And when the GOP controls both houses and introduces - as HR1 - a national ban on abortion, I will be ready to accept your apology.
That will also be the moment the filibuster dies. Zygotes uber alles!
Take it to the bank.
Link: https://www.businessinsider.com/justice-thomas-said-the-court-should-reconsider-rulings-on-same-sex-marriage-2022-6
An "originalist" justice ain't ever buyimg trans or pedophile rights in the Constitution.
(no message)
(no message)
The courts are not it.
The Left itself has in the past couple of years said “9 judges in robes should not determine our future”
I agree. That approach is dictatorial as was Roe v Wade. And look at the strife it caused.
Those judges are supposed to interpret the laws we pass through our legislatures.
You can pass any law through the process that does not unfairly impact another’s constitutional rights.
We on the right will live by the rules….we will not make you “reap the whirlwind” in a “Night of Rage”.
If you believe in any law that was not instituted properly, then you need to get to work - starting by making sure what you want is what a majority of Americans want. You can’t simply force your will on those who disagree through an activist court. That is not democracy.
I do not oppose gay marriage. I do oppose judicial activism usurping our rights. If it was set up wrongly, get busy.
I believe in our system of government when followed as it was set up.
(no message)
(no message)
I’ll read your post later - off to an 11:30…
“to ensure that our decision is not misunderstood or mischaracterized, we emphasize that our decision concerns the constitutional right to abortion and no other right. Nothing in this opinion should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion"
I know this stuff is hard.
(no message)
(no message)
And if you don't think that there will be people eager to challenge all sorts of rulings based on this precedent, then I don't know what country you live in.
days after birth. I guess that will be tougher to pass into law now... sorry, not sorry.
(no message)
(no message)
Methods that inhibit implantation as their primary intended mechanism are by scientific as well as moral definition not contraception since conception (and thus life) has already occurred. This ruling should put the use of these methods back to the states already.
Can’t recall if gay marriage was legislated from the bench, was it?
"In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence and Obergefell."
do stand by each of my posts, and it appears that Thomas would have 5 confirmed votes from other justices against him, if not more or all. I do see his point though for the reasons stated in my above posts.
The left’s strategy for establishing precedents through the easy and unconstitutional court method may well have to be repeated the correct way - through the legislatures.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)