to find a right, it doesn't exist
Heller, was decided based on a right specifically protected by the literal text of the constitution.
Apples/oranges
The liberals plan to do this anyway - they did not need the reversal of Roe as any sort of precedent or excuse.Again, not relevant.
If you think that the left leaning judges are not going to find reasons that remove limits on their pet project...
Because it is not in evidence.The liberals plan to do this anyway - they did not need the reversal of Roe as any sort of precedent or excuse.
Why is this so difficult for those on the left to understand? It is not only simple, it is glaringly obvious.
What's not in evidence?Because it is not in evidence.
The left's intent to ignore decades of stare decisis.What's not in evidence?
The left;s intent to overturn Heller, et al?
The left's hostility toward the the right to keep and bear arms?
Which is necessarily attached to their intent to overturn Heller, regardless of what happened to Roe.The left's intent to ignore decades of stare decisis.
You have to spell it out. If they can just dumb up and pretend to misunderstand, they will.I didn't say one was.
