b_m_b_m_b_m

Turkey and Russia here we come! A Semi democratic authoritarian state is a fun place to be in for the most militarily powerful nation in human history

City of Richmond sent my wife and I each two absentee ballots so we’re ready to do some voter fraud for antifa joe Biden !

rt by djt

Not a great time to have family in that shithole state

This is literally the first time in my life anyone has ever accused me of withholding my opinion on any manner great or small

I haven’t done all of that work, but I have read the opinion and one or two that are cited like Griswold. I formed my own legal opinions based on my reading and scholars who have done this work and whom I agree with. Surprisingly the LeGaL cOmMuNiTy isn’t unanimous and there is no single way to interpret the laws at hand, the constitution, let alone the history of the court and its rulings. I’m not making my arguments here on this concept of the legal community. They don’t have all the answers, and I’m presenting my opinions based on what I have read instead of wholly leaning on the work of some unnamed mass of others. but keep referencing the legal community like trollpez and not have anything interesting to say yourself

This would normally be true, and with a less ideologically rigorous vetting process by the right wing that exists now might make some difference on the margin, with an occasional 5-4 that grants temporary reprieve. By looking at a 6-3 court and it doesn’t matter, the justices will be done.

These are dorks in tweed jackets not the Oracle at Delphi they don’t have all the answers

The legal community phrase is meaningless. I’ll get to it in my reply to joes post. the decision of roe falls into a few camps: rightly decided for sound reasons, rightly decided but for unsound reasons, wrongly decided but sound reasoning (????), or wrongly decided because of the unsound reasoning. if the first, you’re generally in agreement with me. I’d put Jason in this camp. Generally, there is a right to privacy, unenumerated yet protected by the constitution. This upholds the right to an abortion. In the second, is where you’d generally agree with some of what you claim tHe LeGaL cOmMuNiTy, or at least rbg, is with regard to the decision. I’d wager joe is here. This is in effect a concurrence. So yes, there is a right to abortion, but it should have been done another way. Same end result, legal abortion. No idea how someone could be the third so I’ll skip it. The last is where most all conservatives are and the rest of the LeGaL cOmMuNiTy. the arguments from them are really irrelevant because the point is that abortion is murder and against the Christian religion. Those aren’t the legal arguments because ultimately they will say whatever they need in order to get the job done and ban abortion. These people don’t operate in good legal faith so choosing 1 or 2 is irrelevant.

“Roe is rightly decided but for the wrong reasons “ is explicitly called out here by reference to the rbg article. The problem is you, joe, and others think that if it’s equal protection or privacy reasoning it would matter to the court conservatives specifically or conservatives generally in their opposition! If there’s a will to overturn the right to an abortion, and there most certainly is, there will be a way

I don’t give a shit about any conlaw professor, and neither should you. They’re not the highest authority on the law, nor should they be. It’s not an observable science, it’s all political! And you’re right, the holding and legal basis is important. I just find the legal basis for privacy quite sound, just like the right to freely travel in, out, and generally around a state. Draw all you want to from some stuffy academic, because not all rights are enumerated by the constitution by my political interpretation the problem with the holding of the court using conservative opinions with liberal concurrence in holding is that it is done in bad faith by conservatives generally, even when the court liberals use their own words against them.

it’s damn stupid to assume the problem conservatives have with roe is “there’s no right to privacy” and not that they see it as a violation of a “higher law”; one of the Ten Commandments, Thou Shall Not Murder.

“The legal community “ is a nebulous, loaded, and ultimately meaningless phrase that allows you to be a contrarian without actually spelling out why it’s a bad opinion. and just because the phrase isn’t in the constitution doesn’t mean it isn’t a right! There’s no right to travel in the bloody doc, and scotus had to infer the right from the articles of confederation! Sounds like that would be a poorly decided decision there!

Kav? No idea, but more than likely yes. the court? Absolutely

You must say “quid pro quo” for it to be a quid pro quo

My point is every case is very easy to overturn if the ideological balance of the court tips one way or another! the only reason Casey didn’t overturn roe is because judges appointed by arch conservative presidents didn’t fully fit their ideological mold. The right has learned from this and this mistake won’t be made again

You can pick and choose any legal scholars you want that’s an absolute shit argument. Guess who should be considered some of the utmost authorities on constitutional law? The justices themselves! interpretation of the constitution is a political act, there is no “consensus” that exists whatsoever, and shit there’s even disagreement over how to interpret the constitution! Should we read the text as is, or the original intent? No one does this consistently so there’s no right or wrong answer!

Just because the old paper doesn’t explicitly say the magic word “privacy” doesn’t mean it isn’t a right, in fact the 9th amendment makes this quite clear

As I said before, we’re going to have one slate of electors submitted from the normal, official method, and another from republican legislatures and guess who gets to determine what’s what?!

What if I told you the court doesn’t really care about stare decisis and will just make up whatever they want and justify it however they want to reach the outcomes they want. There’s enough case law to pretty much do what you want! Just wrap it up nicely in a bow with “we believe the court wrongly decided this case” (if the case law is even mentioned) or something similar and congrats you have a new ruling the court is an ideological project not some academic exercise in the just application of the law!

Trump made hay over Biden using a teleprompter while using one himself. It would be funny if it weren’t so sad

This is dumb and your theoretical is on its face a violation of the first amendment. So you disclose you have an abortion you got from planned parenthood to your obgyn is that a violation of your law? Telling your married spouse a violation as well? What’s to keep the law for expanding to other medical procedures?

Nearly everyone in a decision making role is wealthy, this clouds their judgement more than anything else

Oh no I’m Fake news sad! Pelosi won't rule out using impeachment as option to stop Trump Supreme Court pick WWW.FOXNEWS.COM House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday would not rule out impeachment as an option to stop President Trump’s Supreme Court pick from being confirmed to the... Don’t trust what I say sometimes