“Conservative” Tom Nichols With A New Hot Take On Roe For The Atlantic
(media.communities.win)
Comments (32)
sorted by:
Tom Nichols is worse than 'not a conservative'. He is a joke.
He’s a “conservative” that doesn’t acknowledge America is a constitutional republic. Why do we even bother using words with leftists when the first thing they do is bastardize the language to push their agenda.
The left only understand free helicopter rides
This dude is not a conservative. He's basically a moderate Democrat who is what passes as a "republican" in northeastern liberal academic circles. You can also find extremely cucked "conservatives" like this guy in the UK, for example. Northeastern elitist "republicans" are basically just mildly contrarian Democrats like Bill Maher.
Here is my analysis of the article since OP didn't link it.
That's an idiotic argument. The US Supreme Court does not decide cases by conducting opinion polls, they decide what the correct legal result is. The fact that people 'got used to' Roe did not magically transform it into the correct legal result. There is no Constitutional right to abortion. Period. If abortion polls so well, then go ahead and use the democratic process to enact it into statutory law. Opinion polling does not constitute a Constitutional amendment.
The Constitution wasn't amended in the last 50 years, so that's irrelevant. Nichols apparently thinks that opinion polling and general social acceptance ought to be given the legal status and force of a formal Constitutional amendment. lol. no.
Then they can vote for it.
LOL at this dumbfuck invalidating his whole article.
Except that's a lie and the Court decided nothing of the kind. I guess he needs to lie to keep his paymasters at the far left Atlantic happy.
Another complaint from a "living Constitution" asshat. The idea that our rights should morph with changing fashion is a recipe for chaos and misrule, and the left knows this. Scalia was right.
You do not have to be pro-life to oppose Roe vs. Wade.
You just have to recognize the plain fact that courts making up phony rights is a very bad thing, both for the rule of law and for the democracy they are always crying about.
Yea I’ve heard pro choice lawyers saying it was a bad ruling from a constitutional basis
There's a reason your civics teacher never actually went into detail about the arguments in RvW just the outcome.
I for one find 'emanations from penumbras' to be very persuasive.
Well I wish they'd maybe teach at law school. Classmates of mine are screeching over it lol
archive
Name one conservative position you have
This is a massive false equivalence, the right to be left alone is covered under the first amendment and freedom of association. He refuses to acknowledge because he is a disingenuous hack collecting a paycheck.
You partially answered your own question. Property rights cover the ability for you to camp outside someone’s home and shout at them. This is why noise ordinances are constitutional, you do not own the area you are making noise in so the ability to make noise is dictated by the landowner. The peaceful assembly clause of the first amendment is the second. Shouting is not peaceful, simply put.
That’s legally incorrect, there is no person limit to assembly. A singular person can assemble. Your right to speech is again freedom from the government to restrict your speech. The right to property is covered by a combination of the 9th and 10th amendments. This is why castle law is not universal. It does however completely invalidate his argument.
I’m claiming that the right to property is protected directly by the 9th amendment, yes. As references are made to private property across multiple constitutional rights. This is further validated by the tenth where all states have always allowed the purchase of property.
It is. If you don't have a right to property why would the constitution need to prevent the government from taking it without fue process?
I'm OK with the courts staying out of the legality surrounding "harassment" as long as they're also willing to stay out of the solutions that a person might employ to end "harassment".
In other words, keep it between men. If you cross a line and you get what you deserve, well, you asked for it and I'm personally not going to convict someone for administering justice to you.
It's weird how these people don't think "right to be left alone" should apply to the CRA.
Anyone who writes for the (((Atlantic))) is going to be controlled opposition. I don't particularly care what they call themselves. But that's because I'm not butthurt gatekeeping "conservative." I'm a pro-freedom nationalist.
How dare you reverse an incorrect ruling!?
Just ask these dumb bastards why they think Dredd and Plessy should have stood
Ah, so that's what they "conserve": the neoliberal world order.
This thing? Of course it is bad. But doing anything about it is even worse, like yikes. Can't we just say we dislike it, but don't touch the damn thing?
Judicial activism should not stand, even if it takes activism to remove it. The supreme court should be activists in terms of striking down unconstitutional rulings.
It is the Atlantic so not surprised
This is another one of those things that "make your enemies tell the truth". How many politicians and grifters signed their support for overturning this thing "knowing" it was never going to be overturned?
Now you get to see how many people value being invited to their friends' cocktail parties over their so-called "conservative principles".