bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 39,790
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
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.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.
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?They would have to be able to defend the view that the law itself violates the constitution.
There is, if the Supreme Court says there is.And there's nothing in the constitution that it would violate.
Ems lives in a lala land where words have immutable meanings.There is, if the Supreme Court says there is.
It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.It was a precedent setting case.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
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.It was a precedent setting case.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
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.
According to the Roe v Wade decision, the 14th one.Which amendment was the abortion amendment?The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.
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.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?Sure there have been Christian wrongs there. I'm saying there's nothing remotely at the level of the current genocides.Also in Africa.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?Speak for yourself because your eyes must be wide shut.Radical Christianity is way out there, also. It's just we haven't seen much of their insanity.
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.
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.It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.It was a precedent setting case.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
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.
Well that was a STUPID comment.
You will forgive me for not taking your word for any of this.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.
Dude, it is interesting to learn that you flunked remedial reading.It is interesting to find out that you support the Dred Scott decision and the Plessy v. Ferguson decision.It was a precedent setting case.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
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.
The ninth one would be a good start at recognizing how ridiculous that question always is.Which amendment was the abortion amendment?The fuck it wasn't. Roe v Wade made a constitutional right. What the Supreme Court grants, it can remove.FFS, Roe was never a constitutional right, and you know it.
With women like Emily Lake defending women's rights, who needs Charlie Kirk?!All of law is an interpretation, and nothing more.Roe was an interpretation, and nothing more.
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.This is an opinion piece by an org that, judging by their web site, is maximalist on immigration.![]()
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
And note that this is a temporary stay, not a final decision.
And everybody who is not a leftist is automatically a "conservative" to you, right?Conservatives have a big problem with reading comprehension, so it probably isn't going to do much.