Sid Miller calls out Abbott's economy killing political theater
- Thread starter bioaggie
- Start date
Don’t act like it wasn’t affirmed numerous times over the past 50 years.
Tell me your legal scholarly analysis of how it was both 1) terribly argued and 2) terribly defined.
Read the question I asked that you answered.
I asked “Should states decide if same sex or interracial marriage can exist?”
You responded with “yes… states making more individual decisions might be the only thing that brings any sort of unity back to the country as a whole.”
Cases aren’t decided in a vacuum. The basis of Roe is the same as the basis of the cases allowing interracial marriage and later same sex marriage. So if you destroy one…
I’m not debating con law with someone totally ignorant about it.
Decent amount. Unanimous in my only Supreme Court case, which happened to be a con law issue.
You?
What you said, mr hot shit attorney, was:
“Texas banning interracial marriage”
why would texas ban interracial marriage?
So you know why the UK has little issue with abortion over there compared to us? They allowed the people to vote on it. Simple as that. We as a country have never had a vote on the merits of abortion. A court full of white men just one day dictated it legal within a ruling. This is the problem with activist courts basically legislating from the bench. There are plenty of women that hate the though of abortion but they are never considered in the women's rights argument. Like their opinion means nothing. Schumer today said he represented 100 million women in this, I sure would like to challenge his count on that, I think he is a bit high. Put it to the states to vote and it will be 50/50 in this country. I don't hear the right screaming at that outcome and it is far from a total decision like the left wants.
Who knows. Texas does lots of dumb stuff like costing us 4B with the stupid searching of trucks crossing the boarder that were already searched. Not a single illegal thing found.
But if you don’t think pushing anti interracial marriage wouldn’t get steam in parts of Texas you’re kidding yourself.
Allow a popular vote like the UK then.
You know how that ends…
Here’s the thing. This doesn’t stop abortions. It just causes dangerous ones. Like hangers.
Well the SC would have to rule against it and the 14th in order for it to get to Texas so.....
We should leave in the hands of Supreme Court justices appointed by the panderer in chief that can’t define a woman because they’re not a biologist.
Here’s the thing (and you’re the attorney, correct me if wrong) nothing is stopping anyone from going to a place that has legal/safe abortions, and nothing is stopping the states from, as you said, “allowing a popular vote” like the UK.
You are living at least 40 years in the past. I am as conservative as they come and I have no issue with interracial marriage and I am in the vast majority on that topic. Again, it's a straw man.
And hangers, why when we now have pills that do it within 10 weeks? I guess there is always that chance but again, we have come a long way from the movie Revolutionary Road.
And again, there will be a tourism abortion industry started. I already read of a lady opening a clinic in New Mexico.
Yessir, that is pretty damn cool but what does a unanimous decision say about our lower court judicial system that got it so wrong.
I won at the lower court too, but not unanimous. The other side appealed that decision to the USSC. But your point is a pretty good one.
There are plenty of legal scholars that have written about how it was terribly argued that you can look up online which you already know. I'm still waiting to see where it says in the constitution that you can kill unborn babies. I may have missed that part sir. Where does it say we have the right to kill innocent life.
So you found it on line and assume you would agree. Got it.
I did not answer you question because it is not relevant. The right to vote is not in the constitution.
But the 15th (race), 19th (sex) and 26th (age) all allude to the right to vote and extend it to these classes. So there has to be a basic right for these 3 amendments to be able to expand them. But there is no mention of it in the first 10 (Bill of Rights).
Much more so than your previous question.
Do you think every right we have finds explicit language delineating it in the constitution? Or are you just asking dumb questions for effect?
according to polls from CNN of all sources, post-liberal meltdown shows GOP numbers increasing at a higher clip than dems based on strategically leaked memo, so not completely sure how this is a doomsday sign for GOP? most don't care as Brandon and dems are destroying America
was there ever a law passed allowing abortion or was it judicial activism? latter clearly where the courts cannot make laws yet they did.
also, not completely sure why the libs are so frantic at keeping the ability to kill kids at the time of delivery and past delivery? RvW stated abortions were legal up to or around 24 weeks, again why the need to kill the kid at the time of birth or following delivery? as being pushed in NY, DC, and a few other places?
lastly, if the court rightfully strikes down RvW and passes it back to the states where it belongs, there will be many states encouraging abortions while others not so much, so not sure how this "limits" the rights of women to kill babies?
and now moving on to ridiculous claims of eliminating RvW leading to the banning LGBTs and interracial marriage, too funny!!!!
It appears that states are indeed go to be trying to prevent people from going to other states to have abortions. Shocking I know.
that seems unconstitutional. looking at a few articles, I’ve only seen references to such legislation and not any actual proposed laws. Given the sources of the articles, it could be anywhere from fear mongering to deliberate misinformation.
For the record, I don’t care about abortion one way or another, but would be against what you are discussing.
Missouri has a proposal already and Bisco Cain said he will be introducing a bill in Texas.
The constitutionality is tricky. Given this court, it’s probably way less tricky.
I hate the slippery slope argument, but do wonder what happens if Texas can make it a felony for a Texas resident to do something in New Mexico that is legal in New Mexico. Will it be illegal to buy weed in Colorado if you live in Texas? Drive 85 mph in Montana?
The constitutionality is tricky. Given this court, it’s probably way less tricky.
I hate the slippery slope argument, but do wonder what happens if Texas can make it a felony for a Texas resident to do something in New Mexico that is legal in New Mexico. Will it be illegal to buy weed in Colorado if you live in Texas? Drive 85 mph in Montana?
I’m not sure how texas could enforce their laws outside of their jurisdiction. Every day, people leave to legally smoke weed, gamble, shoot animals “out of season”, buy liquor on Sunday, pay for hookers, and probably other stuff. Is there any precedent for having to follow the laws of the state you reside in (does that trigger the law?) when not in that state? What triggers being able to be prosecuted in texas for this? Anyone who has a residence in tx? Conceived in tx? Anyone who passes through tx?
I’m not even sure how the state of tx would know in most cases. but that’s no excuse for this proposed legislation.
but I haven’t seen any actual language regarding—or more importantly interpretation of—these laws.
My guess is they try to do what Texas did with its recent abortion restrictions and let random people sue anyone who aids someone in getting an abortion by private action. This prohibits any pre enforcement judicial scrutiny allowing it to be the law for years before being struck down.
As for how a state would know… Missouri’s health director testified he has spreadsheets that tracks the last menstrual cycle of planned parenthood patients. Sounds a bit close to handmaids tales.
