Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling.

I am not advocating a position... I'm giving you examples of activism.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans abortion in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly abortion is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans gay marriage in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly gay marriage is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

An "Activist Judge" is a judge that creates new law out of thin air.

 

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air.

A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge.

Coupled with your 2 examples, it seems you don't know your Constitution at all. Both examples of 14th amendment infringements by "activist judges" allowing to stand unconstitutional laws made by states.

 

But hey, we know why you might not like the 14th, we can also gauge why by looking at where it mostly gets contested, in the old Confederacy...

 

You just don't like Americans actually excisting, you solely want people being governed by their respective state (or in your extreme case, their lone Libertarian island).

Progressive Playbook 101

1. Call them stupid

2. Call them a racist

3. If that fails... repeat 1 and 2

 

Once again... the USA is a Constitutional Republic. The power of the Federal Government is limited to specific powers granted by the Constitution. Powers that are not specifically delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.

you solely want people being governed by their respective state

It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is.

 

Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling.

I am not advocating a position... I'm giving you examples of activism.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans abortion in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly abortion is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

A state law is passed that effectively bans gay marriage in their state. The case is disputed all the way to the Supreme Court where some "Activist Judges" strike the law, and suddenly gay marriage is legal in every state. No one ever voted for this.

 

An "Activist Judge" is a judge that creates new law out of thin air.

 

So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said.

Progressive Playbook 101

1. Call them stupid

2. Call them a racist

3. If that fails... repeat 1 and 2

 

Once again... the USA is a Constitutional Republic. The power of the Federal Government is limited to specific powers granted by the Constitution. Powers that are not specifically delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.

you solely want people being governed by their respective state

It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is.

Your side lost the civil war, the Constitution applies to you guys just the same. If you don't like it, move somewhere else. Saudi Arabia hates gays and women, maybe you'd be more at home there.

 

 

Part that screams about activist judges says what?

An "Activist Judge" uses loopholes and bent interpretations of the Constitution to create new law out of thin air.

A judge that kills an unconstitutional law is not an activist judge... they are a very good judge.

 

I strongly doubt you know much about the law at all. A judge doesn't "create new laws out of thin air". Define an activist ruling and why you think it's a bad ruling. Also define what you think the role of the judiciary is.

 

You also missed part 2, "What is the role of the Judicial Branch in America?"

 

 

So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said.

Marriage is a tough subject. Where it all went wrong was the part that tied marriage to the law. Marriage is a religious ritual tied to churches and beliefs, and really never should have been part of law... because law is different. If you really want inclusive, then there should be no difference. They are all considered Civil Unions. People get hitched anyway they want, but if you want it legal, then you have to go to the courthouse to get a Civil Union. Sever "Marriage" from the law, and everyone should be cool with it.

 

Marriage is not the business of the Federal Government.

 

Like I said before... abortion should be rendered obsolete. We are too advanced to be using a drastic medical procedure to end life. Abortion should only be used as a means of saving life... as in, if she doesn't get this baby out of her, she will die. It should be agreed on by all states, and ratified in the Constitution, a precise time when a human life is entitled to Constitutional protection. Without that provision, there can only be continued argument over abortion. But then again, Democrats never want to solve problems, because if the problem is solved, they won't have the issue anymore to gaslight the next election.

 

Abortion is not the business of the Federal Government... but life is.

Progressive Playbook 101

1. Call them stupid

2. Call them a racist

3. If that fails... repeat 1 and 2

 

Once again... the USA is a Constitutional Republic. The power of the Federal Government is limited to specific powers granted by the Constitution. Powers that are not specifically delegated by the Constitution are reserved to the states, or to the people.

.

I neither did 1 or 2, I called you a seperatist.

 

And I am stating by fact, supported by a myriad of cases brought before your Supreme Court, that those 2 listed examples fall under the 14th amendment of your very Constitution you so wish to be uphold.

.

 

you solely want people being governed by their respective state

It's not a personal preference... it's just the way it is.

.

2nd paragraph of Article 6 of the Constitution:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

 

By ^^ and with support from SCOTUS, your way aint the way.

.

 

So the U.S. Constitution shouldn't apply in states where the legislature passes a law that deprives its citizens of protections and rights afforded by it? That's what you just said.

