Brainonska511
Lifer
- Dec 10, 2005
- 25,061
- 8,351
- 136
It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.Why is that relevant?
It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.Why is that relevant?
It’s not even about that. It’s that their legal reasoning in two cases decided days apart are directly at odds with one another in order to achieve their desired outcome.It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.
Are you talking about the far right, pro Trump, MAGA, Qanon Mastriano? Thank the democrats for running ads for him in PA.Yea. What they care about is control. And, they won't stop until they find success. Roe vs Wade is just the beginning.
The positive is this could backfire on Republicans in a very big way. Especially if our rights are eroded within the next few years. There is a PA race in November. The Republican candidate is a hardcore Evangelical Christian who has said that he wants to make PA a Christian state. Whatever that means. The bible taught in public schools? Lessons taught on Adam and Eve, and the great flood as proof without a shred of evidence? Weekly mandatory prayer, or else you could face fines, or jail time? This is getting real my friend.
When I taught in Thailand we had 1-2 hours of mandatory Buddhist prayers, and scripture the children and teachers had to say about their king every morning. Its was indoctrination 101. Every frekin morning. You either enaged in this practice or else faced a penalty. In the sweltering heat. Sayings like "the king is great" This type of stuff could be coming to America.
You are probably right. I haven’t looked into sex education in the public schools.One of the things that came out of Roe vs Wade was real sex education and efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies with real world solutions, which is why abortion rates have been dropping since the early 80’s.
religious conservatives will push abstinence only again. Roe vs wade repeal is the tip of the iceberg, if you think this is where this stops, then you’re only fooling yourself.
p.s. - how ya been 😁
According to the constitution, anything is supposed to be allowed up until the government decides to ban it.It's only relevant if you think that every right needs to be explicitly enumerated, which is a pretty ridiculous idea.
Are you talking about the far right, pro Trump, MAGA, Qanon Mastriano? Thank the democrats for running ads for him in PA.
Democrats' plan to boost extremists in GOP primaries could backfire
Democrats spent more money to boost election denier Doug Mastriano than he did. That could come back to haunt them.www.salon.com
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.
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.
What amendment are you talking about then?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.
Much agreed. Which is why so many millions are upset with the Jao Baiduns installation.
It’s not even about that. It’s that their legal reasoning in two cases decided days apart are directly at odds with one another in order to achieve their desired outcome.
Jao Baiduns
the fuck is this?
The 2nd and 14th amendments. For the 2nd amendment SCOTUS declared that laws passed after it didn’t matter. For the 14th they decided they did. There is no consistent rationale here, just that they wanted to find a way to reach their preferred outcome.What amendment are you talking about then?
I genuinely do not understand what you are talking about. Are you saying the 14th amendment isn’t part of the constitution?One is in the Constitution, the other is not.
It is mind boggling that you cannot tell the difference between something explicitly written down and not.
Fully agree on your second point.
As far as conservatives not respecting Federalism, I don't think they should be called 'conservative' anymore. Conservatives are supposed to be against big government. Can't have actual conversations with people calling them Nazis or Fascists. So for now I'll stick with 'right-wingers' unless anyone on here has a better (to open conversations with them!) idea for accurate labels.
Fascist is the correct label for the current Republican Party. If they don’t like it, they can stop being fascists.
What past behavior supports they will allow states to make laws governing their residence interstate travel, making it illegal for them to go to other states and partake in activities/medical treatment/abortion/ what have you, that are legal in the state they are traveling to because it's illegal in their home state? There is no legal standing or behavior that supports such an assumption.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.
One of the things that came out of Roe vs Wade was real sex education and efforts to prevent unwanted pregnancies with real world solutions, which is why abortion rates have been dropping since the early 80’s.
religious conservatives will push abstinence only again. Roe vs wade repeal is the tip of the iceberg, if you think this is where this stops, then you’re only fooling yourself.
p.s. - how ya been 😁
What past behavior supports they will allow states to make laws governing their residence interstate travel, making it illegal for them to go to other states and partake in activities/medical treatment/abortion/ what have you, that are legal in the state they are traveling to because it's illegal in their home state? There is no legal standing or behavior that supports such an assumption.
Again, say it with me everyone: The Constitution does not grant rights, it limits what the government is allowed to do.There is no amendment for abortion. I don't think there's a federal law legalizing abortion either.
Sounds great, I'd love to put a bounty on anyone attempting to restrict any humans' bodily autonomy.How about a "bounty/lawsuit" law along the lines of what Texas already has in place which completely side-steps federal law by turning the matter into a civil issue and relegating enforcement to individuals?
I could swear I read that someplace already added "aiding in travel to get an abortion" to the list of stuff that can be sued over awhile back?
Seems to me that corporations who fund employee's travel to get an abortion may end up being sued? (although Google/M$ etc are FAR less attractive targets then the old lady down the block with their armies of lawyers)
Sounds great, I'd love to put a bounty on anyone attempting to restrict any humans' bodily autonomy.
So you are arguing hypotheticals and personal theories as if they are proven fact?
I don't see anything about abortion in the 14th amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that they are leaving it up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow or deny abortions (absent an explicit federal law or amendment).The 2nd and 14th amendments. For the 2nd amendment SCOTUS declared that laws passed after it didn’t matter. For the 14th they decided they did. There is no consistent rationale here, just that they wanted to find a way to reach their preferred outcome.
I don't see anything about abortion in the 14th amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that they are leaving it up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow or deny abortions (absent an explicit federal law or amendment).
Whether or not abortion is mentioned in the 14th amendment is not relevant to my point.I don't see anything about abortion in the 14th amendment. IANAL, but it appears to me that they are leaving it up to the states to decide whether or not they want to allow or deny abortions (absent an explicit federal law or amendment).