SCOTUS - Women must give birth - Government has no say in pollution.

[Jarhyn]

I disagree. They could not have come to the conclusions they did without an egregious violation of a number of principles which are well laid out in our constitution, mostly by people who didn't know how much their principles impugned their own lifestyles and puny momentary opinions.

And still those principles are not perfect, but even so, this was a vile twisting, as is apology to such.

Also seriously, this post was gross to clean up.

Shame on you two not cleaning up your tag pairs in markup view.

I did my best - despite claims it is easy to clean them up, I frequently have an effing time doing it.

As to my point, while I would have disagreed with their reasoning, there was no need vitiate the right to privacy in their decision. Hell, even Justice Roberts brought that up.

Find the pair that terminates, the deepest nest, and then select a number of additional /quote, then a number of opening tags equal that.

So

...
Quote=a
Quote=b //select up to here third, THEN delete . iterate until no nest.
Quote=c

/Quote //select me first
/Quote //select me second
...
/Quote

 

[Metaphor]

People can have rights that aren't in the Constitution but they are only guaranteed if they are written into the Constitution.

It's a safer bet than legislation which can be repealed, sure. But on the other hand, legislation was a safer bet than relying on an implied 'right to privacy' and the temperament of a particular Court.

Imagine instead if the Constitution had said 'Abortion is a fundamental right and no legislature in the land may restrict access to it'. I would say a Justice of any political persuasion would have a hard time 'reading against the text' of that.

 

[Toni]

People can have rights that aren't in the Constitution but they are only guaranteed if they are written into the Constitution.

It's a safer bet than legislation which can be repealed, sure. But on the other hand, legislation was a safer bet than relying on an implied 'right to privacy' and the temperament of a particular Court.

Imagine instead if the Constitution had said 'Abortion is a fundamental right and no legislature in the land may restrict access to it'. I would say a Justice of any political persuasion would have a hard time 'reading against the text' of that.

Do you really think that I do not know that codifying abortion rights is the safest path?

Do you really think that abortion rights are the only thing affected by the recent rulings of the current Court which has overturned multiple well established precedents?

FFS please do not try to tell me how my country and the laws in my country work or don't work. You really don't understand half of what you think you do---far less than half.

 

[Metaphor]

Do you really think that abortion rights are the only thing affected by the recent rulings of the current Court which has overturned multiple well established precedents?

No.

FFS please do not try to tell me how my country and the laws in my country work or don't work. You really don't understand half of what you think you do---far less than half.

First you tell me what I am saying is redundant, and then you are telling me what I am saying is wrong.

 

[Toni]

Do you really think that abortion rights are the only thing affected by the recent rulings of the current Court which has overturned multiple well established precedents?

No.

FFS please do not try to tell me how my country and the laws in my country work or don't work. You really don't understand half of what you think you do---far less than half.

First you tell me what I am saying is redundant, and then you are telling me what I am saying is wrong.

I’m sorry that you don’t understand what I write.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People can have rights that aren't in the Constitution but they are only guaranteed if they are written into the Constitution.

It's a safer bet than legislation which can be repealed, sure. But on the other hand, legislation was a safer bet than relying on an implied 'right to privacy' and the temperament of a particular Court.

Umm no. As the Court can (and would have) ruled the Federal Government had no say in it and it was a state issue.

Imagine instead if the Constitution had said 'Abortion is a fundamental right and no legislature in the land may restrict access to it'. I would say a Justice of any political persuasion would have a hard time 'reading against the text' of that.

The only safe route would be a constitutional amendment, which is about as easy to create as developing perpetual motion. Generally you need 3/4's of the states to pull it off. So anyone suggesting an abortion or right to privacy amendment is either smoking crack or completely ignorant and regardless of the reason, should simply be ignored.

 

[Bomb#20]

... So if your anecdote about the South Carolina legislature is sufficient to generalize that Republicans don't care about civil rights, then my anecdote about opponents of CU v FEC is certainly sufficient for the symmetrical generalization. Most people of both parties appear to care a lot more about the civil rights of their ingroups than about the civil rights of their outgroups. A plague on both your houses.

My problem with CUvFEC has nothing to do with the Hillary movie.

What's your problem with CU v FEC? It's an anti-censorship decision. Is there something else it prohibited the government from doing besides censoring? Or is there somebody you wanted the government to censor that you're willing to throw the civil rights of the directors and employees of CU under the bus for?

So that's one example. Do you have any others?

Well, there are all manner of people individual Democrats want the government to violate the civil rights of. The Democrats who run NYC passed an ordinance coercing people to use preferred pronouns, for instance. But polls on the popularity of such measures among Democrats are rarely available, so it's really not fair to generalize. CU v FEC is the go-to example because we already know 85% of Democrats favor a constitutional amendment to allow the FEC to censor.

 

[ZiprHead]

^^^ Derail. My apologies for starting it.