Trump allegedly indicted in a Georgia 2020 subversion probe

[Foxi4]

Interesting. This imo is the problem with cult of personalities and democracies that centralize their importance around the power of the president (France with Emmanuel Macron comes to mind) and what I think what is polarizing this nation is the notion that NOTHING can be done unless done in the federal level, which I think was exacerbated by Trump's 2016 campaign.

Well, the power to legislate was gradually chipped away, the federal government grew fatter and more involved in every facet of people’s lives, so the natural consequence of that is the necessity to address the federal government with most grievances. The impression people have in this regard is not wrong, but only because the state governments were, to a large extent, neutered.

"Classical liberalism" came well before "libertarian." But I have no problem being labelled as either. But "pretty far on the right" is not something I can agree on, because libertarian as a platform doesn't fit so conveniently on that Left < > Right continuum.

Libertarianism operates as the antithesis of authoritarianism, there are libertarians who lean left (government’s focus being the betterment of the human condition) and those who lean right (government’s focus being the facilitation of trade). I don’t know where the “libertarians are basically fascists” notion comes from, but it’s a literal oxymoron - to use a famous quote, libertarians want “a government so small you can barely see it”, fascism is the exact opposite of that.

Every single one of Trump's SCOTUS picks testified under oath that they would respect the precedent of Roe v Wade. It's not the court's role to chip away at rulings they disagree with on the grounds of petty partisan politics.

It was a stupid question to ask, and an obvious gotcha. Prospective justices should not be asked shoulda coulda woulda questions like this - it has no bearing on their level of competence. Confirmation hearings are supposed to ascertain that they’re experienced enough for the seat, not whether their views align with what you think is correct. They said that it’s the law of the land, and it was. It isn’t anymore, because it’s unconstitutional, and it never was constitutional to begin with. Repealing it was not only correct, but necessary if you believe the constitution is the supreme law of the land. We can’t operate based on imaginary passages - either it’s in the document or it’s not. If it’s not, it’s delegated to the states, as it should be.

It is fine for the government to tread on people, as long as I don't like how the protection was put in place.

Yeah, if it was done illegally it should probably be struck down. Besides, the notion that the government somehow exists to protect rights is one I never particularly agreed with. The bill of rights was written to protect the people from the government, not to compel the government to protect people - that weird notion came much later.

 

[Jayro]

Also, Republicans are less than half the VOTING population, not the overall population.

Many of them are too lazy to go out and vote, or too rural to even bother.

 

[Xzi]

They said that it’s the law of the land, and it was. It isn’t anymore, because it’s unconstitutional, and it never was constitutional to begin with.

It was not unconstitutional, the only "creative interpretation" against it was that the constitution does not explicitly protect it. Accepting the case at all was a miscarriage of justice, and it was obvious how SCOTUS would rule the moment they did. Between the partisan rulings and all the bribery/conflicts of interest in plain view of the public, it's become clear that the institution is in need of independent oversight, as well as term limits for justices.

 

[Hanafuda]

That is why Rudy and Teflon Don are trying to get this put into federal court...

I don't think that removal to federal court strategy will do much good for Giuliani (and others). Trump maybe, Meadows maybe ... basically anyone who was acting as a federal official. Giuliani was not.

Edit: I just read on another site that if Trump's case is removed to federal court, all 18 other co-defendants' cases would move with his case. Whether that is true if any defendant's case is removed to the federal court, I dunno. Meadows has already filed a motion to have this happen, though.

 

[Foxi4]

It was not unconstitutional, the only "creative interpretation" against it was that the constitution does not explicitly protect it. Accepting the case at all was a miscarriage of justice, and it was obvious how SCOTUS would rule the moment they did. Between the partisan rulings and all the bribery/conflicts of interest in plain view of the public, it's become clear that the institution is in need of independent oversight, as well as term limits for justices.

