So which group will need to get armed up to get gun restrictions in place? Black people arming up at the pools or white women shooting protesters at abortions clinics? Place your bets now!
That’s the entire fucking point and text of the ninth amendment, you poor, brainwashed idiot, that it does not have to be written to be a right, one equally valid as the ones that are enumerated.
And here is where you show yourself to have nothing to do with true libertarianism. (Well, except for the fuck you, got mine sense because I'm presuming bans on any of the above would probably not cause any personal inconvenience to you in the slightest). Anyone who would be OK with the state stripping away an individual right that harms no one and costs nothing to allow the exercise of cannot claim to be libertarian at all.
Why would the authorities go through all that legislative hassle when they can just declare both groups "rioters" and let the police shoot rubber bullets directly at their eyes? At least until Kyle Rittenhouse and the Proud Boys show up to kill the remaining rioters in self defense, that is.
See, that's a fair question and I'm happy to answer it. I'd work to have it repealed, of course. The point is that we need to operate within the framework that we have and convince people with our ideas, not by radicals torching cities.
Let's just think about the hypocrisy of the current SCOTUS. In the same week, they ruled: 1. There is nothing explicit in the U.S. Constitution that protects individuals from state legislation to ban abortion, so despite 50 years of precedent we cannot read that protection into the Constitution, therefore the states can do what they think is best. On the other hand, 2. Though there is nothing explicit in the Constitution to protect individuals from state legislation that regulates concealed weapons, we must read just that into the Constitution, therefore the states cannot do what they think is best.
And in Thomas’ opinion, he specifically cites the 14th amendment as reason for the expansion of gun rights. Another “own the libs” moment.
I (and I hope, most people) believe that consenting adults have a right to marry, a right to engage in sexual behavior, and the right to buy contraception, among others. These rights are currently (largely) protected by Supreme Court decisions. The decision in Dobbs has explicitly has had conservatives say that the right for gays to marry and to engage in consensual sex without facing criminal charges and the right for anyone to buy contraception should be revisited (including Justice Thomas). And by revisited, it's not to pat them on the back and say what a good job the previous court did in ruling that way. It's to say the previous court decided those cases wrongly and states can refuse to recognize gay marriage, can criminalize private gay sexual conduct, can refuse to allow the sales of contraception to unmarried couples etc. The same logic in Dobbs says that states can also ban interracial marriage, but so far, no one seems to be publicly suggesting that the Court revisit that ruling too.
Other than trying to be a needlessly pedantic cunt (and also failing at it by any sensible interpretation of the word rights, prior precedent, and the actual text of this ruling) what point is it that you think you're making focusing on that line?
You’re bitching about being a pedantic cunt, lol. Anyway, I’m just asking a simple question that most people here seem unable to answer.
Here's a hint, the clue is in this threads title being the name of the US case that established your female population had a right to get abortions.
i don't know about most people in the thread, but I directly answered the question you asked. The rights I talked about are the rights for consenting LGBTQ+ people to marry and to have sex without the state barring them from getting married and deriving the benefits from marriage, the rights of adults to purchase contraception without state interference, and the rights for people of different races to marry. Each of those rights has been confirmed by court cases, and in light of Dobbs, each of them is at risk. Justice Thomas himself has explicitly called out all besides interracial marriage.
It’s not that anyone here is unable to answer your question, it’s just that we’re floored that your ignorance and lack of intellectual ability prevents you from seeing the obvious, but also that you appear to be able to type out words that … combine to complete a sentence (if not an intellectual thought).
Since you can't possibly be ignorant enough to not know the answer, I'm assuming you are arguing that the right to reproductive choices as outlined in Roe v. Wade doesn't count as a right, and will probably engage in some kind of pedantic dancing around to argue that as a result, the outcome of this case doesn't matter. Except you'll do the second part through implication, and then spend the next three pages repeating "did I say those exact words, yes or no? Did I say those exact words, yes or no?"
you claim to be a libertarian and so presumably throw away your vote on that? and you do get that platform wise, it's kinda worse in a lot of ways?
The Senate has adjourned and is on vacation. Fortunately, it's not like a major rights violation against half the population has just happened, so we'll all be fine until July 11th.
Red states will have their party, banning abortions, executing their pent-up desires of the pasty five decades. But I suspect in the coming decades those restrictions will loosen as reality sets in and the issue works itself out in the court of democratic politics. Also, Kavanagh, for one, has signaled he will support interstate abortion tourism: https://fortune.com/2022/06/24/just...ortions-constitutional-roe-v-wade-overturned/
I seem to recall another story where he was told his acceptance to Yale was part of an affirmative action program and this enraged him.
Biden, when asked about ending the filibuster, or even changing the makeup of the Supreme Court: Seems like no one in congress is in a hurry to do anything to fix this now, while a 140 million women have lost their bodily rights.