Are you saying the blacks are racists?
I'm saying the mass eugenics program specifically targeting the black family by planned parenthood was racist baby killer.
They don;t even hide their racism anymore
- Thread starter AProudLefty
- Start date
I'm saying the mass eugenics program specifically targeting the black family by planned parenthood was racist baby killer.
Okay I'll bite your stinky bait. Who are forcing them to get abortions?
Life is Golden
The Sage
Just give it up. You already look like an idiot for this thread.
I am not going to give up the fight against fascists.
Life is Golden
The Sage
You were made an utter fool of in this thread. Cut your losses.
How so? Explain or shut the fuck up.
Life is Golden
The Sage
Go back and read. Cawacko destroyed you. Either you didn't realize it or you are shameless.
He didn't destroy me. He agreed that the tweet was ambiguous and tone deaf. The Senator's point is well known but the "point" was made in the wrong way.
You can look at it this way: The Senator effectively compared taking away women's (that's you) rights to taking away the racists' rights.
That is not a good comparison.
He was not talking about taking away anybody's rights. His point was that just because something is precedent does not necessarily mean we want to keep it. Maintaining a long-term precedent that was the "law of the land" would give us segregated schools, laws against homosexual acts, laws against interracial marriage, no minimum wage for women, students required to salute the flag against their religious beliefs, evidence gathered in illegal searches could be used in court against the defendant, no requirement that states provide attorneys for indigent defendants, allowing wiretapping without a warrant, punish public speech calling for illegal activities, execute intellectually challenged defendants, and require public employees to pay union dues.
It is not about comparing two things but evaluating cases based on the legal merits rather than sticking to precedent.
The long-standing precedent of the 1972 decision in Baker v. Nelson was overturned in Obergefell v. Hodges.
Yes we are talking about taking away women's rights and their privacy, including having it be between them and their doctors. They want to control women, effectively making them 2nd class citizens. For him to tell Obama that it's a good thing is wrong, not to mention that the Senator used those decisions as examples in his reply to a black former President.
I know you can see this.
The Dobbs case was about striking down the right to privacy for abortion. Cornyn's point was that supporting case law because it has been precedent for 50 years is poor jurisprudence.
Do you think Baker v. Nelson should have been upheld because it was precedent for 50 years and the "law of the land" or do you support Obergefell v. Hodges that struck down that precedent? What is the difference other than you like the results of one decision and not the other or it is based on constitutional principles?
As I have already stated, it is about taking away the women's rights and their right to privacy. Do you support the government's intrusion into the private lives of people?
It is not "poor jurisprudence". It's like saying that supporting cases for women's rights to vote and be equal for many years is "poor jurisprudence"?
Right to vote and equality is very different. The 14th Amendment clearly prohibits states from denying equal protection of the law. Creating a right to privacy and applying it selectively is not good constitutional law. We don't know what is protected by the right to privacy and what is not.
I favor very limited government and high individual liberty. That means I want my state to keep abortion legal, but not for an invented right based on a distorted decision few people have actually read. Their opinion is "if I want abortion I favor Roe" which is putting politics over law.
The gun control decision was also based on distorted interpretations of the Constitution which made most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states. I love the results (greater freedom), but oppose the process. The 2nd did not even apply to the states until 2010 which means before that date the 2nd could not have limited NY law.
Selectively? What do you mean? Are you saying that Roe v. Wade applies "selectively" to fertile women?
"If I want to choose education and schools, I favor Brown." Is that putting politics over law?
No, by selectively I mean our right to privacy only applies to limited freedoms. The Supreme Court applied it to some cases and not others. One poster said it applies to doctor-patient confidentiality, but it does not. That depends on individual state law. It applies to random drug testing for students but not students who drive to campus or engage in extra-curricular activities. It is difficult to even learn all the issues the right to privacy applies to.
Not if Brown was based on clear constitutional principles. The 14th was made to restrict the states and prohibits abridging equal protection and was meant to apply to race (when it was written). On the other hand, the right to privacy was based on a "penumbra" of other rights and is selectively applied. I liked the result, but dislike the legal reasoning.
In practice, it will not really take away the rights of many women. Many states, like Dobbs, make it illegal after 15 weeks and only about 4% of abortions are performed after that date. So, if that MS law is not changed, almost every woman in MS who wants an abortion can get one. About 35 states will retain legal abortion.
But even Roe "took away" the right of women to have an abortion after 24 weeks.
Did you favor the SC overturning 50 years of precedent in Obergefell?
So are you saying that a state can decide that defendant-lawyer confidentiality can be taken away?
The 19th gives women's rights as well.
And some states has already rushed to make abortions illegal at any week of pregnancy and made it a felony that is punishable up to life in prison.
That is not a good sign. We are heading downhill.
i was just looking up where that implied right acme from. Implied rights aren't inferior -
but they are only granted by judical interpretation..of course there is a right found in the text.
and then that is extrapolated to implied rights from same source..
.anyways..i found this and am still chewing on it
On January 22, 1973, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision holding that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which protects a pregnant woman's right to an abortion
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade
gemini104104
Verified User
In retrospect as these poor excuses as human beings not only demonstrating their un-American and uncivilized filth against humanity, I believe the civilized majority are not hiding its objection to this immoral and uncivilized attack on all core values of America and its well-being. Racism is an atrocity that is consumed with ignorance, and which is incapable of either supporting or co-existing in a civilized society at being nothing more than savages. This includes to which racism that promotes the decline of society and domestic terrorism is considered un-American and an atrocity on the progressiveness and forward way of a civilized society, and also in violation of U.S. Constitutional law, the Bill of Rights and Federal law and most state laws. Also, these barbaric racists are racist against humanity to which their gutter effects impact all of society and regardless of who one is but there are also state's rights to consider that has a way of getting around the destructive and un-American endeavors of the repuke party of sedition.
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
It's not, just A Ponsified Loony having another conniption.
That's way to light of a sentence, baby killing pigs should be buried up to their necks and stoned to death unfortunately the laws only apply to doctors who commit the murders they should apply to the mothers who murder their own babies as well.