Marriage is a tough subject. Where it all went wrong was the part that tied marriage to the law. Marriage is a religious ritual tied to churches and beliefs, and really never should have been part of law... because law is different. If you really want inclusive, then there should be no difference. They are all considered Civil Unions. People get hitched anyway they want, but if you want it legal, then you have to go to the courthouse to get a Civil Union. Sever "Marriage" from the law, and everyone should be cool with it.

.

ooo I am all for decoupling "marriage by faith" from "marriage by law". It is however to late to seperate "marriage" from the proceedings it stands for and try to stick the "Civil Union" term on it, that boat sailed long ago. Purely on a terminology way it shouldn't lose that moniker imo.

.

Marriage is not the business of the Federal Government.

.

It became so when taxes and benefits were invented

 

Strip any and all dealings a couple receive by goverment by the mere notion of marriage and we can talk about decoupling it.

.

Like I said before... abortion should be rendered obsolete. We are too advanced to be using a drastic medical procedure to end life. Abortion should only be used as a means of saving life... as in, if she doesn't get this baby out of her, she will die. It should be agreed on by all states, and ratified in the Constitution, a precise time when a human life is entitled to Constitutional protection. Without that provision, there can only be continued argument over abortion. But then again, Democrats never want to solve problems, because if the problem is solved, they won't have the issue anymore to gaslight the next election.

 

Abortion is not the business of the Federal Government... but life is.

.

Then stop trying to mess with Planned Parenthood. Also give actual sexual eduction together with easier access to birthcontrol means to all.

 

A world without abortions is what nearly all strife to have, the less intervention after the deed is always prefered, prevent > cure.

 

And thinking you will get an amendment stating when life begins, good luck >_>

So, you're saying the problems are too big or too old to solve, we must continue fighting over them. I disagree.

 

Planned Parenthood is a good organization. I have absolutely no problem with them... until taxpayers are paying for their service. That is when all hell will rain down upon them. If they operated as a private business filling a need, they wouldn't have a problem. They just have a real problem asking for money to kill babies from the people that want the babies killed. It's not my responsibility to pay for it.

 

There are many issues that can be easily solved if we just did what it takes to solve them. Take away the things that cause anger or fear about it, and you have the solution. I was extremely concerned about cannabis legalized in my state. I didn't know what it would do. Years later... it's done nothing but eliminate the arrests and jail terms. So, now I'm in favor of repealing all the stupid Federal laws that are on the books that are never enforced. States know what is best for their citizens. Small government is better government.

So, you're saying the problems are too big or too old to solve, we must continue fighting over them. I disagree.

 

Planned Parenthood is a good organization. I have absolutely no problem with them... until taxpayers are paying for their service. That is when all hell will rain down upon them. If they operated as a private business filling a need, they wouldn't have a problem. They just have a real problem asking for money to kill babies from the people that want the babies killed. It's not my responsibility to pay for it.

 

There are many issues that can be easily solved if we just did what it takes to solve them. Take away the things that cause anger or fear about it, and you have the solution. I was extremely concerned about cannabis legalized in my state. I didn't know what it would do. Years later... it's done nothing but eliminate the arrests and jail terms. So, now I'm in favor of repealing all the stupid Federal laws that are on the books that are never enforced. States know what is best for their citizens. Small government is better government.

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

 

 

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

I'm not in the position to solve anything. I can only tell you what I believe would be the most acceptable path to a solution. It's entirely up to many more people that are all above my pay grade, and I'll support those that I feel will get us there. None of them are Socialists.

 

Progressives are not interested in solutions. They are only interested in change... their change. When they can't change it, they will break it. No matter what the cost, and no matter who is harmed by it. Everything going on right now is the result of Progressive policies designed to break everything... the economy, immigration, energy, education, crime, inflation, elections... and the only two things left we have to stop it is the first two Constitutional Amendments that they have been trying to break for years, but that's not happening.

 

Democrats are gonna lose so bad in November... and they deserve it. They have about 6 months to go... what will they do next?

So, you're saying the problems are too big or too old to solve, we must continue fighting over them. I disagree.

.

Unsure to which line this is a reply, but to try and add to it: offcourse a fight it will be, as no single solution fits all.

.

Planned Parenthood is a good organization. I have absolutely no problem with them... until taxpayers are paying for their service. That is when all hell will rain down upon them. If they operated as a private business filling a need, they wouldn't have a problem. They just have a real problem asking for money to kill babies from the people that want the babies killed. It's not my responsibility to pay for it.

.

PP is a non-profit working under the (in)famous 501©(3) IRS code, they give myriad of family and parental related services including abortions. There only gov funding is thruw Medicaid reimbursements (non-abortion related). Go die on an actual hill instead of on one you imagined up.

