What is the REAL reason that Dems are so scared to lose a seat on SCOTUS?

[bendog]

[
[/QUOTE]
If you believe that's true, the legitimate way to assert individual rights on any issue that is not addressed in the Constitution is a Constitutional amendment, which is what the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, do. The Congress and the states have the Constitutional right to add more rights to the Constitution but the SC does not.[/QUOTE]
So, we needed a const amendment to end mysogination

Why is it so important that they would try to ruin the lives of Ford and her freinds and family and Kavanaugh and his friends and family?

Specifically, why are they going to these great lengths for this seat?

Abortion, mostly. Obviously.

The pseudocons want the seat to ban gay marriage and return Again to the days of Jim Crow when America was Great. That's why they trashed Clinton and her friends and family.

No, this is about states rights, or to put it another way, to preserve the integrity of the Constitution. In the unlikely event Roe v. wade were overturned, the issue of the legality of abortion would be decided by the individual states and abortion would be legal under state law in most states. The same is true about same sex marriage. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the SC has no Constitutional right to rule on abortion or gay marriage or any other issue unless the Constitution has specifically delegated that right to the federal government or prohibited it to the states.

So, states should be able to decide whether women can have abortions, or gay people can marry? if so, I agree that you've identified the issue, but it's more about state power > individual rights

If you believe that's true, the legitimate way to assert individual rights on any issue that is not addressed in the Constitution is a Constitutional amendment, which is what the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, do. The Congress and the states have the Constitutional right to add more rights to the Constitution but the SC does not.

So we needed a const amendment to determine the 14th prevented laws forbidding miscegenation. Your dog doesn't hunt. Even Kavanaugh doesn't agree with that analysis

 

[bendog]

"it is" however about more than abortion. It's about how much of the civil rights statutes should stand, how much citizens can challenge deregulation, corporate free speech and states power to compel corporate advertisers to disclose who is part of their funding stream .... all of which are legitimate issues people disagree upon. And the GOP has the maj.

 

[ColonelAngus]

"it is" however about more than abortion. It's about how much of the civil rights statutes should stand, how much citizens can challenge deregulation, corporate free speech and states power to compel corporate advertisers to disclose who is part of their funding stream .... all of which are legitimate issues people disagree upon. And the GOP has the maj.

abortion was just a scare tactic for asshole Dimms to gin up the base.

Pretty soon, people will realize they will still be allowed to kill babies if they so choose.

 

[toomuchtime_]

[

If you believe that's true, the legitimate way to assert individual rights on any issue that is not addressed in the Constitution is a Constitutional amendment, which is what the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, do. The Congress and the states have the Constitutional right to add more rights to the Constitution but the SC does not.[/QUOTE]
So, we needed a const amendment to end mysogination

Why is it so important that they would try to ruin the lives of Ford and her freinds and family and Kavanaugh and his friends and family?

Specifically, why are they going to these great lengths for this seat?

Abortion, mostly. Obviously.

The pseudocons want the seat to ban gay marriage and return Again to the days of Jim Crow when America was Great. That's why they trashed Clinton and her friends and family.

No, this is about states rights, or to put it another way, to preserve the integrity of the Constitution. In the unlikely event Roe v. wade were overturned, the issue of the legality of abortion would be decided by the individual states and abortion would be legal under state law in most states. The same is true about same sex marriage. The Tenth Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the SC has no Constitutional right to rule on abortion or gay marriage or any other issue unless the Constitution has specifically delegated that right to the federal government or prohibited it to the states.

So, states should be able to decide whether women can have abortions, or gay people can marry? if so, I agree that you've identified the issue, but it's more about state power > individual rights

If you believe that's true, the legitimate way to assert individual rights on any issue that is not addressed in the Constitution is a Constitutional amendment, which is what the first ten amendments, the Bill of Rights, do. The Congress and the states have the Constitutional right to add more rights to the Constitution but the SC does not.

So we needed a const amendment to determine the 14th prevented laws forbidding miscegenation. Your dog doesn't hunt. Even Kavanaugh doesn't agree with that analysis[/QUOTE]
Federal courts, including the SC, had many times ruled that miscegenation was a state matter and that the SC had no Constitutional authority to rule on it, but the Warren Court, which never believed it needed Constitutional authority to rule on any issue, ruled against miscegenation laws. It is not a question of whether miscegenation laws should be allowed but whether the Constitution had delegated the authority to rule on the issue to the federal government or reserved it for the states, and no court before the Warren Court had ever believed the 14th amendment had delegated the authority to rule on the legality of miscegenation laws to the federal government. Earl Warren was a politician, not a legal scholar, and the Warren Court was often swayed more by political sentiment than by legal arguments.

 

[Mr Natural]

Frankly, I hope they do overturn Roe v Wade.

This way, little Ellie Mae will have to get on the Greyhound and go to the scary big bad blue city to get her “problem” taken care of.