So, not so important that the Constitution doesn't say "abortion."
"Leglislating laws" is what state legislatures "must" remedy by "legislating laws?" Profound.
Judicial activism has a role in our governance and process. It is not the only method for creating laws. It is a method that comes at a price, particularly when judges or justices are politically appointed. An alternative to judicial activism and its associated price is for the legislatures, within a republic, to legislate rather than punt. The legislatures punted. And the justices, in this particularly case referred to as Dobbs, punted back.
It is not a big damn deal. It fits the agreed process.
Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, talks with Rachel Maddow about how state abortion bans that were not well thought out are hurting women in medical need, forcing them to endure needless suffering.
I honestly believe that all 6 of the Supreme Court Justices responsible for that decision deserve impeachment and removal from office for their callously arrogant and even willful demonstrable scientific and medical illiteracy in this case. Of course, I realize this is unlikely to ever happen.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
Dr. Colleen McNicholas, chief medical officer of Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri, talks with Rachel Maddow about how state abortion bans that were not well thought out are hurting women in medical need, forcing them to endure needless suffering.
Whatever.
Maybe Dr. McNicholas should be talking to her state legislatures instead. Maybe she, or the person in her position, should have been doing that for 49 years. In the meantime, did I see that some politicians want to expand the court and judicial activism rather than fix the laws? Be careful what you wish for. If that gets any momentum, expect Supreme Court to punt activism back to the legislatures again, and again, and again, and again.
This is all simple, really. Some people like a republic. Some do not.
Maybe Dr. McNicholas should be talking to her state legislatures instead. Maybe she, or the person in her position, should have been doing that for 49 years.
Do you really think they have not been and are not trying to do that? In fact, it was made abundantly clear that they are doing that. Did you not watch the video? You watched at least enough of it to get Dr. McNicholas name right. Did you just ignore what you didn't want to see or hear?
Last edited by Gunnar on Tue Jul 19, 2022 5:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
No precept or claim is more suspect or more likely to be false than one that can only be supported by invoking the claim of Divine authority for it--no matter who or what claims such authority.
While there's a part of me that intuits that harassing Supreme Court judges is wrong and not cool, there's another part of me that wonders, "What recourse do people have to continue to control their own lives and not let the government trample basic freedoms?"
From that perspective, I hope Kavanaugh never gets a break from it. Douche bag. I mean, what do they actually expect when, with one ill-conceived decision, they “F” over every citizen?
I agree with Gunnar. The 6 that voted in favor should all be impeached for deceiving the country under oath. “F”, they should all be disbarred.
This country has way too many damned morons in control of it.
Religion is for people whose existential fear is greater than their common sense.
So, not so important that the Constitution doesn't say "abortion."
"Leglislating laws" is what state legislatures "must" remedy by "legislating laws?" Profound.
Judicial activism has a role in our governance and process. It is not the only method for creating laws. It is a method that comes at a price, particularly when judges or justices are politically appointed. An alternative to judicial activism and its associated price is for the legislatures, within a republic, to legislate rather than punt. The legislatures punted. And the justices, in this particularly case referred to as Dobbs, punted back.
It is not a big damn deal. It fits the agreed process.
So does judicial enforcement of individual rights to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. Revoking a previously determined individual right is just as activist as finding one. Your framework for thinking about individual rights is incoherent.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Maybe Dr. McNicholas should be talking to her state legislatures instead. Maybe she, or the person in her position, should have been doing that for 49 years. In the meantime, did I see that some politicians want to expand the court and judicial activism rather than fix the laws? Be careful what you wish for. If that gets any momentum, expect the Supreme Court to punt activism back to the legislatures again, and again, and again, and again.
This is all simple, really. Some people like a republic. Some do not.
It actually has nothing to do with liking a republic. We all have inalienable rights by virtue of being U.S. citizens. Under our democratic republic, the states have no say in determining my individual rights as a U.S. Citizen. See both the Supreme Clause and the 14th amendment.
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
Maybe Dr. McNicholas should be talking to her state legislatures instead. Maybe she, or the person in her position, should have been doing that for 49 years. In the meantime, did I see that some politicians want to expand the court and judicial activism rather than fix the laws? Be careful what you wish for. If that gets any momentum, expect the Supreme Court to punt activism back to the legislatures again, and again, and again, and again.
This is all simple, really. Some people like a republic. Some do not.
Why do you claim she isn't? Why do you claim that no one has? Do you think the legislature at any level of government has the right to force a woman to die in order to (maybe) preserve the life of the unborn?
he/him we all just have to live through it,
holding each other’s hands.
While there's a part of me that intuits that harassing Supreme Court judges is wrong and not cool, there's another part of me that wonders, "What recourse do people have to continue to control their own lives and not let the government trample basic freedoms?"
From that perspective, I hope Kavanaugh never gets a break from it. Douche bag. I mean, what do they actually expect when, with one ill-conceived decision, they “F” over every citizen?
I agree with Gunnar. The 6 that voted in favor should all be impeached for deceiving the country under oath. “F”, they should all be disbarred.
This country has way too many damned morons in control of it.
There you have it.
If threatening and harassing Supreme Court justices is on the table for you and your ilk, well, expect divisions to continue and worsen. Asking for harassment to be perpetual because you did not like a ruling that makes sense for someone that you disagree with, well, that is just more of an insurrectionist position than even I expected out of my leftist liberals.
What happened to “… travel right entails privacy and free domestic movement without governmental abridgment”? So, now that the GOP is attacking ‘freedom of movement’, look for cases involving ‘freedom of association’ and then ‘freedom of expression’.