It was based entirely on a non-existent right that is not mentioned once anywhere in the constitution, it’s only tangentially related to it anyway and it was “creatively interpreted” into the 14th Amendment, which is supposed to concern Due Process. Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” in this case, regretted being a part of the proceedings at all and believed that she was used as a pawn by abortion activists. The constitutional argument for Roe v. Wade is incoherent and stupid, it’s based on a number of historical documents spanning many centuries *except* the only one that matters, the constitution. It’s been the subject of ridicule from the day the decision was written into law until the day it was repealed, and the only reason why it took this long is because people, including yourself, supported the outcome. Unfortunately, constitutional law is all about the process, not the outcome.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...l-right/dd30d42e-188d-42f6-8fb2-b935394e63aa/

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...o-abortion-rested-on-a-shaky-legal-foundation

It has long been suggested that abortion legislation should be untethered from the shaky foundation of Roe, and absolutely nothing was done about it.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101901974.html

Guess what? Now something will have to be done about it, because it’s gone. Good riddance too, because judicial activism should not be celebrated. Judges should not create law on a whim - that’s not their job. Supreme Court justices exist to do one thing, and one thing only - determine whether what’s put in front of them is covered by the constitution or not. It is *not* their job to invent constitutional provisions out of whole cloth. There’s a pre-existing mechanism for introducing constitutional amendments, and it does not involve Supreme Court justices writing on napkins. Abortion is ostensibly not covered by the constitution, the constitution was never written with abortion in mind and any other interpretation is akin to reading fortunes from tea leaves.

For the record, I am of the exact opposite view regarding term limits and “independent oversight”. The whole point of having a Supreme Court that operates as the highest court in the land is to have an independent arbiter that cannot be pressured by any other governmental body. That’s what gives it the freedom to rule as it deems fit, not as it must in order to retain its position. If anything, an *age* limit would be appropriate (you don’t want senile justices), but terms? How many years are you thinking? I don’t like this idea at all. The problems with the Supreme Court began with the notions of “the spirit of the law” and “legislating from the bench” because the same freedom that allows the SCOTUS to operate freely *also* allows it to legislate with no oversight whatsoever and no recourse. Your concern strengthens my position instead of weakening it - the Supreme Court shouldn’t be doing that as it removes the incentive to actually legislate properly. The SCOTUS is not a convenient shortcut for Congress to ram unpopular or controversial legal provisions through on the basis of imaginary constitutional fairies, that’s not good law, and it can be overturned as soon as the seating arrangement changes, which is exactly what happened to Roe v. Wade.

 

[Xzi]

Unfortunately, constitutional law is all about the process, not the outcome.

Nah Republicans have been laser-focused on this outcome for decades, and Trump's unqualified justices have made it very clear that they're self-serving Republicans first, everything else second. When he is inevitably convicted of crimes against the United States, his SCOTUS picks need to be put under intense scrutiny. How much did they know about his criminal activities, and when? How many bribes from foreign individuals and institutions have they taken? We know they're corrupt, it's only a matter of finding out to what extent, and doling out the appropriate consequences.

The damage has already been done with the reversal of Roe v Wade, but it's important that we limit a rogue court's ability to chip away at more of our rights and liberties in the future. SCOTUS was never intended to be wielded as a sword by oligarchs.

 

[KingVamp]

Let's not pretend that the majority of the current SCOTUS cares about the constitution and aren't just politically motivated.

 

[Foxi4]

The damage has already been done with the reversal of Roe v Wade, but it's important that we limit a rogue court's ability to chip away at more of our rights and liberties in the future. SCOTUS was never intended to be wielded as a sword by oligarchs.

Nor was it designed to pass legislation that Congress is too lazy or too cowardly to pass themselves. I’m sorry, but it’s rich that you’re talking about Roe v. Wade in the context of the SCOTUS being weaponised. Your side of the aisle flip flops on how they feel about it - you’ll badger the court relentlessly when it’s doing its job correctly (as in, doing exactly what it was designed to do, as opposed to writing fairytales) for once, but sing their praises into the high heavens when they reject a Trump appeal. Again, you can’t judge everything based on how you feel about the outcome - that’s, I quote a funny pun that was shared with me once, “bass ackwards” logic. It is undeniable that Roe v. Wade was a terrible decision and an actual mockery of constitutional law, there’s widespread agreement in that regard among many scholars. Reversing the decision undid that grave mistake, even if we don’t like the end result. Now you have a predicament on your hands, you’ve got a big ‘ol abortion-shaped hole in your pants because the previous generation didn’t feel like patching it properly. You have the opportunity to do it right this time around, so you should be concerned with doing that, *not* figuring out ways to game the system in your favour so that you can make the same mistake twice. What you’re effectively saying is that everything you’re proposing is punitive and you’re doing so solely because you don’t like the decision. That’s too bad, there’s a whole lot of laws I don’t like either, but they’re laws still. I mean, this isn’t a thread about Roe v. Wade so I don’t want to dwell on it, but Jesus wept, if that’s how you feel just storm Washington and hang them, seems like a whole lot less trouble. It’s cool, it’ll be even-steven then. You don’t have to invent imaginary crimes with zero evidence to justify it.

