You would think he would know that, but he once again uses armchair science and law/lawyering without practicing either profession. That is how know nothing know it alls constantly act. But we're getting off topic now. This should just only be about Trump's constant lawsuits he keeps facing. I'll give you an update if I find anything else.
And I've quoted legal experts and a Supreme Court justice (that is very pro-abortion) saying it's not.
No: you've provided /opinions/ from those people. I've quoted the actual ruling.
I don't think it makes any sense. I also don't think the overturn makes any sense. SCOTUS decides these things on whatever suits their political prejudices, nothing else.
When legal experts actually read Roe, they find it's not really about women. Reading the entirety of Roe isn't from the actual ruling?
Quoting an opinion about the ruling isn't the same thing, no. It says right there in the ruling itself, explicitly, that the woman's choice is covered. There's no getting around that.
I've complained about the very structure of the American judiciary, in which Justices are political appointees. Its completely unfit for purpose, breeds conflicts of interest, and flies in the face of fairness and impartiality. This is true regardless of whether Dems or Republicans are currently making those appointments.
Following the law properly is more important. You can't just bend it for something you want to be a thing because then someone else can bend it for something you don't like.
You bend it. You don't seem to care that the logic used in repealing Roe was just as bloody poor as the logic used in the original instance-- perhaps more so.
There's tons of legal experts that have greatly criticized Roe, it's quite easy to find how bad the decision was.
There're tons of legal experts that have equally criticised the ruling to overturn. You don't have a problem with bending legal logic to suit.
You don't need to bend logic to say Roe was a horrible decision.
I based ethics/morality on whether the action itself is moral vs what the outcome is. Forcing people to get an implant is immoral regardless if it ends up being beneficial or harmful. Also, that sounds like a way to end up in a dystopian future very fast if anything were to go wrong with those implants (like Children of Men and such).
The processed food industry with all its garbage ingredients and how it’s heavily marketed especially towards kids seems to be picking up the slack as it is.
"Alito said" is probably the least convincing argument in this, or any other, reality, though I guess the republicans are actually experts in the entire "give me an argument and I'll legislate"-thing.
He wrote the majority opinion for the decision. And that is a major reason why many legal experts found Roe to be a bad decision. So what "bending" is occurring in the overturn of Roe that Silvanus is complaining about? That was a valid reason that requires no bending of the law.
Yet they did. You yourself in the past have condemned the idea that some actions may receive greater or lesser legal protection based on whether they're "historical" or "traditional". The SCOTUS justices did exactly that when overturning Roe-- they argued that the rights in the constitution *can* cover specific acts that aren't enumerated, but *only if they have a historical or traditional place in American society*. Completely irrational and spurious.
abcnews.go.com
There's several reasons why they overturned Roe, you don't have to agree with them all. For example, the only argument (and the only one it needed) that made sense for gay marriage was like the 4th argument IIRC. You can do this probably for any decision.
Oh my fucking god take this shit to the other thread.
