Congratulations, you took freedom away…

PoliTalker said:
Why are they so happy to be taking rights away from others?
Click to expand...

firstly, as specifically noted in the decision, there was no right, it was a mistake in the original ruling as has been loudly denoted every since.

how can you fail to be happy that right has prevaied over wrong ?
 
Jarod said:
More Americans voting.
Click to expand...

lets see.......more americans than ever voted for joe biden and roe v. wade was still overturned. so, tell us, what exactly is more americans voting going to do that weapons won't?

short answer for you is, it won't. seriously, anyone believing that weapons won't make a difference need to open your fucking eyes
 
PoliTalker said:
If they don't want an abortion, don't get one.

What's with all this telling other people what to do stuff?
Click to expand...

giphy.gif


from all of us gun owners
 
Defender of Honor said:
Republicans shot themselves in the foot ,they now have lost the wedge issue that kept the sheep women voting for them.
That's Trump view too!
Click to expand...

No, this is only the beginning now we need to get the seats and Presidency so we can enact federal legislation banning abortion nation wide.
 
BartenderElite said:
So, you're good making all rights a state's issue, then?
Click to expand...

excerpt from: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129

"The sense of the Convention delegates was that a bill of rights, in the context of the federal Constitution, was unnecessary and even dangerous. It was considered unnecessary because the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people. There was, for example, no need for a provision protecting freedom of speech against Congress because, as James Wilson put it, “there is given to the general government no power whatsoever concerning it.” Edmund Randolph made the same point regarding freedom of religion, emphasizing that “[n]o part of the Constitution, even if strictly construed, will justify a conclusion that the general government can take away or impair the freedom of religion.” Similar remarks were made during the drafting and ratification process regarding juries in civil cases, general warrants, and cruel and unusual punishment. The consistent line of the Constitution’s defenders was that no bill of rights was necessary because the limited and enumerated powers of the national government simply did not include the power to violate those rights."

My favorite part of this is the phrase "the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people.I guess soon after the first draft, they decided what the hell, lets enshrine the most cherished rights of the people into the constitution. This way people won't squabble over them, and it'll be a real bitch to try and remove those rights. Everything ELSE will go to the states. That's the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in a nutshell. Want to change it? Want to make abortion one of the American people's most cherished rights? Tired of right wingers calling you bad names? Hate guns? Hate those Christians who are against abortion and homosexuality? Want your 3rd graders to know all about trannies and white privilege? Just cobble together a new constitutional convention and let's strip out those nasty old, cherished rights of the American people. Here ya go, I'll start with a draft of the new 2nd amendment:

"A heavily regulated welfare state, being necessary to the survival of the democrat party, the right of 50% of the people (no dudes) to kill their unborn children without cause, shall not be infringed."

You nazi loving, big government loving communists have been given a FAR easier pathway to perpetuate your child murdering obsession. The state house and the state supreme courts. No intervention from the federal government at all because it's not a federal issue. Hell, I would argue that it's not even a state issue but a municipal one.

States like Texas and Florida have been heavily regulating abortion lately. Where are the federal troops?

The left has been given a HUGE opportunity to vigorously exercise their obsession with mob rule (they call it democracy), but now it seems they want to run back to federal mommy and daddy. Bunch of fucking butthurt twinklepuffs if you ask me.
 
Callinectes said:
excerpt from: https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-x/interps/129

"The sense of the Convention delegates was that a bill of rights, in the context of the federal Constitution, was unnecessary and even dangerous. It was considered unnecessary because the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people. There was, for example, no need for a provision protecting freedom of speech against Congress because, as James Wilson put it, “there is given to the general government no power whatsoever concerning it.” Edmund Randolph made the same point regarding freedom of religion, emphasizing that “[n]o part of the Constitution, even if strictly construed, will justify a conclusion that the general government can take away or impair the freedom of religion.” Similar remarks were made during the drafting and ratification process regarding juries in civil cases, general warrants, and cruel and unusual punishment. The consistent line of the Constitution’s defenders was that no bill of rights was necessary because the limited and enumerated powers of the national government simply did not include the power to violate those rights."

