Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[bilby]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.

 

[bilby]

If, on the other hand, congress had done it's fucking job and made a damned LAW about it... that's an entirely different issue. In order to overturn that federal law, the court would need to show that the law itself was inherently unconstitutional.

No, they would just need to state that. Nobody is judging them; Nobody marks their work, and says "You get an 'F' for poor logic; Go back and try again". The Supreme Court is, as the name suggests, supreme.

They would have to be able to defend the view that the law itself violates the constitution.

You can defend any view. Who has the authority to declare that defence inadequate, when it is made the majority opinion of the Supreme Court?

Any Supreme Court justice can write or join with a dissenting minority opinion; But the majority decision still stands, even if the minority opinion exposes it as utter tripe.

And there's nothing in the constitution that it would violate.

There is, if the Supreme Court says there is.

 

[Elixir]

There is, if the Supreme Court says there is.

Ems lives in a lala land where words have immutable meanings.
SCOTUS lives in a world of dictating meanings.
Never the twain shall meet.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

 

[crazyfingers]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Well that was a STUPID comment.

 

[laughing dog]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

Which amendment was the abortion amendment?

According to the Roe v Wade decision, the 14th one.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.

Speak for yourself because your eyes must be wide shut.

We do not see a lot with the level of wrongness that we see from Islam. Where is the Christian equivalent to the Iranian-backed genocides of Africa?

Also in Africa.

I am surprised you were unaware of this.

Islam and Christianity have been fighting a very bloody war there for control of various territories (often asynchronous with national boundaries, as is true of so much of post-colonial Africa) for a couple of centuries now.

Sure there have been Christian wrongs there. I'm saying there's nothing remotely at the level of the current genocides.

Really? Are you sure? Or do you just assume it's so, because it suits your preconceptions, and/or those of your preferred "news" providers?

There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Well that was a STUPID comment.

It is interesting to note that conservatives only bring up racism if they can somehow twist it into a counter argument, and not because they actually care about racism.

 

[bilby]

There have been some pretty bad things but not at the genocide level. Nobody set out to annihilate a population for religious reasons. Yes, there has been genocidal intent towards armed groups, not against groups that aren't attacking.

You will forgive me for not taking your word for any of this.

 

[Elixir]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

It was a precedent setting case.
Stare Decisis, nothing more, nothing less.
Stare Decisis, which at least two of the three Trump justices (not sure about the third) swore to respect during the confirmation hearing pageant.
What a joke.

BTW Ems,
In its 1973 ruling in Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Constitution provides a right to abortion. That fact can easily be confirmed by any respectable source.

You keep forgetting what "in The Constitution" actually means. It means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States of America says it means.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.

It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.

Dude, it is interesting to learn that you flunked remedial reading.
It is just as correct to say that the right to abortion WAS affirmed in the Constitution, as to say that CURRENTLY it is not.
You can say the same about ANY decision that overturns precedent.
Get someone to read it to you if you still think it implies that I support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.
It has exactly ZERO to do with my support of ANY decision.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.

The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.

Which amendment was the abortion amendment?

The ninth one would be a good start at recognizing how ridiculous that question always is.

Right to privacy isn't explicitly called out in the Bill of Rights. You gonna complain about that too?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.

With women like Emily Lake defending women's rights, who needs Charlie Kirk?!

 

[Toni]

How the Supreme Court's Latest Decision Clears the Way for Racial Profiling During Immigration Raids - American Immigration Council

This week the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that clears the way for racial profiling during immigration raids and sweeps. Now we could see the Trump administration rapidly expand the racially discriminatory ICE practices we have already seen terrorize families, workplaces, and communities...

www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

This is an opinion piece by an org that, judging by their web site, is maximalist on immigration.
And note that this is a temporary stay, not a final decision.

Conservatives have a big problem with reading comprehension, so it probably isn't going to do much.

And everybody who is not a leftist is automatically a "conservative" to you, right?

Yes, I knew that it was a temporary stay. This is about as much ‘pushback’ as the Supreme Court is willing to give any of Trump’s demands.

Here is a link to a gifted article. Apologies for those who still believe that the NYT is ‘left wing.’

The Supreme Court Decision on ICE and Racial Profiling, Explained

The ruling allowed immigration agents to stop people for reasons that lower courts had deemed likely unconstitutional.

www.nytimes.com

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And everybody who is not a leftist is automatically a "conservative" to you, right?

Nope. There's no objective measure of who is on any part of the political spectrum, but as far as I can tell conservatives tend to believe highly in nationalism "'Murica is greatest country in the world!" (and whatnot), a traditionalist belief system (blue hair is bad and scary!), "strong borders" (gubmit can do whatever they want to them illegals! And whatnot), being "tough on crime" (i.e. basically allowing cops to do whatever the fuck they want), to name a few things that can make a "conservative" a conservative.

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

First off... you've entirely missed the point, and you've snipped my post in order to support your wrong point. But I'm not surprised.

I support licensing, with required training. I don't support the removal of a constitutional right.

If you don't support the removal of a constitutional right, then you don't support amendments to the Constitution (which can add, remove or modify rights). With this approach you should be opposed to the Second Amendment, as it changed your seemingly preferred immutable Constitution. Now, of course, you are not opposed to amendments (which are themselves a process that is a part of the Constitution), but your sentence was careless, as it implied that the Constitution should not be changed.

Constitutional right are very artificial, not like natural human rights (breathing, walking, sneezing, etcetera), but some Americans treat the Second Amendment like it was a human right ***. Also, another problem with the 2A is that the Supreme Court made a strange interpretation that defied the obvious (obvious to many, not to everyone) actual words of the 2A.
*** So much so that they think people in other nations are being denied this "human right".

 

[Shadowy Man]

One of the points he makes is that cars are very dangerous, about 50,000 people each year die from automobile crashes. That's a cost that we, as a people, have decided is worth it in order to gain the benefits of automobiles. He pointed out that if citizens have the right to own guns, it's impossible to have zero gun-related deaths - it's not going to happen. His argument was that we should do everything we can to minimize those deaths, just as we do everything we can to reasonably minimize auto accidents and deaths. But if we wish to have gun rights in order to protect ourselves from a zealous government, then we as a society are accepting that there's going to be some deaths as a price for that right.

Too bad that we are not doing “everything we can to minimize” gun deaths.

The parallel of guns with cars continues to be used despite the absurdity of the comparison.

We could only hope that guns, designed for killing, were regulated as tightly as cars, not designed for killing.

First off... you've entirely missed the point, and you've snipped my post in order to support your wrong point. But I'm not surprised.

I support licensing, with required training. I don't support the removal of a constitutional right.

If you don't support the removal of a constitutional right, then you don't support amendments to the Constitution (which can add, remove or modify rights). With this approach you should be opposed to the Second Amendment, as it changed your seemingly preferred immutable Constitution. Now, of course, you are not opposed to amendments (which are themselves a process that is a part of the Constitution), but your sentence was careless, as it implied that the Constitution should not be changed.

You made the same error I did in reading the use of the article “a” literally when you should have contextually understood Emily to only be addressing the second amendment right.

 

[Elixir]

Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.

All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.

With women like Emily Lake defending women's rights, who needs Charlie Kirk?!

Not Trump, he’s fine but look at that big beautiful ballroom! I tellya nobody has seen anything like it.