Unless it's some protected right, what can't be made into a law? Are seatbelt laws overreach? The federal government can't make a seatbelt law because that's overreach on them but the state can.
Disagree. Our largest-in-the-world-per-capita prison slave force effectively drives down the price of labor in ways that are impossible for private or public labor to compete with, while giving a direct financial incentive to drive up sentencing, prison population, and bullshit rules that end in prison time. There's reasons that we have the world's largest proportional prison population, and those reasons are racism, capitalism, and constitutionally legal slavery
I have stated nothing but truth about the Court That Decides What Is Actually Constitutional. 4 thought it didn't apply the first time around and are joined by two more. One has explicitly stated it should be reversed. I'm sorry that you do not like the objective reality you currently live in.
And you think it's bollocks because it is bollocks. They are in support of the SCOTUS' decision to overturn Roe v. Wade not because they actually believe that it's overreach for Roe v. Wade to exist, or overreach for Roe v. Wade to not exist, or any number of other excuses. They don't give a damn about Roe v. Wade, government overreach, or the rights of the people. What they give a damn about is taking everything they possibly can to get rid of abortion, that's it. They hate abortion for... well, no logical reason to put it simply so they want everything done that can undermine it on every level. Even though banning abortion either on the state or federal level is clear overreach, is a blatant violation of human rights, massively destructive, and counterproductive on everything from a national to personal level.
No, it wasn't "bound" to be overturned.
INHERENTLY there is nothing wrong with having prisoners work. I didn't say that it couldn't be exploited.
I'm pro-abortion...
Roe was a complete shit-show. IIRC the original lady that made it a case perjured herself to have standing, she didn't even have standing. It was really bad law, there's examples currently where the argument for Roe is not applied to other medical procedures because it's such a bad argument.
Slavery is inherently exploitative. The Supreme Court could overrule Obergfell the instant they get a case related to it. Dunno why you keep posting that video like it matters
If you actually were, you wouldn't be arguing that overturning Roe v. Wade was a good idea in any sense. Roe v. Wade was the only thing protecting abortion and there was neither a federal law nor constitutional amendment assuring that abortion was protected regardless of Roe v. Wade's status despite having 50 years to make one. It's not going to happen now that Roe v. Wade is gone either.
You keep using this video
Arbitrary line you've drawn.
Cool argument, I'm convinced.
Go ahead, then, let's hear some rip-roaring examples.
We're talking about the mindset that said a ten-year-old girl who was raped and wound up pregnant should have the baby and "learn to enjoy being a mother".
Having prisoners work is part of paying off their debt to society. Gay marriage is not going to be overturned, please stop parroting bullshit.
Being a good idea and being the right legal decision are 2 different things.
They did not break the 9th amendment overturning Roe. There is no right for doctor/patient to just do any agreed upon procedure for many reasons. The 9th amendment does not protect abortion or else it would've been used in Roe but wasn't. The justices that were against overturning Roe just used precedent as their argument, they didn't mention the 9th amendment or anything other legal argument.
You're leaving out the other half of abortion, the baby; there's 2 bodies involved, that's why it's not a simple case of bodily automomy. You're acting like abortion is equal to getting an ear piercing, it's not. It's not about being freer or not, it's about who has the power to enact a law or not. There's many laws that I'm sure your for that cause people to be less free.
See, it wasnt so hard for you to prove that gay marriage isn't covered by 9th Amendment under this Supreme Court, was it?
Pro-slavery argument aside, the fact that we have the greatest percentage of our population in prison *in the world* by a wide margin shows that that's bullshit. Putting prisoners to work simply provides an explicit incentive to enslave as many people as possible.
Open bet: if a challenge to Obergfell shows up in front of this specific Court and survives, I'll send you $100 in video game currency of your choice. If it dies and goes back to "State's Rights" or some form of "Separate but Equal", you send me $100 in video game currency of my choice. Open bet, anybody on the forum except the two people on my ignore list, send me a DM to sign up.
Maybe if they were working on something that was actually good for society you could make that justification. Instead they're just being rented out to corporations so those corporations can use slave labor to make a profit and depress wages.
Thomas has LITERALLY SAID he's looking into overturning gay marriage.
They really shouldn't be, and when they are it generally means that it's a flaw of the legal system.
I don't think it's the idea of a third party, it's thinking that there's a large enough group of people in America that's more conservative than the democrates but more left leaning than the republicans. ...Yeah. Just keeping stating 'forward' I guess and maybe it'll get you somewhere Yang - I remember when I was a kid and I wanted to find a dinosaur bone, so I just started digging in the ground assuming I would find one if I just dug deep enough.
Honestly, your idea had better chance of turning up some kind of result. Maybe not a dinosaur bone, but dig deep enough and often enough and you'd likely have found a fossil of some kind.
