Roe V. Wade is an easy example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. It never should have been ruled for. Abortion isn't listed as a right in the Constitution and its amendments.
10th Amendment from 1792:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What will be even better is it will help to keep Democrats in Democratic States now. They will have to live with the corruption, the violence, the crime and their own parties race riots because those blue states will be allowed to put in an express lane for the abortionists. While red states will not allow it. Its the beauty of a Constitutional Republic. If you don't like the law of the land, move. You don't need to apply for citizenship. This is a massive nation, you can find a State that fits ones needs. If you need to abort a 9 month baby that is crowning, then move to Colorado, its the state for you to do that. You don't like that crap, move to Idaho.
I think he is referring to the name the artist adopted for itself. It is funny how so many commie things have bread in the name, like bread tube, bread paned, etc
Why are leftists so bad at memes? Why is Roe v Wade there looking strong and positive, but then everything afterwards has an evil grin? And why are the other dominoes all negative? It doesn't make any sense and negates his own point. Like, overturning rvw will then lead to overturning "outlaw plan b", meaning plan b would be legalized if rvw is gone? Is he too stupid to realize how he framed it or does he think his audience would be too stupid to understand if he didn't put it that way?
It's because they don't actually know what "Roe vs Wade" means. They've heard the news talk about it and have a vague idea, but all they know is that it's somehow related to abortion.
Even so, the analogy still doesn't make sense. The first domino represents something they like, and the rest of the dominoes represent something they don't like. But that's what happens when people feel the need to crap out political commentary as fast as possible without actually thinking.
The Shapiro quote is 100% accurate. Marriage is a religious institution, and the government has no business forcing churches to marry people, forcing people to participate in wedding ceremonies, etc.
What government DOES have a business in is how partner status impacts various legal aspects, like hospital visitations, tax burdens, etc. But, instead of doing the logical thing (ripping out the laws that have your marital or family status impact your taxes, putting systems in place so anyone can specify anyone else as allowed to visit in hospital, etc.) they decided to go the "no, gay people can marry too!"
Because I'm increasingly convinced it was never about "rights". It was more about being able to sue Christian bakers into oblivion for not participating in their degeneracy than it was about letting gay people get married. Just like it's more about forcing other people to perform abortions (especially if they don't want to) than it is about access to abortions.
A Republican Oklahoma legislator tried to invoke the nuclear option and put forward a bill that would remove the state from being involved in marriage entirely. There would be no marriage licenses at all, only civil unions. Everyone laughed him out of government, including conservatives who said he was anti-family and anti-religion and giving the gays what they want by destroying the institution.
Yep, that's why Obergefell didn't say "civil unions are perfectly fine, because they confer all the legal status that marriage does." Because the goal was to destroy the family, not to apply the 14th amendment to technicalities in one category.
outlaw plan B
ban contraception
federal ban on abortion
The problem is not that these things are legal. The problem is that culture has degenerated to a point where these things are grotesquely overused as a pathetic replacement for morality and self-control.
"Conservatives want central government rather than unelected officials creating their own legislations on when and when not to perform abortions. This clearly means black slavery is coming back." -Some breadtube moron on Twitter.
Oh, look, another leftist who thinks in ComicBook vilain.
I agree that the Supreme Court should overturn their decision on gay marriage.
Not because I care that two adult men want to call their relationship a marriage and have their tax status and other legal provisions matched to that.
Because the idea that the authors of the constitution or its amendements wrote it with intent it protected a right to same-sex marriage is utterly absurd.
Same for Roe vs Wade.
It's not the judges' job to legislate from their bench based on their current-year opinions.
They literally can't understand that a ruling can be bad regardless of what the ruling is about. They are also reeeing about Blackburn criticizing Griswold vs CT. Maybe don't legislate from the bench, assholes.
Meh, rvw is a court ruling, not legislation. All this just goes to show that legislation from the bench is flimsy at best, and that the house needs to actually get off their asses and do their jobs. But for that to happen, all of DC would need to be removed from office and new leaders elected.
