The Most Corrupt, Political Activist Supreme Court in American History

[RobDownSouth]

You still going all nutso?

I don't agree with Dobbs. I flat out said so. BUT, Dobbs makes abortion a State issue AND THAT'S THE LAW.

Or do you expect me to jump up and down screaming that I don't like the law and won't obey it?

Honestly, WTF are you drinking? 'Shine cooled through a used car radiator?

You've been a relentless cheerleader for the results of Dobbs since the Supreme Court legislated from the bench.
"If the pregnant sluts don't like the rulez for the state they are in, they can simply travel out of state!"

 

[Rightguide]

You've been a relentless cheerleader for the results of Dobbs since the Supreme Court legislated from the bench.
"If the pregnant sluts don't like the rulez for the state they are in, they can simply travel out of state!"

There is no right to abortion in the text, history, or tradition of the Constitution. The era of "interest balancing" in constitutional jurisprudence that allows for amending the Constitution by judicial decree is over. If abortion is as popular as the left wants us to believe, there will be sufficient political energy available to sway state legislatures into enacting its availability at the state level.

 

[SmokingFap]

 

[SmokingFap]

There is no right to abortion in the text, history, or tradition of the Constitution. The era of "interest balancing" in constitutional jurisprudence that allows for amending the Constitution by judicial decree is over. If abortion is as popular as the left wants us to believe, there will be sufficient political energy available to sway state legislatures into enacting its availability at the state level.

I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about gun rights.

 

[PaxNurgle]

There is no right to abortion in the text, history, or tradition of the Constitution. The era of "interest balancing" in constitutional jurisprudence that allows for amending the Constitution by judicial decree is over. If abortion is as popular as the left wants us to believe, there will be sufficient political energy available to sway state legislatures into enacting its availability at the state level.

It's, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and freedom from tyranny. That is in the Constitution.

You could argue there is no right own a gun in the Constitution either. It says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary and the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." But this could be interpreted to mean, the government can absolutely forbid owning firearms of any kind; since swords, knives and bows would still be protected- the right to wield a sword is stlll "Bearing Arms" even if guns are outlawed.

But of course, the Constitution did absolutely intend for people to have the right to bear arms, just like it intended for women to have the right to control their own bodies and their own sexuality, free from government oppression. Thomas et al are twisting the intent of the Constitution to support their own highly unpopular activist aims.

Note that 1) Abortion is not "Popular" with anybody, but yet most people agree that it should be an option for women with unplanned and/or difficult pregnancies, and 2) the vast majority of people, even in states where it is banned, still support SOME form of legal abortion (if not in all cases.)

 

[HisArpy]

It's, Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, and freedom from tyranny. That is in the Constitution.

You could argue there is no right own a gun in the Constitution either. It says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary and the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

Except it doesn't say that.

 

[Bn2f]

Except it doesn't say that.

This seems to be a favorite thread of yours to comment on.

https://forum.literotica.com/search/1808237/?t=post&c[thread]=1609969&c[users]=HisArpy&o=relevance

3 pages worth where you dangle your so called legal knowledge to attack others and yet not one post dealing with the issue of Thomas’s ethical character. One could almost say that you’re a fraud, but I wouldn’t.

 

[HisArpy]

This seems to be a favorite thread of yours to comment on.

https://forum.literotica.com/search/1808237/?t=post&c[thread]=1609969&c[users]=HisArpy&o=relevance

3 pages worth where you dangle your so called legal knowledge to attack others and yet not one post dealing with the issue of Thomas’s ethical character. One could almost say that you’re a fraud, but I wouldn’t.

And not one word in this post regarding the language of the 2nd amendment.

You must be great fun at debates. For the other team.

 

[Bn2f]

And not one word in this post regarding the language of the 2nd amendment.

You must be great fun at debates. For the other team.

I just called out your 3 pages of commentary lacking any acknowledgment of this thread topic only to have you deflect again.

It’s clear why no one takes you seriously because every day you make a fool of yourself and mock your supposed profession.

Also, you may not know this, but I moderate the gun thread here. It’s very popular with incels, racists, the sexually repressed, those wishing to overthrow the American government. I think you’ll be very popular there. Come and see me!

