@mott-the-hoople saidThis is so correct, both comments. Mauauder, you would really absorb the Mark Levin Show in Sirius, every nite at 6PM channel 125. Conservative thru an thru, but relates every discussion to the constitution. You will find a way to disagree, but entertaining,, it is! It is a call-in show if you want to straighten him out! 🤔
you have become delirious regarding the US constitution.
The problem with you libs is you dont want to follow the constitution.
@wildgrass said“Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected ”
Yes, of course. That is obvious and not the point. Duh. In these cases, the Court generally cites a significant change in society or law that requires a re-evaluation of prior decisions. Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected officials.
The logic for overturning Casey uses extremely weak arguments about societal change requiring it. Nothings changed to justify overturning the Casey decision except the people in the robes.
exactly what happened…and it was corrected to comply with the US constitution as written.
societal change does not play a part…the constitution doesnt change.
its funny you mention “unelected” officials”…with this ruling the “unelected officials” return the power to the people through “elected officials”
@wildgrass saidThere is a huge shadow over your pansy references to 'social change', which was not invented until all the libs on this forum were born. The shadow is that the Framers did not anticipate a lot of stuff that a president would do to ruin a country. Open a sovereign border!??!?!?!?!?!? Just open it up and turn his back on the goings-on there?
Yes, of course. That is obvious and not the point. Duh. In these cases, the Court generally cites a significant change in society or law that requires a re-evaluation of prior decisions. Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected officials.
The logic for overturning Casey uses extremely weak arguments about societal change requiring it. Nothings changed to justify overturning the Casey decision except the people in the robes.
Instead of saying 'we must respect the decisions of the court', he said they are outrageous . You fellers and Biden are a mess.
@averagejoe1 saidBaloney. The term you have in quotes I did not write. The conservative justices are citing change in their conclusion that Casey needs to be overturned. It's their language, not mine, you disagree with.
There is a huge shadow over your pansy references to 'social change', which was not invented until all the libs on this forum were born. The shadow is that the Framers did not anticipate a lot of stuff that a president would do to ruin a country. Open a sovereign border!??!?!?!?!?!? Just open it up and turn his back on the goings-on there?
Instead of saying 'we ...[text shortened]... espect the decisions of the court', he said they are outrageous . You fellers and Biden are a mess.
@averagejoe1 saidThe Framers didn’t limit immigration at all they were all dead when the first immigration law was enacted
There is a huge shadow over your pansy references to 'social change', which was not invented until all the libs on this forum were born. The shadow is that the Framers did not anticipate a lot of stuff that a president would do to ruin a country. Open a sovereign border!??!?!?!?!?!? Just open it up and turn his back on the goings-on there?
Instead of saying 'we ...[text shortened]... espect the decisions of the court', he said they are outrageous . You fellers and Biden are a mess.
@mott-the-hoople saidRoe and Casey did not overturn prior federal court precedent.
“Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected ”
exactly what happened…and it was corrected to comply with the US constitution as written.
societal change does not play a part…the constitution doesnt change.
its funny you mention “unelected” officials”…with this ruling the “unelected officials” return the power to the people through “elected officials”
@mott-the-hoople saidThe People's elected representatives have no legitimate power to force a woman to bear a child.
“Otherwise it seems that the rule of law is subject to the partisan whims of unelected ”
exactly what happened…and it was corrected to comply with the US constitution as written.
societal change does not play a part…the constitution doesnt change.
its funny you mention “unelected” officials”…with this ruling the “unelected officials” return the power to the people through “elected officials”
@mott-the-hoople saidThat's your defense of a practice that is not mentioned in the Constitution, fundamentally changes it and has not been used in that way except in the last 15 years at most?
you have become delirious regarding the US constitution.
The problem with you libs is you dont want to follow the constitution.
@no1marauder saidcongress can pass any law it wants to as long as it doesnt violate what is written in the US constitution. It is up to congress to decide this, not the scotus
The People's elected representatives have no legitimate power to force a woman to bear a child.
@no1marauder saidnothing has changed with the US constitution. abortion is not mentioned in it...are you having trouble understanding that?
That's your defense of a practice that is not mentioned in the Constitution, fundamentally changes it and has not been used in that way except in the last 15 years at most?
@mott-the-hoople saidContinually repeating an incorrect statement doesn't change the fact it's wrong, Mott.
congress can pass any law it wants to as long as it doesnt violate what is written in the US constitution. It is up to congress to decide this, not the scotus
The People have rights not enumerated in the Constitution and it is the duty of all branches and levels of government to protect them - that's why governments were formed in the first place according to our Nation's founding document.
@mott-the-hoople saidI was referring to the unconstitutional filibuster, Mott.
nothing has changed with the US constitution. abortion is not mentioned in it...are you having trouble understanding that?
@no1marauder saidSince you weave all kinds of thought into the constitution to make it appear that the document favors all liberal positions of 2022, can you tell ole' averagejoe, since I have never received an answer, should ANY of my tax dollars be used for payment of any medicine, physicians, midwifes, tools scissors, skull punctures and fetus-dumping related to an abortion? Let's take law and morality out of it, I guess I am talking about My rights, which you cherish so much.
I was referring to the unconstitutional filibuster, Mott.
We are all standing by......
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidWhat "right" are you asserting? To not have to have your share of taxes spent on things you don't agree with?
Since you weave all kinds of thought into the constitution to make it appear that the document favors all liberal positions of 2022, can you tell ole' averagejoe, since I have never received an answer, should ANY of my tax dollars be used for payment of any medicine, physicians, midwifes, tools scissors, skull punctures and fetus-dumping related to an abortion? Let's t ...[text shortened]... I guess I am talking about My rights, which you cherish so much.
We are all standing by......
@no1marauder saidWell, certainly you agree that I have a right to own money that I make. Now, Marauder, one of your worst weaknesses, though it is rife throughout the libs on this Forum, is your effort to change the facts of an issue, presented by a person such as myself.
What "right" are you asserting? To not have to have your share of taxes spent on things you don't agree with?
My factual query did not mention taxes. So, no sense going there for purposes of this post.
Please re-read my post and take it on its merits. Person wants abortion, I am asked to pay for it, should I. It is a yes or no, even a jmmmmperson would understand it.