• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why the Founding Fatthers are rolling over in their graves due to Alito’s Dobbs decision

Then why are you arguing with me? I asserted you support the idea of appointed justices having the authority to write into the Constitution any new federal government power they wish, and here you are confirming that.

Still telling the same LIE. See and try to understand post #166.
 
So states can violate her first amendment rights when it harms another but not her privacy rights when it harms another?

Explain that contradiction.

There is no “another” in this case, in the form of a “person” .
 
No idea. How can states have laws allow killing for self-defense but not for money? It's a violation of a person's right to life to kill them, right? Gee, there must be additional, specific legal criteria affecting the laws. :rolleyes:
STILL haven't taken off your sig line that shows I was right? Wasn't aware you liked me that mush.
 
Better tell the Supreme Court justices that they are lightweights and don't know what you do.

The present far right POLITICAL extremists on the SC were indeed see as lightweights by many Constitutional scholars in regards to the Dobbs decision. I already explained that in the OP. They basically based the decision on their personal RELIGIOUS values instead of firm Constitutional principles and then backed in some very weak arguments. Even Chief Justice Roberts said as much in his dissent.
 
Correct. it's not an explanation. I dont understand your example that supposedly disputes mine. If you cant explain HOW yours proves mine wrong, if you cant show the legal reasoning supporting yours and HOW it disproves mine...I cant respond with an explanation.

So...where is it? The proof your 1st A example disproves mine. LOL now I know you cant, after all your stalling.

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
Then let us take a simpler example. You shout "fire" in a movie theater and someone is hurt in the rush to the door. Several people tell the police that a few moments before you yelled you said "Watch me make those MAGA idiots in the front row run for the door." The police arrest you, and you are brought up on charges in state court and under state law for reckless endangerment and causing bodily harm. You and your lawyer argue the case should be thrown out because the Constitution protects your right to speak freely and no state law can supercede your Constitutionally protected first amendment rights.

Your motion will be denied, demonstrating that a state law can supercede first amendment protections.
 
Still telling the same LIE. See and try to understand post #166.
Nope, I'm describing the consequences of your position. That your can't understand those consequences is not my problem. It's yours.
 
The present far right POLITICAL extremists on the SC were indeed see as lightweights by many Constitutional scholars in regards to the Dobbs decision. I already explained that in the OP. They basically based the decision on their personal RELIGIOUS values instead of firm Constitutional principles and then backed in some very weak arguments. Even Chief Justice Roberts said as much in his dissent.
My background is heavy into contract interpretation and the reason there are lawsuits is because you can get 10 people reading the same paragraph and 6 out of 10 will say it means A and 4 will say it means B, etc. It is rare you ever get a unanimous decision. What you are doing is what religious apologists do and did is to strain credulity when there are contradictions or even in an apologist taking a simple bible verse and saying it is hyperbole or allegory.

Your side is rushing to get more federal judgeships. Now, why is that, do you suppose? You know why and it is because your side chants a bunch of liberals on the federal benches. You can talk all you want about how some OTHER liberal jurists interpret the meaning of common sentences but all that matters is the majority on the Supreme Court said it is NOT a federal issue and the states are to decide on it and the Supreme Court will not step in.

Now, suppose I was an evangelical or anti-abortion and the state I lived in decided you could abort a baby the minute before it would have been born? What do I do? Bitch about the SC saying my state could do that? Nope. I would move if I didn't like it. Liberals seem to think they have all these "rights" one of which is to not have to move from a state that doesn't allow abortions and to live in a state that conforms to their ideology.
 
The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of unenumerated rights, especially in the area of civil rights, until the far right extremists on the present SC severely limited the right to privacy upon which the Roe decision was based.

Let’s take a look at a couple of the central themes of the Bill if Rights:

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,………

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

While the term “privacy” was not used, it quickly becomes quite clear that it was fully intended as an “unenumerated” right, that the people should be legally “secure in their persons”. It thus became the foundation of the Roe decision that a woman’s privacy should not be invaded by the state as regards her decision about terminating her pregnancy. That is, until the far right extremists on the SC allowed their personal religious biases to override a principle of the Constitution, namely the right to personal privacy, in favor of making a woman a ward of the state at the instant of pregnancy. Yes, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the injustice towards the privacy of certain citizens, namely women, by what is clearly a religious-based POLITICAL faction on the SC.
A long departed SC Justice disagreed with how the framer of the 9th and 10th Amendments might turn about in his grave.

. . . to say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history. The Ninth Amendment, like its companion, the Tenth . . . was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder. -- Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting opinion, Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)
 
STILL haven't taken off your sig line that shows I was right? Wasn't aware you liked me that mush.

It shows you dont understand basic science, as did your own source that you provided. I see you still understand neither 😁

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
Then let us take a simpler example. You shout "fire" in a movie theater and someone is hurt in the rush to the door. Several people tell the police that a few moments before you yelled you said "Watch me make those MAGA idiots in the front row run for the door." The police arrest you, and you are brought up on charges in state court and under state law for reckless endangerment and causing bodily harm. You and your lawyer argue the case should be thrown out because the Constitution protects your right to speak freely and no state law can supercede your Constitutionally protected first amendment rights.

Your motion will be denied, demonstrating that a state law can supercede first amendment protections.

Nope. The person who yelled fire was not having their rights violated in any way when they shouted. Women's Const rights are violated when forced to remain pregnant against our will, when denied the much safer medical procedure.

I knew you had nothing on this. What's new?

☮️🇺🇸☮️
 
Nope, I'm describing the consequences of your position. That your can't understand those consequences is not my problem. It's yours.