.

There are many issues that can be easily solved if we just did what it takes to solve them. Take away the things that cause anger or fear about it, and you have the solution. I was extremely concerned about cannabis legalized in my state. I didn't know what it would do. Years later... it's done nothing but eliminate the arrests and jail terms. So, now I'm in favor of repealing all the stupid Federal laws that are on the books that are never enforced. States know what is best for their citizens. Small government is better government.

.

Sure everything can be solved easily with decisive actions agreed by singletons, its called Authoritarianism...

 

I am all for local goverment, up until its feasibility or scale restricts it to act on certain things. You got federal agencies cause the scale and challanges make usage of a national policy or agency the best choice.

.

 

How do you expect to come up with the solution to anything when the go-to conservative response is always anger and fear of change?

I'm not in the position to solve anything. I can only tell you what I believe would be the most acceptable path to a solution. It's entirely up to many more people that are all above my pay grade, and I'll support those that I feel will get us there. None of them are Socialists.

.

You most acceptable TO YOU. Sometimes your mind clears up to see that opposition to your viewpoints isn't just to anger you, but those clarity's are few.

 

And if you like nothing socialistic, I got an island for you...

.

Progressives are not interested in solutions. They are only interested in change... their change. When they can't change it, they will break it. No matter what the cost, and no matter who is harmed by it. Everything going on right now is the result of Progressive policies designed to break everything... the economy, immigration, energy, education, crime, inflation, elections... and the only two things left we have to stop it is the first two Constitutional Amendments that they have been trying to break for years, but that's not happening.

.

And Republicans only want to return to the good old days of whatever fantasy world their grandparents told them about.

 

As I have stated before, I am conservative in text-book definition. Change should and must be slow, but evolution and progress happens whetever you (or I) like it or not. Just digging your heels into the sand and start screaming cause the rest of us start finding greener pastures only makes you a "sour grape"

 

 

There only gov funding is thruw Medicaid reimbursements (non-abortion related).

Planned Parenthood is the abortion business... without abortion they would have no business.

Medicaid is taxpayer money... which means taxpayer money is supporting the abortion business.

How is this any concern of a Belgian? 

PP can only reimburse Medicaid $$ for non-abortion related services, they balance that by donations and actual patient revenue. I believe last numbers had it at like ~3% of total services rendered.

 

 

It is hardly a concern for me as a Belgian. It is a concern for me as a thinking human being feeling the need to shake a republican zombie from its ruse.

 

 

PP can only reimburse Medicaid $$ for non-abortion related services

Planned Parenthood does not reimburse Medicaid for anything. Planned Parenthood takes money from Medicaid (taxpayers) to do their business... which is abortion. If you believe that taxpayers are not paying for their abortion business... we can find the Belgian an island.

 

Strange... this doesn't have a thing to do with The Coronavirus. 

 

There only gov funding is thruw Medicaid reimbursements (non-abortion related).

Planned Parenthood is the abortion business... without abortion they would have no business.

Medicaid is taxpayer money... which means taxpayer money is supporting the abortion business.

How is this any concern of a Belgian? 

 

You really think that's the only thing PP does? Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

You really think that's the only thing PP does?

You cut off the important part... "You really think that's the only thing PP does that makes money?"

That's a better question... Yes... that's the only thing PP does that makes money.

One of the most over-used skills of a Progressive, deceptive editing.

 

 

Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

Elon Musk just lit NBC, your favorite place, on fire...

"NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazi's..." "Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early and killed it, and built Matt Lauer his rape office. Lovely People."

 

You really think that's the only thing PP does?

You cut off the important part... "You really think that's the only thing PP does that makes money?"

That's a better question... Yes... that's the only thing PP does that makes money.

One of the most over-used skills of a Progressive, deceptive editing.

 

 

Man, you really need to stop getting your news from entertainment outlets.

Elon Musk just lit NBC, your favorite place, on fire...

"NBC basically saying Republicans are Nazi's..." "Same org that covered up Hunter Biden laptop story, had Harvey Weinstein story early and killed it, and built Matt Lauer his rape office. Lovely People."

 

Again assuming where I get my news from, and you're wrong. Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

 

 

Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

Cool, you win... all those smart Democrats will be reelected in November.

I'll be watching the returns on Fox News with all the stupid people.

