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.
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
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.
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