Let's not pretend that the majority of the current SCOTUS cares about the constitution and aren't just politically motivated.

A nice theory, but completely unsubstantiated given the fact that they literally threw Trump’s case out in a hurry. If they’re politically motivated and (presumably) pro Trump, they’re not doing a very good job.

 

[Xzi]

Nor was it designed to pass legislation that Congress is too lazy or too cowardly to pass themselves. I’m sorry, but it’s rich that you’re talking about Roe v. Wade in the context of the SCOTUS being weaponised.

Granting and/or protecting new rights/liberties is the polar opposite of weaponization. For that matter, it's very much the responsibility of a "court above all" to act in the best interests of the American people. There was nobody "victimized" by the Roe v Wade ruling, but there have already been thousands victimized by its reversal. A court that is subservient to the whims and feelings of a few Christian fundamentalist groups while turning a deaf ear to the health and well-being of the average American is an illegitimate one. As far as I'm concerned, anyway.

It really doesn't help matters that many of the states outlawing abortion are the same ones with PSA billboards reading, "she's your DAUGHTER, not your DATE." If the recovery of the American economy is heavily reliant on incest and rape, maybe it should just never recover instead.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

It really doesn't help matters that many of the states outlawing abortion are the same ones with PSA billboards reading, "she's your DAUGHTER, not your DATE." If the recovery of the American economy is heavily reliant on incest and rape, maybe it should just never recover instead.

I remember seeing that l, could scarcely believe my own eyes.

 

[Foxi4]

Granting and/or protecting new rights/liberties is the polar opposite of weaponization. For that matter, it's very much the responsibility of a "court above all" to act in the best interests of the American people. There was nobody "victimized" by the Roe v Wade ruling, but there have already been thousands victimized by its reversal. A court that is subservient to the whims and feelings of a few Christian fundamentalist groups while turning a deaf ear to the health and well-being of the average American is an illegitimate one. As far as I'm concerned, anyway.

It really doesn't help matters that many of the states outlawing abortion are the same ones with PSA billboards reading, "she's your DAUGHTER, not your DATE." If the recovery of the American economy is heavily reliant on incest and rape, maybe it should just never recover instead.

Appeal to emotion. It was unconstitutional, and so it was struck down, nothing more and nothing less to it.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Aimed at nobody in particular...

Meaning of unconstitutional: not allowed by the constitution

Amendments Claimed to Support Abortion​

I​

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – First Amendment of the United States Constitution

III​

“No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” – Third Amendment of the United States Constitution

IV​

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” – Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution

V​

“No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” – Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution

IX​

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” – Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution

XIV​

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” – Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States


There is nothing in the constitution that explicitly prohibits abortion. The mere absence of a provision in the law doesn't make anything unconstitutional. Therefore, the only way SCOTUS would have had a right to overturn Roe was if the constitution explicitly prohibited abortion. It doesn't. Ergo, this was a political, not constitutional, decision, and the judges who declared to support Roe then overturned it lied and should be removed from office, because no new federal law prohibiting abortion was enacted in-between Roe and its overturn.

Having said that, relying on jurisprudence is lazy, if all too common in common law. Which is precisely why Civil Law, the one more closely adhering to Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code, is infinitely superior to common law, despite being slower in court. This doesn't justify overturning Roe in bad faith in any way, mind you.

 

[Foxi4]

*Weird shenanigans*

If you want to respond to something that I’ve said, you can just quote what I said - if I don’t feel like having a conversation, I’ll ignore it. It’s clear that you can’t help yourself anyway, doing this weird routine of shaking your fist and shouting at the sky is weird. All I ever required you to do is to be civil - if you can stay civil, I can address you. The Roe v. Wade ruling was unconstitutional, there isn’t a single legal scholar worth their salt that would argue otherwise. The decision was criticised both by anti-abortion *and* pro-abortion writers, including Laurence Tribe (Harvard) and John Hart Ely (Yale). Edward Lazarus, Justice Harry Blackmun’s own clerk wrote about this extensively:

”As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it (…) The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent. (…) The proof of Roe's failings comes not from the writings of those unsympathetic to women's rights, but from the decision itself and the friends who have tried to sustain it. Justice Blackmun's opinion provides essentially no reasoning in support of its holding. And in the almost 30 years since Roe's announcement, no one has produced a convincing defense of Roe on its own terms.“

