Supreme Court Watch

Status
Not open for further replies.
5B639CDE-20E1-4130-86AA-5395085C5743.jpeg447C636A-D7D8-4B94-91D4-6FF9F36E0876.jpeg0669136F-7843-4B00-B376-08E6076220DD.jpegCF37EBFC-1EC9-4CBA-8785-ECC8CD8676CB.jpeg07ABC637-F2C4-4648-A1F7-5C684650A3FD.jpegE846EB81-12B1-410F-9BFB-DE9E4C810D25.jpegBA5AE722-6926-4565-ACC1-3FE88F79AEFB.png703D93BA-48CD-4337-B17B-D39FC9CBCB61.pngBD6A9ECF-1BC3-4AE8-A9B4-3B8DD7292489.pngD9B87C5A-9D93-463D-AF29-3F92CD36CDBF.pngDC9EB33D-36C6-43EA-95D4-9943BD247927.jpeg
 
So this basically means Roe v Wade was overturned?
Yup. And, surprising, at least me, at least one Justice (Clarence Thomas) wants to take it further and reexamine the legal grounds for the cases that made same-sex and interracial marriage federally legal. Like, Roe was pretty obvious judicial activism but I buy the legal arguments in favor of Obgerfell/Loving.
 
Glorious, turning over some power back to the states. This could slow the tide of Californians spreading their plague elsewhere.

"You're ruined your own lands, you'll not ruin mine!"

What's next? Tech companies are going to start busing Guatemalans and lower-class blacks to leftist states so they can continue to implement Sanger's eugenics movement?
What's next is Obergefell, bitches.

Yup. And, surprising, at least me, at least one Justice (Clarence Thomas) wants to take it further and reexamine the legal grounds for the cases that made same-sex and interracial marriage federally legal. Like, Roe was pretty obvious judicial activism but I buy the legal arguments in favor of Obgerfell/Loving.
The constitutional right to privacy protections in the 14th amendment are all without basis now. Whether these should be protected is secondary to whether the constitution already protects them.

If the people who control congress actually cared about these freedoms, they could pass a law. But they left their dirty work to constitutional misinterpretation for decades.
 
(Clarence Thomas) wants to take it further and reexamine the legal grounds for the cases that made same-sex and interracial marriage federally legal. Like, Roe was pretty obvious judicial activism but I buy the legal arguments in favor of Obgerfell/Loving.
Well the same things that apply to Roe vs Wade apply to Marriage.

There is nothing in the Federal Government that comments about Marriage thus it should be entirely in the hands of the States.
 
So please explain it to a non-American like me, basically gun license are easier to obtain now, and abortion right now are the matters of state and federal regulations but does not constitute a constitutional right?
There were two types of states issuing licenses. "Shall issue" states and "may issue" states. Shall issue means the state is required to issue a permit to anyone who meets the requirements. (Not a felon, not been ordered into a mental institution by a court, not convicted of or currently charged with domestic violence, not a habitual drug offender, and at least 21 years old for handguns.) Some states add a requirement for a training course and a shooting test.

May issue states (which were ruled unconstitutional) would only issue permits if a person met the requirements and "demonstrated a special need" to own a firearm. So basically only the rich, and these laws were originally designed to prevent blacks from owning firearms.
Watch states like NY suddenly have a $500 processing fee for carry permits and pretend to be understaffed to make people wait 8 months.
It would eventually get struck down as unconstitutional the same way poll taxes were. Eventually.
 
lmao all of the prolifers celebrating are all suburban white women

What a comedy.
I’m ok with abortion in certain circumstances, like if the infant would be autistic and therefore at increased risk of being a furry or Tim. However, the amount of salt and anger it produces on the left exceeds my desire to abort retards. More importantly, I hope this stops Californians from moving to red or red leaning states.
 
So please explain it to a non-American like me, basically gun license are easier to obtain now, and abortion right now are the matters of state and federal regulations?
States can no longer make citizens who are permitted to own guns give a reason to be able to carry concealed handguns in public. Previously some more anti gun states and jurisdictions would refuse to allow citizens to concealed carry unless they obtained a license by showing they were in explicit danger, which almost never happened in some areas.

Yes, the original SC decisions on abortion essentially skipped over the entire legislative process to make abortion a constitutional right, which was frankly retarded regardless of your stance on abortion. It is now a matter for legislature, and will probably be made legal in most of the country anyway, with a few obvious holdouts.

You may be wondering why the court has in one decision stripped the rights of the states to decide away, and in the other granted them more rights to decide. In the firearms case the right in question is a right of the people enshrined in the constitution which overrides state and federal law, while abortion is not explicitly guaranteed anywhere in the constitution, and as the recent ruling points out, the argument for making it constitutionally protected under existing amendments was very shaky. Since the constitution is quiet on the matter, it is delegated to the legislatures.
 
If the Dems were smart they would spend every single hour of every single day till the midterms pushing voters in Purple states to vote Blue to prevent that state from flipping the switch on abortion next year. But we all know they won't do that, instead they'll double down on how important it is to include transmen in this discussion and how BIPOC uterus-havers are most likely to be affected by this ruling
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back