Except that what you are supposedly “explaining” is a LIE, as I have now explained at least twice. That you can’t understand that shows an unwillingness on your part to discuss the situation in more depth. It is quite clear that you are afraid to because you know that your claim is just so much nonsense.
 
all that matters is the majority on the Supreme Court said it is NOT a federal issue and the states are to decide on it and the Supreme Court will not step in.

I have already explained in the OP and in post #179 that the far right extremists threw the Constitution in the trash per Dobbs and substituted their personal “moral” and political ideologies instead. Roe was working just fine whereby those women who wanted an abortion could get one and those that didn’t—didn’t. Now the fascists in the red state legislatures have decided that the state gets to intervene. Dobbs is easily one of the worst decisions ever.

What do I do? Bitch about the SC saying my state could do that? Nope. I would move if I didn't like it.

Life is seen as so simplistic to the average right winger. In reality, it is not.
 
A long departed SC Justice disagreed with how the framer of the 9th and 10th Amendments might turn about in his grave.

. . . to say that the Ninth Amendment has anything to do with this case is to turn somersaults with history. The Ninth Amendment, like its companion, the Tenth . . . was framed by James Madison and adopted by the States simply to make clear that the adoption of the Bill of Rights did not alter the plan that the Federal Government was to be a government of express and limited powers, and that all rights and powers not delegated to it were retained by the people and the individual States. Until today, no member of this Court has ever suggested that the Ninth Amendment meant anything else, and the idea that a federal court could ever use the Ninth Amendment to annul a law passed by the elected representatives of the people of the State of Connecticut would have caused James Madison no little wonder. -- Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting opinion, Griswold v. State of Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

So he disagrees with the Brown decision that overturned the “state’s rights” laws that segregated public schools?
 
I have already explained in the OP and in post #179 that the far right extremists threw the Constitution in the trash per Dobbs and substituted their personal “moral” and political ideologies instead. Roe was working just fine whereby those women who wanted an abortion could get one and those that didn’t—didn’t. Now the fascists in the red state legislatures have decided that the state gets to intervene. Dobbs is easily one of the worst decisions ever.



Life is seen as so simplistic to the average right winger. In reality, it is not.
Life is full of hardships, turmoil and strife. I moved from Calif under those conditions and you can too.
 
So he disagrees with the Brown decision that overturned the “state’s rights” laws that segregated public schools?
That is an odd question in reply to the absence of an intended privacy right in the 9th Amendment. But, I'll answer.

The vote in Brown v Board of Education was 9-0. The difference is the constitutional principle is written in the 14th Amendment and need not be imagined by implied discovery.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Is a public education a privilege of United States citizens and residents? Yes. It is.
 
The person who yelled fire was not having their rights violated in any way when they shouted.
In that scenario, that person is you. So why were you being fined and/or imprisoned for what you said?
 
Except that what you are supposedly “explaining” is a LIE, as I have now explained at least twice. That you can’t understand that shows an unwillingness on your part to discuss the situation in more depth. It is quite clear that you are afraid to because you know that your claim is just so much nonsense.
That is complete BS, and I really don't think you're so foolish as to believe what you're saying. You believe that SCOTUS can pluck any unenumerated rigiht or power and declare it unconstitutional. Whether you acknowledge it or not, that is giving SCOTUS virtually unlimited political authority.

Your idea on this is not only wrong, it's nuts.
 
That depends on the state. Suggest you read Alabama's Human Life Protection Act.
Still doesn't consider the unborn a full person with rights, especially not beyond the context of abortion. Try again!
In that scenario, that person is you. So why were you being fined and/or imprisoned for what you said?
In an abortion scenario, the only person involved is the pregnant woman.
Nope, I'm describing the consequences of your position. That your can't understand those consequences is not my problem. It's yours.
What are the consequences of abortion beyond the person obtaining one?
 
In that scenario, that person is you. So why were you being fined and/or imprisoned for what you said?

That person is not me. You just accused me of breaking the law...that's against forum rules.

Now...what happened to your first examples to support your 1A comparison? The ones that needed a legal basis or foundation, and to be related to the abortion issue?

☮️ 🇺🇸 ☮️
 
The Founding Fathers were so concerned about the rights of the citizens of the new nation that they inserted the first Ten Amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, to make certain that they would be forever protected. The focus of the modern Supreme Court was to expand the legal standing of unenumerated rights, especially in the area of civil rights, until the far right extremists on the present SC severely limited the right to privacy upon which the Roe decision was based.

Let’s take a look at a couple of the central themes of the Bill if Rights:

Fourth Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,………

Ninth Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

While the term “privacy” was not used, it quickly becomes quite clear that it was fully intended as an “unenumerated” right, that the people should be legally “secure in their persons”. It thus became the foundation of the Roe decision that a woman’s privacy should not be invaded by the state as regards her decision about terminating her pregnancy. That is, until the far right extremists on the SC allowed their personal religious biases to override a principle of the Constitution, namely the right to personal privacy, in favor of making a woman a ward of the state at the instant of pregnancy. Yes, the Founding Fathers are rolling over in their graves over the injustice towards the privacy of certain citizens, namely women, by what is clearly a religious-based POLITICAL faction on the SC.
Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness while not in the constitution, it is in the mission statement (Declaration of Independence). No more important function of the government than protection of innocent. Dobbs sends the abortion issue back to legislatures elected not appointed. Voters have a say now. Before Dobbs they did not. The founders would be impressed that the constitution worked so well. The founders fully expected that citizens would have had to use the second ammendment long ago to overthrow a new tyranny. Harris has her sights on ending the 1st and 2cnd with censorship and gun confiscation. That would get 'em rolling.
 
Back
Top Bottom