Even *if* you believe that abortion is enshrined elsewhere in the constitution, for instance in the many passages you quoted in your post (debatable, but let’s roll with it), that is *not* the reasoning used in Roe, so the *only* correct conclusion is to strike it down as invalid. You can’t just graft provisions you pulled out of a hat onto the text and expect people not to raise an eyebrow - if you’re going to do that, you’d better have a real good argument so that you can fall into the scope of the ninth amendment’s “enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people” clause, which requires historical precedence. I understand that both you and @Xzi are in support of abortion access and that’s fine, but you don’t have to support objectively bad law (according to innumerable legal scholars and other commentators over the years) in order to do it. There’s a perfectly legitimate argument in support of keeping Roe *in spite* of its outcome being a fruit of a poisonous tree - you can simply say that 50 years is a long enough stretch of time to set a historical precedent. It’s not a very *good* argument, but at least it’s not stupid and based on imaginary clauses that aren’t there. See? I’m helping. For the record, I’m in support of access to abortion within sensible legal guardrails. What I’m against is bad law based on nothing, and judicial activism generating law outside of the established legislative process - that’s not the purpose of the court.

EDIT: Oh, lest I forget, I’ve got a better definition too.



Not in accordance with the constitution or the procedural rules. Y’know, like Roe. Hence it was struck down. Because it was unconstitutional, like I said. Thus, it was delegated to the states, like the constitution suggests in regards to any power not delegated to the federal government.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

If you want to respond to something that I’ve said, you can just quote what I said - if I don’t feel like having a conversation, I’ll ignore it. It’s clear that you can’t help yourself anyway, doing this weird routine of shaking your fist and shouting at the sky is weird. All I ever required you to do is to be civil - if you can stay civil, I can address you.

oh please make up your mind, firstly you say that you don't want to engage, then that you want to engage, people will think you're courting me in a very weird way. I'm flattered but I'd like a definitive approach, all this back and forth is confusing.

FYI, calling a reasonable explanation "weird shennanigans" isn't being civil so, once again, you'd apply to yourself your own advice.

Also because said "shennanigans" are the amendments of the US constitution and a lesson on what it means to be constitutional or not. With a literal definition.

There’s a perfectly legitimate argument in support of keeping Roe *in spite* of its outcome being a fruit of a poisonous tree - you can simply say that 50 years is a long enough stretch of time to set a historical precedent. It’s not a very *good* argument, but at least it’s not stupid and based on imaginary clauses that aren’t there. See? I’m helping.

Stare decidis is actually an excellent argument, one in interviews too.

but you don’t have to support objectively bad law (according to innumerable legal scholars and other commentators over the years) in order to do it.

There's just as enough, if not more, scholars who argue it was good law. So this point doesn't really hold merit, does it?

The constitutionality of "Roe v. Wade" is rooted in the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution, particularly the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Let's delve deeper into the constitutional arguments and reasoning behind the decision, yes?

1. The Right to Privacy:
   • The Constitution does not explicitly mention a right to privacy. However, the Supreme Court had previously recognized such a right in several cases, most notably in "Griswold v. Connecticut" (1965), where the Court struck down a state law prohibiting the use of contraceptives by married couples. In "Griswold," the Court found that the law violated a "right to marital privacy."
   • In "Roe v. Wade," the Court extended this reasoning, arguing that the right to privacy was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy." This right, the Court held, is "founded in the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty."
2. The Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause:
   • The relevant text of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
   • The Court interpreted "liberty" to include a woman's right to make decisions about her own body, including the decision to have an abortion. This interpretation is based on a substantive due process analysis, which posits that the Due Process Clause protects certain fundamental rights from government interference, even if those rights aren't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.
3. Balancing State Interests:
   • While the Court recognized a woman's right to choose, it also acknowledged that the state has legitimate interests in regulating abortions, such as protecting maternal health and the potentiality of human life.
   • To balance these interests, the Court introduced the trimester framework, which delineated when and how the state could regulate or prohibit abortions during different stages of pregnancy.

In essence, the constitutionality of "Roe v. Wade" revolves around the interpretation of the Due Process Clause, the recognition of a right to privacy, and the balance between individual rights and state interests.

