They don;t even hide their racism anymore

AProudLefty said:
So are you saying that a state can decide that defendant-lawyer confidentiality can be taken away?
Click to expand...

Umm that right has been non-existant since the rise of the fascist Biden/Schumer/Pelosi regime and their gestapo FBI thugs that have completely eliminated attorney client privlege, what rock have you been living under?
 
dukkha said:
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
Click to expand...

The implied powers come from the constitutional provision that Congress can do what is "necessary and proper" to carry out the delegated powers. Congress determines whether something is necessary.
 
AProudLefty said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're on target, but to the right wing wonk mindset this passes as a pseudo-intellectual justification for their bigoted and misogynistic attitudes and actions. Like everything else, they'll stick with it with insipid stubbornness....logical and real life analysis be damned.
 
Flash said:
Originally Posted by AProudLefty View Post
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"?
Click to expand...



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.
Click to expand...

Whoa, back it up a bit there son! Your first sentence is akin to Orwellian newspeak ... the right to vote in this country gives one EQUAL say in what laws are made or changed or how they are interpreted regardless of economic, social, racial or religious class. Period. Just recall your American history and the Constitution.

Your second paragraph is basic libertarian clap trap, as they seldom want a definitive on what they want an ELECTED gov't to do ... but they sure as hell want said gov't to help them out when they can't themselves. Law is derived from politics, since you have ELECTED or CHOSEN people to make final decisions .... decisions they are suppose to make via representing the people who put them in that position. There is nothing wrong with people attributing the CHOICE of an abortion to Roe vs. Wade ... that's why the christo-fascist (my own neologism) elements of our country fought so hard to nullify it to obtain this recent development.

Your third paragraph is more libertarian clap trap.....you like the results but detest the process? You last sentence made no sense at all, as NY wasn't the only state with strict gun laws (it was just at the top of the list). Unless you can quote a passage in the Bill of Rights or any amendment subsequent that excludes states from those applications, you're just pushing personal opinion as fact. Also, what is the "greater freedom" in going strapped in society 24/7? What are you going to do now that you couldn't do last week (assuming you have a basic license for a gun in the first place)?
 
Shoresy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Please document the case in which a doctor put to death a new born child, as that would be some sort of wild "retro-abortion". If you can't, then you're just talking nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top