Author | Thread |
AUTOADVERT |
SupremeCommander
Posts: 33913 Alba Posts: 35 Joined: 4/28/2006 Member: #1127 |
![]() wargames wrote:Jmpasq wrote:martin wrote:Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one. This absurd perspective is exactly why there’s an abstinence political movement building. Seriously. Look online. Women in this country are basically going on sex strike, even with spouses when not trying to get pregnant, because they assume all risk now, and see no reason to do so. I mean why should they risk their future and their finances? Especially when there you read some of the bull**** men here are posting on this subject, for example DLeethal wrote:
Lol Rick needs a safe space
|
Welpee
Posts: 23162 Alba Posts: 0 Joined: 1/22/2016 Member: #6239 |
![]() SupremeCommander wrote:Well, I guess the Supreme Court would just have to favorably rule on a case affirming a husband or boyfriend's right to demand sex. That's the direction we seem to be heading.wargames wrote:Jmpasq wrote:martin wrote:Jmpasq wrote:A judge in Brazil has refused to let an 11-year-old rape victim have an abortion — and ordered the girl to be detained to prevent her from trying to get one. |
wargames
Posts: 22833 Alba Posts: 0 Joined: 5/27/2015 Member: #6053 |
![]() The Constitution Is Whatever the Right Wing Says It Is
The Supreme Court majority’s undead constitutionalism is transforming right-wing media tropes into law.
Setting aside the record of insincerity from Alito himself and the other conservative justices, the reason not to trust his disclaimer is that the Supreme Court has become an institution whose primary role is to force a right-wing vision of American society on the rest of the country. The conservative majority’s main vehicle for this imposition is a presentist historical analysis that takes whatever stances define right-wing cultural and political identity at a given moment and asserts them as essential aspects of American law since the founding, and therefore obligatory. Conservatives have long attacked the left for supporting a “living constitutionalism,” which they say renders the law arbitrary and meaningless. But the current majority’s approach is itself a kind of undead constitutionalism—one in which the dictates of the Constitution retrospectively shift with whatever Fox News happens to be furious about. Legal outcomes preferred by today’s American right conveniently turn out to be what the Founding Fathers wanted all along. The 6–3 majority has removed any appetite for caution or restraint, and the justices’ lifetime appointments mean they will never have to face an angry electorate that could deprive them of their power. It has also rendered their approach to the law lazy, clumsy, and malicious, and made the right-wing justices’ undead constitutionalism all the more apparent. Many of the Court’s recent decisions, even before Dobbs, have demonstrated this. In the case over the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for employers, the conservative justices disregarded the explicit text of a federal statute allowing the government to set emergency regulations governing “toxic substances or agents” in the workplace, and employed soft anti-vax arguments that had only become prominent in conservative media since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. As part of its rationale, the majority wrote that “in its half century of existence,” the Occupational Safety and Health Administration “has never before adopted a broad public health regulation of this kind,” which is true, because during that period there had not been a global pandemic that killed more than 1 million Americans. In their decision earlier this week overturning restrictions on concealed carry of firearms in New York, the right-wing justices ignored historical examples of firearm regulations in order to argue that any such regulations—not just those in New York—were presumptively unconstitutional. The decision was a significant escalation in the Court’s gun-rights jurisprudence from the 2008 Heller decision, which found an individual constitutional right to possess a firearm. In the most recent ruling, Thomas wrote that only those restrictions “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” are constitutional, but he did so ignoring, as the writer Saul Cornell points out, a centuries-long history of closely regulating arms in densely populated areas. That record is irrelevant. The restrictions deemed consistent with tradition will be whatever the current right-wing consensus happens to be. In his concurrence in that case, Alito sneered, “How does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator.” The logic of the assertion suggests that laws against murder are useless because murderers continue to exist; it is a quality of reasoning that might come from a fifth grader. The argument is also not in any sense a legal one, just a paraphrase of culture-war blather one hears in right-wing media—which are a much more significant influence on the majority than the law or the Constitution is. Clearly, Alito does not believe laws against abortion to be similarly pointless, even though abortions will continue regardless. https://apple.news/ATa2aZfFtRF6Mn-6D0ntIaw Here is an experts saying the court is a bunch of radical Conservatives imposing their views on everyone else. What’s posted above is a snippet that really shows where this particular court are just a bunch of radicals. The algorithm gives and the algorithm takes away
|
CashMoney
Posts: 23145 Alba Posts: 4 Joined: 1/15/2011 Member: #3374 USA |
![]() wargames wrote:CashMoney wrote:wargames wrote:CashMoney wrote:wargames wrote:CashMoney wrote:martin wrote:This is reality in one state. Today.Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL: Because you don't agree with our form of government and laws of this country doesn't mean I'm insulting your intelligence. When the constitution was put into effect the framers had no idea of social issues that could arise in the future. That's why the constitution may be ratified and new amendments can be put into place and why case law exists as you showed at the beginning of your statement. You know how it works and you simply disagree with the decision the SC made in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. In New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen it was found that the "proper clause," provision as part of the licensing application process violated the 2nd amendment. New York case law defines proper cause as requiring an applicant to "demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community." Mr. Nash and Mr. Koch were granted a gun license but restricted gun license and wanted the restrictions removed for the purpose of self-defense. Self-defense meets the "proper clause" requirement but the issue at hand is why can self-defense be used in certain areas but not in others. This was a 2nd amendment issue plain and simple. If you don't agree read the case and get back to me. Nowhere in the constitution is abortion mentioned and nowhere in the constitution is the taking of life protected. Abortion was protected by the 14th amendment under the right to privacy in Roe V Wade and the SC in hearing Dobbs created new case law in which abortion was given back to the state because there was no constitutional amendment protecting abortion. Wan be on different sides of the fence or on the same side but it doesn't change anything. NY gun law and abortion are not comparable because they are two different and apart issues. It will be up to the people in the states where abortion will be made illegal to overturn that law.
Blue & Orange 4 Life!
|