Meanwhile in my country the supreme court (anticonstucionaly) has delegated itself prosecutorial powers when anyone (be it in the executive or legislative branch) acts against their opinion. I really hope it doesn't get to that point in the US.
After looking up the act . 20+ states made their own versions at the state level and the worst ones were in Connecticut, NY and New England. Most of which made owning and using them illegal. In Connecticut a married couple could face up to a year in jail for using a contraceptive.
So I asked the initial question of was contraceptives ever actually illegal in the US. Someone responds with the comstock act. He responds it did not actually make having them illegal. Just sending them in the mail or crossing stat lines with them were illegal (which is true). I point out after looking up the comstock act that it’s passage spurred many states to pass their own laws where having them in your possession or using them were illegal and the worst one was essentially Connecticut where a married couple using contraceptives could face up to a year in prison. So my point was that specific law did not, but it spurred others to pass stricter ones. The response “…move to a state that matches your morals” isn’t relevant to me saying that after that law passed states passed stricter laws in the same vain actually outlawing possession.
I was just reading this thread, and I had this funny feeling, like something was amiss. And then it hit me: there was no explanation as of how this is all connected to women. Gee, I hadn't even read the word 'women' yet in this thread! Thank you for correcting that.
Meanwhile, they will tell you there's no such thing as a "slippery slope".
a real slippery slope would be:
legal protections for gender identity & trannies>legalization of incest>weakened sex crime laws regarding pedophilia and zoophilia
"Conservatives" don't care about "muh slope" when it involves massive amounts of immigration and its effects.
Roe V. Wade is an easy example of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. It never should have been ruled for. Abortion isn't listed as a right in the Constitution and its amendments.
10th Amendment from 1792:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
What will be even better is it will help to keep Democrats in Democratic States now. They will have to live with the corruption, the violence, the crime and their own parties race riots because those blue states will be allowed to put in an express lane for the abortionists. While red states will not allow it. Its the beauty of a Constitutional Republic. If you don't like the law of the land, move. You don't need to apply for citizenship. This is a massive nation, you can find a State that fits ones needs. If you need to abort a 9 month baby that is crowning, then move to Colorado, its the state for you to do that. You don't like that crap, move to Idaho.
What is it with communists and bread? They act like they love it, but they're constantly running out and shooting people over it.
I think he is referring to the name the artist adopted for itself. It is funny how so many commie things have bread in the name, like bread tube, bread paned, etc
Commies always usher in breadlines.
A Bernie campaign retard actually wrote an op-ed saying breadlines are good because they help foster community unity. 🤡
They look forward to lining up for it once utopia hits.
They are shittily drawn dominoes, not bread. Altho they could just as easily be sanfranciscan dildos too.
You do see the 'artist' refers to itself as 'breadpanes' in the lower right corner, yes?
Why are leftists so bad at memes? Why is Roe v Wade there looking strong and positive, but then everything afterwards has an evil grin? And why are the other dominoes all negative? It doesn't make any sense and negates his own point. Like, overturning rvw will then lead to overturning "outlaw plan b", meaning plan b would be legalized if rvw is gone? Is he too stupid to realize how he framed it or does he think his audience would be too stupid to understand if he didn't put it that way?
Many questions
It's because they don't actually know what "Roe vs Wade" means. They've heard the news talk about it and have a vague idea, but all they know is that it's somehow related to abortion.
Even so, the analogy still doesn't make sense. The first domino represents something they like, and the rest of the dominoes represent something they don't like. But that's what happens when people feel the need to crap out political commentary as fast as possible without actually thinking.
and theylre also stealing the trump 'im in the way' meme.
The Shapiro quote is 100% accurate. Marriage is a religious institution, and the government has no business forcing churches to marry people, forcing people to participate in wedding ceremonies, etc.
What government DOES have a business in is how partner status impacts various legal aspects, like hospital visitations, tax burdens, etc. But, instead of doing the logical thing (ripping out the laws that have your marital or family status impact your taxes, putting systems in place so anyone can specify anyone else as allowed to visit in hospital, etc.) they decided to go the "no, gay people can marry too!"