 

[Rightguide]

I'm sure you feel exactly the same way about gun rights.

My gun rights are in the Constitution.

 

[PaxNurgle]

^NO, that's the point, they are not!

Or rather, it can just as easily be interpreted that you have no right to own a gun, as it was to say that a woman has no choice what to do with her body other than be a forced breeding stock controlled by Government authorities.

IF the Supreme Court justices were doing their job, and upholding the Constitution as their job intends- and the Founding Fathers intended, draconian abortion laws would not exist- and neither would gun control laws!!

But Clarence Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Gorsuch are not doing their job, are NOT upholding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and instead, freedoms are being taken away. Don't be so sure that an equally activist court couldn't come along someday and basically outlaw all civilian possession of firearms.

 

[Chernosoth]

The power centers of government are in constant motion and adaptation, while the power of the entire nation rises and falls. States lost power to feds, then fed power became concentrated in the executive branch, then global corporations and quasi-government organizations gained power. And now the pendulum is starting to swing back. Global corps and orgs are losing power (while still planning to use more power they won't get), the US is losing power to other nations, and the executive branch will lose more power to the other two branches and the states. The courts are trying to catch up to yesterday while today lands on their desks.

 

[SmokingFap]

Somebody should do something about Samuel Alito.

 

[SmokingFap]

More private jet rides for Thomas, plus an interesting and balanced debate on Supreme Court ethics. A bit of history and summation of the current situation.

 

[HisArpy]

^NO, that's the point, they are not!

Or rather, it can just as easily be interpreted that you have no right to own a gun, as it was to say that a woman has no choice what to do with her body other than be a forced breeding stock controlled by Government authorities.

IF the Supreme Court justices were doing their job, and upholding the Constitution as their job intends- and the Founding Fathers intended, draconian abortion laws would not exist- and neither would gun control laws!!

But Clarence Thomas, Alito, Barrett and Gorsuch are not doing their job, are NOT upholding the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and instead, freedoms are being taken away. Don't be so sure that an equally activist court couldn't come along someday and basically outlaw all civilian possession of firearms.

Interpreting the 2nd Amendment has already been done - according to the highest court in the nation, the people have an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms.

Your interpretation has been deemed to be incorrect. Your comparison to the decision in Dobbs is also incorrect because arms are SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution while abortion is not.

 

[SmokingFap]

So political bribery is now completely legal at the state and local level. Thanks, conservative Supreme Court grifters.

 

[SmokingFap]

More shitty news out of the Supreme Court.

 

[Bray123]

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-capitol-riot-obstruction-2cdba47baa5cea8177d651de751760a6

The Supreme Court has ruled that Obstructing Congress does not actually mean 'Obstructing Congress'. It only means tampering with documents. Delaying proceedings, trying to lynch the Speaker or smearing shit on the walls doesn't count.

... the charge of obstructing an official proceeding, enacted in 2002 in response to the financial scandal that brought down Enron Corp., must include proof that defendants tried to tamper with or destroy documents. Only some of the people who violently attacked the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, fall into that category.

Justice Amy Coney Barrett dissented, along with Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor.

Barrett, one of three justices appointed by Trump, wrote that the law clearly encompasses the events of Jan. 6. “The riot forced Congress to suspend the proceeding, delaying it for several hours,”

 

[SmokingFap]

The Supreme Court has now effectively turned the United States into a monarchy.

 

[MajorRewrite]

The Supreme Court has now effectively turned the United States into a monarchy.

Judicial support for Project 2025.

 

[Pad_Foot]

We need FOUR MORE now!!

 

[adrina]

They're so obviously in the tank for Trump. Making an obvious decision remanding it back to the lower court. play out for months and months. Ridiculous.

 

[icanhelp1]

They're so obviously in the tank for Trump. Making an obvious decision remanding it back to the lower court. play out for months and months. Ridiculous.

The decision protects past, present and future presidents.

 

[SmokingFap]

The decision protects past, present and future presidents.

Yup. Biden should do what needs to be done immediately.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Yup. Biden should do what needs to be done immediately.

Between 10 am and 4 pm.