So, I provided even more ground for it being a constitutional, but lazy, decision. The fact that you dismiss it as weird shenanigans (this is how the word is spelt btw) is quite telling.

Post automatically merged: Aug 17, 2023

Not in accordance with the constitution or the procedural rules. Y’know, like Roe. Hence it was struck down. Because it was unconstitutional, like I said. Thus, it was delegated to the states, like the constitution suggests in regards to any power not delegated to the federal government.

There is literally nothing in the US constitution that is against Roe and the procedural reasoning was explained already.
Your Google definition doesn't hold a candle to an actual dictionary.

 

[Foxi4]

oh please make up your mind, firstly you say that you don't want to engage, then that you want to engage, people will think you're courting me in a very weird way.

You’re the one who keeps butting in on the conversations I’m having. You’re like a third party standing next to two people talking to each other, occasionally shouting for no reason, addressing no one in particular. You can’t expect me to *not* address something you’ve said when you’re talking about *me*, I’m right here. You’re not arguing with me, you’re arguing with 50 years of constitutional law. The Due Process clause does not include abortion, the state doesn’t have to balance interests when the core issue is not encompassed within the amendment used as the backbone of Roe in the first place. As for the right to privacy, it is not an enumerated right, so tying anything to it is shaky from the start and must be well-argued - Roe wasn’t. Oh, thanks for catching… a small typo, I guess? I’m typing on a phone, this is not the most important conversation of the day for me. I corrected it now, since it seemed to bother you.

There is literally nothing in the US constitution that is against Roe and the procedural reasoning was explained already.
Your Google definition doesn't hold a candle to an actual dictionary.

The Oxford Dictionary (the actual source of the definition, as listed above) is the world’s finest, your reasoning regarding procedure is incorrect, as per the constitutional lawyers and scholars cited. That’s only the all-stars, mind - the list does not end there. It was a decision in search of an outcome, and it was rightfully overturned.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

Due Process clause does not encompass abortion, the state doesn’t have to balance its interests when it’s not encompassed within the amendment used as the backbone of Roe in the first place. As for the right to privacy, it is not an enumerated right, so tying anything to it is shaky from the start and must be well-argued - Roe wasn’t.

See, you're a libertarian, so I thought that you'd hold dear a principle to heart "if it's not forbidden, then it's allowed". The US constitution doesn't prohibit abortion. The US constitution doesn't posit a right to privacy either, but it's hard to argue it exists, innit. More importantly, a right to liberty is explicitly made, and forbidding abortion on ideological basis is a breach of that right. Real people come before hypotheticals.

You’re the one who keeps hitting in on the conversations I’m having. You’re like a third party standing next to two people having a conversation, occasionally shouting into thin air. You can’t expect me to *not* address something you’ve said when you’re talking about *me*, I’m right here.

I'm actually responding to a point made, the fact that it was made by you was, I suppose, collateral.

 

[Foxi4]

See, you're a libertarian, so I thought that you'd hold dear a principle to heart "if it's not forbidden, then it's allowed". The US constitution doesn't prohibit abortion. The US constitution doesn't posit a right to privacy either, but it's hard to argue it exists, innit. More importantly, a right to liberty is explicitly made, and forbidding abortion on ideological basis is a breach of that right. Real people come before hypotheticals.

I absolutely do. I want the federal government to be out of the business of abortion altogether. The constitution clearly states that all powers not delegated to the federal government must necessarily flow to the people via the states, and I wouldn’t live in a state that limits the freedom of its citizens. I expect to be free, but I don’t impose my point of view on other people. My stance is perfectly consistent - you’re the one who wants the government to come from on high and tell people what to do.

I'm actually responding to a point made, the fact that it was made by you was, I suppose, collateral.

Is that right?

Listen, I want to avoid weird spats with you. If you promise to behave respectfully, we can have a polite and civil debate. If you’re going to blow a gasket every five minutes, I’ll have to stand by my initial assessment that it’s more trouble than it’s worth. The person having to clean up the resulting mess is usually me, so if there won’t be any mess, there won’t be a problem. This thread isn’t about Roe anyway and the topic is pretty much exhausted, but I’m telling you this for future reference.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

you’re the one who wants the government to come from on high and tell people what to do.

That is incorrect - I just don't trust other people, and I am plenty vindicated by reality in this belief.

The person having to clean up the resulting mess is usually me, so if there won’t be any mess, there won’t be a problem

There's literally nothing to clean, and there would be no mess if I weren't deliberately provoked at every turn.

