Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
It’s 212 pages long so I think it’s fair to say all comments made so far in this thread have not even read the opinion.just out of curiosity, is anyone actually reading this behemoth?
If the bad things do not violate other constitutional rights, then the remedy is not for SCOTUS to come to the rescue.That's an awful interpretation of 10A. 10A does not reserve to states powers to do bad things just as long as the constitution is silent on them.
And what does the 9th Amendment say....If the bad things do not violate other constitutional rights, then the remedy is not for SCOTUS to come to the rescue.
And what does the 9th Amendment say....
Strange the GOP is in favor of rulings find that there are no privacy rights under the constitution....that the government now can get involved in all medical decisions..
States cannot violate the Bill of Rights. Weird take.Oh, you don’t know how the constitution works. Carry on.
The Bill of Rights only applies partially to the states through the 14th Amendment. That’s the law. It’s called incorporation.States cannot violate the Bill of Rights. Weird take.
Let me put on my Susan Collins shocked face.
That guy needs to be thrown off of Spruce Knob.
Why do you believe that?A very sad day in America
This guy is the worst of the worst….I respect Moscow Mitch more….at least he’s open about his motives.
Yep. And the greatest part about it is due to some outdated Constitutional issues with land being over represented compared to population coupled with flat out attempts to reduce voter turnout, it is all being done with a minority of the people’s will. We are being ruled now by a subset of rural and backwards thinking goobers (many of whom suckle at the federal tit) who are getting way too many senate and electoral college votes.Pssst... our Supreme court was just hijacked by radical Christians and it's unconstitutionally destroying a secular nation.
But that shit's fine, apparently.
I admit I didn’t know that. Interesting. The idea that states can violate the Bill of Rights when later amendments, including big ones like 13 (slavery abolition) 19 (sufferage), clearly apply to states, is a weird concept.The Bill of Rights only applies partially to the states through the 14th Amendment. That’s the law. It’s called incorporation.
The Court picks and chooses which rights apply.
Almost like it was designed so metros cant hold all the decision making power.....Yep. And the greatest part about it is due to some outdated Constitutional issues with land being over represented compared to population coupled with flat out attempts to reduce voter turnout, it is all being done with a minority of the people’s will. We are being ruled now by a subset of rural and backwards thinking goobers (many of whom suckle at the federal tit) who are getting way too many senate and electoral college votes.
Why do you believe that?
I liked this comment
I'm waiting for him to write about interracial marriage.
As nutty as Ginni is, he might be hoping interracial marriage is outlawed.I'm waiting for him to write about interracial marriage.
Makes me wonder if they will get impeached.
Makes me wonder if they will get impeached.
Better? How is the state making the decision not a better solution? Its finally going to give another issue the reps will have to listen to their constituents on.I think it's pretty sad that the court made a decision that %70 of the states were against.
I hate abortion, I really do. But I really think we could of come with something better than this.
We don't take care of our kids and citizens as it is, this will make it much much worse
Sure they do. Don't get knocked up unless you want to conceive. This is the 21st century, even the poor have access to condoms. Be discriminating, not a farm animal. if your man won't put one on, or let you put it on for him, he isn't worth screwing.Hard to believe that even in this day and age, women have no control over their own bodies.
How are they legislating from the bench?Down goes Roe v. Wade. More Supreme Court legislating from the bench. It's campaign season so I would expect some Republican Congressman or Senator to have a national abortion ban law on the floor by the end of the summer.
Pretty basic concept.Obviously the 2nd Amendment is part of the federal constitution, so a right of all Americans regardless of what state you live in.
Abortion, not mentioned in the constitution, is delegated to the states per the 10th amendment.
Why isn’t the 7th Amendment incorporated?Pretty basic concept.
Come on, every time I think there is actually a brain sitting behind that keyboard of yours you come up with a post like this. You need to do better than playing stupid.How are they legislating from the bench?
"Courts of the United States" means federal courts. The language in the amendments that have been incorporated aren't limiting, other than the religious restriction in 1A. The "congress shall make no law" phrase was corrupted by the courts because of their reliance on Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists.Why isn’t the 7th Amendment incorporated?
Answer the question if it's that basic. How is this decision legislating from the bench? What rule did the court use in this decision to distinguish when abortions are OK, or not? Tell me how this is legislating from the bench? I've read the decision. There's absolutely no rule, test, or regulation anywhere in it. How is it legislating from the bench?Come on, every time I think there is actually a brain sitting behind that keyboard of yours you come up with a post like this. You need to do better than playing stupid.
Because you are being a literal dunce and not looking at what the ruling effectively does. It's what people who know their position is complete bullshit do to try and justify why they support something that is clearly a wrong. Millions of people lost their right to make medical decisions today and you want to harp on the literal words of the ruling. Telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies. How "libertarian" of you.Answer the question if it's that basic. How is this decision legislating from the bench? What rule did the court use in this decision to distinguish when abortions are OK, or not? Tell me how this is legislating from the bench? I've read the decision. There's absolutely no rule, test, or regulation anywhere in it. How is it legislating from the bench?
Sure they do. Don't get knocked up unless you want to conceive. This is the 21st century, even the poor have access to condoms. Be discriminating, not a farm animal. if your man won't put one on, or let you put it on for him, he isn't worth screwing.
This decision literally overturns two decisions that were legislating from the bench. This decision is the opposite of legislating from the bench because it sends the legislation back to actual legislative bodies. This decision is littered with references as to why courts aren't the proper place to decide things like when life is viable.Because you are being a literal dunce and not looking at what the ruling effectively does. It's what people who know their position is complete bullshit do to try and justify why they support something that is clearly a wrong. Millions of people lost their right to make medical decisions today and you want to harp on the literal words of the ruling. Telling women what they can or can't do with their bodies. How "libertarian" of you.