Score one for babies ... and state's rights...

[AJMD429]

.
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... uel-alito/

Hopefully it

a) is true, and

b) drives the 'progressives' nuts (...it's only a short drive I know... )

[Ysabel Kid]

+1 both counts!

[Blaine]

It's just another last ditch effort to enrage the 'Crat base, and pick up a few centrists for the midterms....BTW, Roberts sided with the liberal judges on this one.

[AJMD429]

.
At least Biden is on the right side, or was....

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... tes-issue/

And the Democrats react in their typical reasoned, calm, and peaceful way against the "violent fascists" on the right...

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/0 ... on-ruling/

There must be some sort of genetic lack of self-awareness necessary for one to be a Democrat these days....

[Ysabel Kid]

Already calls on social media for attacks against churches.

This was some abortionist who wanted to get the leftists in Congress to start legislation. Also aimed at starting violence and scaring the justices.

All this would do is kick it back to the states. But the left will go ape-stuff.

And Roberts? He long ago abandoned justice to be popular...

[AJMD429]

.
Regardless of one's opinion on the matter, it just makes sense for it to be a matter left to the states, because fundamentally it's inescapably homicide, with the details to work out being whether it is justified, negligent, accidental, premeditated, or whatever, and at what point it becomes "homicide" versus "destruction of tissue". Those are all things that states work out the details of in their laws against homicide. Homicide is and should be illegal everywhere, but different states have standards that vary as to under what circumstances it may be 'justified'. It should be up to the states to do that regardless of the age of the victim, or whether the victim happens to be in the uterus of someone else or not.

The left mostly seems to think that homicide is 'justifiable' if it is getting rid of someone who is inconveniently created and alive as a result of voluntary and recreational sex. I can't see it that way myself, but if that's what they want to argue and put into legislation, they at least need to do it at the right level of government. Of course there are a lot of things that are legal but not morally right. If I lived in a state where it was legal to shoot somebody who insulted you, I still wouldn't do it.

It's hard not to come to the conclusion that many on the left pretty much see the whole world as a place where the ends justify the means and as long as they come out ahead, their candidate wins, they get the contract, or they can have sex without consequences, it's all okay...

[Ysabel Kid]

Agreed. Let the 50 little laboratories of the states figure out what best suits their populations needs and wants. People will vote with their feet.

I remember when I was young my father telling me that if society only followed the law, and not what was morally right, it would soon destroy itself. After all, many make the calculation on the percentages - the chance they will get caught, and if caught, prosecuted, and if prosecuted, convicted, and if convicted, sentenced correctly. If people answer to a higher power they realize that none of those "if's" will be "if's" on the last day.

[jeepnik]

So, here's the thing. Roe v wade was ruled on by the court. That makes it law of the land and constitutional. Now another court is saying that's wrong. Basically overturning what is supposedly constitutional. My point is this. The rulings of the supreme courts are now and always have been driven by the political position of those on the court. Frankly, it should be madatory that the members of the court actually read the constitution. Because apparently they haven't for decades, if ever.

[Tycer]

So, here's the thing. Roe v wade was ruled on by the court. That makes it law of the land and constitutional.

No it doesn’t. Just because the SC rules the FG has a power that exceeds the Constitution does not make it constitutional. There are a dozen or so cases where the SC has “decided “ that 1+1 don’t equal 2 and the FG has “powers “ not specifically stated in the C.
They all need to be re-ruled. The SC does not supersede the C.

[Grizz]

Constitution can only be amended by the prescribed process. A lawless supreme court cannot legally alter the constitution. It has made itself an outlaw band of desperados by making a policy that murders MILLIONS of babies. that blood is on their hands.

they had no business ever making the u.s. government an instrument of genocide against Americans.

I hope to YHWH that Alito and the court succeed in rectifying the injustice [scotus] imposed on Americans.

†

[piller]

The SCOTUS made up an entirely new right by pulling it out of someone's dorsal orifice on the Roe V Wade case. It is long overdue to be corrected. I cannot find anyone who truly has studied our Constitution who thinks it should stay as it is. Let the States set their own laws on this matter. It is not a matter of interstate commerce, nor is it truly the right of the woman to have no interference due to the legalities of when life is to be protected. I kind of like Texas Law in the matter. Yes I have had to make some calls, and document extra information in the records on a few prescriptions, but that is just a part of following the spirit and letter of the law. Because of patient privacy, I cannot really say more. If it were a bad law in Texas, it would not have survived all the challenges and all the scrutiny it has received. The Texas law seems to work well and to cover all possible situations by not being too specific about most things other than the detectable heartbeat and that baby being able to live to birth and not be a danger to the mother such as an ectopic pregnancy would be. Bad laws are often specific, or all encompassing.

[AJMD429]

.
Regardless of the opinions folks have on the specific issue, THIS is for sure [courtesy of jeepnik]:

"Frankly, it should be madatory that the members of the court actually read the constitution. Because apparently they haven't for decades, if ever."

....and the thing is, the Constitution wasn't meant as an esoteric document for only lawyers to pontificate over; it is plain and clear (18th Century English for sure, but still) language with EASILY understood meaning, for anyone who can read, or even if they can't, who can have it read to them. Phrases like "shall not be infringed" are NOT difficult...

[piller]

It was written in such a way that it could cover many future situations which the framers couldn't even have conceived of. They were truly brilliant men.

[Blaine]

SCOUTS' purview is to test new law against the Constitution as it's clearly written. Evidently, this needs to be explained in great detail to them, and a majority of the people.

[David]

alg051022dAPC-1024x732.jpeg

[AJMD429]

.
https://youtu.be/MhvqPAWcR3k

Liberal hypocrisy on display.