He's not wrong. This is a stupid end-run around what the courts, rightly or wrongly, consider a constitutionally protected right. If you can do it for abortion, you can do it for other things that are considered protected rights.
Abortion isn’t in the constitution, try reading it sometime. The argument for Roe v Wade was that privacy between a mother and doctor is protected so we can kill babies (literally).
What an idiotic reply. Yeah, the right to abortion was made up. But courts make no distinction between rights they've made up and the ones that are actually there. This mechanism can be used to undermine all other rights as well.
What you are talking about is legislation from the bench. This is a problem because there is no current check and balances on the Supreme Court outside of state ratification.
Need a constitutional convention and include a check on the Supreme Court by the states. If 26 state legislatures votes to nullify a ruling it's overruled by the states.
States should just ignore the rulings they find unconstitutional. I guess the civil war (and Eisenhower and LBJ sending troops to enforce federal laws) ended that, but ideally that's the way it would be. Or it should be like the EU where if a state can't abide by the rules, they are free to leave the union.
since when are states free to leave the union? there is no mechanism for it.
should a nation dare to leave they will be forever haunted and fucked with like the uk.
Eh, maybe they're "haunted" but they're apparently way better off now than in the EU. It's unavoidable that there would be social or economic pressure to get them to stay, but ultimately they can still leave if it's important enough.
One big problem today though is that the EU (and to some extend the US) pays states money directly to keep them afloat. This money acts like bribes and discourages the states from pulling their weight to protect their citizen's rights. That practice would have to end too before states and the people have real freedom.
And that's the fundamental misunderstanding. Ours was the first that spelled out that our rights were inherent, and thus any actions taken against those rights were infringements. Most of the European documents by contrast, are prescriptive.
This is a good point. Unless Roe vs Wade is overturn the 2 are almost the same.
However, from what I understood Roe vs Wade is somehow related to the right of privacy while the 2'nd amendment is way more direct.
What I think it will happen:
Gavin will push this state law
Pro guns group will challenge it to the Supreme Court
The law will be overturned
This will be used by the Democrats to stack the courts citing a clear bias
However, from what I understood Roe vs Wade is somehow related to the right of privacy while the 2'nd amendment is way more direct.
Roe v. Wade was total nonsense, results-oriented judging if ever there was one. This is acknowledged by jurists of the left and the right, including the late RBG.
But the point is that as long as the court considers this a right, if you go about undermining it in an indirect manner, then the same can be done to any sort of other right.
The law will be overturned
Quite unlikely. The SCOTUS just held that you cannot sue a state court, in upholding the Texas law. The same logic will apply to any anti-gun law. There should be some other way of overturning it though, as I can't imagine such an easy end-run around constitutional right.
The courts do not determine what is a right. They determine if a law is constitutional or not or if someone’s constitutional rights were violated. A mothers right to privacy with her doctor did not in any way actually make abortion a constitutional right. It has always been a farce and that’s why the left freaks out whenever a Republican gets elected. The 2nd amendment is clear cut in the bill of rights. It is not the same
The issue here though is that abortion isn't in the constitution. It was effectively created by the courts out of whole cloth with the Roe v Wade decision, and not even in the "right to medical privacy" sense that a lot of proponents paint it as. The ruling itself was as narrow as possible to only apply to women seeking an abortion.
Hell, it's not even subject to the same kind of enjoinders that other constitutionally protected rights are. Free speech is restricted by the "fighting words" statute. And the right to bear arms is restricted by requiring background checks and the purchase of specific licenses simply for owning certain weapons, let alone the permits for concealed and open carry in some states. If you try to even suggest a "reasonable restriction" to abortion, you're met with screeching.
Imagine the kind of mental gymnastics that would be performed if someone treated gun rights like abortion today - no one's allowed to stop you from just walking in and buying the weapon. No psych eval, no three-week waiting period, and the government funds a non-profit to pay for it.
The issue here though is that abortion isn't in the constitution. It was effectively created by the courts out of whole cloth with the Roe v Wade decision, and not even in the "right to medical privacy" sense that a lot of proponents paint it as. The ruling itself was as narrow as possible to only apply to women seeking an abortion.
It's 100% made up.
The solution to something that is made up is to target that, not to undermine all other rights by crafting a 'solution' that could potentially be used to undermine any other right.
Proving yet again that communists can’t distinguish between human lives and machinery
He's not wrong. This is a stupid end-run around what the courts, rightly or wrongly, consider a constitutionally protected right. If you can do it for abortion, you can do it for other things that are considered protected rights.
