Shocking, the infotainment cable networks actually did something credible today,

[Minister of Truth]

The Constitution can't survive without emanations and penumbras.

It can't survive for one minute with them.

[Nordberg]

Kagan actually makes a raft of logical fallacies in this, probably not intended though.

First she makes an Argument to probability. Next she commits an Historical fallacy. This is the inverse of the Historian's fallacy. She is applying the past to the present. While that might hold as case law, it is sort of moot when the Supreme Court is the original generator of case law and has reversed decisions in the past. Then she brings up what might be called a Divinest fallacy by speculating she knows what's in the plantiff's minds and the reasons for the case's timing.
On the whole, it's a weak set of arguments and positions about the case. It argues none of the merits, essentially trying to question the case on political rather than legal grounds.

That was a study of Scalia. He believed all that. He thought he could discern the original intent of the framers. And, he thought that was the absolute guidepost for today.

[Hoosier Daddy]

The arguement, not mine, is that since abortion is not noted in the Constitution it doesn't fall under protection of the Constitution per say and is left up to the States to determine for themselves. Those same advocates would rebutal that those rights are specifically listed in the Constitution

the right to buy a sofa does not exist in the constitution, either. the supreme court protected the constitutional rights of a woman to have control over her body until another life was involved, then the state had some authority. it would be like some states banning kidney transplants.

[PostmodernProphet]

they could do it now cause of the Trump Justices.

thank you, God, for cheating in the 2016 election and giving us Donald Trump........

[PostmodernProphet]

Little history for you there pal, 63 Senators voted for her appointment to the SCOTUS, only 37 opposed, doesn’t quite fit your characterization of partisanship

why do you think that changes the observation that the political makeup of the SC hasn been an issue for the last eighty years.........remember the stack the court controversy that occurred during Roosevelt's administration?......

[Althea]

So it’s not a right if states can control access


Let’s go after gun rights then


See how that works

Different states have different gun laws.

[PostmodernProphet]

This will be referred back to Congress by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court Justices do not want to try and legislate this! They will make Congress do it's job!

this overlooks the fact that the issue being decided is states rights........the issue is whether Mississippi has the power to regulate abortions in Mississippi.......it is highly unlikely the SC will remand this to the US congress.....

[PostmodernProphet]

Quote Originally Posted by evince View Post
So it’s not a right if states can control access


Let’s go after gun rights then


See how that works

are you pretending you haven't been going after gun rights for the last thirty years already?......

[PostmodernProphet]

it would be like some states banning kidney transplants........

.....to unvaxxed people........yes, you have a point......

[PostmodernProphet]

Abortion is a reality that will never go away- regardless to whether it is legal or illegal.

why do you oppose making the end of killing unborn children a reality.......there is no reason it has to stay unless people like you really want to kill unborn children.....

[PostmodernProphet]

The Constitution can't survive without emanations and penumbras.

on the other hand, it can easily survive without the "emanations and penumbras" that the lib'ruls claim exist......we simply need to realize that all the phrase really means is "what the lib'ruls want to do that the constitution prevents".......

[archives]

Jefferson is credited as the intellectual founder of the Democratic Party. It stands to reason that he would be a notorious hypocrite. If you want to have a pretend constitution, there's always the UK. I'm a Federalist at heart, so, I can't claim to be a strict constructionist. Nevertheless, it was Adams who pointed out the need to have written constitutions of government, so that we don't wind up where progressives want us to be, which is without a constitution altogether.

Jefferson was a strict constructionist, and his party was the Democrat Republican, so I don’t know where you got him as the founder of the Democrat Party, and the Federalists, as shown in Hamilton, were the exact opposite. Have no idea where you came up with the notion any of them opposed a written constitution, which by the way, the British don’t have but seem to be functioning fine as a Democratic Gov’t

[archives]

why do you think that changes the observation that the political makeup of the SC hasn been an issue for the last eighty years.........remember the stack the court controversy that occurred during Roosevelt's administration?......

Never went beyond a FDR temper tantrum

[Geeko Sportivo]

why do you oppose making the end of killing unborn children a reality.......there is no reason it has to stay unless people like you really want to kill unborn children.....

YOU CAN KEEP THE GUILT TRIP!

BECAUSE IT IS NOT HONEST AT ALL!

Your concerns for children stops at birth!

In fact, you have no concerns for children- ONLY UNBORN fetuses.

And even your concern about fetuses is as FAKE as the FAKE NEWS on FOX NEWS.

Over 100 people are killed and murdered with guns every single day- MANY THOUSANDS OF THESE PEOPLE THAT DIE FROM GUNSHOTS EVERY YEAR ARE CHILDREN.

4 high school students were shot and killed a couple of days ago- AND YOU DON'T CARE ONE SQUIRT OF RUNNY SHIT ABOUT THAT.

SO- WHEN YOU ARE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LIVES OF HUMANS OR CHILDREN- USE YOUR OWN QUILT TRIP ON YOURSELF AND THE NRA- AND SHUT THE FUCK UP TO ME- OK?

YOU PHONY FAKE TRUMPTARDED MORON!

POST-TRUMP-FUCKTARD!

[Geeko Sportivo]

this overlooks the fact that the issue being decided is states rights........the issue is whether Mississippi has the power to regulate abortions in Mississippi.......it is highly unlikely the SC will remand this to the US congress.....

Hey you POST-TRUMP-FUCKTARD!

Let me just remind you- YOU LIVE IN THE UNITED STATES- NOT THE 50 different ways to make up hateful and racist LAW TERRITORIES.

In the United States- WE HAVE WHAT IS CALLED FEDERAL LAWS THAT SUPERSEDES ANY STATE LAW- GET USED TO IT- and Get comfortable with it OR GET THE FUCK OUT!

UNITED WE STAND- DIVIDED WE FALL- NOT MY WORDS- BUT THAT'S THE WAY IT IS!