Because I'm increasingly convinced it was never about "rights". It was more about being able to sue Christian bakers into oblivion for not participating in their degeneracy than it was about letting gay people get married. Just like it's more about forcing other people to perform abortions (especially if they don't want to) than it is about access to abortions.
A Republican Oklahoma legislator tried to invoke the nuclear option and put forward a bill that would remove the state from being involved in marriage entirely. There would be no marriage licenses at all, only civil unions. Everyone laughed him out of government, including conservatives who said he was anti-family and anti-religion and giving the gays what they want by destroying the institution.
Wasnt that the guy who had a separate marriage bill, that didnt include gays? Or another one?
They claimed he was a pedo because he didnt specify what age could get married/
Yep, that's why Obergefell didn't say "civil unions are perfectly fine, because they confer all the legal status that marriage does." Because the goal was to destroy the family, not to apply the 14th amendment to technicalities in one category.
The problem is not that these things are legal. The problem is that culture has degenerated to a point where these things are grotesquely overused as a pathetic replacement for morality and self-control.
'This is why can't have nice things'.
"Conservatives want central government rather than unelected officials creating their own legislations on when and when not to perform abortions. This clearly means black slavery is coming back." -Some breadtube moron on Twitter.
Oh, look, another leftist who thinks in ComicBook vilain.
I agree that the Supreme Court should overturn their decision on gay marriage.
Not because I care that two adult men want to call their relationship a marriage and have their tax status and other legal provisions matched to that.
Because the idea that the authors of the constitution or its amendements wrote it with intent it protected a right to same-sex marriage is utterly absurd.
Same for Roe vs Wade.
It's not the judges' job to legislate from their bench based on their current-year opinions.
Send this shit back to elected representatives.
They literally can't understand that a ruling can be bad regardless of what the ruling is about. They are also reeeing about Blackburn criticizing Griswold vs CT. Maybe don't legislate from the bench, assholes.
Meh, rvw is a court ruling, not legislation. All this just goes to show that legislation from the bench is flimsy at best, and that the house needs to actually get off their asses and do their jobs. But for that to happen, all of DC would need to be removed from office and new leaders elected.
Meanwhile in my country the supreme court (anticonstucionaly) has delegated itself prosecutorial powers when anyone (be it in the executive or legislative branch) acts against their opinion. I really hope it doesn't get to that point in the US.
Shoulda called him Shem.
This is idiotic. Beyond the federal ban on abortion, it's all non sequiturs.
LETS GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO KNOCK EM DOWN
Has contraceptives ever been illegal in the US?
1873 Comstock Act
After looking up the act . 20+ states made their own versions at the state level and the worst ones were in Connecticut, NY and New England. Most of which made owning and using them illegal. In Connecticut a married couple could face up to a year in jail for using a contraceptive.
Kind of misses my point.
What was your point? Not trolling just curious. I missed it too.
So I asked the initial question of was contraceptives ever actually illegal in the US. Someone responds with the comstock act. He responds it did not actually make having them illegal. Just sending them in the mail or crossing stat lines with them were illegal (which is true). I point out after looking up the comstock act that it’s passage spurred many states to pass their own laws where having them in your possession or using them were illegal and the worst one was essentially Connecticut where a married couple using contraceptives could face up to a year in prison. So my point was that specific law did not, but it spurred others to pass stricter ones. The response “…move to a state that matches your morals” isn’t relevant to me saying that after that law passed states passed stricter laws in the same vain actually outlawing possession.
Based Santorum. The sexual revolution, and its consequences, has been a disaster for civilization.
Based
FedPanes
What a bunch of crap! The order is all wrong.
the right is bringing back slavery. for all the shitlibs. bevause we know they were 90% slaves.
Except for slavery, that’s like a wish list.
I was just reading this thread, and I had this funny feeling, like something was amiss. And then it hit me: there was no explanation as of how this is all connected to women. Gee, I hadn't even read the word 'women' yet in this thread! Thank you for correcting that.