Abortion isn’t in the constitution, try reading it sometime. The argument for Roe v Wade was that privacy between a mother and doctor is protected so we can kill babies (literally).
What an idiotic reply. Yeah, the right to abortion was made up. But courts make no distinction between rights they've made up and the ones that are actually there. This mechanism can be used to undermine all other rights as well.
What you are talking about is legislation from the bench. This is a problem because there is no current check and balances on the Supreme Court outside of state ratification.
Need a constitutional convention and include a check on the Supreme Court by the states. If 26 state legislatures votes to nullify a ruling it's overruled by the states.
States should just ignore the rulings they find unconstitutional. I guess the civil war (and Eisenhower and LBJ sending troops to enforce federal laws) ended that, but ideally that's the way it would be. Or it should be like the EU where if a state can't abide by the rules, they are free to leave the union.
since when are states free to leave the union? there is no mechanism for it. should a nation dare to leave they will be forever haunted and fucked with like the uk.
Eh, maybe they're "haunted" but they're apparently way better off now than in the EU. It's unavoidable that there would be social or economic pressure to get them to stay, but ultimately they can still leave if it's important enough.
One big problem today though is that the EU (and to some extend the US) pays states money directly to keep them afloat. This money acts like bribes and discourages the states from pulling their weight to protect their citizen's rights. That practice would have to end too before states and the people have real freedom.
And that's the fundamental misunderstanding. Ours was the first that spelled out that our rights were inherent, and thus any actions taken against those rights were infringements. Most of the European documents by contrast, are prescriptive.
This is a good point. Unless Roe vs Wade is overturn the 2 are almost the same.
However, from what I understood Roe vs Wade is somehow related to the right of privacy while the 2'nd amendment is way more direct.
What I think it will happen:
Roe v. Wade was total nonsense, results-oriented judging if ever there was one. This is acknowledged by jurists of the left and the right, including the late RBG.
But the point is that as long as the court considers this a right, if you go about undermining it in an indirect manner, then the same can be done to any sort of other right.
Quite unlikely. The SCOTUS just held that you cannot sue a state court, in upholding the Texas law. The same logic will apply to any anti-gun law. There should be some other way of overturning it though, as I can't imagine such an easy end-run around constitutional right.
The courts do not determine what is a right. They determine if a law is constitutional or not or if someone’s constitutional rights were violated. A mothers right to privacy with her doctor did not in any way actually make abortion a constitutional right. It has always been a farce and that’s why the left freaks out whenever a Republican gets elected. The 2nd amendment is clear cut in the bill of rights. It is not the same
The issue here though is that abortion isn't in the constitution. It was effectively created by the courts out of whole cloth with the Roe v Wade decision, and not even in the "right to medical privacy" sense that a lot of proponents paint it as. The ruling itself was as narrow as possible to only apply to women seeking an abortion.
Hell, it's not even subject to the same kind of enjoinders that other constitutionally protected rights are. Free speech is restricted by the "fighting words" statute. And the right to bear arms is restricted by requiring background checks and the purchase of specific licenses simply for owning certain weapons, let alone the permits for concealed and open carry in some states. If you try to even suggest a "reasonable restriction" to abortion, you're met with screeching.
Imagine the kind of mental gymnastics that would be performed if someone treated gun rights like abortion today - no one's allowed to stop you from just walking in and buying the weapon. No psych eval, no three-week waiting period, and the government funds a non-profit to pay for it.
It's 100% made up.
The solution to something that is made up is to target that, not to undermine all other rights by crafting a 'solution' that could potentially be used to undermine any other right.
You're a lying, vax pushing, hypocrite leftist shill who should have been banned from this site months ago.
That's a good one, banned from a community that I founded.
Learn to read, front hole. This site.
Why are you on this site?
Because I used to be a TD mod, retard. You on the other hand should just fuck off back to reddit where you belong, with the rest of the leftists.
Then go back to the donald. Nobody cares if you were a mod of a different sub on a different site. You're still just an unpaid jannie.
The shill seems to care very much.
No wonder that place went under then, if great lights like you were running it.
Do you think TD will agree with you on the respective merits of the Weimar Republic and the Nazis?
You might wonder who will count as 'not a leftist' if you think that I am one. Probably 95% of the population.
I guess they should have cucked out to the admins like the KiA subs did, because of shills and frauds like you.
Last I checked, being wrong is not a banable offense.
Abortion is not a constitutionally protected right. It’s one Supreme Court decision away from being overturned.
they'll just leave your state entirely.