Idiot, did you even bother to read the leaked opinion? - No - of course not.
FYI - it has nothing to do with banning abortions. All it says is that the Supreme Court SCOTUS should not be dictating anything about abortions one way or another.
That is all it says - explicitly pointing out that the opinion serves no other concern at all.
– not that the “retards” care what the facts are.
If you don’t want to have an abortion then don’t.
But your squeamishness does not give you the right to force a rape victim to carry a brat to full term.
Nor does it give you the right to enforce the birth of ANY unwanted child - unless you are personally committed to raising it.
If you don’t want a child then don’t have sex to cause one.
You irresponsibly causing a child doesn’t give you the right to kill that child either - especially without the consent of the father. Do parents in your country have the legal right to kill their children if no one is looking?
As far as I know, everywhere abortion is banned there are exceptions - such as rape.
[b]But none of that is relevant.
The opinion being debated by SCOTUS is neither for nor against abortions.
The opinion being debated is whether SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to invent and dictate laws in the USA.[/b]
And very clearly - IT DOES NOT.
The Roe vs Wade ruling of SCOTUS has been unconstitutional in the US from the beginning - it was never a legal ruling. Now they are considering remanding their prior mistake.
They are NOT ruling for or against abortions - ONLY that SCOTUS hasn’t the legal authority to invent and dictate laws. The US Legislators - their Congress - creates federal and state laws - no one else (although the treasonous criminal O’Biden ignores the law anyway).
If it should be a law either for or against - MAKE A LAW for it PROPERLY!
obsrvr524:
[b]But none of that is relevant.
The opinion being debated by SCOTUS is neither for nor against abortions.
The opinion being debated is whether SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to invent and dictate laws in the USA.[/b]
And very clearly - IT DOES NOT.
The Roe vs Wade ruling of SCOTUS has been unconstitutional in the US from the beginning - it was never a legal ruling. Now they are considering remanding their prior mistake.
They are NOT ruling for or against abortions - ONLY that SCOTUS hasn’t the legal authority to invent and dictate laws. The US Legislators - their Congress - creates federal and state laws - no one else (although the treasonous criminal O’Biden ignores the law anyway).
If it should be a law either for or against - MAKE A LAW for it PROPERLY!
[/quote]
K: interesting argument…so under your theory, the SCOTUS should not
have involved themselves in any of these cases either…
(in no particular order)
Bush vs Gore,
hobby lobby,
Citizens United
desegregation of schools (Brown v. board of education of Topeka)
Loving V Virginia allowing interracial marriages
Marbury vs Madison
Miranda rights
Mapp v Ohio… police illegally obtaining materials
McCulloch V Maryland which is about federal supremacy and implied powers
Gibbons V Ogden allowing the feds to control commerce, not the states
Gideon V Wainwright… the right of the poor to legal council
Regents of the University of California V Bakke affirmative actions…
so under your theory the SCOTUS should not have involved
themselves in those cases either…
Kropotkin
Sculptor"]If you don’t want to have an abortion then don’t.
OB: If you don’t want a child then don’t have sex to cause one.
K: Ok, Ecmandu…
Kropotkin
obsrvr524:
You irresponsibly causing a child doesn’t give you the right to kill that child either - especially without the consent of the father. Do parents in your country have the legal right to kill their children if no one is looking?
K: unmarried father has no legal responsibility for that child…
so, an unmarried father can just walk away…if you have no legal
responsibility, no, you don’t get a say with that child…I am
a father, are you?
Kropotkin
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p … 9#p2869649
By the way. I refuse sex because it always hurts the feelings of others.
I’d never be psychopathic enough to either have sex or to bring a child here.
This world system is designed to only be suitable and enjoyable for psychopaths.
People who have the greatest heights of ecstasy without instead feeling the pain of the whole universe.
I’m not a masochist. You can also get to any masochist. They’re all different, but each one has a way to get to them.
I’m not a sadist either.
This little fucking world caused so many problems in existence that I had to incarnate from my eternal heaven to fix it, personally.
Those are not bragging rights for this world.
I will leave when I’m done.
I just want to make this very clear.
To call me god is a misnomer.
To call me a god is a misnomer.
To call me a Buddha is a misnomer.
To call me a boddhisatva is a misnomer.
To call me an extra terrestrial is a misnomer.
To call me human is a misnomer.
I’m here because someone fucked with my eternal heaven.
Like I’ve stated before… if you hit existence with a big enough stick… you’ll be surprised what crawls out of the woodwork. I’m proof of it.
I’m back in my own body.
