LOL you don't think Republican judges are playing Calvinball after yesterday?
What did they let stand for months? Which specific, what case did they try? Be specific with the case and the ruling language. (Before you try to say the Texas Abortion law, you need to learn the ruling and what it pertained to - you will find out that NO case regarding vigilante justice being carried out has yet to be tried in court or one that supports states have the right to prevent their residents from seeking abortions out of state, and/or be charged with a crime when they return). Not blocking or shutting down the Texas abortion law based on the case that they heard, does not equate to mean such, nor does it equate to states being allowed to try their residents for leaving the state to seek abortions.
So again, there is no legal standing that would support such argument that states can make it illegal for residents to seek abortions in another state.
United States map with state teen birth rates (births per 1,000 females ages 15-19) by quartile.
All Graphics Data Descriptionswww.cdc.gov
not really shocking which states have the highest teen pregnancy rates...
True, it is controlling sexual agency for anyone who isn’t a straight man.It doesn't stop with women either. Thomas isn't talking about reversing Lawrence for no reason.
Exactly. ‘The law clearly states X’ no longer has any meaning here.LOL you don't think Republican judges are playing Calvinball after yesterday?
They can try, and the law will be thrown out, as it is 100% unconstitutional. You are trying to argue an idea that is unproven and unconstitutional. Short answer: Bullshit! They have no legal standing to make such a law! Residence are not inmates where they have committed a crime and have lost their rights. You might as well be trying to argue that states can make it illegal for it's residence to fly to Vegas to gamble because it's illegal to gamble in their home state. It's a bullshit argument and would be an unlawful, unconstitutional law.. period.This is really not accurate. Like I said, Idaho could absolutely make it a crime to leave the state for the purposes of getting an abortion. It doesn’t matter if the state they travel to has legal abortion, the Idaho crime is not ‘having an abortion in Washington’ it is ‘traveling for the purposes of abortion’ while still within Idaho.
You are correct that no case has been tried about this yet because it’s a new idea, but the idea that such laws are categorically impossible is…uhmm…not true. As we discussed he full faith and credit clause would theoretically bind other states to enforce this judgment, although I think as a political matter they will refuse.
Have you not been reading the news recently?They can try, and the law will be thrown out, as it is 100% unconstitutional. You are trying to argue an idea that is unproven and unconstitutional. Short answer: Bullshit! They have no legal standing to make such a law! Residence are not inmates where they have committed a crime and have lost their rights. You might as well be trying to argue that states can make it illegal for it's residence to fly to Vegas to gamble because it's illegal to gamble in their home state. It's a bullshit argument and would be an unlawful, unconstitutional law.. period.
this court doesn't care much for the constitution....They can try, and the law will be thrown out, as it is 100% unconstitutional. You are trying to argue an idea that is unproven and unconstitutional. Short answer: Bullshit! They have no legal standing to make such a law! Residence are not inmates where they have committed a crime and have lost their rights. You might as well be trying to argue that states can make it illegal for it's residence to fly to Vegas to gamble because it's illegal to gamble in their home state. It's a bullshit argument and would be an unlawful, unconstitutional law.. period.
They can try, and the law will be thrown out, as it is 100% unconstitutional. You are trying to argue an idea that is unproven and unconstitutional. Short answer: Bullshit! They have no legal standing to make such a law! Residence are not inmates where they have committed a crime and have lost their rights. You might as well be trying to argue that states can make it illegal for it's residence to fly to Vegas to gamble because it's illegal to gamble in their home state. It's a bullshit argument and would be an unlawful, unconstitutional law.. period.
When they go after interracial marriage, Clarence Thomas will find himself in a pickle.
So you are arguing hypotheticals and personal theories as if they are proven fact?LOL you don't think Republican judges are playing Calvinball after yesterday?
Hmm, well in the Catholic teaching is opposed to medical and mechanical means of contraception. NFP, which has developed quite well over the past 30 years - is allowed, but like all means of birth control, it’s only effective when adhered to without error.Every time I've dug a bit at a pro-lifer who says it isn't about sex it always ends up being about sex when they start talking about how contraception is bad and abstinence only sex education should be law. My experience is mostly midwestern based where we have a lot of nuts evangelicals.
