GOP talking point: if you oppose SCOTUS decision, you're against democracy

[AProudLefty]

Why does it matter? Is it a life? Or just a dead mass of cells? [/size]

HOW MANY WEEKS??

 

[Truth Detector]

HOW MANY WEEKS??

^Low IQ moron on steroids can't read either. Another reason you cannot have a coherent debate with dishonest idiots.

 

[AProudLefty]

^Low IQ moron on steroids can't read either. Another reason you cannot have a coherent debate with dishonest idiots.

HOW MANY WEEKS??

 

[Callinectes]

Trump got fewer votes


He NEVER had the consent of the governed

As you love to point out, the president is actually "elected" by the electoral college (which is a wonderful institution...when your candidate wins).

 

[Into the Night]

I don't know. What rights do you think are contained in the 9th Amendment

It doesn't specify. Void question.

The was no federal action involved.

None needed.

All those freedoms were denied by the states

So?

and the Supreme Court ruled those restrictions were unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional. They do not have that authority. The Supreme Court cannot change the Constitution.

That would involve the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution

They do not have authority to.

to say the right to privacy does not protect abortion.

It doesn't.

You have been telling us the SC cannot interpret the Constitution;

That is correct.

yet, that is exactly what you say you want if they overturn Roe.

WRONG. They are CONFORMING to the Constitution to do so. They are REQUIRED to conform to the Constitution, just like any other federal entity.

 

[Into the Night]

Your state includes abortion under its definition of murder that is currently in effect? Can you cite that law?

Google is your friend. It is not God though.

 

[Into the Night]

Wisconsin is probably one of them... I don't know the specific language used, but I do know that Wisconsin law considers abortion to be a felony offense. -- I can tell you right now that our useless ideological State AG would not prosecute anyone on the basis of that law, however. I hope that we get a conservative AG again come November... Our useless tyrannical Governor needs to go as well...

Wisconsin is one of them. See Wis. Stat. § 940.04 (2).
Washington is another, IAW Wash. Rev. Code Ann. § 9A.32.060.
And, just for interest, Virginia says the same kind of thing in Va. Code § 18.2-32.2.
And, just right next door to Washington, Idaho has one of the stronger worded versions in the Idaho Code § 18-4001, § 18-4006 and § 18-4016.

 

[Into the Night]

True, the interpretation was complicated, but the basic idea is simple. The court interpreted the Constitution to provide a right to privacy which protects abortion the first two trimesters.

The 9th Amendment was never incorporated.

The Supreme court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III. You are AGAIN discarding the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Explain how it is false equivalence.

RQAA

 

[American Man]

Maybe next we can "let the states decide" whether a woman can vote or hold a job, or whether she can be seen in public without a man at her side, or whether she can wear jeans.

 

[Into the Night]

And yet, pro-abortion argue the exact opposite and demand that Government intrude on it. You aren't very smart. Were you born with a mental issue? Or did you get dropped on your head as a baby?

Maybe they tried to abort him and they fucked up. He survived somehow.

 

[American Man]

The Supreme court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III. You are AGAIN discarding the Constitution.

I'm surprised you don't write Q.E.D at the end of your posts. (Yes, I'm mocking you.)

 

[Into the Night]

HOW MANY WEEKS??

Irrelevant. Straw man fallacy. Void question.

 

[Into the Night]

HOW MANY WEEKS??

Chanting. RQAA.

 

[Flash]

WRONG. They are CONFORMING to the Constitution to do so. They are REQUIRED to conform to the Constitution, just like any other federal entity.

They must determine what the Constitution means before they can conform to it. That is essentially interpreting its meaning--etymological fallacy.

If they overturn Roe they interpreted the Constitution to what they thought conformed to the meaning of the text. Different justices might find that didn't conform to the meaning.

 

[Into the Night]

HOW MANY WEEKS??

Chanting. RQAA.

 

[martin]

If 1) a basic tenet of democracy is that when members of society disagree on a given policy that broadly affects the society the majority decides and 2) polls show a solid majority of adult Americans oppose overturning Roe, why isn’t the democratic answer to keep Roe?

 

[Flash]

The Supreme court does not have authority to interpret the Constitution. See Article III. You are AGAIN discarding the Constitution.

You are ignoring an entire history of the document, accepted law by the entire federal and state court system and legal establishment, a court decision involving the men who wrote the Constitution that established judicial review, and the discussion of judicial review in the Federalist Papers.

You also find governmental powers not contained in the Constitution by claiming immigration is included in naturalization although there is no text to that effect; therefore, it does not conform to the Constitution.

 

[Into the Night]

Maybe next we can "let the states decide" whether a woman can vote

They cannot. See the Constitution of the United States. Specifically the 19th amendment.

or hold a job,

They cannot. See the Constitution of the United States. Specifically the 13th and 14th amendments.

or whether she can be seen in public without a man at her side,

They cannot. See the constitution of your particular State, which generally prohibits freedom of travel, and Article IV $2 and $4 of the Constitution of the United States and the 14th amendment.

or whether she can wear jeans.

They cannot. See the same sources, including Article IV and the 14th amendment.

 

[Into the Night]

They must determine what the Constitution means before they can conform to it.

No, they don't. They simply MUST conform to the Constitution.

That is essentially interpreting its meaning

No. It is not. The Constitution does not need 'interpretation'. It is written in English.

--etymological fallacy.

Fallacy fallacy.

If they overturn Roe they interpreted the Constitution to what they thought conformed to the meaning of the text.

No. They would be conforming to the Constitution. They are required to.

Different justices might find that didn't conform to the meaning.

Irrelevant. The Supreme Court MUST conform to the Constitution. They do not have authority to interpret it. See Article III.