Legal/scotus thread

[Tapate50]

An 8 month old has some self awareness and they are not dependent on someone elseÂ’s body to live.

Oh really.

I’ll let you explain that to him

 

[thethe]

I genuinely cannot understand how a human fetus with beating heart is not considered a human from the communists

He’s godless. That’s the issue.

 

[thethe]

This. This is your true colors.

Wow.

Apparently my 8 month old was not a human life

What a monster

They are all disgusting monsters.

Would happily kill a baby right until labor.

 

[thethe]

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.

Just realized this lunatic came out and supported killing old people and those with developmental diseases.

These people truly are disgusting.

 

[thethe]

[tw]1540912814054842368[/tw]

I agree AOC. Push these awful people who don’t want to kill babies out of the Democrat party. The new right will gladly take them in.

 

[striker42]

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.

Whether abortion is a constitutional right or not is not about privacy. The reasoning for that is unsound.

For the right to privacy to apply, the abortion cannot affect the rights of others. Your right to privacy ends where you start infringing on the rights of others. For privacy to apply you have to presume the fetus has no rights. You can believe that if you want but it's not something you can just presume away.

Abortion is all about the legal and moral status of the fetus. If it has no legal or moral status separate from the mother then there should obviously be a right to am abortion. It would be no different than you cutting your hair or trimming your nails. If the fetus has the moral and legal status of any other person, there's obviously no right to an abortion. If it's between then you get into balancing and line drawing.

So the next question is which branch of government should decide the status of a fetus. Some believe it should be the courts, others the legislature. But it's not about privacy, it's about the status of the fetus.

 

[sturg33]

Bingo... The only "freedom" the communists support is the freedom to kill their own child

[Tw]1540905136851148800[/tw]

 

[sturg33]

I just found Justice Dankula on twitter two days ago.

It is amazing how many leftist idiots think he is a supreme court justice

Suppress their ****ing votes

[Tw]1540776644931100674[/tw]

 

[Garmel]

 

[sturg33]

Nah the lecturer assured us there has been no violence

 

[sturg33]

It's always been about killing the child. They will lie and misinform forever to reach that goal.

[Tw]1541069038943670273[/tw]

 

[Tapate50]

It's always been about killing the child. They will lie and misinform forever to reach that goal.

[Tw]1541069038943670273[/tw]

Surely Goldy knows. he said how many women were
Going to die from this exact thing just yesterday

 

[sturg33]

Surely Goldy knows. he said how many women were
Going to die from this exact thing just yesterday

His software is working as designed

 

[sturg33]

Literally everytime they don't get their way... It's we must change the rules

Bratty little children

[Tw]1541183070644191234[/tw]

 

[striker42]

I'm seeing a lot of emotion right now and very little logic. It's really annoying. Poorly reasoned complaints just come off as petulent.

 

[zitothebrave]

I'm seeing a lot of emotion right now and very little logic. It's really annoying. Poorly reasoned complaints just come off as petulent.

I mean for a lot of people it's super emotional.

I want to know why the Court is breaking general tradition of throwing out old court opinions in favor of "strict constitutionalism" which we know of course is shenanigans as a strict constitutional approach wouldn't have made the same ruling on the gun debate earlier.

 

[cajunrevenge]

[tw]1540912814054842368[/tw]

I agree AOC. Push these awful people who don’t want to kill babies out of the Democrat party. The new right will gladly take them in.

Reminds me of someone who thinks purging the so called RINOs from their party is the solution.

 

[cajunrevenge]

Literally everytime they don't get their way... It's we must change the rules

Bratty little children

[Tw]1541183070644191234[/tw]

Clarence Thomas absolutely deserves to be impeached. He didnt recuse himself in a case where he had a serious conflict of interest.

 

[cajunrevenge]

I just found Justice Dankula on twitter two days ago.

It is amazing how many leftist idiots think he is a supreme court justice

Suppress their ****ing votes

[Tw]1540776644931100674[/tw]

I am cool with that as long as people who think theres a magic man in the sky also dont get to vote.

 

[striker42]

Clarence Thomas absolutely deserves to be impeached. He didnt recuse himself in a case where he had a serious conflict of interest.

You'd have to impeach Kagan over the Obamacare case. Her previous role as solicitor general created a conflict. But neither should actually be impeached as there's no requirement or even ethics rule setting when a SCOTUS justice has to recuse themselves. It's left to the individual justices to determine when they should recuse themselves.