Congratulations, you took freedom away…

evince said:
And it’s inside a fully functioning human being with intact rights



Hand over the rights to your scrotum and sperm to the government if you think a human should accept the government owning a persons body for 9 months
Click to expand...
When a functioning human being is inside my scrotum my scrotum I'll do that. But until that time I'll keep it.
 
Earl said:
No, dummy, it is not illegal.

Since it was never a Constitutional right, it will be left to the state legislators who are elected by the people.

Are all of you far left Democrat Socialist loons as dumb and uninformed as you.
Click to expand...

It was the law of the land till a few days ago now it's not!
Women have returned to second class citizens
 
Concart said:
Yes, and they said, under oath, that they considered Roe v. Wade to be precedent. So they are liars.
Click to expand...

No.

Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such a principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely on principles.


Precedents have been overturned many times.


The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times ...
https://theconversation.com › the-supreme-court-has-ov...
Sep 20, 2021 — The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation.
 
Defender of Honor said:
It was the law of the land till a few days ago now it's not!
Women have returned to second class citizens
Click to expand...

Nonsense, abortion supporter:

Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such a principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely on principles.


Precedents have been overturned many times.


The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times ...
https://theconversation.com › the-supreme-court-has-ov...
Sep 20, 2021 — The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation.
 
Earl said:
No.

Precedents can only be useful when they show that the case has been decided upon a certain principle and ought not to be binding when contrary to such a principle. If a precedent is to be followed because it is a precedent, even when decided against an established rule of law, there can be no possible correction of abuses because the fact of their existence renders them above the law. It is always safe to rely on principles.


Precedents have been overturned many times.


The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times ...
https://theconversation.com › the-supreme-court-has-ov...
Sep 20, 2021 — The Supreme Court has overturned precedent dozens of times in the past 60 years, including when it struck down legal segregation.
Click to expand...
Right, wasn't there an implied right to own a slave at one time?

There you go.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Defender of Honor View Post
It was the law of the land till a few days ago now it's not!

It was never a law, it was a decision by the Supreme Court. An UN-constitutional one, 6-3.
Laws originate in the US House.

Good grief!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top