Legal/scotus thread

Tapate50 said:
Isn’t he a constitutional lawyer ?

He should know better, unless there’s a hand up his ass
Click to expand...

To be fair, it’s not like he’s saying that precedent can’t be reversed. However it’s obviously very common to defer to precedent as established law (particularly when it suits your legal argument).
 
What is unprecedented is reversing precedent to take away individual rights. Frankly the Supreme Court is turning the Constitution into something that is more of a negative for this country than our most cherished document. If all it does is protect gun nut, religious zealots, and gives rural states disproportionate power then maybe we should tear up. I’m starting to really hate a large part of this country.
 
Coredor said:
What is unprecedented is reversing precedent to take away individual rights. Frankly the Supreme Court is turning the Constitution into something that is more of a negative for this country than our most cherished document. If all it does is protect gun nut, religious zealots, and gives rural states disproportionate power then maybe we should tear up. I’m starting to really hate a large part of this country.
Click to expand...

What is the constitutional argument for Roe?
 
sturg33 said:
What is the constitutional argument for Roe?
Click to expand...

I believe the right to privacy makes sense and once it was granted taking it away makes no sense. I think it is consistent with the natural rights of the Enlightenment on which the Constitution was a product.

It’s a violation of personal liberties that the government could even know an abortion has taken place.

Honestly what I would like to see would be the left treating religious services like the right has treated religious facilities they have no purpose and are frankly a hazard to individual liberty.
 
Privacy rights argument is comical when there is more than just the mothers life involved.

Whatever gyration you want to take to make yourself feel better about supporting murder is your prerogative but make no mistake - You are murdering a living being.
 
I guess we should explore some right approved rights I’m sure out MAGA justices could get on board with. Maybe we could get AK47s and walk around churches. No direct threats but be really loud and insulting while acting unhinged.

That is not a baby. A human life needs to be self aware and able to survive on its own. Then it’s a human life. My pets are far closer to a person than a human gets is.
 
Coredor said:
I believe the right to privacy makes sense and once it was granted taking it away makes no sense. I think it is consistent with the natural rights of the Enlightenment on which the Constitution was a product.

It’s a violation of personal liberties that the government could even know an abortion has taken place.

Honestly what I would like to see would be the left treating religious services like the right has treated religious facilities they have no purpose and are frankly a hazard to individual liberty.
Click to expand...

Do I have a right to privacy to kill someone? Why should the government need to know?
 
Coredor said:
I guess we should explore some right approved rights I’m sure out MAGA justices could get on board with. Maybe we could get AK47s and walk around churches. No direct threats but be really loud and insulting while acting unhinged.

That is not a baby. A human life needs to be self aware and able to survive on its own. Then it’s a human life. My pets are far closer to a person than a human gets is.
Click to expand...

This. This is your true colors.

Wow.

Apparently my 8 month old was not a human life

What a monster
 
sturg33 said:
If something requires a procedure to end the life... Was it not alive before hand?
Click to expand...
The primary purpose of the procedure is not to end lofe but to remove it from the woman’s body. Plus we end life all the time but have no problem with it. The question is whether it’s a person. Having human DNA isn’t enough. We can create nearly infinite hypothetical people but they’re not people yet.
 
Coredor said:
The primary purpose of the procedure is not to end lofe but to remove it from the woman’s body. Plus we end life all the time but have no problem with it. The question is whether it’s a person. Having human DNA isn’t enough. We can create nearly infinite hypothetical people but they’re not people yet.
Click to expand...

Removing it ends it's life

It has human DNA and a human heart

Removing it is ending the life of a human
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top