No, it's not. Just because you don't get your way all the time doesn't mean the system suddenly doesn't work for you.It's called minority rule. 4 of those 6 judges were put there by presidents who lost the popular vote
No, it's not. Just because you don't get your way all the time doesn't mean the system suddenly doesn't work for you.It's called minority rule. 4 of those 6 judges were put there by presidents who lost the popular vote
Havent seen anyone talking about religion. You dont need to be religious to be pro lifeOn the right you have dumbasses talking about religion every time they need to justify their injustifiable and totalitarian point of view that treats women as mere incubators. F*ck off, I'm a Christian but I don't want religion in my politics, I want my future and my laws to be based on facts, not beliefs.
This is U.S. not Aztec culture. You're looking at the wrong time period.It's not particularly concerning to me on an individual level and indeed I would prefer that such people don't spawn, but of course it's a tough sell to normalize industrialized child sacrifice sold as retroactive birth control.
Havent seen anyone talking about religion. You dont need to be religious to be pro life
Called it, not a single Republican in sight despite the fact that this is the first time since 9/11 our rights are actually being stripped away. Exactly the type of scenario the constitution tells us might require overthrowing government. Fucking cowards will cheer the end of democracy from their recliners, a lot of good stocking up on guns did them.
Say you care more about guns than people without saying you care more about guns than peopleThe Constitution does not provide for a right to have an abortion. The Court in 1973 was wrong to make it up, yesterday's decision corrected that. And that's all it did.
But Biden signed a bill into law yesterday that actually does strip rights. The "Red Flag" laws being incentivized by the Democrats' gun control bill violate Due Process. That actually is in the Constitution.
Wow... um... you know, women are people too, and most women are leftists to boot! And fun fact, women WANT the right to an abortion because NO SHIT ABORTIONS SUCK BUT THE ALTERNATIVES CAN BE WORSE! Bringing a life into the world is a huge deal, and particularly in a country that is sliding further and further into financial oblivion for the majority. I might have wanted another child if it wasn't for the fact that it might be too big a financial strain, and I work in IT for the government! You don't often get much more middle-class financial stability in the USA!Ah the never ending debate of abortion. Never ending due to the sheer amount of idiocy, stupidity and savage views coming from both sides.
On the right you have dumbasses talking about religion every time they need to justify their injustifiable and totalitarian point of view that treats women as mere incubators. F*ck off, I'm a Christian but I don't want religion in my politics, I want my future and my laws to be based on facts, not beliefs.
On the left you have a complete disregard for human life, both of the unborn and the mother. People celebrating abortion as if it was the best thing ever and partying hard. Never have in my entire life heard a leftie talk about the risk of abortion: many women go infertile, many can even die, it increases chances of tumor.
They also love to cite rape victims, which is hipocritical since the whole ordeal of an abortion due to rape is one of the most mentally damaging things a woman can go to, nothing to celebrate, nothing to "thank god for abortions", but everything to feel sad and sorrow about.
The constitution provides a right for a well regulated militia to bare arms... in reference to before the United States had a standing military. Congratulations, you are wrong again. Please do better.The Constitution does not provide for a right to have an abortion. The Court in 1973 was wrong to make it up, yesterday's decision corrected that. And that's all it did.
But Biden signed a bill into law yesterday that actually does strip rights. The "Red Flag" laws being incentivized by the Democrats' gun control bill violate Due Process. That actually is in the Constitution.
Say you care more about guns than people without saying you care more about guns than people
The constitution provides a right for a well regulated militia to bare arms... in reference to before the United States had a standing military. Congratulations, you are wrong again. Please do better.
Yeah, you love guns, we get it.No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
No, the 2nd amendment contains a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is merely an introduction, i.e. because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state .... then the operative clause says what the amendment actually guarantees, i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You could toss the prefatory clause in the garbage, and the operative clause would still be there as the actual thing the amendment says. The right belongs to "the people," not a militia.
Also "well regulated" in 1770's usage does not mean "subject to lots of regulations." It means in good working order, or properly equipped. A "well regulated" watch or clock was one that was tuned properly to keep good time. A "well regulated militia" is one that doesn't need weapons provided to it when people of a community unite to defend themselves in a time of emergency. That could be the British are coming, or an Indian raid on the frontier, or when a natural disaster such as a hurricane occurs, or if there is looting and rioting. Some of those possibilities are quite unlikely in modern times, but not all. That's why the US Code still identitifies all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 as members of the militia. That's why the "Rooftop Koreans" were able to defend themselves and their families, when LAPD abandoned them in the midst of the Rodney King riots.
Yeah, you love guns, we get it.
"Gunz gUnz guNz I have secks with gunZ" ok I hear you loud and clear buddy.The Constitution says what it says. It doesn't say what you feel. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A lot of members of this site just had their bodily autonomy taken away. I guarantee you that no fetuses are members of this site, so the only effect on site members has been negative.File under: THINGS NOT TO DISCUSS ON A GAMING SITE
Very serious issue and fearful of rights being taken away
This is the only correct reading of the 2nd amendment.No Dave, it's not even about that. The Supreme Court's job is to apply the US Constitution to real life, and part of that is acknowledging when the Constitution is silent on an issue. It is silent on abortion. It is not an issue that is within the Federal government's Constitutional authority. The purpose of the Constitution is to grant only LIMITED powers to the Federal government. The rest belongs to the States. That's the deal.
Whether for better or worse, the Constitution does guarantee the right to keep and bear arms, and it's in the Bill of RIghts right after the 1st amendment right to free speech, religion, and free press. That's also the deal, like it or not. If it does its job correctly, the Court cannot ignore that anymore than it can make up rights out of thin air.
No, the 2nd amendment contains a prefatory clause, and an operative clause. The prefatory clause is merely an introduction, i.e. because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state .... then the operative clause says what the amendment actually guarantees, i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You could toss the prefatory clause in the garbage, and the operative clause would still be there as the actual thing the amendment says. The right belongs to "the people," not a militia.
Also "well regulated" in 1770's usage does not mean "subject to lots of regulations." It means in good working order, or properly equipped. A "well regulated" watch or clock was one that was tuned properly to keep good time. A "well regulated militia" is one that doesn't need weapons provided to it when people of a community unite to defend themselves in a time of emergency. That could be the British are coming, or an Indian raid on the frontier, or when a natural disaster such as a hurricane occurs, or if there is looting and rioting. Some of those possibilities are quite unlikely in modern times, but not all. That's why the US Code still identitifies all able-bodied males between 17 and 45 as members of the militia. That's why the "Rooftop Koreans" were able to defend themselves and their families, when LAPD abandoned them in the midst of the Rodney King riots.
Congrats. The correct reading of the 2nd amendment is responsible for countless deaths, including children you lot supposedly care so fucking much about. Maybe the issue isn't how to read it correctly, but how to change it so there aren't regularly more school shootings than there are days.This is the only correct reading of the 2nd amendment.