I learned your customs and your local deities, and all of you as well.
By the way.
I know a lot of you talk about Nietzsche a lot.
He was a funny guy.
He always got bonuses on video poker and walked away from them so I could get free money.
The last spirit I had to deal with was Jesus.
Let your yesses be your yesses and your no’s be your no’s.
That’s a false teaching. It’s all about what’s in your heart. If you don’t feel it, you can’t do it.
I’ve seen all your deities. I’m just going to do anything I have to, to not worry anymore about my personal heaven. I took the name Jason because I thought it’d be funny… it’s the only name on the Gregorian calendar using first initials:
July
August
September
October
November
If you bothered to read books (such as Sen Cruz’s One Vote Away - or any books - or articles - or even posts of reasonably educated people), you would know that the first thing a US attorney must do in order to get SCOTUS to hear his case is to provide substantial evidence that the case truly involves a constitutional issue (and that he has standing).
In each of those cases - there is at least one constitutional issue being challenged (I haven’t actually verified that because you don’t care what is true anyway). But in the case of Roe vs Wade - the US Constitution says nothing at all about abortions. If US Congress wanted to amend the Constitution to include abortion issues - it was certainly free to do so. Until then - SCOTUS cannot legitimately rule on abortion cases or laws - either for or against.
Sounds like bollocks to me.
So you think that in the US any children without a legitimate father may be killed off by their distempered mother (“birthing person”). Does that count for divorces too? - After divorce or death of father the mother can dispense with unwanted children - any age requirements? Sounds typically Commie (CCP would love it).
SCOTUS might legitimately rule on that issue - “right to pursue life, liberty, and” so on).
This is a joke right?
You do realize in the actual constitution that black people are only 3/5ths of a person… right?
You know that right?
The Bible has provisions to stone women to death who are raped.
What’s your fucking point?
K: interesting argument…so under your theory, the SCOTUS should not
have involved themselves in any of these cases either…
(in no particular order)
Bush vs Gore,
hobby lobby,
Citizens United
desegregation of schools (Brown v. board of education of Topeka)
Loving V Virginia allowing interracial marriages
Marbury vs Madison
Miranda rights
Mapp v Ohio… police illegally obtaining materials
McCulloch V Maryland which is about federal supremacy and implied powers
Gibbons V Ogden allowing the feds to control commerce, not the states
Gideon V Wainwright… the right of the poor to legal council
Regents of the University of California V Bakke affirmative actions…
so under your theory the SCOTUS should not have involved
themselves in those cases either…
OB:If you bothered to read books (such as Sen Cruz’s One Vote Away - or any books - or articles - or even posts of reasonably educated people), you would know that the first thing a US attorney must do in order to get SCOTUS to hear his case is to provide substantial evidence that the case truly involves a constitutional issue (and that he has standing).
K: you cite Ted Cruz? What a poor excuse for a human being…
OB: In each of those cases - there is at least one constitutional issue being challenged (I haven’t actually verified that because you don’t care what is true anyway). But in the case of Roe vs Wade - the US Constitution says nothing at all about abortions. If US Congress wanted to amend the Constitution to include abortion issues - it was certainly free to do so. Until then - SCOTUS cannot legitimately rule on abortion cases or laws - either for or against.
K: and missing my point about those court cases…if you knew about those
court cases, where exactly does “Bush V Gore” stand or show up in the constitution?
or perhaps “Madison V Marbury?” or perhaps the Miranda rights case?
where exactly does that show up in the constitution? or the Hobby lobby case?
tell me where in the constitution can I see the Hobby Lobby case discussed?
K: Peter Kropotkin" unmarried father has no legal responsibility for that child…
so, an unmarried father can just walk away…
OB: Sounds like bollocks to me.
K: Ever wonder why hundreds of thousands of women are left taking care of
children because their mates and or husband, simple walked away from
the children? My wife was married before and when she had a child,
the man simply walked away from her…I know from experience it
happens all the time…
Ob: So you think that in the US any children without a legitimate father may be killed off by their distempered mother (“birthing person”). Does that count for divorces too? - After divorce or death of father the mother can dispense with unwanted children - any age requirements? Sounds typically Commie (CCP would love it).
K: as I wrote before, murder is in the eyes of the beholder…
the state kills all the time, the police murder, take away the
rights without due process all the time, notice the list I posted about
all the people the police murdered without any due process…
OB: SCOTUS might legitimately rule on that issue - “right to pursue life, liberty, and” so on
K: again, check my list, the supreme court can rule on a wide variety of things,
not included in the constitution… one example, citizen united… show me
where the basis of citizen united is in the constitution?
