The SC has done nothing to protect anyone's privacy. Just abortion. That's part of what makes Roe v Wade weird. They ruled once that you have a right to abortion because privacy and then never used the logic again. Can't smoke weed; can't refuse a vaccination; have to turn over your ID if a cop asks for it. no privacy. Just abortion.
I mean... medical procedure between you and your doctor. Can you and your doctor smoke weed together? No, they ruled that's not in the Constitution. So I don't think they're consistent at all. Also, you brought up Obamacare which they A-OK'd. Perhaps at the time of Roe, things were different. IDK.
Its because in their hearts they know that without a federal Supreme Court level decision, most states will block it, if not put a restriction on it that would require personal responsibility in the slightest.
Its like gay marriage. They know a solid if not majority of people disagree, and even more so don't like them and wouldn't give carte blanche access to it. So they need to abuse the unelected, no Pleb opinion allowed highest court to get their way.
If you go based on popularity, abortion would be legal in certain situations (rape, etc) and very early on in pregnancy (basically before anyone notices). Most people aren't absolutists, and the split the difference approach seems to be the most popular.
Compromise based on the political situation in each state would be the reasonable thing to do in a situation like this. But after having abortion on demand shoved down their throats for the past 50 years pro-lifers are in no mood to compromise and I don't blame them. Let's see how the feminists like being silenced for once.
Yeah, that's what I meant by restrictions. The problem is those situations are incredibly rare and require influences usually beyond your control, neither of which are acceptable to most pro-abortion types.
And that's assuming purely logical legislation. Whereas its quite likely to not be so, and likely a much more absolute position in law. Because that's how our retarded state governments work, and as a response to the pure absolutionist pro-abortion types.
Leaking the draft opinion was an "unprecedented move" as well.
Such objective reporting, CNN.
In a similar vein:
The marshal's office would not normally need to, now, would it?
The SC has done nothing to protect anyone's privacy. Just abortion. That's part of what makes Roe v Wade weird. They ruled once that you have a right to abortion because privacy and then never used the logic again. Can't smoke weed; can't refuse a vaccination; have to turn over your ID if a cop asks for it. no privacy. Just abortion.
I mean... medical procedure between you and your doctor. Can you and your doctor smoke weed together? No, they ruled that's not in the Constitution. So I don't think they're consistent at all. Also, you brought up Obamacare which they A-OK'd. Perhaps at the time of Roe, things were different. IDK.
That's because the DNC, which means their media puppets too, all know who actually did it.
Justice Housekeeping.
You spin me right round baby right round...
They may have a point if they had said the same thing about the frivolous January 6 committee.
But this is just "investigate theirs, not ours" from CNN, not any consistent advocacy for civil liberties (obviously).
CNN on Jan 6th: "How awful, they walked into those rooms! With secret documents that they might leak! Kill them all!"
CNN now: "How awful, they're trying to find the people who leaked secret documents! No documents should be secret!"
investigating Supreme Court leak is a threat to our democracy
Its because in their hearts they know that without a federal Supreme Court level decision, most states will block it, if not put a restriction on it that would require personal responsibility in the slightest.
Its like gay marriage. They know a solid if not majority of people disagree, and even more so don't like them and wouldn't give carte blanche access to it. So they need to abuse the unelected, no Pleb opinion allowed highest court to get their way.
If you go based on popularity, abortion would be legal in certain situations (rape, etc) and very early on in pregnancy (basically before anyone notices). Most people aren't absolutists, and the split the difference approach seems to be the most popular.
Compromise based on the political situation in each state would be the reasonable thing to do in a situation like this. But after having abortion on demand shoved down their throats for the past 50 years pro-lifers are in no mood to compromise and I don't blame them. Let's see how the feminists like being silenced for once.
I dont care for compromise, either. I guess I was engaging in a rare (for me) bit of realpolitik.
Yeah, that's what I meant by restrictions. The problem is those situations are incredibly rare and require influences usually beyond your control, neither of which are acceptable to most pro-abortion types.
And that's assuming purely logical legislation. Whereas its quite likely to not be so, and likely a much more absolute position in law. Because that's how our retarded state governments work, and as a response to the pure absolutionist pro-abortion types.