Polls show the majority of Americans support roe v Wade. So the majority of Americans according to that pathological liar, are now extremist left wing?It's interesting how you apparently perceive the right to an abortion as a "left-wing view". Thousands of women will die so that theocratic far-right conservatives can enjoy their perceived god-given power to lord it over women, but hey, thank goodness that you're being such a civil fence-sitting "moderate" who rates order over justice. As long as the women die in an orderly fashion, that's what's important.
We have no idea what the SCOTUS will rule in future cases. Just because A happened does not mean B, C, D... etc will happen.. The defense/or their argument is all hypotheticals and personal theories that there is no current legal standing supporting it. All the Scotus has done is made abortion a state issue as long as Congress refuses to make a federal law mandating it. That does not indicate they will rule in favor of states making unconstitutional laws preventing residence from traveling to states to get an abortion where it's legal.This is an acute failure to comprehend this court will decide what it wants to do policy wise and make up whatever thin or contradictory justifications they need to do it.
Yep. When it’s about gun rights laws passed after the amendment don’t matter. When it’s about abortion rights laws passed after the amendment do. This is not different courts over time, this is the same courts’ decisions, days apart.This is an acute failure to comprehend this court will decide what it wants to do policy wise and make up whatever thin or contradictory justifications they need to do it.
Hmm, well in the Catholic teaching is opposed to medical and mechanical means of contraception. NFP, which has developed quite well over the past 30 years - is allowed, but like all means of birth control, it’s only effective when adhered to without error.
Amongst Catholic parents, around here anyway. The children are strongly reminded to remain faithful to Catholic teaching on sex - but we aren’t idiots. We know some percentage will come up short (an ever increasing percentage) - so we also admonish our children to use a condom if they do have sex (particularly when they are heading off to college which is the sexual Wild West). We need to protect them from disease and from the extremely difficult pressures that occur when they become pregnant or get someone pregnant at such a young age and being unmarried. It’s just what loving parents need to do in the world we live in while doing our best to honor Christ in the way we live. Life is messy.
Looking at past behavior and projecting future behavior of this court you're wildly optimistic. There seems to be no line they are not willing to cross.We have no idea what the SCOTUS will rule in future cases. Just because A happened does not mean B, C, D... etc will happen.. The defense/or their argument is all hypotheticals and personal theories that there is no current legal standing supporting it. All the Scotus has done is made abortion a state issue as long as Congress refuses to make a federal law mandating it. That does not indicate they will rule in favor of states making unconstitutional laws preventing residence from traveling to states to get an abortion where it's legal.
It doesn't stop with women either. Thomas isn't talking about reversing Lawrence for no reason.
We’ll to be clear, to the voters this is true. For the justices and the politicians who put them them there the over riding reason is to maintain political power to provide the political favors their billionaire constituents demand.True, it is controlling sexual agency for anyone who isn’t a straight man.
I'm no constitutional scholar but it does explicitly state the right to bear arms is necessary to the security of a free state.
Unregulated militias are more appropriately labeled as gangs or illegal paramilitary groups since they don't fall under the authority of any civil government. It's not like a state can call those weekend warriors up for active duty.only as part of a militia the government cam call upon. not weekend warrior unregulated militia groups in the woods wanting to over throw the government.
One of the main reasons the far-right has been able to get away with this crap is that so many of the actual majority in this country are completely out to lunch.
The Republican party is all about stripping Americans of their rights and ensuring permanent male-dominated white-minority rule. Period.
If you're naive enough to think the GOP/Christian's actually care about "constitutional rights" at this point then all I can say is want to buy a bridge?
There is no amendment for abortion. I don't think there's a federal law legalizing abortion either.Yep. When it’s about gun rights laws passed after the amendment don’t matter. When it’s about abortion rights laws passed after the amendment do. This is not different courts over time, this is the same courts’ decisions, days apart.
Why is that relevant? The discussion here is that when analyzing an amendment SCOTUS decided laws after an amendment didn’t matter in one case and did matter in another. This means they were judging based on outcomes, not neutral legal logic.There is no amendment for abortion. I don't think there's a law legalizing abortion either.