Kropotkin
Ask PK - he is the one claiming it to be American law.
I know that the Democrat slave owners in the American south wanted to count the number of their slaves into the power of the master’s congressional vote - master with 30 slaves = 19 votes for the master to decide (that’s why they are called “democrat”. Originally they wanted to count the slaves 100% but the Republicans forced them down to only 3/5 until the entire thing could get thrown out - and it was.
Jews have a lot of screwy laws from ancient times - New Testament got rid of most of them.
That when you leave - the average level of “retard” that you talk about might be reduced significantly.
I’m sure each of those involve voting or lobbying rights - mentioned in the Constitution.
Try reading your Constitution some time. From CA you would probably have to look online - CA communists like to pretend it doesn’t exist - and you might be blocked from accessing a copy of it.
Peter.
You hit the nail on the head.
The legislative branch is not appointed. It’s representative. It makes the laws. They’ve been corrupted as well; but they’re the last gasping air of democracy in the United States.
Now. People are dumb. We all know this.
The Supreme Court is flooded with Catholics …
But a law still on the books is about no religion or lack of religion should be endorsed by the government.
We already know that the tax exempt status of religions violates that law.
Every church in the US is breaking constitutional law.
The thing about people is they don’t think about everything.
Blacks are 3/5th of a person in the constitution.
But it’s apparently ok to have a tax shelter for a lack of separation of church and state.
Overturning roe v. wade is a gross abuse of power from SCOTUS as a mindblowingly asshole thing to do.
Shit. Obsrvr …
Do you really want to have this debate?
Peter already beat you.
I’ll destroy you.
There hasn’t been any “debate”. PK doesn’t even know what the issue is. You don’t even know what a debate is and certainly nothing about your Constitution or SCOTUS.
Name calling and ignoring the issue is does not qualify as a debate.
obsrvr524: Ask PK - he is the one claiming it to be American law.
K: claiming to be the law, not at all… as I am an American, I
know American law quite a bit better than you.
Ec: You do realize in the actual constitution that black people are only 3/5ths of a person… right?
Ob: I know that the Democrat slave owners in the American south wanted to count the number of their slaves into the power of the master’s congressional vote - master with 30 slaves = 19 votes for the master to decide (that’s why they are called “democrat”. Originally they wanted to count the slaves 100% but the Republicans forced them down to only 3/5 until the entire thing could get thrown out - and it was.
K: ahhhh, not being an American, you have no clue… first all, there no was
such thing as a Republican in 1787… the GOP was formed in 1856 in Ripon
Wisconsin…so, no, the republicans didn’t force them down… it was North
vs South in the constitutional congress of 1787… it was a compromise
between the two sides, North and south that lead to the 3/5 compromise…
and it wasn’t "thrown out’’ until after the Civil War, (spoiler alert, the South lost)
and the official end of the 3/5 compromise was in 1868… Section 2 of the
14th amendment that explicitly repealed the 3/5 compromise…
Peter Kropotkin: and missing my point about those court cases…if you knew about those
court cases, where exactly does “Bush V Gore” stand or show up in the constitution?
or perhaps “Madison V Marbury?” or perhaps the Miranda rights case?
where exactly does that show up in the constitution? or the Hobby lobby case?
tell me where in the constitution can I see the Hobby Lobby case discussed?
[/quote]
Ob: I’m sure each of those involve voting or lobbying rights - mentioned in the Constitution.
K: I am looking at a copy of the constitution right now… please show me where
it talks about “lobbying rights” what section might it be in?? for example
Article one: describes the congress, the legislative branch…and nothing about
lobbying…
Article two: describes the office, qualifications and duties of thd President
of the United States…
Article three: describes the court system… still nothing about lobbying…
Article 4: outlines the relations among the states and between the states
and the federal goverment…still nothing about Lobbying…
Article V: outlines the process for amending the Constitution… still
nothing about lobbying…
Article 6: establishes the constitution and all federal laws and treaties
of the U.S made according to it, to be the “Supreme Law” of the land
Article 7: describes the process for establishing the proposed new frame
of government…still nothing about lobbying…
and then there is the closing endorsement and still nothing about lobbying…
Ob: Try reading your Constitution some time. From CA you would probably have to look online - CA communists like to pretend it doesn’t exist - and you might be blocked from accessing a copy of it.
