I believe in federalism, you know, leaving most things up to the states, the people, not activist judges. As I’ve already pointed out, the states are free to legalize abortion. This is what the Supreme Court has done, left it up to the states so again, no rights have been taken away.
For consistency, if a future SCOTUS decided the right to bear arms didn't protect an individual's right to own and carry guns and punted it to the state this same line of thought would say no right had been lost. Or are you trying to argue that previous women in the US did not in fact have a right to an abortion despite SCOTUS saying they did?
A reminder that while Liz is doing the Lord's work on the January 6th committee, that doesn't mean she's all that good of a person.
You're being incredibly disingenuous on this topic. You're either trolling, stupid, or an asshole. Or maybe all three. But what's clear is that you really aren't a libertarian if you're against abortion.
Been having a read through the first few pages of this thread for a refresher, and as a government employee Lanz wondering what your opinion is on if it would be ok for women and their supporters to now fall back on those 2nd Amendment rights where necessary to protect the rights taken away today. Or is this another one of those situations where it actually turns out to not be helpful for protecting other rights at all?
The great thing about this country is that you’re entitled to your opinion, but it doesn’t mean your opinion is correct.
This is a 100% serious question btw. When Trump was elected there was lots of talk about Americans overreacting, that they would be protected by the good guys. Those distraught because they saw that it would lead directly to outcomes like this were mocked for years after. Everyone keeps hearing how those glorious 2nd Amendment rights are what keeps you all free and protects your other rights from oppressive government. Well your day is here, put up or shut up?
A conservative obsessed with petty vengeance and cruelty? I'm shocked! Why, we never see those traits in how they handle policing, sentencing, self defense, arguing, debating, worship, prayer, memes, avatar choice, or just plain Thanksgiving. And by never, I mean always.
Right here is some of what this is about. Here we have the boy. He is a fucking loser. Girls do not like him. He is lonely. He is a weak fucking dude with a lot of Incel anger issues. Today he feels like he struck back at all those bitches by taking away their rights and punishing them for having sex without him. He does not care about rights. He does not care about children. He would not even care about abortion if it was not something that could be used to kick every woman in the US. It is all about the pain he can pretend he causes to others. This is because the boy is impotent and weak. Fucker carlson and Charlie Kirk have convinced him that this is some great victory for him, and now he is here to slurp up the tears of all the people he hates. This is what @Uncle Albert , @Paladin , and all the other right wingers are about. I know I forget many, but they are fairly unimportant. This is not the end of democracy. This is what democracy is. Here is a glimpse of what it means to actually be a minority white liberal men. You are not even losing anything. I had a talk with my gay friends today, and they know gay marriage is next. They are not gone. They are not going back into the closet. Women are not going back to being the property of their husbands. black people are not going back to being slaves. Sorry to Federal farmer, but if you want the 1800s back you better fucking pick up a gun and fight because you just empowered counterculture and criminality big time with your babysitter bullshit. Nothing promotes something like banning it.
https://jezebel.com/ag-merrick-garland-locates-spine-says-states-can-t-ban-1849106067 Biden and Merrick Garland reminded everyone today that individual states don't have the power to ban FDA-approved abortion pills.
The president can only pardon people for federal offenses. So he could offer no protection against violation of state laws criminalizing abortion.
Which things do you believe should not be left up to the states? Under the logic of this ruling, it's fine for states to decide to ban gay marriage, interracial marriage, contraception, gay sex and more because the Constitution has no guarantee of privacy. You're good with that?
So, what's his plan for when conservatives come after interracial marriage? Because let's be honest, when they ban gay marriage again, drive trans people into the closet and enact a federal ban on abortion on the other 27 states, they'll be circling back to that tried and true canard to drum up outrage.
Not my field of the law, haven't done any research, but I don't see why they can't ban or effectively ban it. Yes, federal law generally supercedes state law. But the FDA approving a drug for a given use doesn't mean that a state can't set conditions on how that drug is sold, distributed, or used within the state or impose criminal penalties for how it is used. Making it so anyone who buys an abortiofacient drug has to register with the government, get it through a physician whose license they can revoke for prescribing it, or jump through X number of hoops to get it is seemingly well within a state's power. Also, you know who gets to resolve the issue of conflict of laws? The Supreme Court.
I said as much 6 years ago. They (he and Paladin and old fella) all said no one’s being oppressed. He’s not going to answer you. And he’s lying about the second amendment and the “fundamental right to protect oneself’, that wasn’t even remotely a concern of the writers of the constitution. If it were, they’d have written it down somewhere and it isn’t.
Justice Thomas probably believes that conservatives aren't going to come for his marriage. He may think that in 2022, with 90-plus percent of Americans approving of interracial marriage, the likelihood of a state trying to make interracial marriage illegal in 2022 is small to non-existent. Whether that is a self-delusion remains to be seen. But he also may simply think, "hey, if they do try to come for interracial marriage, my fellow justices and I will just block it. I know them to be good non-racist people, and we don't have to follow the logic that if there's no right to privacy in the Constitution, there's no right to interracial marriage based on the right to privacy. Or if they do, I'll just come up with some other justification that allows interracial marriage to be a constitutional right but not gay marriage, etc."
Perfectly fine if the states/ people decide that. It’s not the outcome I would prefer, but at least the will of the people would be heard.
If you think about it, since the Second protects the right of self defense and the SCOTUS Roe v Wade decision infringes on a woman’s right to control her own body, the answer is yes. Armed defense of a woman seeking a medical treatment that an overbearing State is trying to prevent is justified.
And how do you think that SCOTUS will respond to armed folks defending abortion clinics? I'm betting that sooner or later they'll use such things as justification for gun confiscations.