This thread isn’t about Roe anyway and the topic is pretty much exhausted anyway

It's not, but it is about the rule of Law and Trumpo appointed the judges that overturned the law.
And FYI, it wasn't me who introduced the Roe v Wade topic. Threads can go astray.

Want to get back on track? US isn't awake yet

 

[Foxi4]

That is incorrect - I just don't trust other people, and I am plenty vindicated by reality in this belief.

”I don’t trust other people, so I will use the long arm of the government to force them to do certain things my way regardless of their point of view or beliefs because the world has to conform to what I believe is right” - yeah, that’s authoritarian.

There's literally nothing to clean, and there would be no mess if I weren't deliberately provoked at every turn.

I don’t need your input on this, I need you to be polite and civil as requested. If you can do that, there’s no problem. That was, is, and always will be my only expectation as far as using the forum is concerned - follow the rules, respect other people, stay on topic. Let’s try that for a change.

It's not, but it is about the rule of Law and Trumpo appointed the judges that overturned the law.

An incorrect decision was overturned and the power to decide was returned to the people, by proxy of the state legislature. That is a preferable alternative to accepting law based on imaginary provisions. Ignoring the problems with the Roe decision and allowing this kind of judicial practice to continue is no different than disregarding the constitution altogether - if we can just pretend that it says things it doesn’t and allows the federal government to govern spheres of life it was never meant to then the text doesn’t matter. Just get rid of Congress and put whatever you want in the constitution whenever you want, anything goes. I’m not going to support a judicial dictatorship just because I like the outcome of the meddling - I vehemently object to a bench of octogenarians pulling legislation out of their ass because they “read it between the lines”.

And FYI, it wasn't me who introduced the Roe v Wade topic. Threads can go astray.

Want to get back on track? US isn't awake yet

I didn’t say you did - I think this time it was @Xzi, and there was some connection to Trump since the decision was overturned in part thanks to his picks. In any case, I think it’s been talked to death, here and elsewhere. I’m a textualist, I don’t find your arguments convincing. In fact, even the right to privacy is suspect - I don’t know what that means. Where’s this right to privacy when the government is spying on Internet conversations without warrants? If you truly believe there’s an inherent right to privacy, I have bad news for you - you’ll have to close half of the alphabet agencies, chiefly the NSA. Now *that’s* a sweet fruit of a poisonous tree, you could trick me with that promise, if only temporarily. On a more serious note, unless you have something else to add, I’d get back to Trump’s cases - I made my point already and have nothing more to say in regards to Roe.

 

[Dark_Ansem]

An incorrect decision was overturned and the power to decide was returned to the people, by proxy of the state legislature. That is a preferable alternative to accepting law based on imaginary provisions. Allowing this kind of judicial practice to continue is no different than disregarding the constitution altogether - if we can just pretend that it says things it doesn’t and allows the federal government to govern spheres of life it was never meant to then the text doesn’t matter, just get rid of Congress and put whatever you want in there, anything goes. I’m not going to support a judicial dictatorship just because I like the outcome of the meddling - I vehemently object to a bench of octogenarians pulling legislation out of their ass because they “read it between the lines”.

That's just your opinion, and it doesn't make it a fact. A decision made by compromised judges who took bribes and who lied on their admission Oath only further invalidates your point. Fruit of a poisonous tree indeed.

An incorrect decision was overturned and the power to decide was returned to the people, by proxy of the state legislature. That is a preferable alternative to accepting law based on imaginary provisions. Allowing this kind of judicial practice to continue is no different than disregarding the constitution altogether - if we can just pretend that it says things it doesn’t and allows the federal government to govern spheres of life it was never meant to then the text doesn’t matter, just get rid of Congress and put whatever you want in there, anything goes. I’m not going to support a judicial dictatorship just because I like the outcome of the meddling - I vehemently object to a bench of octogenarians pulling legislation out of their ass because they “read it between the lines”.

Again, this seems like a you problem, not a legal problem.

I’m a textualist, I don’t find your arguments convincing. In fact, even the right to privacy is suspect - I don’t know what that means. Where’s this right to privacy when the government is spying on Internet conversations without warrants? If you truly believe there’s an inherent right to privacy, I have bad news for you - you’ll have to close half of the alphabet agencies, chiefly the NSA.

HEh, as 9/11 proved, too much spying is just as bad as no spying at all. So no, I'm not overly concerned.