 

PP can only reimburse Medicaid $$ for non-abortion related services

Planned Parenthood does not reimburse Medicaid for anything. Planned Parenthood takes money from Medicaid (taxpayers) to do their business... which is abortion. If you believe that taxpayers are not paying for their abortion business... we can find the Belgian an island.

 

Strange... this doesn't have a thing to do with The Coronavirus.

 

They use Medicaid to lower the cost for the patients that visit, a kind of round-a-bout reimbursement if I may call it that.

 

And again, you may believe what you got told about PP, doesn't make it any more true. also, you started the PP tangent with a reference to activist judges and their rulings you disliked.

 

 

Know why I'm not a republican? It's because I'm too smart for it.

Cool, you win... all those smart Democrats will be reelected in November.

I'll be watching the returns on Fox News with all the stupid people.

 

mostly gullible, thou after a few decades the distinction kinde becomes a moot point.

 

 

They use Medicaid to lower the cost for the patients that visit, a kind of round-a-bout reimbursement if I may call it that.   And again, you may believe what you got told about PP, doesn't make it any more true. also, you started the PP tangent with a reference to activist judges and their rulings you disliked.

It all means nothing now. If the Federal Government is no longer involved in abortion, as the leaked majority decision seems to reflect, it will be Planned Parenthood lobbying each individual state for their booty from now on. That will make a lot of people feel much better.

 

These weirdos that are losing their minds thinking they can change the court, and change it back, are wrong. An overturned issue from the Supreme Court cannot be overturned back. Congress can pass legislation, but it will not stand, because abortion is not the business of the Federal Government. They would have to take an entire new issue all the way back to the court, and from this ruling, the issue has no standing in Federal law. They will have to make their case to the individual voters in every individual state. To make it national again, they will have to win a Constitutional Amendment... which is extremely unlikely. Get used to it.

These weirdos that are losing their minds thinking they can change the court, and change it back, are wrong. An overturned issue from the Supreme Court cannot be overturned back.

.

And who made you think that?

.

Get used to it.

.

Actually it is the US that will need to re-adjust to the new. Alito wants to "protect tradition" and "stop the inflamation" from Roe vs. Wade. He is gutting a 50y ruling coupled with renewed inflamation across the board, great job...

 

 

And who made you think that?

The Supreme Court doesn't work like that. It's not a board of directors that sit around and decide when to turn on or off Constitutional Rights. There must be litigation to challenge the law, and it works up through the lower courts to the SCOTUS. The SCOTUS will only hear cases that challenge a ruling under the U.S. Constitution. Now that abortion will no longer be considered a Constitutional Right, any challenge to state law will not hold standing with the SCOTUS and will be kicked back to the state as final.

 

Biden said yesterday that this ruling is "radical", when in reality, it was the 1973 ruling on Roe vs. Wade that was radical. That was when activist judges decided, on their own accord, to create a Constitutional Right to abortion, when none actually exists. It was wrong then, it's been wrong the entire time, and it's being corrected now.

 

This ruling does not make abortion illegal, as the liars wish to make the stupid believe... it grants back to the states the right to regulate abortion. It will no longer be protected as a Constitutional Right. It will now be under the purview of the American people, and Texas will do what they want, and California will do what they want... you know what I mean? The way Constitutional Republics work.

I remarked upon your "An overturned issue from the Supreme Court cannot be overturned back." quote, but I guess you didn't mean it like that seeing your reply.

 

Anyway...

 

They actually did "turn ON" the constitutional right to abortion in '73, which the leak make seem that they will "turn OFF" it, for now. (to add to your litigation challange, it was challanged by Roe in '73, it could be re-challenged by new laws made presently). Heck the possible re-litigation will depend on how restrictive the new anti-abortion laws will be, not just on the timeline but also on how they will treat woman seeking it out-of-state.

 

Calling the SCOTUS court of '73 activist on a 7-2 line, btw the 2 dissenters were Rehnquist (ultra pro-state rights, R-Reagan) and White (hard to pin down, D-Kennedy) while the '22 court would likely be 5-4 seems just whimsical. Neither did the ruling make abortion absolute, there were a plethora of guidelines added. Heck the notion of Alito about it being not in your nations history is absolute bollocks, abortion is even written in the bible as applicable as long as the fetus was not moving (which they perceived as it receivingits soul) and was thus done thruwout the earlier centuries of USA history.

 

The ruling would open it to be made illegal, as over a dozen states have already promised with inactive laws in-place to be "turned ON" the moment this expected verdict drops.

