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.
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 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.
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.
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 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?
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.