Ob: * Voting rights are mentioned a great deal -
so if we were to follow the exact letter of the constitution, Americans don’t
even have the right to vote and yet, funny enough, we can vote…
so how did that work out? as you are not an American, you have no
clue…
Kropotkin
Peter.
You wrote a really good post above.
Speaking of lobbyists… one reason in the early 1900’s that all the trolley systems were torn apart is because of the automobile lobby.
You are the one saying that a father has “no responsibility” - if not the law - what is that? But good to see you walking it back.
That is not at all in evidence.
What is the American GOP now (“Republicans”) - is what was the “Unionists” back then - they won the war that got rid of slaves and defeated the Southern Confederate Democrat slave owners (what is the current Socialist/Democrat Anti-American Party - the culture canceling Marxists/Communists, and “progressives” invented and spawned by the authoritarian globalists).
Same as Bush vs Gore freedom of speech issue.
Because it was so easy -
— all much more attention than you deserve.
Peter Kropotkin: ahhhh, not being an American, you have no clue… first all, there no was
such thing as a Republican in 1787… the GOP was formed in 1856 in Ripon
Wisconsin…so, no, the republicans didn’t force them down… it was North
vs South in the constitutional congress of 1787…
[/quote]
OB: What is the American GOP now (“Republicans”) - is what was the “Unionists” back then - they won the war that got rid of slaves and defeated the Southern Confederate Democrat slave owners (what is the current Socialist/Democrat Anti-American Party - the culture canceling Marxists/Communists, and “progressives” invented and spawned by the authoritarian globalists).
K: what the fuck is this? Unionists? are you talking about the Civil war or
the actual constitution which was done in 1787? you are babbling nonsense…
there as a Unionist party in 1850 but that sure the hell wasn’t during the
creation of the constitution during, once again, 1787…
Peter Kropotkin: Peter Kropotkin: and missing my point about those court cases…if you knew about those court cases, where exactly does “Bush V Gore” stand or show up in the constitution?
[/quote]
[quote=
OB: “Wikipedia”]
In a per curiam decision, the Court first ruled 7–2 (Justices Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissenting), strictly on equal protection grounds, that the recount be stopped. Specifically, the use of different standards of counting in different counties violated the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
[/quote]
K: the equal protection clause was part of the 14th amendment which was
created after the civil war, in 1868… long after the original constitution
was written…thus had no connection to the original constitution as written…
Peter Kropotkin: “or perhaps “Madison V Marbury?” or perhaps the Miranda rights case?”
OB:
‘’‘American courts have the power to strike down laws and statutes that they find to violate the Constitution of the United States. Decided in 1803, Marbury is regarded as the single most important decision in American constitutional law.[1] The Court’s landmark decision established that the U.S. Constitution is actual law, not just a statement of political principles and ideals, and [b]helped define the boundary between the constitutionally separate executive and judicial branches of the federal government’’
K: which is exactly my point… 1803 a full dozen years after, AFTER the
writing of the constitution…it is a separate clause written after the
constitution… not in the constitution…
Peter Kropotkin: where exactly does that show up in the constitution? or the Hobby lobby case? tell me where in the constitution can I see the Hobby Lobby case discussed?
OB: Same as Bush vs Gore freedom of speech issue.
K: Bush V Gore isn’t a freedom of speech issue and no one says it is…
it was an issue about interpretation of Florida law and Article 2, section 1 of
the constitution which isn’t a freedom of speech amendment… but about the role
of the FLA governor vs the role of the state legislature…
Ob: I’m sure each of those involve voting or lobbying rights - mentioned in the Constitution.
K; as I have shown, not at all
OB; Wikipedia; While lobbying is subject to extensive and often complex rules which, if not followed, can lead to penalties including jail, the activity of lobbying has been interpreted by court rulings as constitutionally protected free speech and a way to petition the government for the redress of grievances, two of the freedoms protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.
[/quote]
K which took a serious reinterpretation of the first amendment,
to make this work…calling campaign contribution a matter of
free speech, basically rewrites what free speech is… to
bribe someone isn’t free speech…and you can make a
straight-line argument that particular court case has ruined
the American government… it allows unlimited money into
the government, which has allowed big business to buy the
government… and to bribe the government to redress one’s
‘‘grievances’’ is a rich person way of owning the government…
and history will judge the SCOTUS in the last 23 years as being
one of the reasons America collapsed
they are actively, SCOTUS, rewriting the constitution into
being nothing more than the German ‘‘Enabling act of 1933’’
which favors the radical right wing…and enabled Hitler to
take over as dictator in 1933…and allowing IQ45 to become
an American dictator in 2024…
Kropotkin