My favorite part of this is the phrase "the national government was a limited government that could only exercise those powers granted to it by the Constitution, and it had been granted no power to violate the most cherished rights of the people.I guess soon after the first draft, they decided what the hell, lets enshrine the most cherished rights of the people into the constitution. This way people won't squabble over them, and it'll be a real bitch to try and remove those rights. Everything ELSE will go to the states. That's the tenth amendment to the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution in a nutshell. Want to change it? Want to make abortion one of the American people's most cherished rights? Tired of right wingers calling you bad names? Hate guns? Hate those Christians who are against abortion and homosexuality? Want your 3rd graders to know all about trannies and white privilege? Just cobble together a new constitutional convention and let's strip out those nasty old, cherished rights of the American people. Here ya go, I'll start with a draft of the new 2nd amendment:

"A heavily regulated welfare state, being necessary to the survival of the democrat party, the right of 50% of the people (no dudes) to kill their unborn children without cause, shall not be infringed."

You nazi loving, big government loving communists have been given a FAR easier pathway to perpetuate your child murdering obsession. The state house and the state supreme courts. No intervention from the federal government at all because it's not a federal issue. Hell, I would argue that it's not even a state issue but a municipal one.

States like Texas and Florida have been heavily regulating abortion lately. Where are the federal troops?

The left has been given a HUGE opportunity to vigorously exercise their obsession with mob rule (they call it democracy), but now it seems they want to run back to federal mommy and daddy. Bunch of fucking butthurt twinklepuffs if you ask me.
Click to expand...

"Abortion" isn't a cherished right. Privacy and dominion over one's own body? Now we're talkin'.

Nice try, though.
 
Concart said:
Yes, and they said, under oath, that they considered Roe v. Wade to be precedent. So they are liars.
Click to expand...

The decision is a legal ruling and it specifically says:

"The majority contended that Friday’s ruling would not undermine other decisions by the court involving fundamental rights that the Constitution does not expressly mention, such as the right to contraception (Griswold v. Connecticut) and the rights to same-sex intimacy (Lawrence v. Texas) and marriage (Obergefell v. Hodges). Unlike those rights, Alito wrote, abortion terminates what Roe and Casey refer to as “potential life” and what the Mississippi law refers to as an “unborn human being.” “Nothing in this opinion,” Alito added later, “should be understood to cast doubt on precedents that do not concern abortion.”


Anyone saying it pertains to marriage or birth control is a liar.
 
Niche Political Commentor said:
the supreme court disagrees. abortion, baby killing, is no where mentioned in the constitution. Why do leftists have to force their views on everyone? The issue is returned to the states. California can kill babies, alabama can ban the practice. If a majority of alabamians want abortion banned, who are you to tell them no? Don't you support democracy? It's time to bring back localism to our lives. We have thrown off your shackles. WE WILL dismantle the feds. We WILL drown the government in a bathtub.
Click to expand...

Question: how is giving people a choice "forcing views" on anyone? Prior to the nonsense of the right wing zealots on the SCOTUS, Roe vs. Wade didn't have ANY language that "forced" anyone to have an abortion. So I await your explanation.
 
Shoresy said:
We still have the right to privacy under the 4th amendment, which has nothing to do with murdering babies we still have HIPPA laws as well.
Click to expand...

Now I really would like to see the court case where hospital staff testified that a birthed child was subsequently murdered by the attending doctor/surgeon. I'll give you all the time in the world to produce that case.
 
Question to all who are dancing with glee regarding the SCOTUS decision on Roe vs. Wade: Where is the language in the old Roe vs. Wade decision that forced abortion? Since when is granting choice "forcing" someone to do something? I await the answers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top