 

And actually, the part of state rights comes from federalism, but I have no doubt you will miss that nuance aswell and start shouting I am a communist for stating that...

 

 

They actually did "turn ON" the constitutional right to abortion in '73

There is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right to Abortion". It's simply not there, and it's crazy to believe that it ever was. The '73 activist judge court declared abortion was legal under the Constitutional Right of Privacy, which is total bullshit. If abortion is to be under the power of the Federal Government, they better make the move to a Constitutional Amendment. That is when the power over abortion would be properly transferred to the Government... from the people. Until then, States can do whatever their voters want them to do.

 

 

Calling the SCOTUS court of '73 activist on a 7-2 line, btw the 2 dissenters were Rehnquist (ultra pro-state rights, R-Reagan)

Democrats controlled Congress for decades following the Great Depression. Republicans didn't have much power at all until 1994, long after Ronald Reagan was President, and Reagan wasn't President until 1981, long after the '73 activist judges came down with their unconstitutional ruling. If you want to spin history at least try to color inside the lines.

 

They actually did "turn ON" the constitutional right to abortion in '73

There is no such thing as a "Constitutional Right to Abortion". It's simply not there, and it's crazy to believe that it ever was. The '73 activist judge court declared abortion was legal under the Constitutional Right of Privacy, which is total bullshit. If abortion is to be under the power of the Federal Government, they better make the move to a Constitutional Amendment. That is when the power over abortion would be properly transferred to the Government... from the people. Until then, States can do whatever their voters want them to do.

.

You also don't have the Constitutional right to drive a car, so I guess we are just awaiting some "activist judges" to truely take that away...

 

Also, the 9th amendment pretty clearly delines a "not being in the constitution doesn't make it unconstitutional" rational. Cause you know, you can't really write everything down.

.

 

Calling the SCOTUS court of '73 activist on a 7-2 line, btw the 2 dissenters were Rehnquist (ultra pro-state rights, R-Reagan)

Democrats controlled Congress for decades following the Great Depression. Republicans didn't have much power at all until 1994, long after Ronald Reagan was President, and Reagan wasn't President until 1981, long after the '73 activist judges came down with their unconstitutional ruling. If you want to spin history at least try to color inside the lines.

.

Offcourse you have lived it while I not only wasn't born, I haven't received such detailed USA history in school, my knowledge is thus more internet based.

 

That said, of the '73 court, the Burger Court, had following people:

• Warren E. Burger, Chief SCOTUS, '69 by Nixon ®. Formerly a seat opened up by former Chief Earl Warren ('53, Eisenhouwer R) retiring and openin the chance for Lyndon B Johnson (D) to nominate a replacement but a 64D-36R senate filibustered it into the lap of Nixon whom nominated Burger and he assended by 74-3 (in a 58D-42R senate).
• William Orville Douglas, '39 by Roosevelt (D). Noted as possibly the most liberal SCOTUS to date.
• William J. Brennan Jr., '57 by Eisenhouwer ® - recess appointment. Noted as a D pick to substitude a D-SCOTUS (Minton), only McCarthy-R voted against him.
• Potter Stewart, '59 Eisenhouwer ® - recess appointment. Received a 70-17 senate vote with the 17 being Southern Democrats (pre-switch).
• Byron White, '62 by Kennedy (D). As noted a dissenting vote on Roe.
• Thurgood Marshall, '67 by Johnson (D). Voted in by a 69-11 senate, of which 10 dissenting votes were Democratic ones while of the 20 non-voters were 17 Democrats, aka 37D/32R vs 10D/1R.
• Harry Blackmun, '70 by Nixon ®. Confirmed by a 94-0 senate vote. Third person nominated for the Fortas ('65 by Johnson) seat after 2 others were not witheld: Haynsworth (45 19D/26R vs 55 38D/17R defeat due to pro-segregation rulings) and Carswell (45-51 defeat with 38D/13R for 51 due to pro-segregation and rascist ideology in his past).
• Lewis F. Powell Jr, '71 by Nixon ®. Taking another D-SCOTUS seat (Black) by 89-1 senate vote.
• William Rehnquist, '71 by Nixon ®. A seat vacated by Harlan (Eisenhower-R) and noted to be extremely conservative, a 68-26 senate vote admitted him to SCOTUS. As noted a dissenting vote on Roe.

I count 6 R's, 4 by Nixon! Even by ideology the '73 court was 3 left, 6 right (link). If you want to colour lines, actually know the were awfully red when Roe dropped.