When The ACLU Quietly Admits They’ve Never Read The Constitution
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (30)
sorted by:
Can anyone show me the right to bear forceps and kill babies on demand?
Honestly, after the last 2-3 years I wish everyone would go abort themselves. But the fact that it makes them so angry they can't murder infants in every single state does make me a little happier.
It's too conspiratorial on my end, but I am a bit wary that this is some kind of designated trap intended as an electoral gadfly to limit Democrat losses; I know it's unreasonable, but it does linger in the back of my mind.
The child sacrifice crowd is about to find out what the anti-moloch crowd has been dealing with for decades: nobody actually cares about abortion except for a small minority of activists. The average voter simply takes the position that their side says to take on this issue.
Crime and gas prices are at the forefront of everyone's minds right now. The Rs will win decisively and proceed to do nothing of real significance despite a strong mandate.
As is tradition, the 'conservatives' will conserve nothing.
their job is to conserve whatever the democrats have already done at the time of their election.
It's not unreasonable at all. I can easily imagine one of the justices thinking "if the American people don't like it they can vote accordingly" and smiling to himself as he wrote his opinion. Not a stretch to also assume that justice hangs out with the uniparty power circles in DC.
Hey, right to suicide I'm all for.
Part of the problem here is that they already want to. They want to kill themselves because they believe living outside the Leftist utopia is so terrible, killing a baby is a moral act of kindness.
American as apple pie.
ACLU is infested with left wing wahmen of color.
I'm also in favor of that! I just don't see any firearms as illegal...
That's not what Texas is doing, but it is probably what California is doing.
No gun is illegal.
I prefer undocumented armaments.
They're cordless hole punchers.
Damn skippy.
Well, that is the whole reason California's reasoning is BS. Right to bear arms is in the Constitution (via amendment like the rest of 'em). Right to abortion is never mentioned, and all sane people agree that the SC should neither go around inventing rights willy nilly nor taking them away on a technicality. Some people don't have enough respect for the Constitution to read what it says but rather feel the need to project their own ideas onto it. Because more than a generation of education has taught that feels are reals.
This bullshit reasoning relies on the incorporation doctrine which comes from an overly broad reading of the 14th amendment which is also fake and gay.
True but even then the Constitution doesn't create the "floor" on our rights.
the difference is that we're talking about two entirely different concepts.
the TX law creates standing under what's called a qui tam action. a legal injury has certainly occurred, but the baby who is now murdered is the only one who normally has standing. the mom isn't going to sue or press charges on the baby's behalf because she was in on it. qui tam expands standing to allow individuals to shut down offenders who are frequently able to evade actually being held responsible through the practicals of the situation.
the CA law is trying to create liability where no legal injury occurred at all. products manufacturers are categorically not liable under products liability for the illegal misuse of their products... only if the safety features actually malfunctioned. when they try and create liability for gun owners or gun manufacturers, it's like if a thug stole a porsche and hits people with it, porsche is generally not liable, the owner is not liable. the CA law effectively seeks to abolish this doctrine, and hold everyone else strictly liable for the actions of literal criminals. the only people who win are the personal injury lawyers. this is not at all what qui tam is for, and in all likelihood will not survive on appeal.
And California doesn't even prosecute criminals.
does anyone else get extra pissed off when seeing indian/paki/african names in these politically influential positions in the US or UK, telling you (mostly native huwite folks whose ancestors founded the country) what rights you don't have after you let them into the country?
They also said abortion was a constitutional right. They have the same view about the constitution that Foucault had with 8 year old Tunisian boys.
Eh I don't disagree with that. This is the interpretation of incorporation. If you didn't have incorporation, the Feds couldn't take your guns, but your state could. Your state is, however, free to grant you extra rights that the US Constitution does not recognize. Thus, a floor.
That's called the 10th Amendment.
Yeah, this isn’t a bad take on the ACLU’s part. They seem to be (surprisingly) defending gun rights and using abortion rights as an example as to why what CA is doing is wrong.
Oh, I didn't gather that. They do seem to be making a slippery slope argument for once. The slope they routinely grease.
>when you don't think inalienable rights exist
I mean the turn of phrase is pretty barbaric, but it's true.
The 1st amendment protects freedom of speech and ain't nothing Commiefornia can do about it.