And here I thought Trump's Supreme appointments were going to eviscerate Roe?

H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
reason.com

Kavanaugh Highlights Texas Abortion Law's Threat to 'Second Amendment Rights, Free Exercise of Religion Rights, Free Speech Rights'

Texas law S.B. 8 bans pre-viability abortions, which is something that Texas lawmakers are specifically prohibited from doing under existing U.S. Supreme
reason.com reason.com

The Article said:
What if a state passed a law that says "everyone who sells an AR-15 is liable for a million dollars to any citizen," Kavanaugh asked the Texas official. "Would that kind of law be exempt from pre-enforcement review in federal court?"

...

So "Second Amendment rights, free exercise of religion rights, free speech rights," Kavanaugh emphasized, could all "be targeted by other states" using the Texas abortion law as a model. "And you also said that the amount of the penalty doesn't matter, a million dollars per sale," Kavanaugh added. "A state passes a law [that says] anyone who declines to provide a good or service for use in a same-sex marriage, a million dollars if sued by anyone in the state, that's exempt from pre-enforcement review?"

"Is that a yes?" Kavanaugh pressed the Texas official.

"Yes, your honor," Stone replied.
Click to expand...

Imagine that: the justice everyone reckoned would go full scorched earth and remove all of our rights, etc., etc. is actually a PRAGMATIST.

If you read the full piece, you'll note the presumed "left wing" of the court is also suspicious of the construction of Texas SB 8. I won't quote it here, as I don't want to quote too much of a piece, but if you click on over to the piece it's all there.

Finally, while I am pasting in a news article, I hope some will take the time to listen to the audio: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2021/21-588

In it, you'll hear Texas Solicitor General Judd Stone respond to the theoretical AR-15 question. He said something to the effect, that Congress could pass a law to protect gun rights in the face of this law.(!!!) It took one of the leftist female judges to remind Mr. Stone that the point of a right is that it doesn't require legislative action to protect!

You should listen to it. I'll amend this post with the timestamp on that if I can skim through and find it again.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
HemiHauler said:
Imagine that: the justice everyone reckoned would go full scorched earth and remove all of our rights
Click to expand...

Not everyone, just the loony Left. But by now we should be used to them ranting hysterically about their fever dreams. They threw themselves on the floor over ACB, too, and so far she hasn't been terribly right wing, or right wing at all.

Regardless, Kavanaugh's line of reasoning is flawed because keeping and bearing arms is a specific constitutional right, whereas abortion is not. RvW was decided as a right to privacy, not specifically a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. AND the Constitution also says that anything not specifically enumerated in the document are for the individual states to decide. I don't agree with this TX law, but under the US Constitution it's their right to enact it.

Also, a Lefty saying that the point of a right is that it doesn't require legislation to protect is rich, considering these people have done nothing but try to strip us of our rights under the Constitution. I give you covid lockdowns and vax mandates as a shining example.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
Not everyone, just the loony Left. But by now we should be used to them ranting hysterically about their fever dreams. They threw themselves on the floor over ACB, too, and so far she hasn't been terribly right wing, or right wing at all.

Regardless, Kavanaugh's line of reasoning is flawed because keeping and bearing arms is a specific constitutional right, whereas abortion is not. RvW was decided as a right to privacy, not specifically a right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. AND the Constitution also says that anything not specifically enumerated in the document are for the individual states to decide. I don't agree with this TX law, but under the US Constitution it's their right to enact it.

Also, a Lefty saying that the point of a right is that it doesn't require legislation to protect is rich, considering these people have done nothing but try to strip us of our rights under the Constitution. I give you covid lockdowns and vax mandates as a shining example.
Click to expand...

Well, the right to privacy is in fact a Constitutionally protected right, so I do not accept your view.
 
vraiblonde

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
HemiHauler said:
Well, the right to privacy is in fact a Constitutionally protected right, so I do not accept your view.
Click to expand...

But throw in the unborn child and now we get to have a discussion about its rights.....

I personally don't have an opinion as to when rights as an America citizen kick in. Upon conception? Upon live birth? At age 18? :sshrug: All I know is that anyone who rejects a decent point out of hand isn't worth having a conversation with because they're stubbornly dug in and don't want to tax themselves considering any other POV - and that's most people on both sides of the aisle, so here we are.
 
GURPS

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
vraiblonde said:
.... whereas abortion is not. RvW was decided as a right to privacy,
Click to expand...


This is NEVER Talked about ...... I only learned this in the past few months after the TX abortion ban


Progressives Certain scream their intents to murder their unborn from the roaf tops

SO MUCH FOR PRIVACY
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
But throw in the unborn child and now we get to have a discussion about its rights.....

I personally don't have an opinion as to when rights as an America citizen kick in. Upon conception? Upon live birth? At age 18? :sshrug: All I know is that anyone who rejects a decent point out of hand isn't worth having a conversation with because they're stubbornly dug in and don't want to tax themselves considering any other POV - and that's most people on both sides of the aisle, so here we are.
Click to expand...

When you make a decent point, I will consider it.
 
O

OccamsRazor

Well-Known Member
vraiblonde said:
All I know is that anyone who rejects a decent point out of hand isn't worth having a conversation with because they're stubbornly dug in and don't want to tax themselves considering any other POV
Click to expand...

Honestly, this seems to be the norm in these parts. I've lost count of how many times someone has raised a point about a topic only to be shouted down without considering it or talking/debating it. Its on here every day.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
HemiHauler said:
Well, the right to privacy is in fact a Constitutionally protected right, so I do not accept your view.
Click to expand...
See, this is largely an interpretation of a right - one with which I do happen to agree with - but not as explicitly stated as several of our other rights.

How abortion fits in anywhere as a constitutionally protected right - that, I don't see.

Hence, I do happen to agree that abortion IS a matter rightly decided by the states, as per the tenth.
 
SamSpade

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
PREMO Member
GURPS said:
Abortion is Murder ... there is no inherent right to murder
Click to expand...

I think what surprised me THE MOST - was just how libertine our laws ARE, regarding abortion.
We more or less allow it at any time for any reason. Most of our presumably more "englightened" European counterparts have definite times whereupon it is no longer permitted for ANY reason, save life of the mother. The line is usually drawn right around 3-4 months.

After that, most nations in Europe don't permit it at all.
 
H

HemiHauler

Well-Known Member
GURPS said:
Abortion is Murder ... there is no inherent right to murder
Click to expand...

It's not.

The term "murder" is a legal adjudication. It doesn't exist on it's own. An homicide (or in this case infanticide) isn't murder unless a court says so.

Stop using emotions to make your point.

Abortion is wrong any way you want to look at it. Of this, there is no question - we do not disagree.

The way I've look at it is: If we're going to run our country according to the Constitution, then who do you want making these decisions? The government? NO THANKS.

Such is the risk of freedom. If you don't like the risks, you are free to choose to live in a less free country. Me? I'll live with the dangers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top